Talk:Polyvagal theory

Failed verification

I read the sentence stating that the theory is not endorsed by current social neuroscience, and wanted to verify that in the cited sources, but I was unable to, despite obtaining copies of the books and doing a full-text search. The first six books appear to be reliable sources for general information about social neuroscience, but they make no mention whatsoever of polyvagal theory or Stephen Porges. Thus, I removed the citations, and copied them below in case they are useful in the future.

The seventh source, the Oxford Handbook of Social Neuroscience, contains a chapter co-written by Porges. It discusses some of the main concepts of the theory, for example, the "ventral vagal complex". Its inclusion in the Oxford Handbook can't be used to support the "not endorsed" statement. I moved it to a statement in the "Proposed ventral vagal complex (VVC)" section that it does support, and added a page number. I added a "citation needed" template to the original statement. I suspect the wording may be too broad and vague to be verifiable though.

Here is the diff where these citations were added.

<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Todorov|first1=Alexander|title=Social Neuroscience: Toward Understanding the Underpinnings of the Social Mind|last2=Fiske|first2=Susan|last3=Prentice|first3=Deborah|year=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-972406-2}}{{page needed|date=January 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Ward|first=Jamie|title=The Student's Guide to Social Neuroscience|year=2016|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-1-317-43918-9}}{{page needed|date=January 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Schutt|first1=Russell K.|title=Social Neuroscience: Brain, Mind, and Society|last2=Seidman|first2=Larry J.|last3=Keshavan|first3=Matcheri S.|date=2015|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-72897-4}}{{page needed|date=January 2022}} {{Cite book|last1=Litfin|first1=Karen T.|title=Social Neuroscience: People Thinking about Thinking People|last2=Berntson|first2=Gary G.|date=2006|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-03335-0}}{{page needed|date=January 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Baron-Cohen|first1=Simon|title=Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from Developmental Social Neuroscience|last2=Tager-Flusberg|first2=Helen|last3=Lombardo|first3=Michael|year=2013|publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-969297-2}}{{page needed|date=January 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Cacioppo|first1=Stephanie|title=Introduction to Social Neuroscience|last2=Cacioppo|first2=John T.|year=2020|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-16727-5}}{{page needed|date=January 2022}}</ref>

89.12.116.102 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie: I see that you have reverted my edit, despite my argument above. Please explain your rationale. Six of the cited sources make no mention whatsoever of the article's subject. The fact that there are books which do not mention the theory, does not enable readers to verify the statement that the theory is "not endorsed by current social neuroscience". I would also greatly appreciate it, if you would refrain from making assumptions that I am editing from a "profringe" point of view. I am not. In fact, I came to the article with the purpose of "fact-checking" whether the theory is commonly considered to be fringe or pseudoscience - because I suspect that it is - and to find reliable sources that verify it. The six sources were not of any value in doing so. They very clearly do not support the statement, or have anything to say about it at all, and I wasted my time tracking them down and looking at them. The seventh book cited would in fact seem to verify the opposite. I have not been able to find appropriate sources myself in searching, which is why I came to Wikipedia. I can't see any reason that these should be included, so I would ask you to help improve the article, by either providing new sources that do support the statement, or letting the "citation needed" template stand, so that someone else can, or else re-word the text. It's not in the interests of Wikipedia to cite sources that don't support the article content or allow users to verify it. Thanks. 89.12.116.102 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed in the RFC a little bit up the page, see there. MrOllie (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie: I see you've now removed the "failed verification" tag, but you haven't addressed the problem, as I explained it above. Yes, this was discussed previously, but not resolved. I had already read that discussion, and was following the suggested actions, and the related guidelines. I'm pulling the relevant comment here, a reply to another user about the subject, from @Mathglot:

