> 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.

▲

bluGill 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Psychology "knows" that people don't enter treatment until things are really bad, and then they get better - no matter what treatment is provided. Finding treatment that is better than others is the important part and they also know they are not very good at that.

▲

embedding-shape 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> and then they get better - no matter what treatment is provided

I don't know what experience of therapy you've had in the past, but this is typically not how it works. People get better when a treatment is applied that is suitable to them as a person and the context, not sure where you'd get the whole "people get better no matter what treatment is applied", haven't been true in my experience.

▲

bluGill 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm only reporting what I heard in my intro to psychology class years ago... Still, this is more revision to a mean applying. There are for sure treatments that are better than doing nothing, there are also treatments worse than doing nothing. But in general people tend to get better after a time. (they often get worse again in a few months, but this was not covered in class).

	▲	5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

fgd135 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo_bird_verdict

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]