Psych 101 says stuff like people being more willing to accept a date with a person after a scary experience since they mistake their quick beating heart for love, rather than humans sees a scary experience as a stronger signal of bonding than a casual experience.

There is so much simple tests that they draw extreme conclusions from in the very first lectures you hear, and when they teach those things as true when its highly debatable its hard to not throw the entire field in the trash.

Of course there is probably some good psychology work done, but you shouldn't have so many shoddy examples in the first course then since that gives people a bad taste for the entire field.

Take physics 101 (or something, anything from a hard science) and understand how they know what they claim to know, and compare it to psych. It's night and day.

One doesn't need to continue learning a topic to know it's bs when it's bs right from the start.

A 101 course should not teach frontiers of research. It should have fundamental established theories upon which the rest of the field is based. My experience with introductory psychology textbooks is that they spend a lot of time discussing ideas discarded decades ago, and then they spend some time discussing ideas that were discarded after the textbook was written. There is typically one poorly explained chapter on neuroscience that the authors summarized from another textbook.

I did 2 psychology degrees and completely agree with his assessment.

Sorry, most psychological research is sketchy at best, if not blatantly fraudulent

In a thread talking about the Dunning-Kruger effect, no less