Talk:Polyvagal theory

2008 comment

Interesting, no mention as yet of the originator of the theory, Stephen W. Porges, or links to the source papers. I'm adding this. gaia9 (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the current description, there is no mention of porges's revolutionary assertion of the 3rd branch of the Autonomic Nervous System, the Social Engagement System. There is no clear explanation why it is labeled "Polyvagal", and there is no link to the Autonomic Nervous System page (and vice-a-versa]. I am thankful to see it even have an entry in WP. Gheemaker (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to split the Reference section so that it has an External Link section + adding an interview of Stephen Porges Ph.D. + attempting to add etymology. This needs some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gheemaker (talk • contribs) 05:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for rewrite

Proposing rewrite for Functional organization of the ANS according to Polyvagal Theory. I feel that the current article is vague about how the classical and Polyvagal model of the NS looks like. I feel we should mention the proposal of a 3rd ANS division/branch called the Social Nervous System or Social Engagement system based on the following references:

• Porges, S. W. (1993, October/November). The infant’s sixth sense: Awareness and regulation of bodily processes. Zero to Three 14(2),12–16.
• Porges, S. W. (1995). Orienting in a defensive world: Mammalian modifications of our evolutionary heritage. A Polyvagal Theory. Psychophysiology, 32, 301–318.
• Porges, S. W. (1997). Emotion: An evolutionary by-product of the neural regulation of the autonomic nervous system. In C. S. Carter, B. Kirk-patrick, & I. I. Lederhendler (Eds.), The integrative neurobiology of affiliation.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 807, 62–77.
• Porges, S. W. (1998). Love: An emergent property of the mammalian autonomic nervous system. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 837–861.
• Especially Porges, S. W. (2001). The Polyvagal Theory: Phylogenetic substrates of a social nervous system. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42, 123–146.

That we make a comparison between both models depicting the differences.
For example, here is a way I propose to augment the 2nd paragraph: Functional organization of the autonomic nervous system is thought to be phylogenetically hierarchical, with response strategies to threat dictated by the newest neural structures first (aka Social Engagement System), then falling back on older structures (Sympathetic and Parasympathetic accordingly) when a given response strategy fails. Therefore, polyvagal theory predicts that the NA branch will inhibit acceleratory sympathetic nervous system (SNS) input to the heart when attention and social engagement are adaptive, and withdraw this inhibitory influence when fighting or fleeing are adaptive.[1]
Then at some point throw in mention of Parasympathetic toward the end. Any comments? Gheemaker (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

- Just wanted to give positive feedback on a very well written criticism section, congratulations! The PV-theory has during recent years been very popular as a psychoeducation tool in clinical psychotherapy settings (especially when there's a focus on traumatization). And though I think many explanations can be used in therapy as helpful metaphors, there is an abundance of scientifically more sound psychophysiological models of the emergence and existence of trauma symptoms that can serve the same purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.80.139 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

criticism?!

I am Paul Grossman and would like to know who has been writing the very accurate and well put together criticism section of this Wikipedia contribution (I have had nothing to do with the writing). Please contact me per ResearchGate or per email pgrossman0icloud.com

even stephen porges himself when presenting his theory on youtube mentions that it is rather "controversial" and that some people consider it "bad science". in the wiki-article about the "Freezing behavior" it is not even mentioned... so please explain the arguments of the critics! .

to my mind the linkage of the ventral vagus system (how is its existence and action shown?) to later stages of the development of living beings seems not plausible, 2003:C8:CF03:2300:384E:D128:87A8:F3BA (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)because even the most primitive cartilaginous fish or a (more sophisticated) reptile needs a mechanism to get ready for recreational activities (in situations without danger, like feeding, resting, mating...). so there must already be this basic function of the vagus system, not just the "dorsal freezing" stuff...

further it would seem to me much more logical that an extreme sympathetic reaction causes freeze than a vagal reaction. after all it does not seem to be a complete relaxation, but rather a total cramp, which seems to be sympathicotone in nature...

so the article should explain how the existence and the actions of the two supposed vagal systems are demonstrated?! thanx! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Porges has explained the Polyvagal Nerve Function Better Than Any Other