Thanks for your comment. I only have time right now to address what is perhaps a side issue, namely, "to confirm that something is not in an article is tedious". This, I believe, is an allusion to the difficulty of using evidence of absence to prove a negative, but if the article is viewable or downloadable, and the concept in question is easily boiled down to a handful of keywords relevant to the issue, then it need not be tedious or difficult. Not every question yields to this approach, but imho it's trivial to search a web page or PDF for the expression polyvagal, and if it is not there, then you can safely "prove the negative", and remove that reference and any content that claims verification based on it. (This approach fails for concepts which can be discussed without relying on a limited set of keywords; but I don't think this is the case here, as I cannot envision an article which could be characterized as being "about polyvagal theory", that never uses the term anywhere in the article.) If you perform such searches and turn up nothing for a given reference, I would support your removal of the content, and the reference. (If polyvagal has synonyms, be sure to use an OR'd query (or multiple individual queries) that includes all reasonable alternative keywords in your search.) If it looks more like an accurate assertion and someone simply added the wrong citation, then please just remove the citation and tag the content with {{citation needed}}; no need to remove the content in that case. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

So this is exactly what I have done - download and thoroughly search the PDFs for any mention of polyvagal theory, with the results as I described above. Mathglot said they would support not only the removal of the references, but the content itself. I don't want to wade into the whole convoluted content discussion, so I just removed the citations and added a "citation needed" tag, exactly as Mathglot suggested. When you objected and restored them, and declined to discuss it, I added the "failed verification" template as a compromise. But I do still think they should be removed, as they clearly don't support the content. I agree entirely with Mathglot's analysis. I don't see the basis for your reverts, and given the comments from Mathglot and me, I would say there's no consensus to do so.

The remainder of the previous discussion was just that the other user (whom I'm not pinging, because I think they've said enough already) should do this as an edit request, because they have a COI. I have no COI. 77.13.178.100 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion: representation of one author’s viewpoint

There has been another attempt to present a minority-viewpoint about PVT as definitive, especially the work of one academic, David Grossman. Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism resulted in a complete rewrite of the Reception section, which had previously been based almost entirely on Grossman’s essays. Now once again, this work has been reintroduced to Wikipedia as though it is the conclusive authority on PVT, ignoring a much more authoritative systemic review of the literature and other more authoritative peer-reviewed journal articles.

The issue is with the first and second sentences of the Reception section and its summary in the lead.

In the lead, this research is summarized as follows:

There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable.

In the Reception section, here are the sentences that this sentence in the lead is presumably based on :

In a 2023 review of the literature, Paul Grossman lists five premises of polyvagal theory and states that "there is broad consensus among experts [...] 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."

Although proponents like Bessel van der Kolk praise the theory's explanatory power, Grossman considers the theory an unnecessary and unsubstantiated conflict imposed on the public dialogue.

Its position in the lead, and at the beginning of the section is highly misleading: 1) A recent systematic reviews of PVT show there is consensus in the extensive literature that much of PVT is valid; 2) Grossman’s article is an essay about what he says are the underlying assumptions of PVT, not a systematic review, and very few of his citations even mention PVT and 3) Grossman’s article is not a summary of the many sub-sections in the Research section, even though it is positioned at the top of the Section (Once again giving it the same prominence in Reception that was remove as a result of Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism.)

By contrast, there is a ‘’’systematic review’’’ of the literature in a 2021 article in a highly-regarded peer-reviewed journal, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, impact factor (4.6). Grossman published his criticism in a journal with an impact factor of 2.6. See this (https://www.mdpi.com/ website) to check impact factors.

A Systematic Review of a Polyvagal Perspective on Embodied Contemplative Practices as Promoters of Cardiorespiratory Coupling and Traumatic Stress Recovery for PTSD and OCD: Research Methodologies and State of the Art concludes the literature shows aspects of PVT to be tenable:

Our results suggest that mindfulness-related interventions (of Polyvagal Theory) promote the dampening of BOLD activity in the amygdala in OCD patients [52] and parasympathetic activity, increased vagal tone and PTSD symptom improvements.

Andrea Poli, et al, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

A 2023 peer reviewed article from the highly-rated journal Developmental Psychobiology (impact factor 4.0) does a review of the scientific premises of PVT: An in-depth analysis of the polyvagal theory in light of current findings in neuroscience and clinical research identifies both strengths:

In the period in which the mother suppresses her expressiveness, there is a suppression of vagal modulation on the ANS with a consequent decrease in the child’s RSA, showing that facial communication has an essential influence on the on the parasympathetic system, in accordance with the polyvagal theory.

