I don't understand psychologists interest in Freud, someone who was completely and entirely objectively wrong about everything.

It would be like physicists constantly including references/comparisons to Aristotelian Mechanics, or flat Earthers.

Why put any consideration or thought into something known-to-be completely wrong? I can't comprehend it. For me, it completely discredits anything they're trying to say. Maybe there was something interesting, I don't know, I gave up after I saw 25 hits for "Freud". I don't enjoy pseudoscience.

Physicists and epistemologs do refer to Aristotle and flat earthers all the time. Maybe with more critical mindset and as a will to exemplify what they consider undesirable outcomes, but still they cite them all the time.

It's hard to dodge totally a figure that the discipline itself sell as a founding member or a representative of what is antinomic to these foundations yet enjoy some persistent followers.

This.

I just stop reading when I stumble on a piece seriously mentioning Freud as an authority.

You're taking two massive things for granted.

1. Someone else who isn't you figured out how wrong Freud was.

2. What is considered "intuitive" changes over time because of those questions you never had to consider and the answers that you now do.

The less curious you are about the past, the more likely you are to repeat its mistakes. Do not consider yourself immune. It's the people who are as dismissive as you are that are most highly at risk!

Amen. I too am curious (sic) why any rational person would want to bury a fascinating subject like curiosity by entangling it with obsolete fantasy-based sophistry like freudianism. Employing but a wee bit of fair-minded imagination instead would surely yield more fruitful and substantial insights.

And was there a book review hiding beneath all that noxious palaver? TL-DR. I'd genuinely like to know. Curiosity deserves better inquiry and illumination than the few books I've seen on the topic.