Subscribe now

Dear Gentle Reader,

Never snarky for the sake of it, this author wants to stand for better standards of neuroscience in psychotherapy. Will you join me in that?

This week saw the publication of a bombshell paper authored by an impressive lineup of 39 scientists, most of them the biggest names today in the autonomic nervous system control, physiology, anatomy and evolution of the vagus nerve. It’s titled WHY THE POLYVAGAL THEORY IS UNTENABLE. An international expert evaluation of the polyvagal theory. The paper offers an unambiguous and comprehensive takedown of every aspect of polyvagal theory (PVT), describing it as an “erroneous belief system”.

Some snippets:

PVT assertions around the central vagal control of the heart are fictitious

The whole polyvagal ladder idea is a bunk. The whole dorsal vagal shutdown is a bunk, too.

Talking about why applying PVT in mental health may be harmful, they state:

“We maintain that an erroneous belief system regarding relationships between psychological states and neurophysiology may be harmful when presented as facts to healthcare providers, patients and their families”

When it comes to how PVT relates to science overall:

PVT proposes a line of argumentation that ignores the overwhelming scientific consensus

And finally, they also make a recommending to our professions to try to do the following:

reorient and consider other already existing, as well as novel, psychophysiological explanations that are in line with modern conceptions and evidence regarding autonomic regulation of bodily functions

This is interesting and I will zoom into this last point in the end of this piece.

Polyvagal theory has been debunked before, so how is this a bombshell? OK, so until now, only one scientist working in the field had issued a formal and sustained rebuttal of PVT - I am talking about Paul Grossman’s epic debunk (the original thread and the subsequent paper). Many other scientists were simply unaware of it - so obscure this ‘theory’ is in the science world. Others yet shrugged it off as quirky pseudoscientific theory and did not give it time of the day. This restraint and apparent neutrality ultimately backfired, as polyvagal theory continued to spread and thrive. Having passed itself off as bona fide neuroscience for many years, it has reached today a position of the most influential and established neurobollocks. And by a long shot.

On one side, we have the 39 most knowledgeable people in the world on all things vagus - ranging from neurophysiology, evolution to neuroanatomy of the vagus nerve, spanning several generations. On the other side, we have a single individual, deeply invested on multiple levels in maintaining the status quo of relative ignorance within psychotherapy and mental health professions when it comes to the mechanics of autonomic regulation and the functioning of the vagus nerve.

In fact, the PVT’s attempts to maintain the ignorance amongst therapy readership and professionals is even more concerning. When doing research for this article I have realised that the Polyvagal Institute pays Google to be the first search result when someone does a “polyvagal theory critique” search - effectively attempting to prevent people from critically engaging with PVT ideas, leveraging the power of their $$ (I can’t even imagine how much that costs, but it’s not gonna be cheap to run the global Google ads, I can tell you that much). This is shocking conduct for a scientific theory - but normal behaviour for an industrial complex and commercial enterprise, which is, I argue, what in reality it is.

Before we start in the earnest, some housekeeping:

• If you don’t know what polyvagal theory is, you can read my original piece Polyvagal Neurobollocks - a name well deserved - and also the follow up Polyvagal Neurobollocks Q&A

• If you think that me calling the polyvagal theory pseudoscience is a little over-the-top, please check the definition of pseudoscience below

• If you think that calling the polyvagal situation the polyvagal industrial complex is unfair, please refer to the definition of an industrial complex further below

Definition pseudoscience (Wikipedia)

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be scientific or factual but are inherently incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.

Others might find the label of junk science to better fit polyvagal theory. I can live with that.

Definition of An Industrial Complex

This term is used today to describe an ecosystem of organisations, prominent figures, professionals, training bodies, publishers and commercial actors around one system of ideas, doctrine or theory that are all intertwined through shared investment in those ideas and benefit, including financially but also status-wise, from maintaining the status quo and extension of the idea into other fields reward practices or products that align with the ideas, doctrine or theory and through a closed system create an echo-chamber feedback loop that reinforces the appearance of consensus. No one of the actors in the system has the incentive to question or reevaluate the initial idea or theory because, at this point, they invested resources in it and their livelihood might, at least partially, depend on it.

You might have heard of the wellness industrial complex, the neuro-industrial complex or even the mental health industrial complex.

In this piece, I will:

• Give you an idea of who the scientists behind this new paper are together with their areas of expertise

• Share the main conclusions and recommendations that they make

• Talk a little about reptiles and their sociality (because who doesn’t want to know about reptiles, after all they have given us the reptilian brain)

• Mention the dodgy citation and scholarship practices courtesy polyvagal theory

• I will end with an appeal to scientific community

If you end up reading the paper, you might find the name of this author buried somewhere in the manuscript - extra points if you do.

Share

The Vagus Scientists vs. PVT

Now these scientists and experts, who are they?

I take it that many of you familiar with the PVT saga probably know who Paul Grossman is. Until he came along, the whole technical language and concepts of the PVT were kind of impenetrable to us and all we could do was either trust our gut and that nagging feeling that something was off or hope that all that neurobabble was reflecting some scientific truth. Then came Paul and changed that. All of the sudden, we had this other person, on a par with the knowledge, saying “hang on, this is utter bollocks”. For his epic expert takedowns of PVT see here and here.

While other scientists watched the inexorable spreading of PVT and shook their heads in disbelief from the shadows (with some notable exceptions), the narrative of an isolated critique of PVT somehow took hold.

So who else is in this impressive lineup?

We have Michael Spyer, James S. Schwaber, Robin M. McAllen, Winfried Neuhuber, Michael J. Joyner and Edward G. Lakatta who are all distinguished autonomic physiologists or neuroanatomists from the older generation.

Almost all of them were cited by S. Porges over time to support the polyvagal theory, while in fact it misinterpreting their work - the fact underlined in the paper. (Wait, what?)

Going to the next generation of autonomic physiologists we have Alexander V. Gourine UCL, Julia Shanks University of Auckland, Clément Menuet INSERM France, Vaughan G. Macefield Monash University, Julian F. Paton and Rohit Ramchandra University of Auckland, Kalyanam Shivkumar UCLA, Sahib S. Khalsa studying interoception in human health at Laureate Institute for Brain Research. The list goes on.

From the vagus evolutionary biology side we have Edwin W. Taylor University of Birmingham and Tobias Wang Aarhus University, both leading scientists in their field- they already wrote a debunk of PVT of their own.

Again here, S. Porges stated their work as support for polyvagal theory - we are noticing a pattern here - by misinterpreting to the point they feel compelled to speak out about it.

Finally, leading evolutionary biologists of vertebrate social behaviour J. Sean Doody, Vladimir Dinets (they also debunked the PVT sociality claims in a separate paper ).

And the list goes on. (I can’t mention everybody individually, but feel free to search up some of the names yourself.)

I am not here, of course, to feed you the Who’s Who list of the autonomic regulation world - ultimately, it is about us understanding the sheer scale of the problem and cognitive dissonance between what we have been told (“PVT is your cutting edge science”) and the reality of scientific consensus across boards today.

The fact that all of these people went out of their way and joined their names on this total and unambiguous takedown, should tell us not only how peed off they are but speaks also of their concern - seeing junk science and pseudoscience sold to people like us, who work and influence the mental health of hundreds of thousands of people in need, day in day out. Have we, as a profession, been hoodwinked en masse?

The thing is: we can’t possibly critically assess the complex science behind the vagus physiology and evolution, and we’d believe almost anything, as long an authority figure tells us “This is real science“ and throws a bunch of references at us.

I’ll let you decide.

Subscribe now

“WHY THE POLYVAGAL THEORY IS UNTENABLE.” - the Lowdown

Here are the main conclusions from the paper:

• The dorsal and the ventral vagal pathway don’t confere distinct ‘emotional’ or ‘psychological’ functions:

  • Furthermore, the dorsal vagus has never been shown to have anything do with heart-rate control in humans. The dorsal vagus is primarily responsible for influencing gut function.

  • The ventral vagus is important for controlling heart rate, whether during the experience of positive or negative emotions.

• Neither emotional freezing nor psychological dissociation

  among humans typically induce “massive“ or “lethal“ slowing of heart rate, making the notion of “dorsal vagal shutdown” a total bunk

• Non-mammalian vertebrates, such as reptiles, amphibians and birds exhibit complex social behaviors

• All vertebrates and not only mammals have the famous myelinated vagal fibers that allow for the fast autonomic reactions

• PVT assertions around the central vagal control of the heart are fictitious

• In sum, PVT proposes a line of argumentation that ignores the overwhelming scientific consensus

• As bonus, we find out that the latest PVT paper is supported by dodgy citations and poor scholarship practices. This is of course a MAJOR RED FLAG (you can see more in the original paper)

As a little story, do you remember the ‘super technical’ narrative we bought into about the myelination of the vagus fibers? Hearing and knowing about the myelination and how that determines our movement into socially engaged states really gave off that vibe of insider knowledge, didn’t it? Like reducing the complex and often impenetrable web of social life of humans to a simple alphabet. No wonder it stuck. The story goes like this - and I quote: “As a result of its myelinated pathways, the ventral vagus provides rapid and organized responses (Porges, 1997). In a ventral vagal state, we have access to a range of responses including calm, happy , meditative, engaged, attentive, active, interested, excited, passionate, alert, ready , relaxed, savoring, and joyful.”

Essentially, the PVT hinges on the ‘fact’ that myelinated cardioinhibitory vagal fibers are found only in mammals. Turns out that that this is a total bunk too. Unbelievable.

See the graph below, from the paper, synthesising the findings on the evolution of different aspects of the vagus nerve and its physiology, including myelination. The cardiac vagus is myelinated in all vertebrates.

Share

Saving the Best for Last: the Social Engagement Polyvagal Neurobollocks

I have criticized this specific tenet of PVT before simply on the grounds that it is absolutely preposterous to claim that human sociality - including attachment(!) - all hinge on the anatomy and the physiology of one cranial nerve. I mean if that were the case, what is the whole social neuroscience as a discipline doing? Just fold it and close the shop. I still stand by that critique as sufficient to counter the quasi-totality of the PVT argument. But, for those who want to suffer more, the PVT is Untenable paper gives an in-depth rundown.

In a nutshell the PVT asserts that the specific branching and anatomy of the vagus nerve is causal of human and mammalian sociality - the social engagement system [In words of Stephen Porges, and I quote: “While reptiles and birds retain a brainstem region identified as the NA, they lack the myelinated cardioinhibitory vagal efferents that define mammalian autonomic flexibility and social engagement.”].

As we have seen before, the whole myelination limited to mammals is a bunk, but even if it wasn’t, the fundamental premise that only mammals are social is nonsense.

I quote here from the PVT is Untenable paper: “many nonmammalian vertebrates show significant levels of social behavior that overlap with many mammals, including (depending upon species) long-term pair-bonding, monogamy, mate guarding, extended and/or communal parental care sometimes, including nursing the offspring, sexual selection, complex courtship, social proximity seeking, shoaling and schooling and other social affiliative behaviors, communal nesting, prosocial choices, food sharing, social learning, developing theory of mind, reciprocal helping, eavesdropping, cooperative hunting, territoriality, dominance hierarchies, group vigilance, social-stress buffering, signaling and posturing.”

For reference see here and here.

It Is Anything But…

Share

Some people with a good heart feel that it might all just be a big misunderstanding. It is the oversimplificators’ fault, it is the social media fault, those who commercialise it are to blame, those too eager to use it but don’t understand it. It is all just one big misunderstanding but the founding principles and the polyvagal theory, as proposed by Stephen Porges, are bona fide groundbreaking science and the path to follow to recover the social harmony and sense of safety. The original theory in its pure form is legit, only it has gotten out of hand - victim of its own success - and others have spoiled it.

We don’t want conflict, it’s a nice story, everyone gets to be a good guy and creates a form of plausible deniability.

I will argue that it is anything but by asking you to consider the following points:

1. So, the general public and the therapists are not getting it right (oversimplificators)

2. The experts are also too thick to get the polyvagal theory correctly. Okey. (misinterpretators)

3. Let me ask you now: who is actually getting it right? Seems to be only one person in the world.

I rest my case.

I want to say one more thing: the polyvagal theory, in its popularised form, has notoriously and explicitly been endorsed by its creator Stephen Porges - as his omnipresence in popular training events, conferences and book endorsements amply show.

So, I am sorry, I’m just not buying it. I will leave it at this gentle reader.

Appeal: Come And Help Us.

Subscribe now

You heard the experts : the polyvagal theory is really untenable. And is potentially harmful. Now, if you still want to go away saying ‘Neh, I still think it’s science’, there is nothing more I, or anybody else for that matter, can say or do. But I am hopeful, dear gentle reader, you’ve got this!

Now, before this author leaves you to ponder that vital question, she would like to return to that recommendation that the scientists give to us, as a profession. You remember? Their recommendation is to:

“reorient and consider other already existing, as well as novel, psychophysiological explanations that are in line with modern conceptions and evidence regarding autonomic regulation of bodily functions”

Upon hearing that I kind of want to kick to ball back into their court and say: that is lovely, but how exactly do we do that? Please help.

I hope you can join me in that plea, dear gentle reader.

As always, thank you for reading and until the next time.

Subscribe now

Further References

• Your common and critical sense.