Andrea Manzotti, et al, Developmental Psychobiology

and weaknesses:

Although there is evidence of a relationship between the myelinated vagal system and the CNs nuclei that Porges mentions in this system, the anatomical and neural connections cannot entirely support the PVTs statements.

Andrea Manzotti, et al, Developmental Psychobiology

None of the research was funded by the Polyvagal Institute and none of the authors are associated with the Institute. These peer reviewed articles are just two examples of hundreds of peer-reviewed articles that support aspects of PVT. Grossman’s criticism can appear on the page, but it should not be isolated in the lead as though it summarizes the criticism and should be moved to a new subsection of Reception called something like “Challenges to Underlying Assumptions.”

@Firefangledfeathers, 331dot, Anaxial, Avicennasis, Boxed, ConflictScience, CuriousMarkE, Hennybean2019, HilmarHansWerner, Legobot, Mathglot, MaxEnt, MrOllie, Muboshgu, PsychologyGrad2023, Schutz67, SineBot, Srich32977, Theboring Ape, Tony1, WhiteRabbitLAS, Oleasylvestris, MrOllie, SMcCandlish, Qflib, Gheemaker, Boxed, Daask, Schutz67, Hemiauchenia, ජපස, Markbassett, and Drthorgithecorgi:: I’m pinging editors who’ve been engaged in discussion on this page over the past few years.

I have also left notifications about this discussion on the Talk pages of Psychology and Neuroscience WikiProjects. Ian Oelsner (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is from MDPI, a predatory publisher. Its impact factor was middle of the road for its field. I say 'was' because that impact factor was published by Clarivate before that publisher delisted the journal last year, so it no longer has an impact factor at all.

The Developmental Psychobiology article, per the quote you've given here, is concurring with Grossman's criticism that the claims about anatomy don't actually make sense.

It is nice that you grant us permission that Grossman’s criticism can appear on the page, but as the apparent mainstream perspective on this, we can and should keep in in the lead, as it is extremely important context that reads need to have to understand the rest of the article. MrOllie (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, Grossman’s criticism ... should not be isolated in the lead as though it summarizes the criticism: Well, that's a question, really, isn't it? If Grossman's material reflects the central themes of the widest published criticsm, then it'll probably do the job well enough. That said, WP:DUE is a policy, and we have no real need to be seeming to promote Grossman by name in particular, if this scientific dispute is not really mostly a pissing match between Porges and Grossman. Some rewriting could be warranted perhaps, using more sources and relying less on Grossman in particular. Yet I don't see Grossman mentioned in the lead at all now, so this "should not be isolated in the lead" complaint appears to be resolved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead of Polyvagal Theory

Should the following sentences be removed from the Lead of Polyvagal Theory? There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable. Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Discussion

• Yes This sentence was added by one editor in the midst of an unresolved RfC about another statement in the lead. I work for the Polyvagal Institute and am an expert on Polyvagal Theory.