The vagus nerve with all it's complexities needs a clear explanation and Stephen Porges has provided it. The only reason why this theory could possibly be considered "controversial" is that the explanation of why trauma affects people the way it does conflicts with the still unproved-after-a-century hypothesis that all mental illness has genetic causes. Animals, especially mammals, have been found to have altered stress responses as a result of trauma. As an example, if I remember correctly, it was Pavlov's dogs, locked in their cages and unable to swim to escape the flooding of a close-by river who survived but demonstrated ongoing evidence of trauma. The evidence is there--look it up. Note: I helped edit G. Bateson's Double Bind Theory over 15 years ago signed Margaret9Mary 205.167.120.201 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Margaret9Mary but can't remember my password. Or I could sign myself, survivortiredofscientistsindenial.

It seems to me, from a very cursory understanding, that the problem with Porges ideas is that he's making very specific cladistic statements that say that mammals are very distinct and more advanced/nuanced in our vagus expression than "reptiles" (note that reptile isn't even a clade!). This seems very implausible, and adding extra unfounded cruft on top of his theories sounds like pseudo-science where one tries to make your own theory sound more legitimate by associating it (falsely or speculatively) with an established field. Dropping this cladistic hypothesis seems like it would make Porges more credible... --Boxed (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Brain-Body Center

A search of the internet and of Google Books indicates that the Brain-Body Center at UIC barely exists and has no notability. At a glance, it appears that only Porges and his wife were involved in it. There is no reason any Wikipedia page should mention it. Daask (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Simply observing

Flagged as dubious:

While other brain areas known to be involved in fear responses (e. g. the amygdala and periaqueductal gray) are mentioned by Porges, he does not integrate them into the description of his own hypothesized systems. Simply observing an anatomical link between two areas of the body is not sufficient for explaining complex social and emotional behaviours as Porges broadly attempts to do.

My own take is that if Porges has successfully identified the principal pathway mediating between the underlying neurology and the observed physiology and sociology, he has done enough to quality as a legitimate first cut. Neurology is so messy in general that it's hard to exceed this standard.

Recently it as discovered that women with severe spinal injuries can achieve orgasm by stimulating the vagus nerve alone, despite it not being obvious to the women themselves that this pathway continues to function in this capacity (they had to be instructed in order to discover this).

It's such a common crock in academia to effectively take the position that your enemy's success doesn't count for much because it didn't arrive whole cloth, trailing clouds of meticulous and irrefutable glory. Hardly anything in such a difficult field unfolds in first instance to this ludicrous standard.

I'm new to this topic, but the main claim of this theoretical insight seems to be that the vagus nerve is the principal locus of a functional dichotomy with gross manifestations in the clinical setting. The criticisms would then be that:

• it's not the principal locus in any meaningful sense (too much else is always involved)
• there is no such functional neurological dichotomy
• there is something superficially akin to a neurological dichotomy, but it's actually an oligochotomy
• the clinical manifestations—if any—are too woolly to be of any real use, observationally
• there is no such downstream psychological dichotomy
• there is something superficially akin to a psychological dichotomy, but it's actually an oligochotomy
• suggested causal correlation between the neurological dichotomy and the psychological dichotomy are vastly overstated

Etc.

The legitimate standard of a contribution here is not that all of these claims are true, but that any principal claim is true. If all that finally remains is that there as a functional dichotomy of this general tenor (even though the mechanisms are not as postulate) or that there is a psychological dichotomy of this general tenor (even through the mooted neurophysical causality is all wet) then this bundle of conjecture contains a substantive contribution.

The other valid critique would be that Porges has merely flung a mud-ball of hunches at the wall, hoping to take credit for whatever sticks, while leaving others to do the hard work of making specific claims that finally prove out. Then the complaint would be that this conjectural bundle doesn't rise to the standard of a research program worthy of investigatory primacy over any other hunch-set within the discipline.

