3 Common Misconceptions About What Psychologists 'Do'

Are you a psychologist? If yes, what type are you—clinical, organisational, educational? Maybe you’re a researcher who lectures as well? If you’re not a psychologist, did you know that there were different types? Did you know it’s not all about therapies and marketing? Given that you’re reading this, you obviously have some interest in psychology, so I’ll safely assume that you knew these things already. But, there are people who would have answered "no" to these questions.

For example, I once dated a girl whose father asked me what I studied, and when I told him "psychology," he turned to his wife and asked her, "What’s that?" In fairness, I have no problem with that—I’d rather no knowledge than misinformed "knowledge"; that’s what annoys and, in some contexts, concerns me—when people misconceive what psychologists do or what psychology is all about. So, with that, I present three of the most common misconceptions that I’ve encountered regarding what psychologists "do."

1. “What am I thinking right now?”

"Not very much" is my common answer, said in a joking way, to lessen the venom of the retort. This is possibly the most annoying thing I’ve been asked as a psychologist, and it is asked—often! So annoying, in fact, I generally avoid saying anything about psychology in social situations anymore. If asked about what I do, I answer that I’m a lecturer or researcher in cognitive science or health care/education research, depending on context.

In any case, no, psychologists can’t read your mind. Psychology is science, not magic (though there is some dodgy "psychology research" out there that might oppose this perspective); but, unfortunately, despite being a largely evidence-based practice (along with sound clinical decision-making), some people may fail to equate the field with scientific practice—with applications across all walks of life, be it business, education, health care, or even organising the home.

With that, I must admit that though I didn’t know what those people were "thinking" at those moments, I sometimes elaborate—if they remained interested—about how they think, which, as I am a researcher in critical thinking and cognitive psychology, is of utmost interest to me. So, perhaps it isn’t the underlying nature of the question that’s the issue (or misconception); rather, it's how it’s asked.

2. “It’s all about feelings.”

Gross. That’s what I tell my students I think about "feelings" in my critical thinking classes. It gets a laugh and piques interest from students (having learned about the importance of "affect" and emotion in other classes), but it also has validity in the context of the class. Of course, regular readers of this blog will know my feelings about feelings (meta-feelings, I guess) in times when objective, rational decisions, based on credible evidence, are requisite.

I’m not terribly interested in feelings when I research critical thinking, other than how they can impede the process. As I tell my students, "I don’t care how you feel; I care about how you think." Of course, I’m aware that feelings and emotions are fundamental aspects of human cognition (as is our ability to regulate them) and serve many important functions. But, for the purpose of my point here, it’s clear that psychology isn’t all about feelings. Sure, feelings might well play a major role in psychology, but so, too, does behaviour and thought—so does the presence of other people—as does the time of day! What makes psychology so interesting is the many variables that require consideration in any one situation—not just feelings!

3. “You just blame everything on childhood.”

The tough thing about this misconception is that there can be some truth to it. In a recent post on this blog, I discussed why time flies as we get older—one of the main reasons being that because we have gained experience through time, more recent "mundane" events are less likely to impact us than they are earlier in our lives where we encounter them for the first time, perhaps with some level of curiosity or confusion; and, so, we often take greater care in navigating our thoughts and behaviours in novel scenarios. Thus, the points of reference and heuristics we’ve developed over the years, through experience, help us engage events in a way that they come and go without much fuss (for the most part).

However, those events will be engaged and interpreted differently by a child, who lacks the relevant experience, heuristics, and points of reference. But, context is key here. For example, a 5-year-old who loses his father will have a different experience of it than a 35-year-old. Of course, the difference in ages appears to be the focus, but what about the other variables, like the closeness of the caregiving bond or whether death of a loved one has previously been encountered by either of the sons? Again, much like the aforementioned issue of feelings, the age of the son is but one variable—albeit, an important one.

Psychology Essential Reads

Is a Texas Bitcoin Miner Making People Sick?

What Is a Scientific Model?

We can approach it from a "blank slate" perspective in the sense that, say, a 3-year-old isn’t merely a child; rather, they’re a sponge rapidly absorbing as much information, through experience, as they can. In a way, a lot does boil down to "childhood," but that’s because introductory experiences are setting the foundations for the cognitive architecture that they’re rapidly building for future thinking/emotional/behavioural processes moving forward.

With that, the misconception is more often applied in settings revolving around therapy. For example, consider someone who would benefit from therapy, but wrongly assumes that, just because they had loving parents and an idyllic childhood, such intervention won’t work for them. Sometimes, non-psychologists might even misconstrue all therapies as being inherently Freudian— and, so, pop-culture notions of repression and regression spring to mind, which may deter the individual from considering it.

But, that’s not necessarily the case. For example, if someone experiences a trauma at age 46, the primary focus will likely be on events and experiences soon before and after the trauma. Sure, discussion of childhood might well pop up; but childhood isn’t necessarily going to be the primary focus. Again, it’s about context and recognising that childhood is just another variable that plays a role in how we develop, albeit an important one (particularly from the "blank-slate" stance), but it’s not the only one.

To reiterate, these were only three common misconceptions of "what happens in psychology" that I’ve personally encountered. If you think I left any out or have any other examples, please let me know. As always, I love to hear from readers about their thoughts on the topics I present in this blog.