This sentence is the viewpoint of a single academic, Paul Grossman, who is an opponent of Polyvagal Theory. He is in a small minority of academics. There have been 9500 citations of the theory in peer-reviewed journals, according to Web of Science, most of which use Polyvagal Theory research to explain or further their own research. It defies logic that a discredited theory would be cited 9500 times over 30 years. (Web of Science one of two peer-reviewed periodical databases Wikipedia says should be used to count academic citations) WP:Academic. I highlight 5 highly cited works, in high impact factor journals, about Polyvagal Theory in this Talk page post. Furthermore, there is an actual systematic review of the literature about Polyvagal Theory which found that many aspects of the theory are supported by the published literature: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health In the source used to support this sentence, Grossman identifies what he claims are the assumptions that underlie Polyvagal Theory. This is his personal analysis - he is not actually stating the concepts of Polyvagal Theory, as defined by the originators of the hypothesis. Grossman argues there is consensus among experts that these underlying assumptions are flawed - not Polyvagal Theory. When you look at the research he cites, none of the papers even mention Polyvagal Theory and many pre-date the original proposal of the polyvagal hypothesis in 1995. This criticism by David Grossman should be placed in the Criticism section as it represents his personal analysis - in fact, it is currently misrepresented in the Criticism section, as well, as though it is a summary of all the research that follows. In fact, the 2021 systematic review found abundant peer-reviewed literature supporting Polyvagal Theory. The journal in which it was published, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, had an impact factor of 4.6 at the time, compared to a 2.6 for the “Biological Psychology”, where Grossman’s paper was published. (In a post about this topic that failed to attract much attention, User: MrOllie points out that Clarivate delisted the journal, but that was two years after the publication of the systematic review. At that time the paper was published, it was a substantially more impactful publication than the one where Grossman published). Regardless of this one systematic review, the thousands of articles that either discuss polyvagal theory or cite it suggest that Grossman’s analysis should not be the dominant evaluation of the theory in the lead. Please also see the post by a user who took the time to review the 6 text books later cited in the lead to support the sentence later in the lead that the theory is not “endorsed” by “current social neuroscience”, only to discover that 6 of 7 books do not mention or cite to Polyvagal Theory at all, and the 7th source, a textbook from Oxford, has an entire chapter by Stephen Porges, who originally proposed Polyvagal Theory. This widespread misrepresentation of sources is indicative that opponents of the theory are doing advocacy to support their point of view rather than following Wikipedia policy. Ian Oelsner (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• No, for the reasons explained last time. Reputable, independent sources do not contradict Grossman, and counting search engine hits/citations is highly misleading. The criticism must be summarized in the lead and this is a very good source for doing that. This is the third RFC you have started trying to remove criticism, among other discussions. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia please find some way to contribute that does not involve trying to scrub away criticism of your employer. And definitely stop starting RFCs on this. MrOllie (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes based purely on the source provided. Giving such dominant weight in the lede to the synthesis statement of a single author seems undue. The following statement "PVT is popular among some clinical practitioners and patients, but it is not endorsed by current social neuroscience.", which has plenty of references, is a suitable summary statement, and seems much better suited to represent opinion in the field. Maybe shift the Grossman ref there, but lose the sentence itself. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  1996 2A00:FBC:F0F7:CEEC:EFF4:2603:AA73:8408 (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  1996 01 30 2A00:FBC:F0F7:CEEC:EFF4:2603:AA73:8408 (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted rfc Ian Oelsner (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

And then you relisted a second time, which I reverted. Relisting the RFC over and over is not appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Union Abrechnung 2A00:FBC:F0F7:CEEC:EFF4:2603:AA73:8408 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Alles ist alles vorgefertigt 2A00:FBC:F0F7:CEEC:EFF4:2603:AA73:8408 (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Polyvagal "Theory"?

How did Polyvagalism come to be called a Theory? All through the article: "theory this", "theory that". Did (Dr?) Stephen Porges merely name it a theory on his own? If so, that is a sign of hubris, indeed. It is obvious from the first paragraph in the well-padded lede that it is not a theory, but an hypothesis at best:

There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable. PVT is popular among some clinical practitioners and patients, but it is not endorsed by current social neuroscience.

And at the end of the article under Scientific Standards:

In a 2021 publication, Porges stated that "the theory was not proposed to be either proven or falsified". Falsifiability is a central tenet of the scientific method.

Some commenters here do not understand what "Theory" means in the scientific realm. They conflate it with "theory" as used in common speech.

There is an extensive article right on WP: Scientific theory. Criteria is this:

A body of descriptions of knowledge can be called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:

• It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
• It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
• It is consistent with preexisting experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any preexisting theories.

These qualities are certainly true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, the modern evolutionary synthesis, etc.

"In addition, most scientists prefer to work with a theory that meets the following qualities:

• It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
• It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps as per Occam's razor. This is because for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.

I'll include one last entry:

The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

As you can see, for all these reasons, Polyvagalism does not rise to the level of a theory at all.

Thank you for your time. I appreciate it, Wordreader (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Porges did dub it a theory - it is part of the title of his initial publication. I think you may be right about the scientific definition of the word, but on Wikipedia, articles are titled based on the commonly used name (see WP:COMMONNAME) even if that name may be technically incorrect. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)