This is one example of a falsifiable -- indeed, a falsified -- psychological theory. Many aspects of Freudian psychology have raised serious objections since Freud first advanced them, and in this instance the observations did not fit the logic of his seduction theory, so the theory was abandoned. It was logically proven to be incorrect -- or falsified. McNally also points out that falsifiability should in now way be considered the only, or even the primary, indicator of pseudoscience, as many pseudoscientific claims -- such as the belief in a flat Earth -- are logically falsifiable, which might make them seem scientific (McNally, 2003). Thus, psychologists and other practitioners of psychology must make sure that their theories are not only falsifiable, but they also need to make sure that they are built on logical deductions from repeated observations. A lack of falsifiability also does not render a theory completely useless, though it does make it somewhat less scientific. One example of a psychological theory that is not falsifiable is Freud's description of the id, ego, and superego (Peter, 2007). Though these concepts provide a very useful model that accurately predicts much in the way of human behavior, there is no objective or logical way to prove or disprove the existence of these three human phenomena. Popper explains how such things can still be scientifically useful by saying that they "only appear in the highest level of universality...[and are] established by the fact that we know in what logical relation other...

Empirically speaking, the concepts of the id, ego, and superego are not verifiable or falsifiable, but this does not render them wholly useless. There are necessarily subjective interpretations in all branches of the human sciences, perhaps most especially in psychology. Though continuous adjustment of theories rather than an outright rejection of them is not scientifically advisable given repeated observations that refute said theories, there is not a large amount of basic knowledge and theories in the field of that are directly empirically verifiable, so as long as they are not completely and repeatedly falsifiable these theories are still useful.
Falsifiability is a very important concept in the sciences, but it should not be considered the be-all and end-ll determinant of scientific theory. Rather, falsifiability should be regarded as a very useful tool in determining the validity of a given theory, along with many other considerations. Most importantly, theories should be tested for how ell they meet continued observations before being rejected.

References

McNally, R. (2007). "Is the pseudoscience concept useful for clinical psychology?" The scientific review of mental health practice, 2(2).

Peter, J. (2007). "God and bad theories." On philosophy, April 2007. Accessed 11 February 2009. http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/good-and-bad-theories/

Popper, K. (1992). The logic of scientific discovery. New York:…