Psychology claims to be a science, but much of its methodology does not meet the rigor found in fields that study observable, measurable, and consistently reproducible phenomena.
While psychology does use systematic methods, those methods often fail to account for the complexity of human experience, relationships, and culture in a way that explains behavior rather than categorizing it.
Controlled experiments and statistical analysis can produce data, but they do not necessarily lead to deep understanding, especially when the foundational assumptions of the field are rooted in individual pathology rather than in the context of human relationships and social structures.
A true science of human experience would begin with an understanding of how people co-regulate, how environments shape nervous system states, and how distress emerges in response to unmet physiological and relational needs.
Instead, mainstream psychology frequently isolates individuals from their contexts, seeking explanations within them rather than in the dynamic interplay of people and systems.
The overreliance on diagnostic categories and standardized treatments fails to recognize that distress is not an internal defect but a response to conditions that disrupt a person’s ability to regulate and connect.
The claim that psychological theories are objective and repeatable does not hold when many foundational studies fail to replicate, and interpretations of human behavior shift based on cultural and economic trends rather than on a consistent framework of understanding.
The experiences of those who have been harmed by psychological interventions further challenge the idea that psychology is an evidence-based science. If the field were truly scientific, it would be more accountable to the people it studies and claims to help, and it would prioritize understanding human experience over maintaining the authority of its models.
Mainstream psychology remains entrenched in a pathologizing and shame-based paradigm, framing natural responses to distress as disorders rather than recognizing them as adaptive reactions to harmful or insufficiently supportive environments. Its language often reinforces a sense of personal defect rather than acknowledging the systemic and relational factors that shape human experience.
Furthermore, psychology relies on abstract, unobservable constructs like the ego, id, and superego, concepts that are treated as if they are real, measurable entities rather than theoretical interpretations. By centering these ideas, the field perpetuates an individualized framework that isolates people from the cultural and relational contexts that drive their experiences.
This approach distorts understanding and shifts responsibility onto the individual, blaming them for their suffering while ignoring the conditions that created it, and bypassing our core biological needs.
