What is the difference between Philosophy of Mind and psychology?

they are very different

Philosophy of Mind considers the mind in a conceptual way, for example the nature of consciousness and thought in relation to the broader aspects of life

Psychology deals with how the mind behaves and interfaces in social interactions ie how it works and responds

Philosophy of Mind could include psychology, in a speculative way, but psychology tries to avoid philosophy of the mind.

1. psychology is a science - philosophy is not
Psychology explores mind and behaviour using the scientific method. Philosophy of Mind is the study of what can meaningfully said about the mind. There are points in common.

2. The studies in psychology can and do have real world applications.

Philosophy is about beliefs. Psychology is about how the mind works.

Psychology has become a career path. The philosophy of mind, has not.

Psychology is a practice of understanding the mind and allaying psychological qualms in people who are called clients. The philosophy of mind does not treat people as if they were something to improve through psycho-babble, but rather as free agents who can gather knowledge specifically related to the Mind.

The philosophy of mind, may have been given additional conceptual profit from psychoanalysis and other such theories, as in the psychological theories of human development.

One is a practice the other is theory.

Philosophy of mind is essentially the philosophy of everything. Philosophy of psychology is the study of the branch of human therapy that is psychology and to understand it :)

ONE YOUR nuts...................the other one your CRAZY

it is different approachs

It might be helpful to understand various theories of consciousness: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

Psychology has a similar variegated array of praxes as do the philosophies of theories of mind. The question is similar to a question asking the difference between Eastern and Western philosophy: there are varieties which overlap, mutually contradict, etc.

As Full Spectrum said, many psychologies are theory-based, hence testable in terms of isolating independent variables, etc. Philosophies are less than scientific theories, as theories are verified by atom-based factors; philosophies are even less than scientific hypotheses, which are logically developed guesses able to be tested. Philosophies are usually guesses, either untestable or testable. The overlap between testable philosophies and scientific hypotheses is: both are testable; developing of the testable philosophies are testable scientific hypotheses. This process has been the process by which sciences, first as testable hypotheses and secondly then as tested or proven (until falsified) theories, are developed.

Philosophic perspective is especially useful when a thinker takes up the more hypothetical bases of a given scientific theory, showing logical contradictions; a classic example is William of Ockham's incisive critique (using Ockham's razor, of course ;-) of Aristotle's false physics theory as motion existent beyond the kinetic object

While genius observer-philosophers in early stages of awareness are by definition of fundamental value (e.g., those philosophers who, smelling freshly baked bread from a few feet away, coming up with the idea that bread-atoms were breaking off from the heated bread and wafting through the air), as a science becomes more exact, fewer valued occasions of philosophic critiques applying to a given science are notable. With 1850-on physics, for example, the use of informed scientific hypotheses predominates, and few non-physics philosophy contributes to such specialized progress. The major value of philosophic criticism of such advanced sciences is at the fundamental level, noting erroneous assumptions of usually-lower-level physics practitioners that seek to claim infallibility for physics, when in fact there are many unknowns at the base of physis: e.g., the controversy in physics in which some claim that pure-point particles (e.g., charged leptons) are necessarily impossible, as equations without renormalizing (fudging) point-particles show the point-particles to have infinite energy.