This is not what the article concludes at all. Every item in this list is met with alternatives or justifications for careful considerations and nuance. If anyt

This is not what the article concludes at all. Every item in this list is met with alternatives or justifications for careful considerations and nuance. If anything it celebrates psychology as a rich field while issuing a warning about specific problematic terms in use. This is no different from most other fields. Cosmology also has problematic terms such as Grand Unifying Theory, even the word planet has issues within the field of astronomy. This is not a damning indictment of respective fields, but a sign of maturity, growth, and healthy debate within the field. Your example of “neyrodivergent” is a really bad example for your case. This term is a laypeople term that captures the notion that there is a variety in the way people think and behave, and as a society we tend to accommodate only a subset of this variety, leaving the rest (the neurodiverce individuals) in a harder then necessary situations. You don’t need to falsify it because it is not a scientific term. But if you wanted to disproof it, you would need to show that cognitive behavior doesn’t vary nearly as much as observable behavior, the very fact that autism exists should be evidence enough to justify this term. I think you might be misunderstanding what falsifiability means for psychology or other social science (or any science that uses probability or population statistics in its theories for that matter). When you have a term that distinguishes a subgroup from a population, you don’t try to disprove it by looking at an individual, you look at the variance and compare it with the greater population. If there is no difference in the variance, then most likely you are using an unhelpful term.