>>12598778things are rarely ever science or pseudoscience, any statement exists on a continua, on one end science, the other pseudoscience. on this end, freud is set firmly in the pseudoscience end, however he isn't 100% pseudoscience.
for example, the idea that there exists an 'id', this unconscious entity that influences behavior, is false. however, it certainly appears that way, and it's more accurate than believing that there isn't anything close to an 'id' in your mind (as the mind is heavily parallelized, and has things independent from your consciousness that influences your desires and choices).
therefore, even though 'id' is quite a bit different from 'parallel brain circuits', 'id' is still closer to that than believing that there is no such thing as an 'id'. i hope you can understand what i'm getting at