• The present paper WHY THE POLYVAGAL THEORY IS UNTENABLE. An international expert evaluation of the polyvagal theory

• Fundamental challenges and likely refutations of the five basic premises of the polyvagal theory : point-by-point PVT takedown by Paul

• The evolution of sociality and the polyvagal theory

• Functional anatomy of the vagus system: How does the polyvagal theory comply? (Spoiler: it doesn’t)

• An overview of the phylogeny of cardiorespiratory control in vertebrates with some reflections on the ‘Polyvagal Theory’

Subscribe now

This is a long time coming.

The polyvagal theory is, by and large, the biggest and the most powerful neurobollocks in the psychotherapy world.

Imagine a low-grade Triune Brain Theory and Paint-by-Numbers understanding of human nature taking the lizard brain for a walk, ending up in a pub, getting really drunk, dropping acid and then having a really bad trip? That’s polyvagal theory for you.

For those who don’t know it, this speculative ‘theory’ explains all of our mental states, not by one brain hemisphere, not by one brain circuit or even one area but by one of the three autonomic states we are in (you thought there were two autonomic states? nah. in therapy, we know better). You can’t make it up.

And because it promotes very simplistic views about mental states, mental health, human sociality and human nature as whole, I could also describe it as polyvagal ideology.

This piece is not going to be yet another tedious debunk of polyvagal theory (PVT) - it has been done rather well a number of times, and I am providing an extensive list of key references at the end. I am not getting into the debate neither - the polyvagal theory is not supported by neuroscience (if you don’t agree, please contradict me by finding one neuroscientist who supports it and put their name and associated reference in the comments, I promise to look into it - until then, the debate is closed).

Instead, I will share a little bit about my personal relationship with this idiosyncratic theory. Then, I will show you why you don’t need to be a neuroscientist (or physiologist) to know it’s bollocks - the neuroscience detail is here ultimately a red herring. Because I value all interactions with my neuro-curious fellow psychotherapy travellers, I will dive into some questions that repeatedly come my way (this, I will do in Part 2). Finally, I will explain why I consider the use of polyvagal theory to be equivalent to using, say, astrology, in therapy work. If you wouldn’t consider the latter as therapy worthy and epistemically sound, you should not see the former as such either.

How’s that for a plan? Let’s go.

I Don’t Drink Kool-Aid

Would you believe this: I did not set out in life intending to make neurobollocks debunking ma raison d’être. In fact, I initially tried to embrace it – and this is especially true for the polyvagal theory. It was through my attempts to understand the claims of this framework that I first began to realise just how deep the cracks of neurobollocks extend within the world of therapy.

As my chequered record of ice baths, ayahuasca retreats, fasting experiments, meditation, yoga – you name it – shows, I am by nature a trier; someone who will give almost anything a go, both in life and in my therapy work. The same was true for the polyvagal theory.

In fact, I still remember the very moment when the lightbulb went on. I was out running - I can still picture myself crossing the bridge I often run across - listening to an audiobook about the polyvagal theory, when I suddenly stopped and thought, “Hang on, this can’t be right.”

It was essentially saying that it is the mammals that developed sociality and communication and that prior ancestors only knew how to mobilise or shut down but not feel safe. It used the phrases such as being pulled “all the way back to our evolutionary beginnings” which sounded dubious and filled with evolutionary certainty that kind of alarmed me.

The book was the very popular “The Polyvagal Theory In Therapy”. Historically, this book, effectively delivered PVT to therapists.

Re-reading that book… Gosh … With its infantilising tone, I am getting again that image of inebriated triune brain theory and lizard brain tripping on acid.

As I mentioned before, this ‘theory’ posits that our mental states are essentially defined by the three autonomic states we find ourselves in - the sympathetic state, and two others derived from the parasympathetic state but unknown to the mainstream neuroscience and physiology (!!).

Now imagine this: all these billions of neurons consuming 20% of total energy of the body, all those networks, all those gradients of granularity in the brain tissue, all that brain connectivity. All those neurotransmitters.

Then imagine an additional layer - all that bio-behavioural synchrony, brain areas dedicated to social cognition, all that predictive processing, updating of predictions errors, dopamine and all. Yet, it all comes down to three autonomic states?

Attachment, sociality, trauma, addiction, you name it. It is all down to autonomic states regulation. The rest is decor.

For real? C’mon. I don’t drink Kool-Aid. Neither should you.

Share

Tenuous Tenets: Welcome to the Yellow Brick Road

If you don’t live in the psychotherapy universe, you might have found yourself mystified by the recent flooding of the wellbeing space with terms like nervous system states and regulation. I will solve this mystery for you: it is the spectacular rise of polyvagal theory that has fuelled this spread of regulation-speak. It has now become a cultural trope. You can find references to “nervous system regulation” in everything from cooking recipes to interior design to general life philosophy. And when people say it is all about nervous system regulation, what they are really referring to is autonomic nervous system regulation.

According to PVT, the autonomic nervous system is not composed of two autonomic states, the sympathetic and the parasympathetic, but three. This is because the parasympathetic ‘state’, is, according to PVT, split into two separate states: the ventral vagal state and the dorsal vagal state. The distinction rests on which branch of the vagus nerve is said to mediate it, ventral or dorsal (hence the polyvagal theory).

Each of these proposed branches is said to have its own evolutionary history and to confer properties that supposedly reflect the behaviours of the ancestral creatures from which they emerged. So for example, the dorsal pathway emerged with the “ancient vertebrate ancestors” (the lizard brain, anyone?) who knew only how to freeze and immobilize when scared and so we behave like them when this pathway is active. On the other hand, being happy and joyous, socially engaged and feeling safe are framed as distinctly mammalian characteristics attributed to the ventral vagal pathway.

Can you see how this theory is taking the lizard brain to a whole new level?

And if you think I must be exaggerating, I quote:

“Polyvagal Theory gives therapists a neurophysiological framework to consider the reasons why people act in the ways they do. Through a polyvagal lens, we understand that actions are automatic and adaptive, generated by the autonomic nervous system well below the level of conscious awareness. This is not the brain making a cognitive choice. These are autonomic energies moving in patterns of protection.”

Yeah. Just throw away that prefrontal cortex.

And each one of these purported pathways and states gives rise to very specific set of characteristics and emotional states (no black and white thinking, misinterpretation and gross oversimplification whatsoever):

• VENTRAL VAGAL (BEST, that’s where you wanna be): SAFE, GROUNDED, CONTENT, CONNECTED, HARMONIOUS, OPEN, COMPASSIONATE. It is the ANS Nirvana.

• SYMPATHETIC (NOT GREAT, but better than dorsal): LACKING TRUST, ANXIOUS/ANGRY, FEAR WHISPERING, DIFFICULTY FOCUSING (the truth is that the sympathetic activation can bring extreme focus!), ALONE

• DORSAL VAGAL (ROCK BOTTOM, it is the ANS Bardo, lizard style): ALONE, DISTANT, SLOWED BREATHING, DEPRESSED, HOPELESS, FROZEN, OVERWHELM

Because there is a number of specific things and ‘hacks’ you can do to move from one autonomic state to another, the framework becomes quickly very operational.

You see, once you start seeing the world through “the polyvagal lens” (there actually is a book titled “Our Polyvagal World”), it’s like seeing the Matrix, albeit a very inane one.

One dumb corollary of this theory is that social engagement can only be achieved during the parasympathetic ventral vagal activation - when on the ‘top of the polyvagal ladder’ (!!) (and I quote):

“Safety and connection are guided by the evolutionarily newest part of the autonomic nervous system. Our social engagement system is active in the ventral vagal pathway of the parasympathetic branch. In this state, our heart rate is regulated, our breath is full, we take in the faces of friends, and we can tune in to conversations and tune out distracting noises. We see the “big picture” and connect to the world and the people in it. I might describe myself as happy , active, interested and the world as safe, fun, and peaceful. From this ventral vagal place at the top of the autonomic ladder, I am connected to my experiences and can reach out to others. Some of the daily living experiences of this state include being organized, following through with plans, taking care of myself, taking time to play , doing things with others, feeling productive at work, and having a general feeling of regulation and a sense of management.”

Being organised, following through with plans, feeling productive and seeing the world as safe, fun and peaceful. What’s not to like? As I said, the ventral vagal is the ANS nirvana.

But then, I do have some annoying questions: how about being excited about seeing a friend we haven’t seen for a while? Sense of anticipation, maybe the heart pounding a little bit, feeling an overall excitement and arousal. Surely, that’s gonna be sympathetic activation? How about infatuation? Does falling in love belong to the ‘lower’ evolutionary states - it sure seems that way according to PVT. How about having some excitement mixed with anxiety and dread because there is a school play on and and we are in it? How about mixed feeling and grey zones. You get the idea.

Essentially, what follows from the tenets of this quirky theory is that all positive emotions and pro-social behaviours such as connection, loving and being loveable, creativity, play and so on cannot co-exist with the sympathetic state. I object to that on the ground of common sense and I can’t even believe we fell for this infantilising, oversimplifying and totally unrealistic narrative about human emotions and sociality.

But that’s not all.

Follows a dumber yet corollary: we can only ascend from the state of the ‘dorsal vagal’ (collapse, shutdown, disconnection) into the ‘ventral vagal’ state (the ANS nirvana) by passing through the intermediary sympathetic state. In other words, there would be a strict hierarchy in these purported autonomic states, not only in evolutionary terms, but also as a behavioural sequence. This ‘hard neuroscience fact’ is encapsulated in the principle of the polyvagal ladder and I have witnessed it being not only disseminated through the polyvagal literature, cheat-sheets and handouts but in my own (‘neuroscience-informed’) clinical supervision .

In supervision, we would be told that for a client who is, say, depressed or presents with social anxiety (dorsal vagal, obviously, duh!), the only way to get better is first to get angry or anxious. It was a neuroscience fact, we were told, and therefore the therapeutic process had to follow that sequence. And of cours, there was a list of things we were could do - the polyvagal hacks, that would supposedly move the client from one state to another (I remember that dancing and singing were mentioned). If we were to fail in facilitating the enactment of this neurobiological reality, it was because we were doing something wrong. The 500 millions years of evolution couldn’t get it wrong, could they? It had to be us.

Is this enough? Did I make my case? I could go on about confounding of vernacular concept of ‘freezing’ and physiological freeze (as in animal behavioural studies). I could go into how one cannot remain ‘stuck’ in one specific autonomic state. I could go on about the concept-creep of what autonomic response or sympathetic response mean (the fawn response and such).

But the real question is: can I be bothered? Nah, let’s just look into how to see through this polyvagal neurobollocks.

Subscribe now

Don’t Fall For the Red Herring: You Don’t Need to Be A Neuroscientist to Know It’s Bollocks

Luckily, you don’t even have to get into the nitty-gritty of hermeneutics of polyvagal science findings or the vagus nerve anatomy and evolution. That is, ultimately, a red herring here (red herring is something the distracts from the real question) and can quickly become a competitive sport whenever this theory is challenged.

Besides, it has been done time and time again by people who specialise in these questions and could critique it much better than I ever could (see the references in the end of this piece).

Instead, the common sense plus some understanding of neurobollocks red flags should suffice - although I am that, if you are here, some alarm bells have been set off already. If you are new in this space though, for a crash course in neurobollocks please refer here, here and here.

So here are some killer arguments:

1. The brain uses around 20% of body’s energy. It is a huge metabolic expense for what represents only around 2% of body’s mass. To claim then that all mental functioning comes down to autonomic regulation just not make sense. Why would the whole brain then exist at all and use all that energy?

2. Objection on grounds on gross oversimplification: despite it being narratively satisfying, when it comes to complex human traits and behaviours, every oversimplified statement such as ‘[ALL X] is explained by [Y]’ is probably not true. The brain is a complex organ for a reason - because it does complex things.

3. The polyvagal theory is a self-referencing hypothesis. There are no neuroscience papers or neuroscience labs working on it (despite many working on the therapeutic potential of the vagus nerve). If this were a groundbreaking theory, we would see swathes of research labs working on it (as it is the case for memory reconsolidation research, for instance). Yet there is none.

4. PVT has not changed in 30 years, since its inception, despite major advances in neuroscience, social neuroscience and physiology.

So, ultimately one sentence suffices here: the polyvagal theory is not supported by neuroscience or physiology. Since its main claim to popularity and usefulness rests on the idea that it represents a neurobiological fact, it not being a neurobiological fact defeats its own purpose. As for a theory or an intervention to be neuroscience-informed there’s got to be some neuroscientists supporting it, right?

Finally, nobody is required to provide a point-by-point rebuttal of any idiosyncratic theory out there simply because someone say that it IS a theory. The burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The polyvagal theory has been around for a long time now, and as for the proof, we are still waiting.

Astrology, Fortune Telling And Polyvagal Theory

One cognitive device that seems to work when fending off the discomfort of cognitive dissonance is the argument that, even if the polyvagal theory lacks scientific grounding, its clinical usefulness justifies its continued use. In other words, if it works in the therapy room, what does it matter whether it is scientific or not?

This position seems pragmatic to the extreme, saying essentially: if is useful, then no questions asked.

Whether the polyvagal framework is genuinely clinically useful or whether it has just absorbed into its wake a series of concepts that already existed in psychotherapy and neuroscience, is a question I will address in the next post.

There is also a whole conversation to be had on whether, for a therapist, it always feels better to have any framework rather no framework, but also about the confirmation bias and the Barnum effect. But I won’t go there.

