Paper Tiger

And its friend, the strawman

My recent paper - together with other accounts blowing yet another whistle on polyvagal theory - have stirred considerable amount of aggro.

Aggro is slang word that we use here in Britain to describe causing someone distress and aggravation.

I want to apologise for that.

Now, this might be because it has overall reached bigger audience than what my posts usually do - I guess my ‘regulars’ are used to my foul mouth and the tongue-in-cheek. Being sassy rather than ‘all sugar and spice’ does not make me a bad person, a bad agent or someone who is disrespectful. We are all different in the way we find we can authentically express ourselves. If I have offended though, I do, wholeheartedly, apologise.

Also, I want to say a huge THANK YOU to all of the people who supported me and checked on me in this storm - it means the world. 🩷🩷

What I Stand For

Now, do not fret. If I am a tiger, I am only a paper tiger.

I have no institutional affiliation, no allegiance to any specific prominent figure or tradition in the therapy world. I don’t have to contend with the politics of those structures (which are undeniable, and for every therapy denomination).

Therefore, I am free to speak my mind how I see fit. I think and I act in ways I feel are in the best interest of neuroscience and psychotherapy integration.

But being independent makes me also vulnerable. As I say, I am only a paper tiger.

Speaking out, sometimes scares me, too. But they say that being brave is doing something despite of the fear.

All that being said, I also know what I stand for and what are my core values.

My passion is to understand and find ways to use good neuroscience in psychotherapy. Most of the time I write about the ideas that we can use to do that better. But sometimes it takes the form of debunking.

In that light, if the world experts in vagus nerve physiology, evolution and anatomy come together to unreservedly say something is not supported by science, I cannot not talk about it, can I?

Now to the strawman.

Strawman

What I noticed as the debate evolved on social media are subtle shifts towards defending things that have never been questioned in the first place. That kind of argument displacement is referred to as the strawman argument.

Here are some main examples that I have noticed that are now used to defend polyvagal theory:

• Clinicians should be able to use what they and their clients find meaningful and useful

• Coregulation is an important part of the work of therapy and should not be dismissed

• ANS awareness can be instrumental for helping people in therapy

That is full strawman in front of you: no one has LITERALLY ever claimed otherwise. And I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above.

Coregulation is one of the principal tools of ALL psychotherapy and one would be the fool to question it.

The ANS awareness and literacy, of course can be extremely useful to understand and involve that awareness into therapy work. I teach mindfulness and use breathwork with my clients, I would be foolish to claim otherwise. In fact I write about it extensively in a number of posts.

Finally, I have always argued, despite pushback sometimes, that therapists should use and explore whatever tools they feels are useful and meaningful for them and the clients (as long as it is within the ethical boundaries of the profession). I myself am a TA therapist by training and use plenty of models that have no neuroscience grounding. The difference being that I don’t tell to the client that it neuroscience supports it. I don’t bring neuroscience into it at all.

And so I stand by the following: if something claims to be neuroscience then it should be supported by neuroscientists and neuroscience evidence. Surely, that is not a controversial claim?

The fact that the defense of polyvagal theory has now been reframed in terms of defending this more general principles that no one really argues against - steering clear from any specific polyvagal claims - is good. Moving the Overton window of conversation towards more scientific consensus is good.

You can’t start the fire without a spark

Ultimately, I think people who know my work, know where I am coming from. Others might willingly or unwillingly, misunderstand. And that is OK.

You can’t start the fire without the spark, and all the anxiety that came out speaks to something. What? I am still not sure. And I am looking forward to seeing what we all make of it.

Before I leave you - to get back to (believe it or not) what I like doing the most, which is thinking about new ways neuroscience can help us in therapy - I want to reiterate what I said in one of my notes:

Criticism is a good thing, it makes any theory stronger - if it is a good theory. No stones unturned.

It can feel dangerous to question the accepted truths and dogmas and we can come up with all sorts of cognitive gymnastics to justify remaining with the status quo and not rock the boat. But that does not make it right or true.

Stay critical, and please, please, do not shoot the messenger.

As always, thank you for reading 🙏.