Draft:Neopsyholic

Draft article not currently submitted for review.

This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit the draft click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

To be accepted, a draft should:

Show the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article by using multiple sources that meet four criteria. The sources should be (1) reliable (2) secondary (3) independent of the subject (4) talk about the subject in some depth. For some topics, there are alternative criteria.
Be written from a neutral point of view
Respect copyright and do not plagiarize. Do not copy-paste.

It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it.

Where to get help

If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews.
If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.

How to improve a draft

Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia – a basic overview on how to edit Wikipedia.
Help:Wikitext – how to use the markup
Help:Referencing for beginners – how to include references
Wikipedia:Article development – how to develop your article
Wikipedia:Writing better articles – how to improve your article
Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources

You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article.

Improving your odds of a speedy review

To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags.

Add tags to your draft

Editor resources

Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs

Last edited by Bearcat (talk | contribs) 27 hours ago. (Update)

Submit the draft for review!

File:Neopsycholic-Illustration-Prikhodko.png

Illustration of the term "Neopsycholic". Author — Dmitry Nikolayevich Prikhodko, 2025

Neopsycholic is a term coined by Dmitry Nikolayevich Prikhodko in 2025. It describes a psychological phenomenon where a person experiences a false sense of receiving an accurate psychological analysis from artificial intelligence systems, despite the analysis being based on generalized patterns rather than real human understanding.

Etymology

The word "neopsycholic" comes from:

Neo- — new, artificial
Psycho- — soul, mind
-lic — image, profile

Definition

Neopsycholic is the illusion that an AI-generated psychological description is deeply personal or clinically valid, while in fact, it is a textual approximation based on language patterns, not direct emotional understanding.

Ethical risks

According to the author, neopsycholic effects can lead to:

Misleading assumptions about oneself or others
Emotional vulnerability and self-labeling
Unjustified fear or false hope based on synthetic responses
Mistaken identity or self-diagnosis based on machine-generated feedback

Examples

Misinterpretation

A person uploads a video and asks AI to analyze someone’s emotions. The AI suggests they are calm and reserved, while in reality, the person is nervous and expressive — but the AI cannot see it.

Self-diagnosis

A user tells the AI about feeling empty and alone. The AI replies that it could be depression. The user believes it as a diagnosis, even though it was only a guess without clinical observation.

Purpose of the term

Prikhodko introduced "Neopsycholic" to warn users and AI developers about the cognitive risks of assigning too much emotional or psychological authority to AI-generated content.