I'm suggesting by way of these remarks that the criticism section needs to be written more broadly, with fewer of these overused and abused academic rabbit punches as quoted above. — MaxEnt 16:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

brief, lay-friendly short definition of Polyvagal Theory needed on Wikipedia page

PVT is being discussed internationally at many levels, in many disciplines, and an understandable definition on Wikipedia is needed for lay persons. The current short 'definition' actually offers no definition at all but rather gives an opinionated negative view which is anything but objective, saying it's a 'collection of claims' that are 'not endorsed', and uses the message template above the definition to place it in the category of 'fringe theories'. In reality, PVT is cited in over 8,800 scientific papers (on Google Scholar) and is integrated into the work of the leading experts in the field of psychotherapy (Bessel van der Kolk, Peter Levine, Dan Siegel, etc.). A simplified and updated introductory definition is long overdue.

I'd like to suggest the following:

"Polyvagal Theory, first presented by Dr. Stephen Porges in 1994, proposes a hierarchy of the autonomic nervous system based on evolutionary development. The theory is multi-disciplinary, connecting aspects of neuroscience, psychology and phylogenetics. In lay terms, Polyvagal Theory describes how the brain’s unconscious sense of safety/danger impacts our emotions and behaviors. It describes three behavioral responses - 1) relaxation/social engagement, 2) fight/flight, 3) shut down/immobilization - which can be unconsciously activated as we detect safety/threat in our immediate environment. The theory argues that the state of one's nervous system should be a primary consideration in mental health and medical treatment. Polyvagal Theory is cited in over 8,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers and is integrated into numerous treatments in the field of trauma; however, it is not widely known in the broader community of traditional allopathic medicine."

I also suggest removing the current template message re “fringe theories" that sits above the introduction. How can we call a theory which is cited in 8,800 scholarly papers 'fringe'?Ian Oelsner (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ian Oelsner (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ian Oelsner, Explaining the premise more clearly would be good (provided any changes are based on reliable, independent sources which are currently missing from your proposal), but we must be careful not to create the impression that this is a widely accepted theory, because it clearly is not. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The Polyvagal Theory is cited in more than 10000 scholarly papers so how is it a 'fringe' theory? some of the scholars [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] -samsepi00l (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A collection of links that don't meet our WP:MEDRS doesn't prove much, especially when one of the researchgate links you posted actually contradicts the theory. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't notice before I typed this that the person I was replying to had already been blocked as a sockpuppet. Ah, well. MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

PVT may have shortcomings, but at the very least it starts a dialogue and some organization of a complex topic. I don't think it is a fringe theory, as indicated by it's broad support in the Interpersonal Neurobiology and attachment communities. It provides a sufficient framework for many people to improve their ability to help people in need. A section on how it can be helpful would be useful, together with a list of books describing PVT's clinical applications. A section titled "Comparison to other theories" with a description of the Neurovisceral Integration Model would be useful.ConflictScience (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Polyvagal theory proven

The polyvagal theory is not a collection theory and it is not an unproven theory and introduction of the theory is completely misleading, it is a proven theory and has over 11,000 citations on Google Scholar.[12] All of these citations, with only a few exceptions, are positive citations that do not dispute the validity of the theory. Polyvagal Theory is widely accepted so saying its collection of unproven theories makes no sense. Theboring Ape (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a fringe theory that is not widely accepted medical science, and this article cannot pretend that it is more mainstream than it is. Number of mentions means precisely nothing - many of those mentions are disputing the theory. Acupuncture gets more than 600,000 hits in Google scholar, and medical consensus there is that it doesn't work. MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of the criticism

The article begins with the unproven phrase: "Polyvagal theory ... is a collection of unproven evolutionary, neuroscientific and psychological constructs"....