For now, let us assume that the client or the therapist feel that polyvagal theory is clinically useful (while not scientifically sound).

Truth be told, the same can be said for other unscientific frameworks, such as astrology or fortune telling. Many people find these practices useful and compelling.

For example, astrology is a useful framework for many people to get to grips with the uncertainty and complexity of life and our nature and they use it to better understand their personality, the ways they act in the world and how their interactions with some people seem meaningful and productive and with other they seem to clash. This is why astrology is still going strong. Right?

Would you, as a therapist, introduce astrology into your psychotherapy practice, on the grounds that people find it useful?

If the answer is no - ask yourself why not?

Maybe because that is the epistemic boundary you are not prepared to cross, even in the name of pragmatism.

The same epistemic boundary applies to polyvagal theory. I’ll leave everything else to your good judgement.

Share

I Don’t Drink Kool-Aid. Neither Should You.

Because I started this piece on a personal note, I will end it on a personal note too.

I started off this journey of trying to understand the potential that neuroscience holds for psychotherapy by trying to understand the basics of what I had been told the neuroscience for psychotherapy is, and polyvagal theory is a big part of that. That is the truth.

Over time, I personally have left behind some of the oversimplifying and erroneous neuro-narratives that we commonly encounter. As I learn more and more, I see some amazing possibilities being opened to us, to take from what is happening in neuroscience world now and use it in therapy.

But then, being active in the community, I can see how much energy, elaboration, creative effort, intellectual grit, training and financial resources have been poured into polyvagal approaches in psychotherapy. As a profession, we are becoming seriously invested on that road. And yet, it never was a road. It is a dead end.

In any field, there is only so much creative energy to go around. I came finally to see the huge investment in PVT we have made, collectively as a field, as wasted potential of therapists’ curiosity, time and learning . That is, I think, what annoys me the most. Polyvagal theory is hogging the lane. And I wonder how many creative and neuroscience-informed roads we will not take as a result?

I will leave you with this: I don’t drink Kool-Aid. And I don’t think you should either. But that is ultimately down to you.

Things with the brains are complicated, but so are humans - and we can get to grips with that. We don’t need someone to reduce it to three basic states to explain it all. We can do better than that.

As always thank you for reading 🙏.

In Part 2, I will answer some questions that often come my way when it comes to PVT.

Subscribe now

Further Reading And References

• Your common and critical sense.

• Special issue collection : Contributions of the Vagus to Psychological Functioning and Health

• Individual pieces:

  • Functional anatomy of the vagus system: How does the polyvagal theory comply? (Spoiler: it doesn’t)

  • An overview of the phylogeny of cardiorespiratory control in vertebrates with some reflections on the ‘Polyvagal Theory’ :phylogeny studies the evolutionary history of life - this is to do with the ‘evolutionary’ claims by polyvagal theory. This paper debunks all the bollocks around reptiles, mammals, myelinated vagus only being present in mammals and the claims around determinism around sociality and the vagus branching:

  • The evolution of sociality and the polyvagal theory : I think the title says enough

  • Fundamental challenges and likely refutations of the five basic premises of the polyvagal theory : point-by-point take down by a vagus physiology world expert

• Recent paper by a consortium of experts about state-of-the-art knowledge about the vagus physiology and influence on RSA Redefining respiratory sinus arrhythmia as respiratory heart rate variability: an international Expert Recommendation for terminological clarity (this paper indirectly refutes several PVT assertions)

Accessible Resources

• Polyvagal theory and attachment

• On being ‘stuck’ in one nervous system state

• Polyvagal theory a thoughtful examination of PVT claims

• ”Polyvagal theory” is pseudoscience. Here’s why.

The story of the divide between the right and left brain has become one of the most cherished ideas in psychotherapy. It shows up virtually everywhere we look, branching into a myriad of techniques and approaches, creating an entire ecosystem. And to be fair, it’s not difficult to see why psychotherapists embrace it.

It offers a wonderfully simplified story about how the brain works, satisfying our strong intuition about the split between thinking and feeling. By drawing a physical line down the middle of the brain, it seems to give tangible, material proof of this cognitive-emotional divide. And beyond that, it echoes an even older narrative: the age-old split between soul and intellect.

It’s a compelling story - but if we want to use neuroscience meaningfully in psychotherapy, beyond loose metaphors and appealing but inaccurate narratives, how much truth is actually in it? To what extent, if any, is it supported by current neuroscience?

That’s exactly what I set out to find out with the help of Dr Pascal Vrticka, a social neuroscientist whose research focuses primarily on the neurobiology of attachment (you will find his full bio at the end of this article). His work touches on some of the areas of neuroscience most relevant to psychotherapy: affective neuroscience (i.e., the neuroscience of emotions), social neuroscience and the neuroscience of attachment.

Together, we try to separate the wheat from the chaff, facts from fiction - and don’t make me say it … rights from lefts.

Share

Pieced together, the following claims put the ‘right brain’ at the very centre of emotion perception and regulation, child development, attachment, relational psychotherapy, and even at the core of how we relate to others:

1. The right brain is emotional, the left brain is rational.

2. There are two distinct modes of being, supposedly rooted in hemispheric use: right-mode functioning versus left-mode functioning.

3. Non-verbal communication is mediated by the right hemisphere.

4. Relational psychotherapy happens via “right-to-right brain” communication.

5. Bio-behavioural synchrony relies on right-to-right brain communication (including between caregivers and children).

6. Attachment is rooted in the right brain.

7. The right hemisphere is the first to develop in infants and therefore carries all the important (unconscious and emotional) learning.

Yet the whole “right brain/left brain” affair rests on rather shaky epistemic grounds. Making the case for it typically draws from three strands of argument: the lesion studies and split-brain experiments, certain bio-behavioural synchrony studies and research on brain lateralisation in infants. Much of said research is now considerably dated but could it still be proving the essential point?

We have laid it all out in a Q&A format, tackling the most common assertions found in psychotherapy around the “right brain/left brain” divide.

Here goes - enjoy!

First Things First: What Are We Really Talking About?

The statement “one hemisphere is emotional and the other hemisphere is rational” sounds simple enough, right? But on closer inspection, it is not actually that clear what it means or implies. Let’s take a moment to unpack this.

Subscribe now

Left, Right but Where?

When we speak about the right brain and the left brain, what do we understand by that? We basically refer to the fact that the human brain is made of two hemispheres separated by a deep groove (the longitudinal fissure). The hemispheres are linked by several bundles of nerve fibres, most notably the corpus callosum, as well as a few smaller commissures. Naturally, this anatomical organisation creates a left and a right side of the brain that extends from cortical structures on the top all the way down to subcortical structures at the bottom.

Within this context, brain lateralisation simply means that for certain functions and processes, one hemisphere is more dominant than the other.

For example, language and speech are processed mainly by the left hemisphere. And sensory and motor functions are strongly lateralized to the contralateral hemisphere – e.g., sensory input from the right side of our environment is processed in the left hemisphere, and vice versa.

What Means ‘Emotional’?

The second question worth considering is what is meant by the statement that a part of the brain is ‘emotional’? Is it the part that processes incoming emotional information (i.e., emotion perception and recognition)? Is it the part that attributes relevance and meaning to emotions, creating (often complex) subjective experiences and feelings? Or is it the part that alters and thereby helps regulate emotions? So, when we say “the right brain is emotional,” which of these processes – or parts – are we actually referring to? Or are all of them just scrunched up in the right side of the brain?

To answer this, we’ll just have to dig in and find out.

Is the Right Brain Emotional?

One strand of argument in favour of the theory of emotional lateralisation comes from the body of work around split brain patients and brain lesions (see notable examples here and here). This seems to be especially the case in relation to the role of the right sensorimotor cortex for facial recognition of emotions. Is the right cortex in charge of facial recognition of emotions? If so, what are the implications for the idea that the right brain is in charge of emotions generally speaking?

Yes, there indeed is considerable evidence – from split-brain patient, lesion, visual half-field studies, etc. – for the right hemisphere having an advantage in, and thus being dominant for, facial emotion perception. However, as already explained above, facial emotion perception is just one element of the overall neural processing of emotions amongst many others. In addition, right-brain dominance does not mean that the entire left hemisphere is completely “offline”.

Share

Emotion processing always occurs within several large, distributed and strongly interconnected neural networks spanning both hemispheres.

Accordingly, we should not deduce from the evidence showing a right-hemisphere lateralisation of facial emotion perception that the right hemisphere is dominant for all aspects of emotion processing at all times – as suggested by the Right-Hemisphere Hypothesis (RHH).

Are there other theories of hemispheric functional lateralisation of emotions?

Besides the Right-Hemisphere Hypothesis (RHH), there are two other prominent hemispheric functional brain lateralisation hypotheses. The first one, the Valence-Specific Hypothesis (VSH), proposes that there is lateralization in the preferential processing of negative (right hemisphere) versus positive (left hemisphere) emotions. However, current evidence does not support such a global hemispheric division based on emotional valence, but instead suggests that some valence-specific activations in areas like the prefrontal cortex are linked to specific emotional experiences. The second one, the Motivational Hypothesis (MH), postulates that there is lateralization related to withdrawal (right hemisphere) versus approach (left hemisphere) behavioural tendencies / motivations. Yet, there is controversy surrounding this hypothesis, particularly pertaining to the neural processing of anger, which is linked to both approach and withdrawal behavioural tendencies / motivations.

To accommodate the above-mentioned discrepancies associated with the RHH, VSH and MH, a new theory, the Hemispheric Functional-Equivalence (HFE) model, has recently been proposed. The HFE recognises that the brain may have an initial right-bias in the perception of emotions, and especially emotional faces.

At the same time, the Hemispheric Functional-Equivalence emphasises the flexibility and dynamic nature of brain lateralization in emotion perception, the functional capacity of both hemispheres to process emotions relatively successfully and that varying environmental demands, such as task difficulty or acute stress, can considerably modulate lateralization patterns.

In essence, the HFE model suggests that while the right hemisphere may have an initial advantage in perceiving emotions – including from faces –, the brain is highly flexible and adaptive, and dynamically engages both hemispheres to achieve optimal performance, especially under more demanding circumstances.

Subscribe now

Synchrony studies

And how about the synchrony studies? Some researchers have found that during social interaction, increased synchrony emerges between the right centro-pariental areas of interacting individuals? Can you unpack this? What does it mean and what would it entail if it were true?

Interbrain synchrony means that the brain activities of two interacting individuals become aligned or “in sync” with one another, both in time and anatomical location. The interacting dyad then literally is “on the same wavelength”.

Yes, there are indeed several studies that report significantly increased interbrain synchrony between parts of the right cortices of interacting dyads. However, there are many other studies that found significantly increased interbrain synchrony either between parts of the left cortices of interacting dyads or between parts of the right cortex of one dyad member and parts of the left cortex of the other dyad member, and vice versa. Accordingly, lateralized interbrain synchrony is usually observed within specific cortical brain areas and not entire hemispheres, and relatively increased interbrain synchrony in (one area of) one hemisphere does not mean that there is no interbrain synchrony in the other hemisphere.

For informed conclusions regarding global interbrain synchrony lateralization, one needs to measure it across the entire cortex as well as subcortical areas – which is rarely done at the moment due to the predominant use of neuroimaging devices that lack whole-brain (i.e., cortical and subcortical) coverage.

Furthermore, lateralized interbrain synchrony often depends on the dyad composition, including factors such as participant age and/or biological sex. For example, in one of our own recent studies, we observed stronger interbrain synchrony in both the left temporo-parietal junction and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in father-child dyads as compared to mother-child dyads. Finally, interbrain synchrony – and its lateralization – strongly depends on the context within which it is measured, and more interbrain synchrony (within one hemisphere or the other) may not always be better.

Taken together, when looking at the overall interbrain synchrony literature over the last ten years, I cannot see any indication for a reliable and global right-brain lateralization that is associated with beneficial interpersonal outcomes.

Is the Right Brain First Developed In Infants?

There is a well publicised paper from 1997, based on PET scan study that makes a claim that the right hemisphere is dominant in infants. How does that align with what we know today?

Since the publication of the study by Chiron and colleagues almost 30 years ago, neuroimaging techniques have significantly evolved and improved. Furthermore, new longitudinal studies were conducted in which participants’ brains were scanned more than once over the course of some time. These developments have led to a more complex and nuanced understanding of brain lateralization emergence. The current perception is that it is a complex and dynamic process that begins early in life, possibly with structural asymmetries already present in newborns (or even before).

Share

While the current evidence supports a general trend towards increasing left hemisphere specialization with age for certain functions like language, this development involves early bilateral contributions and a more subtle shift rather than an abrupt onset of a global hemispheric dominance.

Furthermore, structural and functional brain lateralization appears to follow different developmental trajectories, and lateralization patterns are tract-specific and time-varying, especially in early infancy. Overall, the field has moved beyond a simple concept of overall hemispheric dominance by recognizing the complementary and dynamic specialization - meaning changing over time - of both hemispheres throughout development.

Subscribe now

Attachment and Lateralisation

In the psychotherapy world we hear a lot about attachment being rooted in the ‘right’ brain. Is this the case? If not, where is attachment found in the brain?

The notion that attachment is predominantly right-brain centred can be traced back to a combination of several assumptions about brain anatomy, function and development that were prominent during the 1990s and early 2000s. We have touched on many of them already. In a nutshell, the perception at the time was that attachment must be right-brain centered because it develops during infancy and early childhood, a time that allegedly coincides with a period of right-brain dominance. This notion was particularly related to the neural processing of non-verbal signals, perception and regulation of emotions as well as the formation of non-conscious memories –, which are all central for child-caregiver attachment formation and were believed to be predominantly localised within the right hemisphere.

