Limitation: The metacognitive scheduler hypothesis proposed in this paper is unfalsifiableunder current methodology. No operationalization of the key constructs exists. This paper is atheoretical conjecture and auto-ethnographic record, not an empirical claim.Cappuccio (2023) argues that propositional knowledge structurally degrades skilled performance. Hecalls this position radical habitualism. I make three objections. First, the supportingevidence—choking experiments, reinvestment studies—captures transient disruption in short labtasks with non-elite participants. It does not show structural incompatibility. Second, thehabitual-vs-propositional binary cannot account for people who run multiple cognitive processes inparallel, including propositional ones, without performance collapse. Third, based onauto-ethnographic observation, I propose that expert cognition uses a metacognitive scheduler: alayer that runs heterogeneous processes in parallel, allocates resources dynamically, adjusts detectionthresholds, and kills processes selectively. Radical habitualism describes the special case where thisscheduler is underdeveloped. It is not wrong. It is incomplete.
Franny Philos Sophia (Tue,) studied this question.