don't know if it's a good separation as stated.

As stated, my comment is more a vague suggestion than a watertight deduction from first principles.

What I intend to suggest is that just as humans vary along the dimensions of aggression, empathy, compassion, etc., so too do we vary according to what degree, and when, we give either explanation (animistic/clockwork) primacy over the other. I'm interested in these modes of explanation more from the perspective of it being a psychological tendency rather than it giving rise to a self-consistent world view.

In the mental operations of humans there is a tendency to say "here, and no longer, for we have arrived" when we explain phenomena and solve problems. For some this is when they have arrived at a kind of "spirit", for some it is when we arrive at "gears". For some it is gears six days a week, and spirits on Sunday.

The degree to which you seek spirit-explanations depends on the size and complexity of the physical system (a spec of dust, a virus, a bacteria, a single celled organism, an ant, a frog, a mouse, a cat, a monkey, a human), and also the field of inquiry (particle physics, ..., sociology). And it probably depends on some personal nature-and-nurture quality. Sometimes explanations are phrased in terms of spirits, sometimes gears.

I'm also not saying that the world-views necessarily contradict each other (in that they deny the existence of phenomena the other asserts), only that each world-view seeks different post-hoc rationalizations. The animist will claim that the tectonic plate moved because God was wrathful and intended it. The clockworker will claim that God's wrath is superfluous in his own model of earthquakes. Whether either world-view adds something the other lacks is beside the point, only that each desire to stop at a different destination, psychologically.

In real life I once heard, from an otherwise well adjusted member of society, that the Devil was responsible for the financial crisis. I did not pry into what he meant by this, but he seemed quite satisfied by the explanation. Let me emphasize this: when being told that the cause of the financial crisis was the Devil, he was quite content with simply nodding his assent. I have not researched the crisis myself, but I am confident I would phrase my explanation in terms of "externalities" or "perverse incentives" or some such. The two explanations would agree to every detail of what actually happened during the financial crisis, but for some psychological reason what he and I find to be a psychologically satisfying explanation differs.

It's perfectly fine to say that "Alice wants coffee". The question is whether a person is more likely to believe that Alice's "wanting something" is what sets in motion her biochemical reactions, or whether it is the biochemical reactions which sets in motion her "wanting something". Whether the cart pushes the horse, or vice versa.

I don't think any world-views (as implemented in real humans) are self-consistent (or even deduced from first principles), but a person's gear/spirit tendency can probably predict additional beliefs that the person holds. For example, which person is more likely to believe that ghosts exist? If a person tends towards gear/spirit-explanations, in which is he more likely to say "when I'm in a room with only my teddy bear, I no longer feel alone"? I'm not necessarily saying that these beliefs are necessary consequences of each world-view, only that certain ideas are associated with each world-view for one reason or other.

As to the "by nature" part of my comment, I mean that those who tend towards spirit-explanations are more likely to believe something approximating "we descended from the gods", while those who tend towards gear-explanations are more likely to believe "we ascended from the beasts". The former tend towards utopianism, the latter tends towards the "tragic vision" of life. (See: A Conflict of Visions ). The utopians/spiritists take it for granted that we should be friends and wonder why we aren't. Those with the tragic vision of life/gearists take it for granted that we are in conflict and wonder why we sometimes aren't.