Share

Nowadays, we know that brain lateralization beyond highly specialized functions – like motor control, vision, language, etc. – that are maintained by localised neural circuits does not extend to complex behaviours and personality traits, including attachment.

From our own work on the social neuroscience of human attachment (SoNeAt) that includes the functional neuro-anatomical models of both organised and disrupted/disorganized attachment (NAMA and NAMDA) over the last twenty years, we furthermore know that attachment behaviour is orchestrated within several extended, strongly interconnected and bilateral neural networks spanning the entire brain. This includes networks involved in the encoding of both non-conscious and emotional processes as well as voluntary and cognitive emotion regulation and mental state representation. The key is an optimal dynamic, time- and context-specific balance of activity and connectivity within and between these different neural networks, not the involvement of one specific brain area or hemisphere alone at all times.

Right Brain Mode and Left Brain Mode Processing

There is a pervasive discourse in neuroscience-informed psychotherapy today about the “right mode processing” and “left mode processing”. Is there any neuroscience behind this? Do we, as therapists, need to help our clients work towards ‘integration’ of the two hemispheres in order to live a more fulfilling life? Can we communicate or do psychotherapy using one hemisphere of our brain?

As mentioned above, current neuroscientific evidence does not support the notion that brain lateralization beyond highly specialized functions – like motor control, vision, language, etc. – that are maintained by localised neural circuits extends to complex behaviours and personality traits.

Put simply, we are not “right-brained” or “left-brained” as individuals, nor can we communicate with others using only one of our hemispheres.

The latest neuroscience models of brain functioning related to wellbeing and health are heading into a different direction. As we understand it today, our brain’s main function is twofold. First, it aims to keep a steady state of bodily and psychological balance (i.e., homeostasis) within narrow limits. And second, it actively regulates important deviations from this balance to enable our body and mind to return back to balance as quickly as possible (i.e., allostasis).

Crucially, for our brain to most efficiently do so, a third process comes into play: the anticipation of what may happen in the future. This serves to re-adjust our current bodily and psychological balance according to the predicted future demands. Why does our brain do so? It does so because the more accurate its future predictions are, or the smaller its prediction error is, the smaller will the future deviance from balance be and the less active regulation to return back to it will be needed. I have written and talked about this in more detail with regards to attachment and social connection.

Taken together, for this complicated fine-tuning involving the keeping of homeostasis as well as engaging in allostasis and predicting future demands to function optimally, there must be a constant, extensive and flexible dialogue between many different and interconnected neural networks spanning both hemispheres.

The key is to maintain the brain’s optimal adaptive and predictive functioning, rather than having it develop rigid and poorly adjusted responses. In that sense, living a fulfilling life does indeed mean to have a brain that can make use of all of its resources. It’s just not the case – and a misleading oversimplification – that this can be achieved by tweaking “right versus left brain modes”.

Final Remarks

As a neuroscientist whose work overlaps with a number of neuroscience features that are essential for neuroscience-informed psychotherapy, do you have any concluding remarks for us to take on board?

The “right brain” versus “left brain” concept intuitively resonates with many people's self-perceived strengths and weaknesses. It offers a tangible explanation for understanding personality and cognitive styles and their underlying neurobiological mechanisms – including in a therapeutic setting. However, the concept’s underlying assumptions are not supported by current neuroscientific evidence.

Share

Hence, we should not continue to promote a myth that has already been debunked many times just for the sake of its simplicity and user-friendly nature. What we should do instead is to refer to more appropriate and up-to-date neuroscience explanations, even if they are less intuitive and more complicated. It is really worth it and many people, including us two, are very happy to help and provide support along the way.

Wrapping Up

I always try to keep things light. I mean, we can talk about the good use of neuroscience in psychotherapy and have a laugh at the same time, can’t we?

But in this case, the stakes could not be higher. The “right brain/left brain” narrative is, for many, the pinnacle of what neuroscience has to offer to psychotherapy. So to realise that this very foundation - what some believe makes our work neuroscience-informed - is in fact a neuro-myth? I understand. It is a hard blow to take.

And yet, there is no need (or evidence) for this ontological divide between the two hemispheres of the brain. The right brain and the left brain seem to be so happy together.

As always, thank you for reading🙏.

Subscribe now

Recommended scientific reading

• Brain Lateralization: A comparative perspective: Brain asymmetries are key components of sensory, cognitive, and motor systems of humans and other animals. This review tracks their development from embryological asymmetries of genetic expression patterns up to left-right differences of neural networks in adults. These insights are crucial to understand pathologies of the lateralized human brain.

• A conceptual critique of brain lateralization models in emotional face perception: Toward a hemispheric functional-equivalence (HFE) model: This review critically examines existing theories on how the brain's left and right hemispheres process emotional and neutral faces, noting inconsistent findings in recent studies. It proposes a new "Hemispheric Functional-Equivalence (HFE)" model. This model suggests the brain initially favors the right hemisphere for face perception, but challenging psychological or physiological conditions activate both hemispheres, leading to a more balanced processing and equal performance.

• An Evaluation of the Left-Brain vs. Right-Brain Hypothesis with Resting State Functional Connectivity Magnetic Resonance Imaging:This study investigated the popular idea of "left-brain" or "right-brain" dominance by analyzing brain scans of over 1000 individuals. The findings revealed that while specific brain regions show strong lateralization for functions like language (left) and attention (right), this lateralization appears to be a local network property rather than a global dominance across the whole brain. The data did not support the existence of individuals with overall stronger left- or right-dominant brain networks.

• A short review on emotion processing: a lateralized network of neuronal networks:Emotions are automatic, valenced responses with physiological components, influencing behavior and modulated internally or externally. While emotion processing is lateralized in the brain, the specific roles of each hemisphere (right dominance vs. valence-specific processing) are debated. Current research suggests multiple interacting brain networks handle different aspects of emotion, moving away from simple hemispheric specialization towards more dynamic models.

• Development of Cerebral Lateralization in Children:This chapter proposes that brain asymmetry, rather than perfect symmetry, might be the fundamental state in development and evolution. It explores how cognitive functions become lateralised, with language predominantly developing in the left hemisphere for most right-handers. Furthermore, it discusses early motor preferences in infants, suggesting these could be initial signs of developing handedness.

• The neural basis of language development: Changes in lateralization over age:

  Neuroscience shows language is left-lateralized from birth, yet early brain damage impairs language similarly in both hemispheres, suggesting bilateral representation. This study resolves this paradox by showing that while group averages indicate left-hemisphere dominance across development, individual young children exhibit right-hemisphere language activity that decreases with age. This early right-hemisphere involvement may explain language recovery after early brain injury.

• Lateralization of major white matter tracts during infancy is time-varying and tract-specific:Lateralization, the specialization of brain hemispheres, is a key structural feature linked to cognitive skills, and atypical patterns are seen in neurodevelopmental disorders. However, the direction and extent of white matter lateralization in early infancy are unclear, with conflicting cross-sectional findings and a lack of longitudinal studies. This longitudinal study of infants aged 0-6 months reveals that white matter lateralization in major tracts changes over time and varies between tracts, explaining inconsistencies in previous cross-sectional research.

Some Relevant Books

• Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain (especially the chapter Your Brain Is a Network), Lisa Feldman-Barrett

• The Neuroscience of Emotions: The New Synthesis, Ralph Adolphs and David J. Anderson

Some months ago, a client - whom I will call B. - came to a session sharing how, a few days earlier, he had experienced an inexplicable heaviness in his body. He didn't understand why at first, but then he realised it was the two-year anniversary of a very sad event in his life. Later that same day, he spoke with his wife, who told him she was feeling similarly - lousy and strangely down for no apparent reason. When he reminded her what day it was, she, too, connected the dots. “The body really does keep the score”, he told me.

B. was interested in psychotherapy, and he was referring to the ideas that were made popular in the book The Body Keeps the Score. To say that this 2014 book is extremely popular in psychotherapy circles is an understatement. In a nutshell, as the suggestive title implies, the idea is that when something difficult or traumatic happens to us, it is 'written' in our bodies, which 'remember' and 'keep the score.' While this might or might not have been intended as a metaphor, over time it seems to have changed into its literal meaning.

Going back to my session with B., I fully validated his experience and we explored how meaningful it all was for him. After the session, I began reflecting more on the literal interpretation of the phrase 'the body keeps the score,' trying to mentally unpack the implications of what that would truly mean.

I began wondering whether the body - meaning its tissues and cells - actually possesses a form of memory. There is muscle memory, of course, but the muscle memory is a misnomer - because the muscle memory is in the brain.

I don’t fully discard the idea that the body in some situations and in some ways does keep the score . I just don’t think that it is the case in situations such as B. experienced.

Let’s go back to B. and that compelling feeling about his body indeed keeping the score. Broken down in elemental units used for the logic deduction, it looks something like this:

1. I feels particularly low, with a heavy, familiar sensation in my body

2. I then realise that it coincides with the anniversary of a difficult event

3. I then conclude that the reason I feel this way is because his body must be 'keeping the score'

Provided that there are no known mechanisms for the body to 'keep the score' in such a way, this would imply the existence of an unknown mechanism in which that would be achieved.

But, there an alternative explanation:

1. There is an implicit knowledge of the anniversary date - below the threshold of awareness (environmental trigger)

2. There is a cascade of events consistent with this trigger, originating in the brain and causing physical symptoms experienced such as heavy affect and discomfort (see diagram below)

3. The brain keeps the score, although outside of awareness

Share

And there is even a third explanation:

1. There is a heavy bodily feeling that day - as an accumulative effect, due to various physical and psychological factors

2. I realise what is the date and realise that it is the anniversary of a distressing event

3. I assign a meaning to the experience: now I know why I feel this was

4. Noone is keeping the score, but the brain assigns meaning to experiences

Occam's Razor

The Occam's Razor is a principle in science and problem-solving. It states that:

When facing competing explanations, the one that makes the fewest assumptions and introduces the fewest unknown elements is the best.

The principle of Occam’s razor prevents adding elements to an explanations, unless they are necessary. It is one of the foundational principles of science and helps with preventing adding unnecessary fantastic elements into explanations.

For example, if someone broke in the house and stole some goods, we might offer an explanation that involves supernatural creatures called leprechauns who are believed to come in the nights and rummage through the houses, however simpler explanation would be that a human has broken into the house and committed the burglary.

Returning to our ‘who keeps the score’ example, suggesting that the body somehow keeps the score introduces unnecessary complexity by implying mysterious mechanisms for storing the memory. Instead, it makes more sense to consider that the brain, whether consciously or unconsciously retains the memory and, under certain circumstances, triggers an autonomic response that affects the body.

At times, it might even be that the brain assigns the wrong interpretation and misattributes the feeling.

Subscribe now

Can Cells And the Body Keep the Score? Sometimes.

I am not under all circumstances opposed to the idea of body keeping the score. I just don’t think the situation described above was one of those instances. Here are some instances where I do think it is fair to say that the body – or at least some of its cells – does keep the score.

There is the case to be made for epigenetics. Depending how we define memory and if we apply a broad definition ( rather as encoding in the brain), we could see some epigenetic modifications as a form of memory of experiences one individual has been through. While I have written about why I don’t endorse the idea of transgenerational epigenetic ‘memory’ for the simple lack evidence for in humans, there is no doubt about epigenetics playing a role in how we modulate some biological functions as a result of some past experiences (extreme stress, trauma, prolonged adversity, serious childhood adversity etc). So it is a form of memory. Actually, and this is a story for another time, but even the evolution of genetic material can be seen, in some sense, as a form of memory (of a population or of a species).

But if we talk about epigenetic modifications, it is not really the body keeping the score strictly speaking, but rather some cells in the body. In fact, sometimes it is the brain cells themselves.

Furthermore, the situations like what happened to B. are not easily accountable by epigenetic changes as these results of these take place over longer periods of time - typically months. Timescale of what happened to B. is more consistent with autonomic system changes and affect generated as a result - and those would originate in the brain.

Is There Other Ways In Which the Body Could Be Keeping the Score?

Another way in which the body keeps a tally is through its posture, its scars, its shape. In fact, in that sense, I think there is even an intergenerational memory, running through the families, in certain body postures and general demeanor that could be linked with psychological experiences.

So, I am open to some more vague meanings of body keeping the score. The posture, the demeanor, for example. Body, in that sense, an definitely talk. Tells a story.

I think these things are undeniable, but they are not really what people think when they repeat the motto ‘the body keeps the score’. Maybe some do. However, it is mostly come to be a container of something more specific, the trapped energy being stored in the tissues, or the body using some still unknown to science ways to store energy.

On reflection, demeanor and the posture probably would be the combination of the brain and the body, although it appears to be the body only - as that is what we see manifested.

The proof to this is that we can change our posture in the moment, through intentionally deciding to sit, walk or take the space in the room differently. There are even courses that help one achieve exactly that.

So, in all honesty, I am not wholesale dismissing the notion body keeping the score. However, none of the examples above reflect what my client B. meant, nor do they capture the general sentiment behind the phrase ‘the body keeps the score’.

Where You Stand In This Debate?

