Reliable channel or method for self-study of Psychology Out of interest, I've been reading some psychology topics online recently (I have zero background in psychology). For example, Maslow theory in depth. On and off, I come across terms that sound like having same meaning. So I need to search their explanation, in order to learn their differences, if any. More and more often, I run into situation where different psychology related websites giving slightly different explanation, or sometimes, even conflicting explanation. So, I'm often confused and unable to determine which explanation is the right one. 

Is there a de-facto reliable source to learn psychology (except attending school), where knowledge and explanation given are considered as truth? Or... is the field of Psychology itself still full of ambiguity nowadays?

--- update 4/19 (summary)

My study approach is by keep searching and reading from multiple websites until I reach a point where I feel somewhat confident to take a guess. All along I've been uncomfortable with this approach because I find it not as productive as I wish, and the outcome may not reflect the truth.

My understanding from input of @AliceD and @Chris Rogers is that, it seems that to learn psychology in informal way for non-pro purpose (in my case, for personal growth, to understand myself better), this is the logical and viable way, even though it is not as intuitive as I've been hoping. And for those who suspect they have mental health problem, the best is to reach out to registered mental health professional for help.
Psychology can be said to be an empirical science which is built up out of the elements of experience (Avelin, 1933).

Assuming Psychology in general is empirical, its principles can be investigated by experiments, e.g., through the gold standard of clinical research, namely randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Such studies are generally considered to be reliable, yet they are not always accurate, as they are still prone to all sorts of troubles, to name a few see Fig. 1.

All these potential sources of error can lead to false conclusions and hence different studies may yield conflicting evidence. As such, the 'truth' may be out there, but often it is represented in the scientific community by consensus, rather than fact. Different people may adhere to different beliefs, and rely their views on a select number of results, rather than the consensus. As such, even reputable textbooks may convey a biased message. 

To search for the book of truth, as you seem to do, is in vain. It hasn't existed, does not exist, and will not exist. In fact, the best sources are meta-studies that compare the available data critically and come to a consensus, rather then stating them as facts.    


Fig. 1. source: Sessley &amp; Imrey (2015)  

References
- Avelin, Nature (1933); 132: 841–3
- Sessley &amp; Imrey, Anesthesia-analgesia (2015); 121(4): 134-42