It is further claimed: "there's literally a whole sourced section in this article dedicated to the "inconsistencies and lack of evidence". If you then read the whole sourced section, you will find the source (10) as evidence for the claim: "From a methodological perspective, many claims do not meet the criteria of a scientific theory because they are formulated in a manner too vague for empirical testing. For example, the precise functioning of the two proposed distinct "vagal systems" or of the "social engagement system" is not explained,[10]

However, source 10 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108032/ says " In this way, the theory provides a plausible explanation for the reported covariation between atypical autonomic regulation (eg, reduced vagal and increased sympathetic influences on the heart) and psychiatric and behavioral disorders that involve difficulties in regulating appropriate social, emotional, and communication behaviors." and further something completely different: SUMMARY The polyvagal theory proposes that the evolution of the mammalian autonomic nervous system provides the neurophysiological substrates for adaptive behavioral strategies. It further proposes that physiological state limits the range of behavior and psychological experience. The theory links the evolution of the autonomic nervous system to affective experience, emotional expression, facial gestures, vocal communication, and contingent social behavior. In this way, the theory provides a plausible explanation for the reported covariation between atypical autonomic regulation (eg, reduced vagal and increased sympathetic influences on the heart) and psychiatric and behavioral disorders that involve difficulties in regulating appropriate social, emotional, and communication behaviors.

The polyvagal theory provides several insights into the adaptive nature of the physiological state. First, the theory emphasizes that physiological states support different classes of behavior. For example, a physiological state characterized by a vagal withdrawal would support the mobilization behaviors of fight and flight. In contrast, a physiological state characterized by increased vagal influence on the heart (via myelinated vagal pathways originating in the nucleus ambiguus) would support spontaneous social engagement behaviors. Second, the theory emphasizes the formation of an integrated social engagement system through functional and structural links between neural control of the striated muscles of the face and the smooth muscles of the viscera. Third, the polyvagal theory proposes a mechanism—neuroception—to trigger or to inhibit defense strategies. Schutz67 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Porges himself has responded to these critique, perhaps this also needs to be referenced? https://www.polyvagalinstitute.org/background 163.116.203.18 (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I’d like to continue the discussion about the criticism. The Criticism section is about 90% an original essay WP:NOR and is largely based on a personal analysis and WP:Synth from sources that do not even mention Polyvagal Theory (PVT), the subject of this article. All but 5 of 26 sentences violate WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:NOTESSAY. Much of the section also violates WP:NPOV. Seems like a possible case of WP:RGW. In short, almost all of this section does not conform to fundamental tenets of how Wikipedia works: WP:Verify.

There are five sentences that accurately summarize actual reliable source criticism of PVT should be kept; the remaining 21 sentences section should be deleted for the reasons above. Substantively, the criticism can easily be rebutted with reliable sources about PVT (I am an expert on this topic who works for the Polyvagal Institute, which funds research in the field) - but someone would first need to assemble actual verifiable criticism. WP:BURDEN.

Here’s a breakdown:

1. The five sentences that cite works that actually criticize PVT are:

• Paragraph 2, sentence 2, which begins as follows: “Paul Grossman of…”
• Paragraph 3, sentence 1: “Grossman also points…”
• Paragraph 4, sentence 5: “More recent findings…”
• Paragraph 4, sentence 6: “Furthermore, Monteiro…"
• Paragraph 5, sentence 3: “Grossman & Taylor…”

Please note that paragraph 5, sentence 3 looks like a unique citation but it’s actually just a repeat in a different format. This should be fixed so there’s only one cite for the same work.

2. Twelve sentences in the section are completely unsourced. These are, as of October 3, 2022:

• Paragraph 1, sentence 1:“Its appeal may lie…”
• Paragraph 2, sentence 1:“Critics of the polyvagal theory…”
• Paragraph 2 sentence 3:“In fact, there seems…”
• Paragraph 4, sentence 1:“While Grossman's criticism…”
• Paragraph 4, sentence 2:“In particular, it undermines…”
• Paragraph 5, sentence 1:“In polyvagal theory…”
• Paragraph 6, sentence 2:“While the vagus nerve…”
• Paragraph 7, sentence 1:“From a methodological perspective…”
• Paragraph 8, sentence 2:“The proposed anatomical…”
• Paragraph 9, sentence 2:“It thus attempts to…”
• Paragraph 9, sentence 3:“The neural substrates…”
• Paragraph 9, sentence 4:“Polyvagal theory does not…”

3. Four sentences use sources that do not mention Polyvagal Theory in the text of the article. These are:

• Paragraph 1, sentence 1:"Polyvagal Theory has not..."
• Paragraph 4, sentence 3:"It has been known for roughly..."
• Paragraph 4, sentence 4:"This contradicts the polyvagal...".
• Paragraph 7, sentence 3: "Furthermore, the claims..."

