Sorry Uncle, I never became a psychiatrist.

That may seem like a strange way to begin an article, but there is a reason behind it.

Decades ago, when I was a young university student, I studied psychology, among other subjects. My uncle, a friendly and outgoing fellow, would make jokes about my grandfather (his father) getting free therapy once I became a psychiatrist. Indicating towards me, he told my grandad, ‘he’s going to be a psychiatrist, so you can get all the free therapy you need!’

Beneath the joking around, I sensed that my uncle carried a certain pride that his nephew was going to be a psychiatrist. I did not have the heart to tell him that I was never going to be a psychiatrist. Psychology is a distinct field from psychiatry – I did not want to spoil the moment.

Psychiatry is based in medicine; psychiatrists are medical doctors who specialise in workings and disorders of the brain. They are trained in neuroscience, and approach patients from a clinical and neurological perspective. They can prescribe medications if required.

Psychologists are not medical doctors, but they study human behaviour, emotions, cognitive processes and development, and the neuroscience of the brain and nervous system. They approach mental health through talk therapy, solving mental health problems through nonmedical techniques, such as behavioural modification and cognitive changes.

This does not mean the two fields are in direct opposition – far from it. Psychologists and psychiatrists can and do work in tandem, both intending to achieve the same goals of managing and improving mental health. Psychiatrists are graduates in medicine, while psychologists possess a doctorate in social sciences. Psychiatrists approach mental disorders as malfunctions in the human brain, prioritising a medical approach. Psychologists examine the social, emotional, cultural and environmental conditions that impact mental health.

Every one of us is an amateur psychologist of sorts, examining and trying to make sense of people’s behaviour. Other people are such an important part of our daily lives, we must continue our interactions within a social and cultural matrix composed of networks of people. Understanding patterns of human behaviour partly explains the persistence (and ongoing popularity) of astrology.

The particular pseudoscience of astrology exploits our basic need to understand ourselves, our cultural environment and the behaviour of the people around us. We want to know what the future holds for us, and people are an important determinant factor. Horoscopes give us ready-made tools to approach human behaviour. Astrology is still generalised balderdash, but it is widespread.

We can laugh it off, but then consider the following. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, with its finger on the nuclear button, employed astrologers as consultants for its foreign and domestic policies. When the US administration, with its power to obliterate life on Earth, listens and takes seriously the ‘findings’ of astrology, then that is no laughing matter.

We are all aware that nuclear conflagration would mean the end of life as we know it. Surely no one is mad enough to advocate a strike that would predictably provoke a nuclear response from rival powers?

Well, in 1958, then US President Dwight Eisenhower rejected demands by his military chiefs to launch a nuclear attack on China. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the leading body of uniformed officers in the Department of Defence, advocated attacking China with nuclear weapons, in particular to support Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalist militants. The latter had been launching commando raids into mainland China from two northern Taiwanese islands.

Eisenhower overruled the Navy and Air Force top brass, but this incident is very revealing. Psychopaths are not always the creepy loners depicted in the movies, but also wear uniforms and business suits, ingratiate themselves into society’s institutions, and are high functioning individuals, making decisions impacting our lives.

In this day and age, we cannot talk about mental health without addressing the issue of artificial intelligence (AI). We can all see the widespread impact of AI over numerous fields of human activity, and mental health is no exception. AI chatbots are currently providing a growing avenue of mental health applications. Talking to a chatbot – is that beneficial for our mental health and wellbeing?

The answer to that question is – it depends on how you use it. Chatbots provide an easily accessible, 24/7 readily available service of mental health. The privacy of the chat is appealing, and its immediate accessibility is important. Appointments with psychologists and psychiatrists take time, and there is still the stigma surrounding seeing a therapist. For instance, the New York Times has been running a series of articles attacking the efficacy of psychiatry and psychotropic drugs.

Whether the NY Times is correct or not, I do not know. I do know that telling only one side of the story – the ‘psychiatry is bad and relies on pushing drugs’ claim – only adds to the stigma of seeking out help for mental illnesses.

While AI chatbots may be beneficial in the short term, they lack a crucial dimension – empathy. The emotional support and connections provided by human interactions cannot be replicated by AI. Chatbots are great for chatting, but they cannot diagnose and treat mental health disorders. Emotional intelligence is just as important as technical abilities when addressing mental health issues.

I feel compelled to ask how AI chatbots are going to assist the Palestinian children in Gaza, currently undergoing a catastrophic trauma facing the relentless attacks by the Israeli army. Their trauma is going to be generational, as they experience the destruction of the society in which they live. Palestinian children in Gaza are dealing with severe anxiety, depression, nightmares, and a worsening humanitarian crisis. Human solidarity and connection with the outside world is needed more than ever.

How about we construct a society that measures its success, not by the number of billionaires it has, but by the number of people lifted out of serious mental health issues?