Share

What do you make of this? Is the body, through an unknown mechanism, keeping the score, or is it a compelling cognitive shortcut that misses one crucial stage, the brain’s key role in keeping the score?

Is it a good metaphor that was never meant to be one and now has become its literal meaning?

Have I missed some of the ways that the body is literally keeping the score?

Or could it be that B.’s mind spontaneously gravitated towards an explanation that are readily available in his mind - in other words could it be a case of availability heuristic in action? The phrase is virtually omnipresent in therapy world and so it is readily ‘floating’ around our mind to be used as a handy explanation. If so, we should all be mindful of this effect.

Finally, sometimes, we might just be inclined to embrace a mysterious explanation about something, sometimes it is nice to get immersed in a sense of an enchanted world. I am personally no stranger to that.

Before I leave you, I want to say something important. I know that the idea of the body keeping the score resonates deeply with many people and maybe you are one of them. I also know that it was key for many people getting better after promises offered by other, more ‘scientific’ approaches, have utterly failed them.

Those familiar with my writing will know that ultimately what counts for me, is what works in the therapy room, what helps people. But what might have worked is maybe not that much the veracity of ‘body keeping the score’ but the fact that, once and for all, the whole idea has turned our gaze towards the body. And that is, there is no question in my mind, its true merit.

As always, thank you for reading 🙏.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

In this series, I revisit some of the major neurobollocks that flourish in both the psychotherapy and self-help worlds. For definition and ethics of calling neurobollocks, please refer to previous posts (for example here or here).

Today’s neurobollocks debunk will be about the vagus nerve. Buckle up, get the popcorn and let’s go.

The vagus nerve hacks and particularly Polyvagal theory (PVT) are currently arguably the biggest piece of neurobollocks in the psychotherapy world. However, unlike the classic myths of the ‘lizard brain’ or the ‘left brain versus right brain’, this one is more of a psychotherapy-world idiosyncrasy - something that most neuroscientists have never even heard of. Which is why there is relatively little debunking of PVT on the neuroscience front.

Although devoid of scientific support, Polyvagal Theory has grown into a powerful industry within the psychotherapy world and beyond. The PVT was originally floated as a hypothesis in the 1990s, it has since failed to provide evidence of validity. Nevertheless, it has spread like wildfire across psychotherapy, moving through the worlds of trauma, attachment, yoga and beyond.

While I don’t leave any stones unturned and everything is on the table, at least when it comes scrutinising scientific theories, at times it feels almost little dangerous to voice criticism of Polyvagal Theory (and that is never a good sign).

Today, however, I will not indulge you in a thorough debunking of this theory (I shall get to that eventually and I will offer alternatives for what we can do instead, as promised).

For now, if that’s OK, perhaps take my word that I have spoken with neuroscientists and with some of the leaders in the field of autonomic regulation. They are shaking their heads in disbelief at how the field of psychotherapy has taken the idea of the vagus nerve (genuinely important), gradually departed from any semblance of scientific grounding and strayed into fantasy storytelling. What are we doing?

But, as I say, I will relish in telling you that story another time.

For today, let’s fix ourselves a useful if a little more modest goal: to examine some of the claims around the vagus nerve through a real-life example. Hopefully this can serve to inspire some future critical investigations of your own.

Share

Massage ‘Activating’ the Vagus Nerve. (ANS/Vagus Nerve Neurobollocks)

The vagus nerve is the 10th cranial nerve and is the most interconnected nerve of the body. It is (obviously!) hugely important for all manner of functions of the organisms, some of which will be intimately linked with well being and emotions. The vagus nerve is key for body’s parasympathetic branch of the autonomous nervous system and is also crucially, through its afferents - meaning parts that carry information from the body to the central nervous system - involved in body’s capacity for interoception or sense of perception of internal states.

The vagus nerve stimulation (as in electric stimulation) is also really a thing and its potentials when it comes are being actively researched and applied.

However, there is what seems an illimited supply of claims and hacks with slight variation that all go back to the idea of manipulation of the vagus nerve as panacea for reaching the state wellness and inner peace.

I am choosing one here one specific claim from the world of wellness around the vagus nerve massage coming from a “an internationally acclaimed hormone expert, nutrition scientist, and thought leader in women’s medicine”. I have no particular reason to choose this one other that it looked more scientifically ‘padded’ than usual (and therefore, can easily seem to be genuinely science-backed).

So let’s check one specific claim. For instance, the author states: “Vagus nerve stimulation (or VNS) refers to any technique that stimulates the vagus nerve, including manual techniques such as massages or electrical stimulation”. Then referencing three studies to back up this claims. But if we check these references, it becomes clear that all three studies focus on vagus nerve stimulation through electrical stimulation, either via implants or transcutaneous electrodes. Not a single study mentions manual- or massage-based vagus nerve stimulation. In fact, one of the studies even promotes VNS implants (see the picture below). And yet, the author goes on to claim: “Studies suggest that vagus nerve massage techniques can have a positive impact on ‘vagal tone’. Without reference this time continuing with “vagal tone, which refers to the activity and responsiveness of the vagus nerve and the ability to handle stress. It is a simple and easy way to support vagal nerve function”. Without references, again. In fact, the whole idea that the vagal tone is related to the stress resilience and the psyche has been questioned (the latest paper here).

Subscribe now

The whole piece is fashioned in this way: scattered with vague claims and references to papers proving something slightly or completely different (you can have a go, take another thread from the piece and see where it leads you).

Which level of neurobollocks are we dealing with here? It’s difficult to say. In this specific case, the author appears to have made an effort and gathered some literature but employs the technique of mis-citing, possibly banking on the assumption that no one will take the time to check.

Of course, as therapists or well being practitioners we don’t want to miss on the opportunity to change our clients’ lives by providing them with a simple key to unlocking the secret of the autonomic nervous system nirvana. It is therefore understandable that so many want to get on the bandwagon. We genuinely mean well. I know that. We just to need to become a little more savvy in detecting neurobollocks.

Share

To conclude, I would like to say something important:

By writing these pieces I do not wish to invalidate anybody’s personal experience. Such experiences are real and your truth is yours only. I understand that. Today I am a therapist and find myself on this side of the therapeutic relationship, but for most of my adult life (and still today) I have been in therapy myself. I have experienced different forms of therapy, and those that helped me most, by and large, had little to do with neuroscience, nor did my therapists have any intention of engaging with it. Yet they still changed my life for the better. Not every therapy has to be underpinned by neuroscience, of course not. What I do believe, however, is that when approaches claim to be supported by neuroscience and draw their authority from it, then that claim must stand on some solid ground. Hopefully, little by little, between people with lived experience, therapists and neuroscientists, we can find a way through this maze towards the best of all three worlds. I am hopeful.

So, please go gently on me with the backlash. I am just a messenger.

Coming next, right brain/left brain neurobollocks, in the next week or so.

As always, thank you for reading 🙏.

Subscribe now

In this series have already covered:

1. Instant Trauma Fix Neurobollocks (‘Havening’ Deep Neurobollocks)

2. Dopamine neurobollocks

Some Interesting Recent Literature Around the Vagus Nerve, Relevant For Therapists

• A good intro to the vagus nerve and its role in mental health: The Vagus Nerve’s Mysterious Role in Mental Health Untangled

• This is a recent paper from Nature redefining the respiratory sinus arrhythmia

• Interesting recent hypothesis that links the vagus nerve and emotions

Co-written with Michael Tranter

Neurobollocks is endemic in the world of psychotherapy. In this series, I revisit some of the major neurobollocks that flourish in both the psychotherapy and self-help worlds.

We tend to think of neuroscience as a kind of advanced magic that will provide us with a silver bullet and make the problem disappear with a sleight of hand. For better or worse, that is rarely the case. While neuroscience can - and sometimes does - help, we still have to do the work.

If you have read previous posts from this series, you can skip directly to Dopamine neurobollocks section.

In this series I will cover:

1. Instant Trauma Fix Neurobollocks (‘Havening’ Deep Neurobollocks)

2. Dopamine neurobollocks (this piece)

3. The ANS bollocks (Autonomic Nervous System)

4. Right Brain/Left Brain Neurobollocks (Rebalancing the Hemispheres)

5. The Lizard-Brain Spin Off

6. Yet another ANS neurobollocks

7. Neuroplasticity bollocks

In this piece I look into one aspect of seemingly ubiquitous dopamine neurobollocks - the ideas around dopamine detox and dopamine diets.

But before we get down to the specifics of dopamine mythology … what is neurobollocks anyways?

Share

Neurobollocks 101

neurobollocks

noun [ U ]

Neurobollocks is an informal term that can be used to describe overly simplistic or misleading claims that misuse neuroscience to lend credibility to ideas.

Terms like neuro-myth or neuro-snake-oil are not exactly synonymous with neurobollocks, but they describe similar concepts.

For more on the definition of neurobollocks and why we’re so drawn to it, check out my original neurobollocks blog post.

Neurobollocks is versatile and not limited to therapy only. But I am a therapist and in this piece we will focus on psychotherapy and wellness neurobollocks. To do this, we will be using Professor Joe Devlin's neurobollocks scale:

Subscribe now

Ethics of Calling Out Neurobollocks

My style might be a little irreverent and rebellious, but ultimately all I care about is helping people I work with and finding ways to use neuroscience in psychotherapy well.

When I call out neurobollocks, it is not meant to invalidate anyone’s personal experience. Your own experiences are to be honoured and respected as they carry a deep truth. I also recognise that some approaches might be effective via the mechanisms we still don’t understand.

Rather, here I am examining the neuroscience claims of different methods popular in psychotherapy that claim to be “neuroscience-based” without having such backing.

Anyone putting their work, theories, or methods out into the world should, and indeed is, liable to public scrutiny, especially by those who may use these methods to help others. A thought leader or method founder must be able to provide a convincing explanation and, in the case of neuroscience-based claims, bona fide neuroscience research to support them.

I discuss the ethics and proper application of neuroscience in psychotherapy in more detail here.

Now, let's get down to it.

Share

Dopamine detox

• neurobollocks rating: 🧠🦎🦎🦎 (Missaplication)

The idea of "dopamine detox" or "dopamine fast" has certainly captured our collective imagination, making its way into pop culture vocabulary and the canon of widely accepted ideas.

And to be sure, the idea is compelling: as we increasingly find ourselves "craving" smartphones, validation, junk food, shopping, social media, porn, sex - you name it - wouldn’t it be nice if addiction (or at least behavioural addiction) and its negative effects could be neatly explained as a simple disruption in dopamine levels caused by overindulgence?

According to this narrative, indulging in addictive behaviours triggers a release of dopamine - the infamous "dopamine hit" - which provides a fleeting feel-good sensation. However - the story goes - the excessive use leads to a cumulative depletion of dopamine levels, resulting in generalised mental states of restlessness, lethargy and lack of drive and motivation. It’s a nice story, right?

Instead of talking about "porn detox" or "smartphone detox", we now talk about "dopamine detox" - and, of course, attaching a neurotransmitter to the narrative makes it sound more "neurosciencey" and therefore more ‘scientific’ and by extension more true and convincing. But that doesn’t make it true. As it happens, the logic of "dopamine detox" or "dopamine fasting" is wonky.

For starters, dopamine in the brain does far more than mediate pleasure, motivation, or addictive behaviors. In fact, one of its most critical roles is regulating movement - which is why conditions like Parkinson’s disease, which affect dopamine levels in certain areas of the brain, result in movement disorders like tremors. Simply put, if checking your social media feed excessively depleted your dopamine levels, you would have much bigger problems than just feeling lethargic or unmotivated.

More than anything, it’s incredibly difficult, if at all really possible, to actually fully deplete neurotransmitters. For starters, once released into the synapse, they are recycled and even absorbed back by the very neurons that release them. They are in a constant cycle of being broken down and created, all the time, every second, of every day. Without some serious pharmacology or experimental manipulation in a lab somewhere, neurotransmitters don’t just vanish because you check your phone a lot.

Finally, and this is just common sense objection, we never really hear anybody saying: “If you stress too much, then your stress neurotransmitters (or hormones) will run out”. Or “Don’t be too happy, otherwise your serotonin will run out” (not that I wish to propagate the idea that serotonin is the happiness molecule). So why this became a thing for dopamine? Go figure - but dopamine fascinates us.

The bottom line is that the concept of dopamine fasting does not seem to stand under scrutiny. Neuroscience neither supports the claim that we could nor that we should "reset" our brain dopamine levels. This is because its levels, dopamine being a key neurotransmitter in a range of vital processes, is maintained through homeostatic regulation.

However, what might be useful, is to put some restraint or even engage in temporary fast on smart-phone, porn, retail therapy (shopping) or [insert your own guilty pleasure] overuse. We indeed might feel better, simply because we are likely to break the conditioning that we have acquired and feel no longer slaves to our habit (and not because we have ‘reset’ our dopamine levels). I talk about this a little bit more here.

Dopamine Diets

Similar trains of thought are valid when it comes to dopamine diets. Dopamine diet are supposed to be the diets consisting of foods ‘high in dopamine’, that would supposedly elevate dopamine levels and reduce cravings, mood swings and alleviate low mood.

The idea is so seductive, right? I mean, imagine if we could just ‘eat ourselves happy’? It certainly would be wonderful.

However, first of all, it seems like no one knows exactly what is the neural substrate for the craving but if anything, it is going to be high dopamine and not low dopamine (in the moment when the craving is felt). So, this is the first major point that does not make sense to me.

