Is it normal to denounce freudianism as fraud for folk psychology?

Freud was a fraud, think about it: the pleasant fantasies about the human intelligence, that it has a psyche, wow, Freud was a pseudo-genius, it even sounds like he's talking about intelligence, when he means the 'soul'! I used to believe that bullshit, gave it up and took up David Lewis's folk psychology, and folk psychology is not a psychology by doctors, except perhaps David Lewis, but a psychology by philosophers who took up a school of philosophy, such as functionalism, that never labels humans nor diagnoses them and doesn't make things up, e.g. it doesn't make up words, therefore it's a science whereas the other psychology is a pseudo-psychology. It works like this, comparing pain with the attribute of having pain and calling a toothache a type of pain, I applied this to include military behaviour as a type of pain, and that would be a platitude included only as common knowledge among us, e.g. everyone knows it, everyone knows everyone knows it, and so forth. A T-term (theoretical term) is pain, desire, emotion, belief, etc, whereas an O-term (old term) is the non-psychological everyday English vocabulary, but extraordinary doctors have extraordinary ways to describe what's normal, is that normal?