The premise of this chapter is to begin to deconstruct some common knowledge and intuition about human behavior and introduce us to the notion of thinking scientifically. It opens with an outline of different levels of analysis, using depression as an example. It even takes into account the social level of analysis. From this chapter, we get the impression that psychology is a broad subject, covering many different areas not just limited to the individual. It also makes priority to address the issues of pseudoscience and why it's easy thinking to fall into with any range of serious implications. A good friend once said to me that there's a saying that "it's bad luck to believe in superstition," and even that is a rhetorically single variable explanation by the authors' standards. The truth is who knows? All we can do is use the best evidence and reasoning to postulate. In my opinion, the term educated guess is being overlooked by the authors and those who they say cast theory off as 'guessing.' I could see how the 'educated' part of that statement means that the guess didn't just come out of the blue, while the 'guess' part reinforces that it is not fact. I can also see how the term "guess" may sound invalidating and frivolous. At the very least, it gets us thinking about the concepts.
Overall, the content of the chapter involves defining psychology, theory, different kinds of bias, pseudoscience and different kinds, and outlines the history of psychology and different schools of thought. There is a side of science, referred to as metaphysical claims, that areas of science including psychology make the claim to distinguish itself from. It's all about that which can be measured, and that which can be questioned. Even the world as we see it is questionable. The earth is not flat. One of concept with some of the most familiar content is over reliance on anecdotes. One thing I would say is equally important to individuals acknowledging it is that when they formulate their opinions based on personal experience, are they no more thinking within the limits of knowledge they have than scientists, even if they have read less books? Is the incentive to have your outlook considered based on how much you publish, how many people you quote, and how many people have considered you? Or is it more about giving every outlook a fair chance, including that which we disagree with? Is the idea that If scientists can't figure it out, no one can? Am I simply over thinking this? It is important to keep an open mind, and be able to support your comment and speak a language that can be fairly applied to all and be careful with pareidolia and the like. There are many types of