Furthermore, dopamine is synthesised (in our brain) from the amino acid phenylalanine (amino acids are the building blocks of all proteins) which is found in ample quantities in any balanced diet. There is nothing really special about dopamine diet. It is just a salesman’s trick and, I am so sad if I bring disappointment, does not unlock a secret hack for happy living (and breaking free from the chains of addiction).

That is all for today. Next time I will be onto the autonomic nervous system (ANS) neurobollocks, of which there is plenty in psychotherapy world.

As always, thank you for reading 🙏.

Subscribe now

This and other pieces in this series have been written with the help of Jehan Ganachaud and Mike Tranter (Mike especially, in this specific piece).

Jehan Ganachaud is a mental health practitioner working with developmental trauma. You can follow Jehan on LinkedIn.

Dr Mike Tranter, originally from the UK, is neuroscientist and author, who now resides in California. His research interests focus on decision making in the brain, particularly in mental illness. Mike has written books about the brain and neuroscience for the general public, including his best selling book A Million Things to Ask A Neuroscientist and more recently A Billion Things To Ask A Neuroscientist.

Neurobollocks is endemic in the world of psychotherapy, and in this series, I will be revisiting some of the major categories of neurobollocks that flourish in both the psychotherapy and self-help worlds.

We tend to think of neuroscience as a kind of advanced magic that will provide us with a silver bullet and make the problem disappear with a sleight of hand. For better or worse, that is rarely the case. While neuroscience can - and sometimes does - help, we still have to do the work. If we are inclined to use neuroscience to inform our work of therapy, we should preferably use real neuroscience and not the myths.

In this Best of of sorts, that will run over the next month or so, I will cover:

1. Instant Trauma Fix Neurobollocks (‘Havening’ Deep Neurobollocks)

2. Dopamine neurobollocks

3. The ANS bollocks (Autonomic Nervous System)

4. Right Brain/Left Brain Neurobollocks (Rebalancing the Hemispheres)

5. The Lizard-Brain Spin Off

6. Yet another ANS neurobollocks

7. Neuroplasticity bollocks

Today, I am going to debunk ‘interesting’ claims around instant trauma fixing but before I do that …what is neurobollocks anyways?

Share

Neurobollocks 101

neurobollocks

noun [ U ]

Neurobollocks is an informal term that can be used to describe overly simplistic or misleading claims that misuse neuroscience to lend credibility to ideas.

Terms like neuro-myth or neuro-snake-oil are not exactly synonymous with neurobollocks, but they describe similar concepts.

For more on the definition of neurobollocks and why we’re so drawn to it, check out my original neurobollocks blog post.

Neurobollocks is versatile and not limited to therapy only. But I am a therapist and in this piece we will focus on psychotherapy and wellness neurobollocks. To do this, we will be using Professor Joe Devlin's neurobollocks scale:

Subscribe now

Ethics of Calling Out Neurobollocks

My style might be a little irreverent and rebellious, but ultimately all I care about is helping people I work with and finding ways to use neuroscience in psychotherapy well.

When I call out neurobollocks, it is not meant to invalidate anyone’s personal experience. Your own experiences are to be honoured and respected as they carry a deep truth. I also recognise that some approaches might be effective via the mechanisms we still don’t understand.

Rather, here I am examining the neuroscience claims of different methods popular in psychotherapy that claim to be “neuroscience-based” without having such backing.

Anyone putting their work, theories, or methods out into the world should, and indeed is, liable to public scrutiny, especially by those who may use these methods to help others. A thought leader or method founder must be able to provide a convincing explanation and, in the case of neuroscience-based claims, bona fide neuroscience research to support them.

I discuss the ethics and proper application of neuroscience in psychotherapy in more detail here.

OK. Let's weed out some neurobollocks now.

Share

‘Havening’: Instant Trauma Fix Leveraging Neurobollocks (AKA Deep Neurobollocks)

neurobollocks rating: 🧠 🦎 🦎 🦎 🦎 (Exploitation)

This is just a blatant example (by a former celebrity hypnotist) but there are many more similar claims that permeate the world of therapy and trauma treatement.

The videos likely speak for themselves, however let’s take a closer look at the discourse, delivery, and origins of these claims.

To me the whole show is majorly cringe-worthy, displaying a highly questionable and problematic approach (and showmanship) - not to mention when dealing with something as serious as trauma. Possibly in an attempt to distract from the absurdity of the whole performance and to dazzle his audience with a show of authority he makes sure he drops in passing a few sciency, but for the majority of the audience unintelligible, buzzwords and expressions such as "100Hz wave from the thalamus" and “phosphorylations of the AMPA receptors” as though to say “Hey, I know exactly what I am doing here.” But does he?

'Havening' Debunk

In fact the above is a demonstration of what is called the Havening Technique. It claims to treat trauma and is increasingly gaining traction in psychotherapy circles as a neuroscience-based intervention.

Here is the formidable pitch (some neurobollocks red flags already):

Better Living Through Neuroscience

This website introduces you to an extraordinary application of recently acquired knowledge in the field of neuroscience. The techniques described herein are based in evolutionary biology and offer you the opportunity to live a healthier, hopefully happier and more productive life.

And what is this 'recently acquired knowledge in the field of neuroscience'? It stems from the theory of Dr. Ron Ruden (who is not a neuroscientist), who claims to have discovered a way to leverage neuroscience to "harness electroceuticals" through simple touch, supposedly capable of completely eliminating traumatic experiences. He lays out his principles and the so-called "neuroscience" behind them in a paper published in a journal called Explore, which specialises in alternative medicine. Notably, this journal was co-founded by a parapsychologist - a major red flag already.

Furthermore, the extraordinary claims made should trigger a common-sense alert in clinicians even before starting to read the paper. If there truly were a neuroscience-based "cure" for trauma in 60 seconds, wouldn’t neuroscientists be leading the charge and cashing in the kudos of it, rather than allowing such a groundbreaking discovery to languish in the pages of an obscure alternative medicine journal? I’ll leave it to you to make up your own mind.

But back to the paper in question. It’s an interesting one, from the point of view of fabrication of neurobollocks. I classify it as deep neurobollocks because on the face of it, it almost sounds legit - especially to a non-neuroscientist. It’s packed with mentions of the amygdala, receptors, phosphorylations, and other neurosciency buzzwords.

As you dig deeper, you realise the genuine elements of neuroscience - such as those related to trauma and memory reconsolidation research - are awkwardly stitched together with whimsical, unrelated concepts to craft a convenient narrative that leads to an easy application. It might appear like legitimate science, but it’s not. It is crafty and that is why I call it deep neurobollocks.

Of note: some Memory Reconsolidation (MR) techniques are grounded in bona fide neuroscience, and there is currently a thriving ongoing research effort happening around this topics (neither the paper described nor the 'Havening technique' are part of those efforts though). However, the claims around MR are often overstretched and oversimplified to create an illusion of a much broader scope of application and to make overinflated claims about "memory erasure".

Here is Dr. Ruden explains how he changes the ‘electrical systems’ of the brain with the havening technique (and extends it to affirmations ?!).

That is all for today folks. The next in line, I will be talking about dopamine neurobollocks that seems to be everywhere.

As always, thank you for reading 🙏.

Feel free to share your own favourite brand of neurobollocks in the comments 🧠🦎.

Subscribe now

This and other pieces in this series have been written with the help of Jehan Ganachaud and Mike Tranter.

Jehan Ganachaud is a mental health practitioner working with developmental trauma. You can follow Jehan on LinkedIn.

Dr Mike Tranter, originally from the UK, is neuroscientist and author, who now resides in California. His research interests focus on decision making in the brain, particularly in mental illness. Mike has written books about the brain and neuroscience for the general public, including his best selling book A Million Things to Ask A Neuroscientist and more recently A Billion Things To Ask A Neuroscientist.

Huge thanks to Prof. Marie H. Monfils for helping me navigate the current state-of-the-art understanding of the potential and limitations of memory reconsolidation research and its applications.

Epi-carnation - noun [ U ]

A portmanteau blending the words epigenetics and reincarnation (*).

In this piece, I explore some basic ideas around epigenetic transmission, focusing on separating the hype from the facts - particularly in the context of psychotherapy. Drawing on the expertise of those more knowledgeable than me, my goal is to bring a bit of clarity to the murky use of the word ‘epigenetics’ in psychotherapy and self-help world. Hopefully, I can provide you with some food for thought in the process.

And would you believe it, I have seen more times than I would like to count, psychotherapy figures intimating that the epigenetic transmission could just be the missing link to explain the phenomenon of past life regressions (?!). No surprise there, I will tell you that epigenetics does not make the case for epicarnation.

Subscribe now

What is epigenetics?

There is no epigenetics without genetics and DNA, so let’s start with a brief overview of DNA.

DNA is a giant sequence made up of four different molecules: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G). These molecules are compacted and organized into chromosomes. Biological information is passed down from one generation to the next through the replication of DNA sequences, with genetic material being inherited from parent to offspring.

During DNA replication, errors occasionally occur, known as mutations. When these errors are not lethal to the organism and they occur in germ line cells - the sex cells (eggs and sperm), they introduce variation into the population’s DNA pool. Some mutations can even offer adaptive advantages, particularly in changing environmental conditions. Organisms better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing these beneficial traits on to future generations. Over time, although very slowly, this process enhances the species' fitness for survival in its environment. This is known as natural selection.

Epigenetics may appear as a mysterious force that defies the laws of natural selection and Darwinian evolution. But it is not. Rather, it is an umbrella term that encompasses any modification of DNA that results in different patterns of gene expression or regulation. This could include how and when certain genes or other regulatory elements of DNA are turned on or off, or regulated in their pattern of expression. Unlike DNA sequence which is stable, epigenetic modifications are fluid: they change over time and are reversible.

Nor is epigenetics something exceptional and rare that only occurs during traumatic or life-altering events.

Some examples of epigenetic regulation listed below:

• Different cells in the body are different (skin cell, blood cell, brain cell etc) yet they all have the same DNA. The difference between them is epigenetic.

• Inactivation of the X chromosome in biological women (everyone born biologically as woman carries two X chromosomes but only one of those is active)

• Immune system activation during infections

• Melanine production during sun exposure is regulated by epigenetics

• Regulation of glucocorticoid gene regulation in times of stress

• And many, many more ...

As you can see, some of these events are just a day to day, 'mundane' events.

Importantly, as a general rule, epigenetic modifications are not passed down from parents to children. For instance, it’s not because a parent was exposed to the sun and developed a tan that their baby will be born with tanned skin.

Share

Is Epigenetic Inheritance Overrated?

Epigenetic inheritance (or transgenerational epigenetics) refers to the idea that some epigenetic modifications could be passed down across generations. In other words, certain acquired characteristics of an individual could potentially be inherited by their offspring, which would challenge the accepted scientific view of natural selection of traits.

In particular, could it be that some traumatic experiences are passed down the generations through epigenetics mechanisms?

The issue here is that there is a conflation of meanings between everyday language and scientific terminology, which has very precise definitions.

Let’s unpack this - key terms here include "trauma," "passed down," and "epigenetics."

Define "trauma," right?

Trauma is a loaded term, and defining it is a complex issue that deserves more attention given its wide and deep presence in conversations about mental health and even our sense of identity. But we can probably all agree that the threshold for what is considered a traumatic experience does not seem to be the same for everyone. To say that trauma can be passed down across generations, the first question should be: What exactly do we consider trauma to be?

Not many people, especially those who work with individuals who have experienced hardship (whether emotional or physical), would question the idea that certain patterns of reactivity, fears, and attitudes can be passed down through generations. Whether these patterns emerge within a single family or across an entire culture through collective learning, for me at least there is little doubt that intergenerational transmission of trauma exists. But does it happen through epigenetics?

Define inheritance.

It is now well documented that the stress markers such as the elevated cortisol levels can be passed from mother to child in utero through epigenetic transmission. In this context, we can speak of the epigenetic inheritance of trauma.

But if we inspect it closely, this is not the same as the transgenerational transmission of trauma claim, right? From the point of genetic and epigenetic mechanisms, these two phenomena are fundamentally different.

For one epigenetic mark to be transmitted to the next generation, without it being the above mentioned in utero transmission, the germ line cells -the sex cells (eggs and sperm) - would have to carry that epigenetic modification and then somehow avoid the epigenetic reprogramming or resetting that erases most of epigenetic tags existing so to give the "clean slate" to the offspring, so to speak.

Things seem to be tricky enough when we are talking about the transmission of epigenetic marks acquired in response to environmental or psychological stress. But claiming that a complex behavior is passed down epigenetically through generations is much more speculative - and maybe even fanciful is not a too strong of a word here.

Using the transgenerational transmission in the stronger sense, the evidence for it happening in humans or even mammals is very limited - a detailed review of evidence can be found here, here and here. That does not mean it is not happening. I think, for me, it means that, at this point, it was over-hyped, when it comes to psychotherapy community.

In worms and nematodes, the evidence for epigenetic inheritance is much stronger (for example, see here), but these organisms are orders of magnitude simpler than humans, both for the body and the brain. Finding something true in a worm does not necessarily mean it will hold true for humans. Take a simple example: if you cut a worm in two, it can regenerate and survive under certain conditions, becoming two worms. As we know, the same does not happen with humans.

Subscribe now

"Truth of Love or Love of Truth". Meaning vs Chance.

