Transcript

Ani
Hi and welcome to the Somatic Coaching Academy Podcast. Hey, Brian, good morning.

Brian
Morning, Ani.

Ani
How are you?

Brian
I’m doing well. How are you?

Ani
I’m good, thanks. Hey, before we get started, I want to give a shout out to one of our listeners, Marsha, who’s listening to us from the bathtub after her movement class. Marsha, we’re so glad that you have embraced us as a part of your weekly routine. Thank you so much for making Somatic Coaching Academy a piece of your week.

Brian
Yeah, thanks, Marcia.

Ani
We hope you enjoy this episode. Um, this episode is gonna be talking about a question that Steve asked me as he was graduating from the Level 3 program, and we were having a wrap-up call, and one of the— he came with some amazing questions. We were just like rattling them off, and then one of them came up, and I said, we’re gonna have to talk to Brian about this. I think he’s gonna want to do a podcast on it.

Brian
No, here we are.

Ani
So here we are. Today we’re talking about, is polyvagal theory dead? So Steve said to me, hey, Ani, have you seen all this stuff on social media talking about how there’s a problem with polyvagal theory? And I said, yes, I have. I haven’t had an opportunity to talk to Brian about it yet. And so I brought it up. Brian and I aren’t on social media all that much. And I think it’s kind of interesting too, because nowadays with social media, if you see one thing that you click on, you’re gonna see it 5 bazillion times, right? So I saw one thing somebody said, it caught my eye, of course, because they were talking about polyvagal stuff. And so I clicked on it and all of a sudden I got inundated with polyvagal theory is wrong or whatever. And I really didn’t care to look at it anymore. So I put it away. But then it occurred to me that Our listeners wanna know, Brian, what you think about this.

Brian
What’s going on with polyvagal theory?

Ani
What’s going on?

Brian
Right, so I have taken my time over the, since Steve asked that question, to look into the, as much of the story as I possibly could around what is going on with polyvagal theory.

Ani
We wanna know, we want the scoop.

Brian
Yeah, so here’s the deal. Let’s actually have the conversation this way. First of all, let’s just kind of look at polyvagal polyvagal theory for a second for the people who are listening who are like, I don’t even know what polyvagal theory is. And where’s it come from? Who started? Or I’ve heard of it. I don’t know much about it. Let’s just kind of put it on the map for a second.

Ani
Okay.

Brian
But if you go back and listen to some of our previous podcasts, yeah, we’ve done stuff on polyvagal theory before. And there’s a lot of information on polyvagal theory out there.

Ani
It’s quite popular. And one of the things that I tell people is polyvagal theory is not a differentiator here at the Somatic Coaching Academy. You’re going to hear it basically talked about anywhere people are talking about somatics. So I think that’s important to know because if you’re around people talking about somatics or about people and bodies, then polyvagal theory is something that could definitely come up in conversation. So I think that it’s a good subject to be up to education on. Yeah.

Brian
So let’s look at polyvagal theory. Then we’re going to look at the critique of it. Then we’re going to look at a rebuttal of the critique of it. And then we’ll talk about where our stance is on it. Okay. Okay. Based on all of that, all of that research that we, that we’ve been doing.

Ani
I got myself a cup of tea. I’m ready.

Brian
You’re ready to roll? Okay. So Polyvagal Theory was, is the creation of Stephen Porges. So Stephen Porges is a neuro, neuro researcher and a clinical researcher. And in 1995, he formulated this theory called the Polyvagal Theory. Now Stephen Porges has been doing research for a lot longer than 1995. He did a lot of research actually originally on like heart rate variability, which at that time was not called heart rate variability. It’s actually in the research, it’s still not called heart rate variability, it’s called, um, uh, respiratory, uh, sinus, uh, arrhythmia or something like that.

Ani
That thing that people aren’t going to be able to—

Brian
that’s a little, uh, more clinically or more sciencey. Anyway, so a lot of the work that Stephen Porges did is actually the technology that goes into these things.

Ani
That’s cool.

Brian
To measure your heart rate variability, you know, for O-rings or for watches or whatever that kind of stuff is. So he’s been around doing this stuff for a really long time.

