I mean obviously not everything everyone is going to talk about is going to be scientifically accurate. Those two examples give big “Uhm ahcktualllly” energy as they’re simply helpful to explain simple patterns because everyone knows what you mean by them.

Better examples (in my mind) would be real woo-woo shit like alt medicine or energy crystals.

Wait Stockholm syndrome isn't real?

Dudes period and comma buttons have switched places.

Pretty much everything you think you know is a generalized and imperfect model.

And there isn't a problem with that as long as you can recognize that you mustn't inappropriately apply them.

Psychology is a pseudoscience.

But lots of people experience and identify with "Love languages" and "Stockholm syndrome." In fact both concepts resonate with me. They are merely words to describe people's subjective experiences. You can't say that people's feelings are "pseudo." Do you want me to invalidate all your feelings? How does that feel? Or do you not have any feelings or subjective experiences?