Linking random crap you managed to google doesn't mean you understand it, as the conservatives here are typically eager to never learn a lesson from.
To have some inkling of what that's talking about, first know that there's two sides to "psychology": the academic more scientific pursuit and the clinical therapy. The former is where theory comes in and where freud basically fell off the map given his "theories" much like yours are found to be rather unscientific (not envisioned for any sort of falsifiability). The latter can take a more traditionalist approach, and therefore some practitioners use some aspects of freud's broader therapy "method" which isn't quite predicated on crackpot ideas of distilling everything down to desiring sex with your mother or other naive explanations of human behavior etc. That's basically what some presumed psychoanalyst was editorializing about in your link, not defending freud as science.
When I showed you from your own link that Freud's ideas were deemed grand, you called it sarcasm. When I provide my own link you say presumed psychoanalysis. As far as Freud's theories falling off the map because they were derived via non scientific methods, according to you, let's look at your link again:
"What is so satisfying about this Handbook is how so
much of what is new and invigorating in the field is now a
part of our conventional wisdom. We are no longer bound by
the early constraints of psychology that identified science
with experimentation and quantification and operationally
defined variables. Observation, ethnographic studies and
narrative, and other qualitative methodologies are now
part of the developmentalist’s tool kit. And we no longer
have only the grand theories of Freud, Piaget, and Erikson;
we also appreciate the domain specificity of so much of
human thought and behavior. Perhaps you don't understand what you read but if you look up qualitative methodologies you will see that the kind of knowledge I have is more and more a part of what psychology is. This is unfortunate for you if you have any real interest in the field because you are pretty unperceptive and frozen in a schemata of the past.
And I appreciate how you identify that aspect of Freud's thinking that has fallen out of favor which you uncharitably describe as wanting to have sex with your mother because, as I said your beef with Freud, I knew, has noting to do with anything I have said. I have never once mentioned that people want to have sex with their Mom, but rather that we hate ourselves because we were all put down. I am ending my attempts to reason with you. A donkey laden with books remains a donkey and there is nothing to be gained by paying attention to your braying.