What is the view of /sci/ on psychology. Is it a real hard science

I am a brainlet but I like reading psychology and think it has potential
It will take much longer to get gains in psychology I think compared to the hard sciences, but we will get there

I think it is important that psychology is informed by evolutionary biology and neuroscience

I've read that psychologists think self-esteem has no scientific value, I think there are more such terms we commonly use that have no scientific value

some of it is scientific but most isn't

>>8769146
It's the best science we have on the mind.

>>8769146
Pic related is the prime example of a snake oil seller, obscurantist and pseudo-scientist. That'll answer your question.

Freud himself wasn't very scientific, he was more like an armchair philosopher if you need a parallel. He ended up being right about most of it (yes, he was right about most of it), but that doesn't mean he was being scientific about it.
That said, a lot of psychology is science. They look at specific parts of the brain, figure out what the part does using methods like ablation, etc. Even social psychology (probably the closest to "sociology bullshit" you'll get) is scientific because it sets up lab experiments with hypothesis and uses statistics to come to a conclusion about the results.

Yes, it's not like physics, but it's still a science.

>>8769257
You are absolutely right. There are unfortunately still people like on /lit/ who fall for his charlatanism.

But psychology has mostly moved away from him. Not that there is nothing to be improved.

>>8769269
>(yes, he was right about most of it)
I doubt that

>>8769276
He was, name one thing he was wrong about besides the Oedipus Complex and its female counterpart (that was bullshit because he was a huge momma's boy and projected hard).

>>8769333
>cocaine is a great gift
>the case of the missing eel dick
Just to name 2

Some of psychology is a science
Psychometrics, experimental psych, behavior psych, etc are all just as scientific as biology (i.e. the bare minimum)

>>8769146
Read Jung instead of Freud first off, he's still not 'scientific' (not that a study of the unconscious ever could or should be) but Carl is way more insightful than Freud imo, I see no reason why the unconscious would be limited to a dumping ground for bad memories and sexual desires.
Psychology's young as far as sciences go, and technology within the last few decades has really improved things (genetics, for example), this and things like people paying more attention to publication bias, which really screwed things up, will lead to a bright future - I think.

>>8769146
Just because there is a bunch of pseudoscientific theories inside a field, it doesn't mean that the field as a whole is unscientific. Hell, even in physics you have a lot of pseudoscience, a lot of what is called quantum "physics" is not scientific at all.

>>8769257

Ungrateful brainlet detected