What perspective in psychology, either historical or current, makes the least sense to you? and why?

Given the scope of such a question, I imagine answers
could be across the board, so I will try to narrow mine to a field of psychology with
which I believe I have immediate personal and professional experience, and that is child
psychology.

I first became interested in child psychology
with Glasser's Reality Therapy and Choice
Theory.  His ideas, brought down to their most basic components, are not only
how I've chosen to view students and behavioral change in my classroom, but in many
ways, how I parent my own children.

This, among other
reasons, is why I simply cannot wrap my mind around what is referred to in more modern
parenting-psychology as "attachment parenting."  At its core, attachment theory sounds
completely healthy, full of love, and mostly harmless, as its main goal is to provide
physical and emotional security to children through physical touch, availablity, and
balance, starting before the child is even born, and on through its
life.

Unfortunately, what I see happening is a blur of
lines between parental control and child control.  Those who fully adhere to the
attachment parenting theory are often the mothers who's elementary student cannot sleep
through the night alone.  Many attachment parenting advocates practice co-sleeping with
their children.  They do not let their children "cry it out," (be it a temper tantrum,
boundary issue, or transition into a more independent phase of childhood), but seek to
immediately sooth and provide security for whatever has sparked the child into crying in
the first place.

Physical discipline is completely out of
the question as attachment theory encourages "positive discipline," but often, this
translates with older children into a lack of sense of any boundaries at all, whether
physical or emotional.  In my experience, young children whose parents believe in the
benefits of attachment theory are rarely on a set schedule for eating and sleeping, but
have been taught that they can eat when they are hungry, sleep when tired, and do
neither if they do not feel like it.

I can certainly see
the positive intentions of attachment theory, but it makes the least sense to me because
it trains a child to become so dependent on an adult for every need (emotional and
physical) that the child lacks the development of independence.  He lacks the ability to
"self-sooth" whether at night as a baby, or later in life as a depressed adult.  As a
parent, the practice of attachment parenting too often translates to children who are in
complete control of mom and dad, but helpless without them.  As a teacher, the idea of
attachment parenting making its way into my classroom just plain scares
me.