Well, that's kind of the point. Sci-fi authors will talk about how Super-AIs or aliens might think completely differently from us, but then impose lots of implicit similarities that would make that implausible.
Sure, non-sapient fungus-like extraterrestrial life-forms will definitely not think like us, even if they have neurons. But "aliens" in most stories implicitly refers to mobile intelligent beings capable of cooperation, communication, developing technology to a level more advanced than our own, and are animal-like and thus need to breathe, eat, drink, maintain homeostasis, etc. Often they'll even have the same body plan as us.
Also, things like the prisoner's dilemma, the tragedy of the commons, and that lying may be beneficial in some circumstances aren't mere artifacts of human psychology, but are straightforward results of game theory.
If a creature is that similar to a human physically, can it really be totally incomprehensible psychologically?
Sure, non-sapient fungus-like extraterrestrial life-forms will definitely not think like us, even if they have neurons. But "aliens" in most stories implicitly refers to mobile intelligent beings capable of cooperation, communication, developing technology to a level more advanced than our own, and are animal-like and thus need to breathe, eat, drink, maintain homeostasis, etc. Often they'll even have the same body plan as us.
Also, things like the prisoner's dilemma, the tragedy of the commons, and that lying may be beneficial in some circumstances aren't mere artifacts of human psychology, but are straightforward results of game theory.
If a creature is that similar to a human physically, can it really be totally incomprehensible psychologically?