...and I must apologise for seeming to invoke it as the ultimate authority.

"LOL...since you're talking to someone who almost Majored in Psych (and did end up with a Minor)...I will simply have to say that I have little faith in that pseudo science...as it is WAY to subjective and not based on any real scientific fact (which I'm sure you'll disagree with, and we'll have to save that debate for another time)."

Yes, much of psychology (especially what you learn in undergrad courses) is of questionable scientific value. Piaget, Kohlberg, and myriad others with grand theories that explain everything but provide little in the way of testibility or practical relevance. Believe me, I am intensely critical of (what I view as) the dross of psychology. I've found that the best teachers treat those sorts of theories as interesting historical asides.

But it is starting to come into its own as a science, and there are gems among the manure. A higher standard of critical thinking has begun to be applied, and more people have begun to question the more obvious interpretations of various studies and experiments. Ultimately, I think psychology has great potential as a force for liberation, empathy and understanding, if it can detatch itself from its ideological moorings.

Some of the most promising (and scientific) developments in psychology have been in the cognitive and neuropsychological disciplines. There is less room for dubious (and subjective) interpretation in those areas.

But you're right. When considering psychological evidence, it is imperatave to view it with some skepticism. Some concepts, though, such as the ineffectual nature of punishment and the comparative effectiveness of authoratative parenting styles over authoritarian ones, have considerable amounts of good research and well-constructed theory behind them that I would tend to grant them a lot of empirical weight.