They seem to have these common features:
1) They are self-contained systems. They may be interesting in the terms of sci-fi worldbuilding, but you must suppress critical thinking and just absorb them or they fall apart.
2) Experts tend to discuss in the terms of what the founder or important figures meant. Understanding the subject is interpreting what few people said and thought. Right and wrong is about right interpretation.
3) Advance happens by forking or dissolving into smaller groups with different interpretations. There are main divisions, sub divisions, and so on.
I find hard to understand these kind of systems. There may be some initial core ideas that are interesting to ponder, but building whole system seems very limited and dogmatic.
If there is no way to create synthesis or settle questions among experts who disagree, and the only way is to branch, is there anything there?
--
edit:
My null hypothesis for the effectiveness of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in clinical setting is that the theory or method is just a framework that
A) helps analysts and patients that understand and work well together to find each other. Like Trekkie getting into therapy with a Trekkie fan therapist, or a Chatholic patient having therapist with Catholic backround.
B) it gives some needed structure, the theoretical framework itself is not that important.
C) the real help comes from interacting and talking with a person intimately.
In this sense, anything goes as long as it's not outright harmful.