I just came across this article, published in the journal Biological Psychology about the polyvagal theory and its lack of scientific basis: Fundamental challenges and likely refutations of the five basic premises of the polyvagal theory.
The conclusion of the paper states: “There is broad consensus among experts specialized in the vertebrate evolution of the autonomic nervous system, vertebrate evolution of sociality and neuroanatomy of the brainstem and the vagus nerve that each basic physiological assumption of the polyvagal theory is untenable. Much of the existing evidence, upon which these consensuses are grounded, strongly indicates that the underlying polyvagal hypotheses have been falsified.”
This is a pretty bold claim. If this is true, then it’s an example of how popular media can take a scientific theory that actually wasn’t well-established by the scientific method, and totally run with it. In the therapeutic circles I move in, “Polyvagal Theory” has become synonymous with “Nervous System Science,” and seems to be totally unearned.
I’m not in a position to support or deny the validity of the polyvagal theory from a scientific perspective, as my area of academic research was in a totally different field. That said, the paper has been peer-reviewed and the author is well-regarded in his field, so there’s good reason to believe it’s reliable.
This paper has me reflect on ways I’ve heard the polyvagal theory referenced (and referenced it myself). In some circles, people will talk about anything nervous system-related as “polyvagal theory says this” and “polyvagal theory implies that.” Whether or not the theory was well-established to begin with, many of these claims were about general nervous system understanding that had nothing to do with the vagus nerve. But attributing it to a specific theory makes their claims sound scientifically established – and that’s where the theory’s validity does matter.
It’s also interesting to note that this paper is not at all refuting the realness or importance of social engagement for nervous system regulation, but rather challenges the reductionist view that one single nerve is uniquely responsible for everything from social evolution to how we handle threats in the modern world.
This paper has actually shifted how I see polyvagal theory fitting into the wider landscape of nervous system understanding. It’s helped me realize that many of the regulating tools that I’ve attributed to “polyvagal toning” have actually come from more ancient, experiential, and holistic ways of knowing.
I adopted these techniques not because they fit a scientific model, but because they’ve been practical. They’ve helped me and people I’ve worked with. And this makes me realize, for example, that I don’t have to understand the physiology of how making a “voooo” sound can help to calm someone who’s feeling anxious, it’s good enough to know that it can.
I think it’s important to recognize that many of these nervous system regulation techniques come to us from multiple channels that aren’t the scientific method: ancient traditional wisdom, personal lived experience, professional results working with clients… and that these ways of knowing are often just as important as what we can learn from rigorous scientific methodology.
Leave a Reply