While on the face of it, the conflict between these opposing points of view - partisans and sceptics of epigenetic inheritance - may appear to be a debate over facts and scientific theories, at a deeper level, when it comes to psychotherapy realm, I believe this debate is more ideological, or even ontological. The questions surrounding genetic and epigenetic mechanisms, the technicalities of DNA transmission, and how we react and adapt to stressors somehow end up chiming in with questions about the fundamental nature of human lives:

Are our lives pre-determined?

Does the chance govern our lives?

Does what happens to us have a meaning?

Can that meaning be changed?

Epigenetics, or at least its popularised interpretation, seems to offer the promise of a biological mechanism of how our experiences profoundly shape us, even down to the level of our "genetic blueprint" and also give the hope of change. The rigid principles of Darwinian evolution, that seem to be governed only by chance and the ‘survival of the fittest’ do not leave any chance for meaning or human agency.

When facing the "truth of love or the love for truth" dilemma, the therapists will, without fail, choose the “truth of love” over the “love for truth”. And if that sometimes means ignoring scientific facts, logic, and critical thinking, so be it.

But , to me at least, it is a false dichotomy. Genetics, along with the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation, does not imply that we are predetermined. It certainly doesn’t equate to biological determinism. Instead, these genetic factors function more like loose templates, which are continuously shaped and reshaped by our experiences and the experiences of those around us.

And then, there is the question of meaning.

As therapists, I think we have an inherent bias toward explanations that provide meaning to experiences. Meaning provides not only a sense of control but also hope for change: change the meaning, and you change everything. In this light, the concept of epigenetic inheritance seems to offer a sense of meaning to why we are the way we are.

But searching for meaning, trying to find the light in the dark, as therapists, wouldn't you say we are doing a pretty job already? I don't think we need epicarnation, epigenetics or even science to do that for us. Unless it is very good science, of course.

As always, thank you for reading 🙏.

Subscribe now

(*)Credit for coining the word epicarnation goes to Dr. Chad Luke.

Deeper Dive

Some resources for developing critical thinking around epigenetic inheritance by geneticists and molecular biologists:

• Grandma’s trauma – a critical appraisal of the evidence for transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans

• Calibrating scientific skepticism – a wider look at the field of transgenerational epigenetics

• Epigenetics: what impact does it have on our psychology?

• Wiring the Brain Blog

• Molecular biologist Oded Rechavi on Andrew Huberman Podcast​​​

Subscribe now

My favourite book on neuroscience for psychotherapists begins with an interesting observation about the power of language: it invites us to conduct a thought experiment: take any common, everyday word, add the prefix 'neuro-' to the beginning, and observe what happens. Is there any emotional reaction, such as an increased heart rate, signs of anxiety, drive to know less or more?

The author then adds: 'Any science fiction writer worth their salt knows that to describe the future, you add powerful prefixes to common terms—for example, a rifle becomes a plasma-rifle, vitamins become nano-supplements, or spying becomes neuro-espionage.' Keep this statement in mind as you read along, as it likely presents, in a nutshell, the why and the how our attention or critical sense might be manipulated into suspending disbelief and embracing fantasy.

In fact, there's a paper out there on this very topic. Fittingly titled The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations. It's both hilarious and incredibly instructive, especially for us therapists, as our field is often inundated with techniques and explanations that supposedly stem from neuroscience.

In short, the authors of this paper tested and confirmed the hypothesis that adding a neuroscience element to an explanation - even when the information is irrelevant - interferes with people's ability to critically evaluate the logic of the statements. In authors' words, incorporating neuroscience language tends to mask otherwise obvious problems in the logic of these statements. This is another important point for us to keep in mind.

Subscribe now

As a self-confessed neuro-geek, I find all of this incredibly interesting and it prompts me to reassess why I'm so drawn to neuroscience in the context of psychotherapy. Is it due to the genuine benefits gained from integrating elements of neuroscience research into therapeutic practice, or is it the mystique and seductive allure of neuroscience? Probably a little bit of both!

And while I’m reflecting on these questions - no stones unturned, remember? - let me introduce you to another term with the prefix neuro: neurobollocks.

What is Neurobollocks

I first came across the term 'neurobollocks' in a social media post, by Joseph Devlin, who is a Professor Cognitive Neuroscience in UCL.

Share

neurobollocks

noun [ U ]

Neurobollocks is an informal term that can be used to describe overly simplistic or misleading claims that misuse neuroscience to lend credibility to ideas.

Neurobollocks is similar to the term 'neuromyth'. To me, the key difference would be that a neuromyth refers to something that was historically considered true but is now outdated. In contrast, neurobollocks encompasses not only these outdated beliefs but also contemporary, ad-hoc mental contraptions and neologisms that misuse neuroscience language.

I am fascinated by cognitive biases and human paradoxes. I also love the slight naughtiness of it and how unapologetic it is. Therefore, me and the word 'neurobollocks', it was love at first sight!

And can you think of any? Neurobollocks?

I can. And it would take more than one blog post. But let's start with a classic.

The Lizard Brain - The Neurobollocks classic

It’s got to be the lizard brain. In this short video, marketing guru Seth Godin delivers a masterful and expert explanation of brain anatomy and evolution in under a minute (spoiler: this video is very funny) :

In case you are a therapist and reading this: if you are using the lizard brain to think about your clients or even psycho-educate them, please consider not doing it anymore. By perpetuating the use of erroneous oversimplifications, we risk losing in credibility as a profession and can get dangerously close to becoming merchants of illusion, much like Seth Godin above.

You might say: speak for yourself Ana! Fair enough. But if you care to continue reading this blog post, I will further make my case as to why.

Here, neuroscientist Lisa Feldman-Barrett, talks about this neuromyth using simple language and explanations.

Four Levels of Neurobollocks

Professor Joseph Devlin proposes a scale of 4 levels of neurobollocks.

1. Misinterpretation would be the mildest form of misuse and it happens without malicious intent, by misunderstanding concepts from neuroscience.

Activating one brain hemisphere behaviourally

To give an example, we could think of the belief that tapping one side of our body would activate the opposite side of the brain as a misinterpretation. While it's true that tapping one side of the body creates a neural signal that is then initially processed in the opposite side of the brain due to contralateralisation of the brain , tapping one side will not 'activate' the opposite side of the brain because both hemispheres of the brain are active all of the time (unless there is some form of brain injury).

I would like to think that the majority of neurobollocks happening in the sphere of psychotherapy belongs in this category.

2. Next level of neurobollocks is oversimplification. Here the more complex neurosceince findings are reduced to a simplified narrative losing on accuracy and nuance to make for a compelling headline or an appealing claim in psychotherapy.

The Happieness Molecule

An example of oversimplification is the claim that serotonin is 'the happiness molecule.' Happiness is a complex feeling that is difficult to define, and while serotonin, like many other neurotransmitters, plays a role in that feeling, it cannot be exclusively labeled as the happiness molecule. In fact, serotonin is notoriously involved in virtually every mental process, including aggression and the maintenance of social dominance.

3. Level three is misapplication. As the name says, the neuroscience results are applied in the wrong context.

Gut serotonin affects brain serotonin

Continuing with the example of the neurotransmitter serotonin, we often hear claims that 90% of serotonin is produced in the gut and that, therefore, the state of our gut directly impacts our happiness levels. I find this example particularly compelling because it combines neurobollocks at two levels: first, the oversimplification of labeling serotonin as the happiness molecule, and second, the misinterpretation that gut serotonin influences brain serotonin. While it is true that a large proportion of serotonin is produced in the gut, it does not cross the blood-brain barrier, meaning that serotonin levels in the brain are not affected by levels in the rest of the body, including the gut.

4. The highest (and sometimes the darkest) ranking in neurobollocks goes to exploitation. Professor Devlin defines it as 'the most cynical misuse of neuroscience for commercial gain, trying to fool the consumer that the product or a method is based on "cutting-edge" neuroscience'.

In fact, for that reason, the phrase 'cutting-edge' has become a red flag for me in most contexts.

Share

Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) has been consistently marketed as being grounded in neuroscience and has been 'sold' to life coaches and therapists as such. Who in their turn 'sell' it as such to their clients. However, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that the linguistic and behavioural techniques used in NLP can actually 'rewire' the brain in the desired fashion.

Neo Neurobollocks

For an example of newly coined neurobollocks I was thinkning "The Neuroscience of Manifesting - The Magical Science of Getting the Life You Want". How is that? And which level do you reckon?

If you think that I am giving into the cynicism too soon regarding the neuroscience foundations of the art of manifesting, fair enough. I would find it quite amusing to be proven wrong here, so please let me know if you have read this book and you disagree.

For reference, and according to Wikipedia, manifesting is a practice rooted in the spiritual beliefs outlined in the book Law of Attraction. It posits that thoughts are energy, and since everything else is also energy, similar energies attract each other. For example, if I focus persistently on getting a fancy car, that thought somehow attracts the energy of that car, leading to its manifestation. Or something like that.

Subscribe now

How to Recognise Neurobollocks

Am I being too cynical and too critical here?

On one hand, I am in awe of the immense creativity that people display in bending definitions, misapplying concepts, taking artistic license, and making sense of vague associations. It’s a testament to ingenuity and creativity of human spirit. So from my perspective of a post-ironic millennial, I find this infinitely amusing.

On the other hand though, as a therapist, when I think of misinterpretation and misuse of science and neuroscience, while working with clients and making claims and promisses that something is neuroscience-based while it is not, suddenly the whole thing takes on a darker and less amusing turn. Wouldn't you agree?

As therapists, we are not required to know and master all the facts of neuroscience - of course not. However, thought leaders who propose theories to us, claiming to rely on science, should be able to do so.

Whenever someone makes an extraordinary claim, remember that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof, and the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

When critically assessing the validity of a claim that is made, here are elements and red flags look out for:

• What are the references? In other words the scientific peer-reviewed papers, that are used to support the theory in question?

• Is that study relevant (or is there some oversimplification, or misapplication going on)?

• Is there a body of evidence or a single, isolated study? Related to this is cherrypicking, or choosing only the evidence that supports the claim we are making and omitting to report the opposing evidence.

• How old is the study? My rule of thumb is cut-off value of 20 years. In other words, if all the references supporting a specific new theory or intervention are more than 20 years old, then it is probably outdated.

  That’s the neurobollocks in a nutshell for you.

As always, thank you for reading 🙏.

Subscribe now

The lizard brain is the classic, original neurobollocks. It contends, in its various versions, that parts of our brain, a vestige of our evolutionary history, propels us into animal reactivity and the 'fight-or-flight' response. Portrayed as being at odds with the more 'modern' and 'human' parts of our brain, this unruly reptilian bit is generally seen as ‘bad’ and we are often given various 'neuroscience-based' advice on how to overcome its maladaptive tendencies.

Naively, however, I was under the impression that the lizard brain was a thing of the past. It belonged, or so I thought, together with other urban myths such as the alligators in the sewers and “we only use 10% of our brain”. Nobody believed it anymore and more sophisticated neuro-myths had taken its place.

But when I referred to it humorously in my writing, a number of people got back to me sounding genuinely surprised. Some even defended the idea vehemently. I realised the concept still had a solid footing in the neuroscience-curious psychotherapy community.

And that is when I knew: I would have to come face to face with the atavistic reptile residing in my skull for one final showdown.

And because they've done it so well, I could practically just quote verbatim the brilliantly titled paper "Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside", which makes the point far better than I ever could. Additionally, in this piece, I combine voices of other neuroscientists who have taken on this important reptilian question.

Subscribe now

The Essence of Lizard Brain: What Is It and What the Idea Really Intimates

The Lizard Brain Definition:

The consensus seems to be that the lizard brain is a lowly, primitive, and less-evolved part of our brain and one that we must combat and resist, as it gets us into trouble by leading us to make poor decisions and behave in ways that are unhelpful and uncharacteristic of our more evolved selves. It’s also seen as selfish and non-social.

However, the consensus is sometimes lacking as to which part of the brain is actually the lizard brain. Some proponents seem to think that it is the brain-stem. Others purport it is the amygdala. Some even equate operating from the lizard brain with operating from lower chakras. (For sure, science has lots of catching up to do).

The terms lizard brain and reptilian brain are used interchangeably here, presumably because lizards belong to the taxonomic group of reptiles, along with crocodiles and snakes. Thank God the trend hasn’t extended to talking about the snake brain or crocodile brain. There is something powerfully atavistic about evoking reptiles that captivates our imagination. Think Alien movies or the popular reptilian conspiracy.

How Did the Lizard Brain Come to Being: The Triune Brain Theory

The idea that the human brain possesses a lowly component inherited from our reptilian or other ancestors is quite an old one, dating back to the late 19th century. However, this view gained real traction in the psychotherapy world through the advent of the Triune Brain Theory.

Share

This idea of parts of the brain stacked on the top of each other in order to create mental and behavioural complexity is as illustrated by the following passage from the book Man and His Animal Brains by Paul MacLean, the originator of the Triune Brain (as cited here):

"man, it appears, has inherited essentially three brains. Frugal Nature in developing her paragon threw nothing away. The oldest of his brains is basically reptilian; the second has been inherited from lower mammals; and the third and newest brain is a late mammalian development which reaches a pinnacle in man and gives him his unique power of symbolic language."

Frugal Nature notwithstanding, it hardly sounds like something we should take as scientific truth today, right?

