I pity psychologists. Imagine how many people want to chew their ear off about narcissism, emotional labor, gaslighting, or whatever self-help pop psychologists are grifting about today.

Honestly, as it relates to academics and papers, psychology isn't too bad from what I've read. There are wildly varying definitions, but papers have had ways to account for that for decades - that being defining terms where needed, and showing your work so others can see the context. For example, if studying depression, they'll have to specify which scale or metric was used for depression in patients, be it a mood tracker, or a standardize questionnaire. That said, you could always tell when a paper wasn't well constructed or had little to offer, because thats when the jargon would be front and centre.

That, and more purely philosophical academic papers. They were awful. For example, reading a thirteen-page paper that could wholly be summarised as "Positionality is how people define themselves relative to others. They may have biases based on these definitions." but written like, "subject-position is based on a subject's temporal elements to best target the dominant drive in a social confrontation..." I have no problem reading most articles, but those were putting me to sleep.