Ani
Um, for listeners, Brian just pointed at his Garmin on my watch, by the way.

Brian
Okay, so polyvagal theory though, uh, kind of has 3 primary tenets to it, and it talks about the hierarchical organization of anatomic circuits. Okay, so in other words, a ventral vagal circuit, uh, sympathetic nervous system circuitry, and what we call dorsal vagal circuitry. So that’s the polyvagal theory, kind of focuses on the hierarchical organization of those circuits. Um, also talks about neuroception, so neuroception is, um, the process of the nervous system consistently tracking for threat or safety and then having— and then responding to that based on what it’s perceiving and tracking. That’s part of polyvagal theory. And then also the idea of co-regulation is also part of polyvagal theory also. So those are kind of like the three core components of polyvagal theory. Now I just want to read um, uh, a statement, a description of polyvagal theory from the Polyvagal Institute website. So this is like coming directly from Stephen Porges’s website. He says polyvagal theory can be understood through 3 core principles: hierarchical organization of anatomical circuits, um, neuroception, and co-regulation. These principles do not describe separate systems but complementary features of a single integrated process, how autonomic regulation is structured, how it is guided, and how it is supported within social contexts.

Brian
These principles emerged from the study of how the, in a, in a, um, autonomic nervous system organizes adaptive responses to changing environmental demands. While often described in simplified ways, They reflect an integrated and dynamic regulatory system grounded in neurophysiology. Together, they explain how the nervous system organizes physiological state, how it evaluates safety and threat, and how regulation is maintained and restored through relationships. So that’s the, the key, the three key principles of polyvagal theory directly from the Polyvagal Institute website. Okay, so those are the core tenets. And then, um, the polyvagal theory again then goes deeper into describing and talking about— talking about the neural circuitry that underpins those three principles. Okay, so there’s deeper work that gets done under that. Okay, so what’s the hubbub about?

Ani
Yeah, what is—

Brian
what’s the big deal about? Well, early in, um, 2020— this year, in March of 2026, a, uh, researcher by the name of Paul Grossman and 38 other researchers published a paper in Clinical Neuropsychology called “Why the Polyvagal Theory is Untenable.” And it was specifically citing the core premises are not defensible based on existing neurophysiological and evolutionary evidence. That’s the, like, in quotes. It’s not tenable based on Existing neurophysiological and evolutionary evidence. Okay, so what they’re doing is challenging the neurophysiological underpinning of the principles of polyvagal theory. Okay, that’s kind of the focus of this paper. Okay, now what’s really interesting is in the same edition of Clinical Neuropsychology, exact same edition, Stephen Porges authored a rebuttal of that paper.

Ani
Oh, cool.

Brian
And it’s called “When a Critique Becomes Untenable: A Scholarly Response to Grossman et al.’s Evaluation of Polyvagal Theory.” I love that so much. So in the same journal, you can look both at the critique and the rebuttal of the critique, which I thought was pretty cool. So what I’ve been doing is I pulled up both of them and combed through them to the best of my ability. But I have to say this, like, um, I am not qualified to speak on the neurophysiological circuitry an underpinning of the Polyvagal Theory from either perspective of these neuro clinicians, right? Neuroclinical researchers, ’cause these guys understand circuitry far beyond my capability to do so, okay? So I— That is not your primary job. That’s not my primary job, but I took as much information as I could from it. But I do understand people and how people work and people function. So there’s an interesting story in here that we wanna kind of vet through also, okay? So let’s talk about the critiques first. So the critiques offered by Grossman et al. are, focused specifically on the polyvagal theory biological underpinnings. They are not actually focused on the three core principles of hierarchical development, of neuroception, or of co-regulation.

