I haven't read TH or Pinky, mainly because I haven't given birth yet - but I will be attending a Pinky seminar in the next month.

I bought The Science of Parenting and thought it was fantastic before I finished the first chapter. DH has a habit of reading whatever is lying around, so one day he picked this up and hasn't put it down - he's now raving about it. He's already been able to identify some of his own upbringing that has had an impact on his emotional development (my DH's Mum was very ill when DH was only 2, and spent considerable time in hospital - this has had a huge impact on my DH, who's attachment to her was obviously severely affected). Anyway, Science is a fantastic book.

I've picked up TH's book SOS and flicked through it. I don't like what it values - sleeping through, "well-behaved" children, etc...these are not my priorities for my infant. I don't doubt that SOS works for many parents, but I don't think "working" makes it "good."

I recently re-watched the BBC "Bringing up Baby" series (which showed three different parenting methods - based on the Continuum Concept, Dr Spock, and the Truby King method (controlled crying, 4-hourly feeds, etc). The mantra of the Truby King style was that it "worked." Nobody doubted that - but again, just because something works, doesn't mean it is the best thing for a baby.

Anyway, I've hijacked the thread, which I know is primarily about TH's SOS. But I think that in itself opens up the debate about other parenting theories anyway. I've given my (still open to ideas) 2 cents.

(And here's my other 2 cents):
I note that some of the parents who like SOS and have found it to work become very defensive when it is criticised. Why is that? If it works for you, great. If you have nothing to hide, then why so defensive? I don't think anyone is being judged for using SOS, but critics of it are entitled to present contrary information so that everyone can become more informed - and vice-versa.