WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGY
BUSTING PSYCHOLOGY MYTHS
NOT ALL IN YOUR HEAD
Psychology is one of those subjects everyone thinks they understand — until they actually study it. Thanks to pop culture and pub chats, the field has picked up more myths than a Greek tragedy. This article separates the science from the stereotypes and takes aim at the biggest misconception since penis envy.
PSYCHOLOGISTS HAVE DIFFERENT SPECIALISATIONS
Psychology enjoys a curious reputation: it’s widely respected, yet wildly misunderstood. Surveys show that while the public tends to hold psychologists in high regard, they also think we’re either mind-readers, mystics, or murder profilers on speed dial with the FBI. Common myths include the belief that:
Psychologists analyse people
Psychologists can read minds
Psychologists all share the same worldview
Psychologists solve crimes
Psychologists are basically therapists with clipboards
In reality, the field of psychology is as varied as the assumptions people make about it — and most of those assumptions are wrong. It’s not a cult, and it’s definitely not CSI: Freud Edition.
The majority of psychologists don’t fit the stereotypes — no one’s lying on a chaise longue spilling secrets while a bearded man scribbles notes and mutters about Oedipus. Just as mathematics isn’t only algebra and English isn’t just Shakespeare, psychology too is a broad church with many specialised subfields. Want to study how trauma changes the brain? There’s a field for that. Curious about how toddlers learn language or how misinformation spreads online? Covered. Psychology includes (but is not limited to):
Psychotherapy
Brain Chemistry
Evolutionary Psychology
Memory Research
Child Development
Psychopathology
Language Acquisition
Learning Disorders
Social Psychology
In other words: only psychoanalysts analyse people. Being a psychologist is not about intuitively reading minds in coffee shops — that’s reserved for LinkedIn life coaches and your mate who’s “into vibes.” This myth persists because so many people enjoy playing amateur shrink, usually after watching a true crime doc and diagnosing their ex as a narcissistic sociopath.
But here’s the thing: real psychology isn’t personal opinion dressed up as insight. It’s not about what “feels true,” it’s about what is true — or at least, what’s supported by robust data. Theories are tested, statistics are crunched, and results are peer-reviewed. So, if you’re thinking of studying psychology, be warned: it’s more spreadsheets than sofas. You’ll be analysing research papers, not people.
PSYCHOLOGISTS DISAGREE (A LOT)
Another irritating myth: psychologists all believe the same thing. As if the entire field meets weekly to chant affirmations and agree on everything from mental health to morality. In truth, psychology is a gloriously disorganised buffet of conflicting theories — more like Parliament than a peer support group.
Psychologists don’t share a single worldview. Just like in politics, some lean left, others right, and a few are standing in the corner shouting about lobsters. These ideological camps are known as psychological approaches, and they often disagree — loudly — about what shapes human behaviour and how to fix it.
A QUICK TOUR OF THE MAIN APPROACHES:
THE PSYCHODYNAMIC APPROACH – Believes your past is haunting you, even if you don’t remember it. Childhood trauma is the ghostwriter of your personality.
THE BEHAVIOURIST APPROACH – Thinks we’re all Pavlov’s dogs: press the lever, get the treat, repeat.
THE HUMANIST/ POSITIVE APPROACH – Claims you can unlock your full potential through empathy, self-reflection, and maybe a crystal or two. Maslow’s pyramid scheme, basically.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY – We imitate what we observe, especially if it looks cool or gets likes.
THE COGNITIVE APPROACH – Examines how dodgy thinking patterns, biased beliefs, and mental shortcuts shape behaviour — basically your brain’s glitchy software.
THE BIOLOGICAL APPROACH – Blames everything on genes, hormones, or evolutionary instincts — the John Money of the bunch, if you’re feeling cynical.
Some approaches are practically allergic to each other. Humanists bang on about free will, while biological psychologists shrug and say it’s all brain chemistry and Darwin. Still, there’s occasional harmony: cognitive and biological types sometimes collaborate, combining thoughts and neurons like a slightly less chaotic band reunion.
In short, psychology isn’t a monolith. It’s a multi-voiced, sometimes unhinged, often fascinating argument — and that’s what makes it worth studying.