4. Two sentences cite to the journal article that actually introduced PVT - but this article does not include the criticism’s contained in these sentences:

• Paragraph 7, sentence 2:“For example, the precise…”

• Paragraph 9, sentence 1:“In addition, polyvagal theory…” This sentence cites Porges as the source of the idea (“neuroception”), which the next sentence in the article (“It thus attempts…”) then criticizes without a source. The Porges article does not include the criticism of these sentences - this is pure original analysis on Wikipedia.

5. Three sentences describe phenomena that the Wikipedia editor believes are contrary to PVT, but these criticisms of PVT made on Wikipedia are not made in the journal articles. I should mention, as an aside, that the first of these, below, doesn’t even give an accurate summary of the journal article.

• Paragraph 5, sentence 2: “A number of research studies…”
• Paragraph 6, sentence 1: “By overemphasizing…”
• Paragraph 8, sentence 1:“While other brain areas…”

Ian Oelsner (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Schutz67:, @MrOllie:, @Hemiauchenia:@Theboring Ape: As the most recent editors to participate in discussions about the the substance of this topic, would any of you like to weigh in on my comment above? Ian Oelsner (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Polyvagal Theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the language in the first two sentences of the Lead section of Polyvagal Theory stating that it is “unproven” and “not endorsed by current Social Neuroscience” be kept? Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: The first two sentences of the lead say:

Polyvagal theory (poly- "many" + vagal "wandering") is a collection of unproven, evolutionary, neuroscientific, and psychological constructs pertaining to the role of the vagus nerve in emotion regulation, social connection and fear response, introduced in 1994 by Stephen Porges.

It is popular among some clinical practitioners and patients, but is not endorsed by current social neuroscience.

Delete: By way of background, I am a research staff member affiliated with the Polyvagal Institute [13], which facilitates research and training based on Polyvagal Theory (PVT). The word “unproven” in sentence one is redundant with “theory” while also being misleading in a deprecating way. “Theories” by definition are “unproven.” (See Webster’s at [14]) One academic, extensively quoted in the (very poorly done) Criticism section, strongly disputes the theory, but he seems to be in the minority based on citation metrics. According to Web of Science (one of the two acceptable science academia citation metrics databases, according to WP: Academic), (PVT) has been referenced in 448 published peer-reviewed articles and cited 9553 times, accelerating every year. [15]. One seminal 2007 article, (Stephen W. Porges, “The polyvagal perspective,” Biological Psychology, Volume 74, Issue 2, 2007, pages 116-143) [16] has been cited 1808 times in other peer-reviewed articles, as of 8/17/2022 (just this week, there were 10 citations). [17]

Even two of the book editors cited in the citation overkill meant to bolster the second sentence’s statement that PVT is “not endorsed” by social neuroscience are actually proponents of at least some aspects of PVT. In 2015, Jean Decety, the editor of cited The Oxford Handbook of Social Neuroscience (2011), cited in the second sentence as opposing PVT, co-authored a paper with Eric Porges (an advocate of PVT) and that paper concludes that its core findings about vagal regulation are consistent with a prediction of PVT. (Porges, Eric C., Karen E. Smith, Jean Decety, “Individual Differences in vagal regulation are related to testosterone responses observed in violence.” Frontiers in Psychology, 24 (February), 2015, 7). [18]. And in 2008, John Cacioppo, the editor of the Introduction to Social Neuroscience from Princeton University Press, also cited in the second sentence as opposing PVT, presents as factual a key tenet of PVT, citing a Stephen Porges’ paper. (Gary G. Berntson, Greg J. Norman, Louise C. Hawkley, and John T. Cacioppo “Cardiac autonomic balance versus cardiac regulatory capacity,” Psychophysiology, 45 (2008), 643–652) [19] In any case, “social neuroscience” is a field of research. It does not give out endorsements. The citation overkill of the second sentence - six textbooks or compendiums of “social neuroscience” - do not have page numbers in the citations. So far as I can tell from Google Books, they do not even discuss PVT. There’s no WP:RS that actually says PVT is “not endorsed” by social science or suggests that it is in any way outside the mainstream. Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

