(I have an undergrad degree in Psychology.) Psychology has the means to be a proper science, but historically a significant amount of hasn't been. The examples you present tend to come from neuroscience, which in turn tends to be a much more empirically based field.
Disclaimer: I've read the articles well because I just woke up, but I'll read have the read in a bit (I like the subject).
I do understand some of that, and probably see more of the psuedo-science application than most: there is a psychological model of occultism folks follow, some of it heavily leaning on Jung's work... who didn't have passable education that we'd like now. And that was pretty common for early psychology: It was more akin to basic philosophy and unbased theories than science.
But I realize that is changing and I realize the good the system really does - my ex was schizo-affective (though he got diagnosed with regular schizophrenia after we broke up). Without the whole system, both the stuff based on shaky psychology and the more pure medical portion with the meds and psychiatrist, he'd have died - no exaggeration.
I do understand some of that, and probably see more of the psuedo-science application than most: there is a psychological model of occultism folks follow, some of it heavily leaning on Jung's work... who didn't have passable education that we'd like now. And that was pretty common for early psychology: It was more akin to basic philosophy and unbased theories than science.
But I realize that is changing and I realize the good the system really does - my ex was schizo-affective (though he got diagnosed with regular schizophrenia after we broke up). Without the whole system, both the stuff based on shaky psychology and the more pure medical portion with the meds and psychiatrist, he'd have died - no exaggeration.