 Lastly, a third (and, for some, a serious) possible drawback of this strategy is that it still risks rendering matters of meaning far less “transparent” and introspectively accessible than philosophers have standardly supposed. There is little reason to suppose that what is asymmetrically-explanatorily basic about one’s use of a term in thought or talk is a matter that is available to introspection or armchair reflection. As in the case of “marriage” mentioned earlier, but certainly with respect to other philosophically problematic notions, just which properties, if any, are explanatorily basic may not be an issue that is at all easy to determine. What are the asymmetric-explanatorily basic uses of “freedom” or “soul”? Do even people’s uses of animal terms really depend upon dubbings of species – or of individual exemplars – or do they depend more upon an innate disposition to think in terms of underlying biological kinds (cf. Keil 2014, pp. 327–333)? Do their uses of number words and concepts really depend upon their grasp of Peano’s axioms? Perhaps the usage is grounded more in practices of (finite) counting, estimates and noticing merely finite one-to-one correspondences; or perhaps they lie in the general recursive character of language (cf. Hauser et al 2002). Again, one may need the resources of a psychology that delves into far more deeply into the complex, internal causal relations in the mind than are available at its introspective or behavioral surface.