What is it that one knows when one knows 'psychology?'

In this paper I am concerned with our conception of ourselves and how best to study the person. I will argue that it is on a non-psychic conception of the person that we can pin our hopes for knowing something interesting and informative about people. Moreover, I suggest a productive route out of th e (metaphysical) dualism between bodies and minds-which seems to have alway s bedevilled the study of people-and into another; that between science and stories. I advocate a continuous interplay between stories and science bec ause, in this way, we are better able to account for and configure who we a re and how to live, as I argue in what follows. However, this does not prom ise a final word on how to study people, nor does it solve inter-theoretic battles between science and stories.