Brian
They’re specifically attacking what the biological underpinnings are that what, um, how Stephen Porges is connecting those principles to the neurophysiology. So where the critiques are really focused are on things like neuroanatomical pathways, okay, uh, vagal, vagal function measuring methods. Like they’re attacking kind of how Stephen Porges is measuring vagal function sort of thing, okay. And also on evolutionary assessments. Like the difference between reptiles and mammals and where the circuitry is in reptiles and mammals and those sorts of things. So there’s a lot of very kind of, um, uh, specific and reductionist and, um, how do I want to say more than specific, talking about detailed focus on neurophysiological pathways, connections, um, circuitry. Okay, yeah, that’s where a lot of the critique is. Okay, so they’re not— and, um, the critiques again are attacking the biological underpinnings of the theory, but not the theory itself. What they’re trying to do is chop down the theory by attacking the underpinnings of it. Okay. But not to the idea of does social— does co-regulation exist? Right. Because we all know that co-regulation exists. Right. Does, does social context matter? Yes. We all know that social context matters, that sort of thing.

Brian
Okay. Do— does your nervous system track for safety and threat? Yes, all the time. Right. We know that that happens. So what they’re really attacking is how it happens and how they believe that Stephen Porges is describing that it happens. Here’s the other really important thing about this critique is they offer no plausible replacement for the specific mechanisms underlying polyvagal theory.

Ani
Sorry, that’s just like somebody coming to me and being like, there’s a problem and not offering a solution, which drives me crazy.

Brian
Right. So this is a— we’re going to come back. This is a key part of the story. Okay. Right. So we need to come back, but we got to place this right here. Is this— this paper basically attacks the fundamental, um, ideas around the way, but it does not come up with replacement theory for it. Okay. And that’s an important thing to understand as we move forward with our assessment and talking about polyvagal theory today. Okay. All right, so what’s Porges’ rebuttal say? What does he say about these attacks on the neurophysiological underpinnings and the biological structures of things? So what he’s saying, and I’m going to actually take some quotes exactly from his rebuttal, he says, uh, Grossman misrepresents the polyvagal theory assertions and then tests against those misinterpretations. So this is what he’s saying: a central limitation of the critique advanced by Grossman et al. Is that it does not evaluate polyvagal theory as formulated in the scientific literature, but instead constructs a synthetic version of the theory based on selected interpretations and assumptions that the theory does not assert. This reconstructed target is then evaluated as if it were polyvagal theory itself.

Ani
Interesting. Oh, that’s interesting.

Brian
So what he’s saying is that with these, uh, what these critiques are doing is they’re actually critiquing things that is not what polyvagal theory actually says. They’re actually misinterpreting the theory, and then they’re testing against the misinterpretation, right? And then they’re saying it’s not tenable based on the, uh, on the critique of the misinterpretation of the theory. Sure. So I’m just gonna leave that right there. I mean, I don’t know what else to say about that. Then, then he knows what his theory says, and Anyway, that— there’s that, because that’s part of— that’s part of the rebuttal. Okay, he goes on to say that the key critiques focus on disagreements and of— on measuring preferences, levels of analysis, and theoretical framing rather than evidence against the polyvagal theory organizing principles. So he says what the critique is primarily focused on is how were they— how was he measuring things in the polyvagal theory. Okay, um, what, what’s the theoretical framing of it? Like, what was the level of analysis of things? But again, so it’s not attacking polyvagal theory itself, it’s attacking the measurements and the kind of things that are apparently based on these— what, what Stephen Porges calls a straw man theory of polyvagal theory kind of thing.

Brian
Okay, one other thing that he notes, which I thought also very interesting, he says the 39 signatories of this paper do not represent a formal consensus, as it doesn’t follow a formal and professionally agreed-upon consensus process with professional society endorsement. And this is also really important because when I first read the critique and I was like, oh my God, 39 people signed on to this. Right. But what Stephen Porges points out is that they actually did not follow a formal consensus rebuttal process that would be validated by a professional society. Right. In other words, You just have 39 guys like signing on to a paper together. But it’s actually what if you were— but, but no organization has looked at that and said this all meets the standards of a consensus that would give a professional group a considerable concern about the validity of polyvagal theory.

