>>12180986That poster is talking about the current trends in systems/computational neuroscience. Basically, lots of neuroscientists think that in order to understand how the brain does this or that, we want models that relate function to patterns of neural activity. These projects vary from really detailed models of big groups of neurons (e.g. Yammin's work on end to end models of the visual system) to abstract models describing global behavior like some diffusion models of decision making. The problem with what that poster said is, like I mentioned, that these models vary in what they're trying to describe. Many do give precise characterization of biological processes that are completely based in biology rather than cogsci/psych. Others don't, but I don't think that it makes them outright bullshit – though many of them clearly are.
To the OP, academic psychology (i.e. not psychoanalysis) isn't all bullshit. it just tends to oscillate between committing too much to ideas that there isn't enough evidence for, and well supported hypotheses that are trivial common sense. Of course there are other, more typical problems, like replication, but I think these are things that bother me the most.
These are the symptoms of a young science with a less than ideal academic culture, and I think that this also applies to what I was saying about mathematically detailed models of neural function. I have a lot of hope for how psych and neuroscience develop in our lifetimes, though, so I don't think this will be the case forever.
