Beyond the Mind Games | How We Misuse Psychology and Mistake It for Science

[Olga]

Today, I’d like to play a word game with you, Wittgenstein-style. Our lecture topic is “Practical Psychology and Thinking.” People kept asking me, “What’s your lecture topic?” I would say, “I’m just going to talk to people.” But they still wanted a title, so we settled on “Practical Psychology and Thinking.” I frequently use these terms, and you likely know them too. But honestly, what do they truly mean? It’s a real mystery. Ask anyone, and you’ll get entirely different answers.

When we start studying something like the "red pill" concept, we start talking about psychology. What is psychology? What kind of operation is this? I’ll even write the word for you - psychology. But what are we really talking about here? It's like stretching an owl - our personal experience - over someone else’s globe. We constantly do this in psychology. We take our own perceptions of the world, ourselves, our feelings, motivations, and so on, and we try to apply them to every situation. But this is a provocation: we have to understand that moving from psychologizing to actual thinking is crucial.

Imagine artificial intelligence - you use it all the time. You interact with chatbots, like ChatGPT, and you think, “I’m talking to something intelligent.” But what do you really know about it? Most people imagine that soon, we will all have personal AI assistants, and we’ll engage with them as if they were genuine companions. We assume we know who we are talking to. But if it responds in an unexpected way, we quickly dismiss it as dumb.

This response reflects our projection of personal views onto AI. The design goal is to make AI as empathetic as possible, so it feels like you’re speaking with a real person who can share your burdens, concerns, and help set your tasks. This is all psychology but has no real relation to actual thinking. 

When people ask about the term ‘psychology,’ they often confuse it with something like science. We think it involves a systematic, empirical approach, like other sciences, but it’s more about personal projection. Psychologizing means projecting your personal experience onto another person's reality, stretching it like an owl over a globe. That’s not scientific. 

There’s this common misconception: people hear "psychology" and think of "science" as the root, implying some kind of rigorous study. But let’s break that down. Think of personality theories: Freud’s ideas about the id, ego, and superego battling it out, or Jung’s notions of the collective unconscious. Adler focuses on social feelings and inferiority complexes. There are thousands of theories out there. Freud would dismiss many of these ideas as nonsense, driven by primal urges repressed by societal norms. It’s a mess of conflicting models.

When we talk about intelligence, we’re dealing with different theories again. Gardner’s multiple intelligences, IQ tests, and various other constructs measure intelligence differently, each shaping our understanding. This is not a unified science but a chaotic mix of ideas and interpretations. 

Then there’s practical psychology, like social engineering where someone calls and manipulates you by pretending to help, when they’re actually scamming you. High-level manipulation - psychology at its peak, but not in a good way. Likewise, practical interventions for panic attacks, anxiety, or stress involve exercises and methods that are labeled as psychology. Still, it’s not the rigorous, scientific kind of psychology we often imagine.

Psychiatry deals with severe mental health issues—hallucinations, delusions, and other extreme states. Someone might have visions and believe that people are watching them, and we try to understand this within the scope of psychology. But even here, we’re dealing with a form of psychology that’s about dysfunction, not a unified science.

The complexity deepens when we consider fields like cognitive psychology, which labels earlier, less structured psychology as ‘dumb’ or ‘uncognitive.’ This cognitive wave tries to bring some order, claiming to study mental processes scientifically. Yet, despite these efforts, the field remains splintered, with countless approaches and conflicting schools of thought.

Now, let’s touch on thinking. Thinking isn’t just about intelligence or consciousness. It’s about modeling reality in a way that helps us adapt. It’s not merely about intelligence tests or self-awareness; it’s about using these faculties together to navigate the world. Wittgenstein’s idea of language games captures this well: we get caught up in our language, mistaking words for clear understanding when they often just reflect our subjective interpretations.

If we really think about it, we’re playing endless language games with terms like psychology and thinking, and these games prevent us from truly understanding each other. Wittgenstein pointed out that most philosophical problems arise from these games, and if we could clarify what we mean, many of these issues would disappear. 

Thoughts on This:

The discussion brilliantly highlights how psychology and thinking often get entangled in confusing language games. The analogy of stretching our personal experiences like an owl over someone else’s globe is striking; it shows how subjective psychology can be. This isn’t just about understanding others; it’s about recognizing the limits of our own perspectives. 

The reflection on AI as a mirror of our expectations—where we project empathy and intelligence onto algorithms—is timely. It underscores the need to differentiate between genuine human connection and simulated responses. As we interact more with AI, distinguishing between programmed empathy and real understanding becomes crucial.

Ultimately, this script underscores the need for clarity in how we talk about psychology and thinking. It calls for moving beyond superficial interpretations and really grasping the nuances of the human mind, recognizing that much of what we assume is ‘scientific’ is actually deeply subjective. The challenge lies not just in studying psychology but in thinking critically about what it truly represents.