Ani
Right. Which is important because that’s how science—

Brian
that’s how science works, right? Yeah. So, so there’s a couple of key kind of fractures in this critique right here. Yeah. Okay. So here’s our position. So with this, with this laid out, and this is our position as the Somatic Coaching Academy on this debate around polyvagal theory. Okay, so polyvagal theory is a theory. It’s called polyvagal theory for a reason, and that’s because in science, uh, people come up with a theory and then we test against the theory to, um, say, is what we’re saying actually valid or isn’t it valid? And then if it is valid, then we can turn a theory into a truth kind of thing. But Polyvagal Theory is a theory, and Stephen Porges says it’s a theory. He’s not debating it’s a theory, and he’s not— and he invites people to critique the theory based on its own merits, but not based on something you make up about it. Right. And again, that’s what it’s kind of debating. Right. So the, the critique points to some important structural underpinnings of what’s going on with polyvagal theory, and that should be studied, right? We should keep exploring, keep studying these theories, especially something of polyvagal theory that has become so entrenched and so important in the world of especially trauma healing, trauma therapy, somatic therapy, somatic coaching.

Brian
To Ani’s point earlier on, it really lives within and breathes in so many body-mind practices right now, you know, it’s— and it’s become a really powerful way to explain what people have been experiencing for millennia without having an explanation for it. And that’s why polyvagal theory has been so attractive, because it actually creates an explanation to help people feel like they’re not broken.

Ani
Well, something that we kind of intuitively know You know, it speaks to something we kind of intuit. We know exactly.

Brian
You’re like, yeah, there’s something to this. Yes. So, um, so polyvagal theory, it must continue to be tested against, but it must be tested against as polyvagal theory, not, not a straw man theory. Um, and here’s the other thing. So currently the biological underpinnings of polyvagal theory are not formally understood, you know, and they may never be. They may never be. I mean, how many things in physiology do we not understand? Kind of like, like where consciousness lives.

Ani
Everything.

Brian
You know, we actually can’t measure thought. Science cannot measure thoughts. But how many of you would say that you have thoughts? Like all the time, right? We have thoughts constantly, but science cannot actually point in your brain where a thought happens. And they can’t measure it. They can’t— well, you can measure the electrical activity, you can measure the blood flow, but you can’t measure the thought itself. So we’re, we’re having a lived experience of something that we can’t measure with science yet. Maybe we never will be able to measure with science because of the really the complexity of human physiology. Yeah, it’s good.

Ani
Yeah, right. So everything works together, right? Take it apart like we think we can, just say, oh, it’s right here. It’s kind of funny.

Brian
Yeah. So, you know, what, what we can’t measure with science currently does not invalidate our experience. So there’s no way that this critique can invalidate polyvagal theory. It can’t, because there’s still too many things to not only explain scientifically, but it’s such a powerful tool to explain what we actually are experiencing in life. Kind of like we can’t measure thoughts, but we know we’re having them.

Ani
Well, it’s kind of like experientially it can’t be under— like taken away, but also professionally it also does— isn’t going through the means with which we professionally, um, evaluate these things anyway. Yeah, so, right.

Brian
Yeah. And so, um, the core tenets of polyvagal theory are still intact. The, the idea of the hierarchical organization of the anatomic circuits, neuroception, co-regulation, those are all important things. Now here’s another interesting human interest part of the story. This is not the first time that Grossman has attacked polyvagal theory. Oh, really? He’s attacked it multiple times since 2007. Kind of his thing. Yeah, not only with his own papers, but he was actually an editor on another, um, on another, uh, publication that he invited other people to critique polyvagal theory. Oh, interesting. So there’s something going on here, right? There’s some— I don’t know what the deal is. And I haven’t looked any further into it, but the idea that, uh, this— that Grossman has attacked polyvagal theory multiple times without offering any alternative underpinning of the autonomic states of what’s going on, right? So I see that a habit of attacking and discrediting without actively adding to the evolution of the theory, to me, appears pretty disingenuous.

Ani
We want to know what’s going on with you, Grossman.

Brian
I don’t know what’s going on, but, but just hear what I’m saying, kind of thing. So just at that state alone, it makes me want to kind of, um, in some ways disqualify the, um, uh, the intention with which these critiques are brought forward. Are they brought forward in a way to evolve the theory? Are they brought forward in a way to specifically discredit the theory? Intention matters.

