{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02737047898338221, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011730205278592375, 'mean_word_length': 5.2439024390243905, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What are the functions of System 2 modules? A reply to Chiappe and Gardner

Chiappe and Gardner (2012) argue that the concept of modularity proposed by us (Barrett & Kurzban, 2006) is different from the way modularity has been conventionally viewed in evolutionary psychology and that it cannot explain the existence of mechanisms designed to deal with novelty. We reiterate our view that there is no reason natural selection is limited to creating mechanisms that are innate, automatic, encapsulated, and domain-narrow. Indeed, all functionally designed mechanisms in the mind, including those that do not have these properties, are the products of natural selection, including “System 2” mechanisms. Further, if mechanisms designed to deal with “novelty” exist, then they must exploit some recurrent features of problems in order to work. Therefore, the problems System 2 mechanisms solve cannot be novel along every possible dimension, and System 2 mechanisms must have design features that allow them to find solutions.