APPLYING THE APPROACHES: THE CASE OF STACEY MULLIGAN
To truly appreciate how wildly different psychological perspectives can be, let’s apply them to a real-life(ish) example: a case study we’ll call Stacey Mulligan. Each approach offers its own pet theory and preferred solution — and no two sound remotely alike. What emerges is less a consensus and more a six-way tug of war over Stacey’s soul.
MEET STACEY MULLIGAN
AGE: 31
NATIONALITY: American
OCCUPATION: Unemployed
ADDRESS: No fixed abode
NUMBER OF CHILDREN: 7, all of whom have been taken into care
WHO IS STACEY?
BACKGROUND
Stacey was born addicted to cocaine and spent her first weeks undergoing treatment for neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) — a condition caused by drugs like heroin or methadone passing through the placenta. By toddlerhood, she was in and out of care following neighbour complaints. The rest of her childhood was a rotating door of institutions and foster placements. By 11, Stacey had her first arrest — the start of a long record involving class-A drugs, shoplifting, public disorder, and solicitation.
She now struggles with meth and alcohol addiction and is believed to have borderline personality disorder. So… what went wrong? That depends on which psychologist you ask.
WHAT LED TO STACEY’S CURRENT SITUATION?
THE HUMANIST / POSITIVE APPROACH
Stacey hasn’t reached self-actualisation because no one ever gave her unconditional positive regard. Without genuine, empathetic relationships, she was never able to believe in herself — or even know who that self is.
THE PSYCHODYNAMIC APPROACH
Blame it on the mother. Stacey’s lack of a secure attachment led to unconscious feelings of abandonment, which now sabotage her adult relationships. Her behaviour is driven by unmet childhood needs buried deep in her psyche.
THE BEHAVIOURIST / LEARNING APPROACH
Stacey’s learned that drugs equal love. Her mum was warm and generous when high, and cold or abusive when sober — so Stacey learned to associate intoxication with care and connection, and sobriety with rejection.
THE SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY APPROACH
Monkey see, monkey do. Stacey watched her mum cope with life by using drugs, and simply followed suit. Her mother modelled addiction as both a coping mechanism and a lifestyle.
THE COGNITIVE APPROACH
Stacey believes she’s doomed — a “born addict” with no way out. Her self-schemas are soaked in hopelessness, and her BPD diagnosis has only confirmed her negative core beliefs.
THE BIOLOGICAL APPROACH
Stacey’s brain was damaged in the womb thanks to her mother’s crack use. This likely altered structures like the amygdala, reducing her ability to regulate emotions or resist impulsive behaviours.
As you can see, psychology isn’t a unified front — it’s a multi-perspective shouting match where each approach brings its own tools, assumptions, and blind spots. Stacey is not just a case study — she’s a test of the field itself. And depending on your lens, she’s either a traumatised child, a faulty brain, or a mislabelled schema waiting to be rewritten.
SUMMING UP:
SO, WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGY?
Psychology is the study of mind and behaviour. That’s the definition — and beyond that, everything’s up for debate. There’s no master theory, no sacred text, and no point pretending otherwise. But while people outside the field still think it’s all therapy, psychopath hunting and inspirational quotes, actual work is being done elsewhere.
For many academics, psychology has outlived its usefulness as a descriptor. One solution is for the different approaches to abandon this umbrella term and develop it as separate specialisations. After all, philosophy also addresses questions about the human condition, yet no one frames its ideologies as psychological.
However, as Kuhn observed, new disciplines often evolve, like science, which emerged from natural philosophy. However, Kuhn’s theory doesn’t entirely apply to psychology. Since psychology is rooted in the humanities, its journey to becoming a science is less straightforward.
For example, while no single approach has fully captured the complexity of human nature, five major approaches—
Behaviourism, Social Learning Theory, Cognitive, Biological, and Evolutionary psychology already explain most of what’s worth explaining — not perfectly, but scientifically. These aren’t competing approaches. They’re different angles on the same messy species. They just haven’t been stitched together properly.
The focus should be moving away from less scientific approaches, like humanism and psychoanalytic theories, and unifying these five perspectives into a cohesive, unified paradigm.
It could stop pretending to be a science — and just be one