Ani
Are you done with that thought so I can say something? Yeah. Okay. So, uh, in alignment with that and this whole issue, um, I think it’s really important to recognize how we’re getting our information because I heard about this on social media. I think Steve heard about it on social media, although I could be remembering that incorrectly. I saw a lot of information about this on social media. We have to remember that a lot of the stuff we see on the internet, whether it’s social media, blogs, podcasts, YouTube videos, anything like that, is often being brought to you from a marketing perspective. And marketing perspectives often are polarizing because that’s what helps somebody to move towards a message. Okay, so, um, you’re hearing like one side of the story, or you’re hearing somebody take something that maybe they— I guarantee you most of the people who are talking about this on the internet have not gone to the lengths that you did to look into this. So they grab onto an idea and they use it as a marketing message to get attention in an attention economy. So I say that not because you shouldn’t look at social media or you shouldn’t read blogs or, you know, listen to podcasts or YouTube or whatever, but just remember that we live in an attention economy where people are trying to get our attention with things.

Ani
And so I love that Steve brought this to us because we were able to look further into it and really gain some insight and perspective on more of the whole story. Now, as you know, you related, we don’t even know completely the whole story about what’s going on with this because there’s more to this juicy story than we even know. But you brought a lot of information. So yeah, so thanks. Thanks for going deep into that so that we could see beyond the marketing message and really get some more information about what’s going on. It was really interesting. Yeah, yeah, for sure.

Brian
So, you know, just kind of in wrapping, in wrapping, um, Polyvagal Theory is not dead. Polyvagal Theory is alive and still a very important, um, uh, tool, method, idea, theory, um, for both practical application of the tools of its key principles and also, um, a way to understand neurophysiologically and biologically what’s going on underneath those principles. Knowing that there’s still, um, still work to do there, but there’s still work to do in a lot of areas that we’re still trying to understand what’s going on scientifically, right? So we have to understand also that, um, part of the argument again here is not attacking the, the, um, experiential knowledge of polyvagal theory. It’s attacking the empirical data of polyvagal theory. And both those things are really, really important, right? The clinical application of polyvagal theory is actually the reason why it’s been so taken up so broadly, honestly, in our human experience is because of clinical application of it, not because of it touches this wire or that wire sort of thing. Most people could care less about that. That’s really the domain of these researchers, which is also important, right? So you need both of those domains are really important, but you always have to look at how they interact with one another.

Brian
So hyper reductionist study, does not invalidate known experience. We have to remember that too, right? Just because we can’t hyper-reduce something down to its exact functioning doesn’t invalidate the experience that people are having. That’s just another kind of way we want to think about it here at Somatic Coaching Academy, because we’re really kind of at this from this holistic end, right? Both, both parts of that matter— the experiential and the empirical uh, data both matter, right? Knowledge, uh, comes from both of those ideas. Empirical knowledge comes from both, um, real-life experiential knowledge and also from, uh, data-driven information. And they have to come together, and, and the way we match it up is important, but we want to make sure we’re not invalidating one with the other. Okay, so it’s really important how we look this from a holistic perspective. So really, the core concepts of polyvagal theory are still alive and they’re breathing, and I think they still are worthy of continued exploration and continued sharing because it’s been such a powerful tool again to help move people in, in the, in trauma kind of perspectives from what’s wrong with me to what happened to me, what’s wrong with that person to what happened to that person, and understanding kind of the mechanisms of past experience and how those past experiences continue to live in our physiology.

Ani
So that’s our hot take. What’s your hot take? Comment below. There’s probably a place to comment wherever you’re listening or watching this. If there’s not, go over to our social media and comment on one of the posts that we’ve made about it. What is your hot take on the polyvagal theory? We can’t wait to hear what you have to say about this important issue.

Brian
Yep. And there, and in the show notes below, I’ve linked together the articles and a really wonderful, um, uh, View article by Rebecca Case, who’s— I just really respect her opinion and looking at this also. I looked at a lot of other articles and how other people were viewing this, and I thought hers is really worthy of looking at. So her article and these other two articles would be in the show notes as well.

Ani
That’s great. Thanks for those resources, Brian. All right, we will see you next week.

Brian
Bye for now. All right, take care.