I don't even remember what this line of argument was for, but the issue surely wasn't about mere consistency or commensurateness. My point was straightforward: folk psychology is couched in folk language, whereas economics is couched in much more technical terms. Of course they're both talking about people's minds, but the languages they use are very different.

You see folk psychology in action in soap operas in which the character are obsessed with mind-reaching in the most mundane, touch-feely terms. Who's jealous of whom, who's secretly in love with whom, and who's trying to steal whose baby? That's folk psychology. I don't need to cite a paper to assert responsibly that economists don't explain anything in terms that could be taken straight out of a soap opera.

What you were confusing perhaps was folk psychology itself and the philosophical or scientific assessment of that psychology. Folk psychology is used by folks who aren't technical in their expertise. That is, folk psychology is only proto-scientific, at best. But we're free to theorize scientifically about the nature of folk psychology, which is a different matter.