Share

The Triune Brain is an example of the ladder of nature (or scala naturae, in Latin) theory. It belongs to a long lineage of theories woven into Western religion, philosophy, and even early science, including pre-modern neuroscience. These theories suggest a progressive development of beings, from inanimate objects to increasingly complex creatures, culminating in the pinnacle of creation: the human and ultimately, the divine.

(A good analysis of this cultural phenomenon starting as far as Aristotle, in relation to neuroscience, can be found in the book "The Entangled Brain" by Luiz Pessoa)

Subscribe now

According to this view, the three brain layers have distinct functions, arranged in order from the most primitive to the most sophisticated, uniquely human capacities. The reptilian layer governs reflexes; the mammalian layer is responsible for emotions; and the newest layer, the neocortex, handles cognition, language, and the ability to put the brakes on instinctive drives and reflexive behaviours.

So What Is Wrong With This View?

It is worth noting that this isn’t an outdated theory, as for a theory to be outdated, it first needs to have been widely accepted. The Triune Brain Theory seems to was never have been embraced as an accurate reflection of the organisation of the human brain. And yet, somehow, it has become entrenched in the realms of psychology, self-improvement, and psychotherapy.

So what is so wrong about it?

Share

1. The Brain Evolution Is Not a Linear Process That Adds Layers

For starters, this view assumes that organisms' brains evolve in complexity by simply adding new layers on top of existing ones. It also places humans at the pinnacle of evolution.

Both assumptions are wrong.

The more accurate view is that all vertebrates share a common ancestral brain structure composed of three main regions: the hindbrain, the midbrain, and the forebrain. As different species evolved, these regions evolved too sometimes becoming more complex, but not always. And when it comes to complexity, humans are not the only animals with remarkably sophisticated brains.

The neocortex, for instance, is not a uniquely human or even primate invention. Other mammals' brains have cortices and not only limbic structures.

Even the prefrontal cortex is not exclusive to humans. In fact, in rats, the prefrontal cortex plays a role in decision-making and delayed gratification. These ideas are elegantly explored here, if you are interested in exploring this question further.

To put it simply, in the words of neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett: “Only lizards have the lizard brain”.

As for the idea of the human brain as the pinnacle of evolution our thinking has historically been deeply anthropocentric, often shaped by the complex relationship between God and man. That is of course no longer a framework for understanding how the brain is structured or how it works.

And really, you don’t need to be an evolutionary biologist to understand this. Ricky explains it quite beautifully in his sketch on evolution.

Share

2. Reptiles Are Not Evolutionary Ancestors of Humans

Secondly, to 'inherit' the lizard brain from our ancestors we would have to have an ancestor who is a reptile, right? But reptiles and lizards were never human ancestors - we don't belong to the same branch of the evolutionary tree. Therefore, it does not make sense to talk about humans inheriting the lizard brain from our reptilian ancestors. As simple as.

3. The Limbic System Is Not the Neural Correlate of Emotions

One important corollary of the Triune Brain Theory, particularly in the context of psychotherapy, is the idea that the limbic system is an evolutionary, mammalian inheritance and the supposed seat of emotions.

But for quite some time now, we have known that the stark dichotomy between cognition and emotion simply doesn't hold. The two are deeply intertwined, and cognition is better understood as a phenomenon that encompasses both thinking and feeling.

Lisa Feldman Barrett, who studies emotion, makes a compelling case for why the limbic system cannot be considered the exclusive seat of emotions. Emotional processes involve both cortical and subcortical areas. Moreover, brain regions traditionally labeled as part of the "limbic system" are involved in a wide range of functions including decision-making, memory, attention, perception, and even consciousness. Perhaps most striking are clinical examples of patients with damage to key limbic structures who nevertheless continue to experience emotional responses offering a powerful counterpoint to the ‘limbic system’ view.

Subscribe now

But Even If It Is Not True, Could It Be a Useful Approximation in Psychotherapy?

I can already hear the question bubbling up: "Alright, alright but isn’t it still a useful approximation? A simplified account that helps convey complex brain ideas to therapists and clients without scaring them off?"

My response is a question back to you:

What are the actual benefits of using this idea either in your work with clients or in your own clinical thinking that aren’t also inaccurate or misleading?

Or more to the point: what is the value in telling a client that we have an archaic part of the brain called the “lizard brain” that we must fight against using our “higher” mental faculties from the newer parts of the brain when that simply isn’t true?

I co-wrote a whole post on this kind of thing, particularly in the context of psychotherapy and neuroscience integration. It’s called Schrödinger’s Cat of Psychotherapy. The gist is this: if we want to bring neuroscience into psychotherapy, then let’s actually bring neuroscience not myths. To be sure, simplification might be necessary but it has to be done in a way that’s consistent with (ideally up-to-date) research findings, not in direct contradiction to them. It's just common sense, isn't it?

Ultimately, the choice is yours, but I am going to give you four solid reasons why "lizard brain" language is just not a good idea:

1. Unsupported by Science: Modern neuroscience does not support the existence of a brain structure inherited from lizards, nor does it support the idea that brains evolve by simply adding newer layers on top of more primitive parts.

2. Supports the 'Ladder of Nature' Narrative: It reinforces the outdated ladder of nature concept and is mistakenly anthropocentric by placing the human brain at the apex of brain evolution.

3. Misinterprets and Oversimplifies Cognition and Emotion: It wrongly downgrades emotions to a "lower" evolutionary status, ignoring the fact that cognition and emotion are inextricably linked. There is no cognition without emotion, and no emotion without cognition, especially in humans.

4. Last but Not Least: You don’t want to be this guy 😆👇

That might just be the end of the road for the lizard brain. Goodbye 🦎🧠👋.

Subscribe now

As always, thank you so much for reading. You can follow me on BlueSky , via my substack or subscribe to my mailing list.

Further Reading

• Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside

• The brain myth that won’t die | Lisa Feldman Barrett

• Comparing The Emotional Brains of Humans

  And Other Animals Kent Berrige

• Rethinking the Emotional Brain, Joseph LeDoux

• The Brain Is Adaptive Not Triune: How the Brain Responds to Threat, Challenge, and Change

The End of An Era

It's the end of an era, and I want to make it official: Andrew Huberman and I are no longer an item. I know this might come as a shock to some, especially those who know me as a Huberman groupie. We had some fun times, but it is all over now.

It’s a little bittersweet, so let me share a quick timeline of this relationship - purely platonic, wildly fictional, and entirely unbeknownst to Andrew.

In the beginning, I was so happy to have found him - someone who takes the time to comb through the science, particularly neuroscience, to uncover golden nuggets that are interesting to the general public. He made them accessible to everyone while dissecting and explaining complex scientific concepts along the way. What was not to like? His Tom Hardy looks didn’t hurt either.

In short, for a therapist like myself, looking to incorporate practical neuroscience into psychotherapy, it was a goldmine.

The first episode I ever listened to was about the neuroscience of tenacity and willpower. I remember being blown away, thinking, Why has nobody told me this before? (Looking back, maybe nobody told me because it was not true).

Then there was the episode on breathing with Jack Feldman. Jack is an absolute boss in the field of elucidating the neural mechanisms of breathing, and I thoroughly enjoyed that episode - despite it being three hours long (if memory serves). It was packed with anecdotes from the lab and hands-on experiments from this neuroscience pioneer. I learned so much.

And the episode with Lisa Feldman Barrett on understanding emotions. I got a glimpse of the role that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) plays and how it is one of the rare areas of the brain that we can influence intentionally.

I was recommending the podcast to anyone who would listen, spreading the word. It appears that the whole world was doing the same as Andrew was becoming very, very popular.

First Cracks

Next came the episode on attachment. At the time, I didn’t know much about the neuroscience of attachment, so it felt like I was drinking from the cup of knowledge. Looking back, there was already a fair amount of neurobollocks in it, but at the time, I didn’t realise. I was still blissfully oblivious on my little Huberman cloud.

But then I started hearing voices of criticism, even outrage. Some scientists pointed to a lack of rigor, sloppy interpretations, and even a basic misunderstanding of statistical values. But I didn’t believe them. I stood by Andrew. I thought it must be just some jealous, geeky scientists annoyed by his fame and ability to make science popular.

Eventually, however, my rose-tinted glasses fell off too. It was the episode on dopamine that started it for me. I mean, in it, he completely abandoned any remotely scientific script. It was a true deluge of neurobollocks: dopamine detox, defining craving as low levels of dopamine (when, in fact, it turns out the opposite is true), and the idea that indulging in small pleasures depletes overall dopamine levels. Practically every dopamine myth was covered, somehow made to sound plausible, all conveyed by Andrew Huberman's reassuring voice, as though subliminally telling us, 'I know what I’m talking about.'

The next big disappointment was the episode about cynics and how harmful it is to be one, featuring social neuroscientist Jamil Zaki. The episode oscillated between tenuous connections between cynicism as a life position and insecure attachment, positive psychology, and references to some very questionable works of literature and animation. It was a classic case of science overreach, where the scientists use whatever they can find to support an argument against something they personally dislike or disagree with, in this case, the 'bad cynics'.

The Final Blow

The other day, I woke up to a notification of a new Huberman Lab episode featuring psychiatrist Allan Schore. Dr Schore's thesis to live by, throughout his work and career, is based on the left brain/right brain myth. The idea that the left brain rational, analytical and bureaucratic while the right brain is emotional, creative, non-literal and the seat of human attachment. If this were true, it could then be leveraged for use in psychotherapy and in theorising about neuroscience of attachment.

Now, this is one of the main and most debunked neurobollocks myths in the world, and so the whole episode is basically one huge neurobollocks endorsement. Huberman was buying all of it, and didn’t push back or challenge the incorrect viewpoints by using empirical neuroscience evidence. Something that a student would be able to do, let alone a ‘professor’. Come on man.

The cynic in me is inclined to think that Andrew must know about it being an outdated myth and that really anything goes as long as it is getting attention and more audience. We will never know. All I know is that it is a step too far, for me.

This particular neuro-myth has been debunked times and times again by people way more clever than me, so I won't do it here. You can check my blogpost on this or explore some of the references below:

• "Right-brain" myth in attachment

• Left brain/Right-brain neurobollocks

• TED-Ed video about this myth

What I want to show you instead is how, sometimes, you don't even have to consume the product (which, for me, this podcast has undoubtedly become) to get an idea of its quality. You can just look at the label. And what’s the label? It’s the references and the description. Let’s have a look.

Flagging the Red Flags

Let’s first look at some general red flags when it comes to assessing the quality and relevance of scientific claims. In another blog post, fittingly for this occasion titled 'Neurobollocks,' I outline red flags to watch for when critically evaluating the validity of scientific claims and theories (this list was put together with Dr. Mike Tranter)

1. What are the references? In other words the scientific peer-reviewed papers that are used to support the theory in question?

2. Is that study relevant (or is there some oversimplification, or misapplication going on)?

3. Is there a body of evidence or a signle, isolated study? Related to this is cherrypicking, or choosing only the evidence that supports the claim we are making and omitting to report the opposing evidence.

4. How old is the study? My rule of thumb is the cut-off value of 20. In other words, if all the references supporting a specific new theory or intervention are more than 20 years old, then it is probably outdated.

Now let's look what references for the claims are provided in this podcast episode. First reference:

• The right brain hemisphere is dominant in human infants., C Chiron, I Jambaque, R Nabbout, R Lounes, A Syrota, O Dulac, Brain, Volume 120, Issue 6, Jun 1997.

Can you spot any red flags here? One study, almost 30 years old. Surely, if something as important as the right brain developing first in infants were an established scientific fact, the person making the claim, the 'expert', would provide a more recent reference.

Now, a very quick search (by an utter non-specialist, i.e., me) uncovers the following, much more recent studies that tell a more complex and very different story:

• Lateralization of Resting-State Networks in Children: Association with Age, Sex, Handedness, Intelligence Quotient, and Behavior, 2022.

• The neural basis of language development: Changes in lateralization over age, 2020.

• Distinct hemispheric specializations for native and non-native languages in one-day-old newborns identified by fNIRS, 2016

So, in fact we have two red flags triggered here: outdated study and cherrypicking.

Would you not expect the 'expert' to know better?

And what about when these ideas and inaccuracies cascaded into a whole range of offshoots, such as psychotherapy ('right brain psychotherapy') or parenting ('right brain parenting')?

Now let's look at some other references from this podcast episode that support guest's claims about the right brain dominance for creativity, attachment and emotions:

• Allan Schore, Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self

• Antonio Damasio, Descartes' Error : Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain

• Allan Schore, Right Brain Psychotherapy

• Iain McGilcrist, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World

• Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness

• Allan Schore, The Development of the Unconscious Mind

I am noticing lots of self-referencing on this list. Another observation is that only one person from the list is a neuroscientist (Antonio Damasio). One of the authors left actually uses Allan Schore’s work to support his own theories, and vice versa, creating a circular argument.

I could go on, but I think you get the gist. There is enough info on the "packaging label", don't even need to listen to the episode to know it's gonna be full of ... neurobollocks.

Fool Me Once, Fool Me Twice, But Not Thrice

That is the thing about trust and confidence in something or someone. Fool me once. Fool me twice. And then after that, I'm just like : I don't have time for this anymore.

Never mind. If it’s not for the science, all that’s left are the looks. I think I’ll just watch Tom Hardy movies instead.

Sorry Baby XoXo

As always…thank you so much for reading. Any comments or thoughts, feel free to let me know…

Share