A huge problem with so-called cognitive "science" is that it completely ignores emotions.
They are considered to be minor and irrelevant, that the "logic" of the "mind" rules.
They do sometimes refer to "valence" (which I thought was a silly frill around a bed) and "arousal", giving some token nod to the activity in the brain stem, even then, probably only because Eysenk came up with it.
(They've been watching too much Star Trek and have been taking Spock seriously.
)
While neuroscience has proven that emotions rule, we make
all our decisions based on our emotions and intuition, that language (which they consider to be some form of deity) is just the after-machinations we use to make excuses to justify our behaviour to ourselves and others.
And the problem is that psychology bases far too much on this "pie in the sky" sort of theoretical stuff, comparing itself loftily with the ivory towers of theoretical physics... they claim to be a science because they do "experiments", they do things to generate numbers.
If it's got numbers in it, it must be science, they "reason".
Most psychologists don't bother to study the basic sciences, plain old chemistry, physics and biology, where all science should be firmly rooted.
They either don't have an aptitude for science or they simply don't have the intelligence to study it in the first place.
It is to be found in the arts Faculties of universities, not Science faculties.
Behaviourism should never have been killed off. Skinner simply didn't have access to the equipment we have nowadays, not that his ideas were wrong.
The seminal paper by Fodor and Pylyshyn, (I call it Fetor and Pollution) which claimed to have put the final nail in its coffin, has itself been discredited.