I have always been pretty critical about "psychology" as a field, but always kept famous successful experiments (like Milgram and the Stanford prison experiment) as examples that "sometimes it's possible to actually get interesting results".

Turns out those are not valid examples either. So I am genuinely wondering: what remains of the field of psychology, except for a group of people who find it interesting to think about how other people think/behave? Are there examples of actual, useful and valid conclusions coming from that field?

I'd think the conclusion you should draw is not that "even the famous experiments were not valid, so nothing in psychology is" but rather "the validity of an experiment does not correlate with how famous it is".

> Are there examples of actual, useful and valid conclusions coming from that field?

In order for someone to answer this, I think you need to come up with some sort of definition what "actual", "useful" and "valid" actually means here in this context.

Lots of stuff from psychology been successfully applied to treat people in therapy with various issues, but is that "valid" enough for you? Something tells me you already know some people are being helped in therapy one way or another, yet it seems to me those might not be "useful" enough, since I don't clearly understand what would be "useful" to you if not those examples.

The results absolutely are interesting - in fact they’re far stronger for the willingness of many to inflict violence than the original description suggested.

> While every obedient participant reliably pressed the shock lever, they regularly neglected or ruined the other steps required to justify the shock.

Procedural violations here include things like asking the question while the person in the other room was still screaming.

You may enjoy https://forrt.org/ and in particular https://forrt.org/replication-hub/

The Hawthorne effect is real. And I don’t think we will ever get a 100% solid grip on what’s happening in others’ minds. Well, until we can actually read, understand, and interpret brain activity at the cellular level.

In Dan Ariely's book, "predictably irrational", there's a chapter about how everyone cheats a little.

And based on everyone I've met, and on Dan Ariely's own actions (1), I've concluded this one is true.

We all cheat a little from time to time.

Ex : for me, driving a few km/h above the speed limit is "cheating a little"

1 : https://www.businessinsider.com/dan-ariely-duke-fraud-invest...

Those two experiments are over 50 years old. Its a bit like dismissing physics because Hubble got his constant wrong. Psychology has a lot of issues, but its also an enormous field. If your frame of reference is half a century out of date you should probably start with some encyclopedia articles.