[superb-owl]

I appreciate the apology! Not strictly necessary though, it's the internet after all :) I also appreciate the detailed response.

I'm not sure how much of your criticism to chalk up to disagreement (totally valid!) versus me being factually wrong. E.g. while Jung and Freud have fallen out of favor with mainstream psychology, I and many others find their ideas both intellectually and practically useful. Jung in particular has helped me deal with issues around psychosis and depression. I understand it's not for everyone, but it helped me a great deal, when little else did.

> The article contains a lot more bad sources

Any specific sources I should have avoided? I went through all the links, and it's mainly Wikipedia, Nature, The Atlantic, NYT, etc, aside from one article by Tanya Luhrmann (who I think is brilliant) in Wilson Quarterly (which I know nothing about).

Again, happy to correct any factual inaccuracies.

[sneak]

> Jung in particular has helped me deal with issues around psychosis and depression. I understand it's not for everyone, but it helped me a great deal, when little else did.

The same can be said for supernatural belief systems like Christianity: oftentimes people find them useful or helpful.

That doesn't make them true or accurate or related in any way to reality.

Your article has an authoritative tone on a scientific topic. You should fix that, given that modern science has rejected the cited models as without merit.

[mistermann]

You are welcome to constrain your thinking to the artificial, speculative Overton Window laid down by The Science (which is based on hypotheses in the Motte version), but some of us choose to do otherwise, thanks.

A claim above is "they are effectively useless" - this is a claim of fact, but science does not know the facts about such matters.