RfC request inappropriately closed

User: Hemiauchenia has unilaterally closed the above RfC, and declared a consensus, one day after it was posted, before anyone could participate but them. I am asking for its closure and finding of “consensus” to be reversed by a Wikipedia administrator. Their stated reasons have no basis in Wikipedia policy. While I am a new editor, I did extensive Wikipedia policy research in advance of this RfC and now to reply to the immediate RfC closure. This RfC is in an appropriate format and poses a legitimate question under the guidelines of WP:RfC and sample RfCs. There has been limited discussion and no consensus on this question since the specific changes in the article being questioned in the RfC were made on January 4, 2022 [20] and March 3, 2022 [21], according to my research into the article history. In the two unresolved sections (Talk:Polyvagal theory#Polyvagal theory proven Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism) discussing these same issues since this new language was added to the lead, two of the four participating editors unambiguously support my positions (neither is me); one is opposed (the same person who inserted the language); and one supports inserting balance to the Criticism section. I started this RfC because these two discussions did not lead to consensus.

I have declared prominently in the RfC that I am a researcher on Polyvagal Theory – there’s no prohibition on subject matter experts editing articles about their field of expertise, and even citing themselves within reason, according to the policy I found called WP:SELFCITE. (FYI, I have not cited my own research in the article.) There is also the directly analogous example of encouraging experts to participate from WP:Wikipedia Fellows.

In this case, participation on Talk, with an explanation of my field of research, is especially non-problematic. Even if an editor believes I have a WP:COI because my work is supported by an organization focused on Polyvagal Theory, nothing I read in that policy prevents me from initiating Talk discussions. In fact, the opposite – Talk is where COI editors are encouraged to participate. WP:COI. Ian Oelsner (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hemiauchenia Could you point out the "strong consensus" you asserted in your message? 331dot (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_83#Polyvagal_theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• In my own observation here, I would respectfully disagree that the discussion cited is a "strong consensus"; for that I would expect a lengthy discussion with participation from many people. That said, generally an RFC is not the first step in resolving a dispute. I'm going to split the difference; the RFC will remain closed, but, Ian Oelsner, you may discuss your position as a regular posting for now. Be aware that numerous citations are provided to support the contention that this is not a generally accepted theory, and that WP:MEDRS applies(sourcing requirements for medical claims is stricter than in other topic areas). I think it's going to be tough for you to demonstrate that it is a generally accepted theory(and mere search engine hits is insufficient). 331dot (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) The closure may have been abrupt, but the Rfc never should have been posted in the first place. For someone who says,

  I did extensive Wikipedia policy research in advance of this RfC

you seemed to have missed WP:RFCBEFORE. The next step (which should have been the continuation of the first step) is to now discuss your position (as 331dot explained above). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@331dot:@Mathglot:Thank you for your review. While the two previous discussions of this matter on Talk (Talk:Polyvagal_theory#Polyvagal theory proven and Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism, only attracted four editors, I am happy to encourage further discussion WP:APPNOTE and see if it can be resolved without a RfC. Given this, I think some action needs to be taken regarding the existing section with the “RfC” closure by User: Hemiauchenia. I propose either the whole section should be removed or, at least the gray box consensus can be replaced with a statement from one of you that the RfC is premature pending further discussion. Otherwise, some editors new to the page will justifiably think a neutral/uninvolved editor has already determined “strong consensus” to keep the language in the lead, which is false. The WikiProject link pointed to by Hemiauchenia was dated prior to the disputed language even being inserted. In addition the ad hominem attack against me in the finding - saying I am wasting other editors’ time because of a COI - is also impossibly prejudicial.I believe I don’t have a COI because I am an expert on this subject working for a research institute but even if I do have a COI, nothing prevents me from participating fully on Talk. Editors less aware of COI policy and the policy on the participation of experts on Wikipedia may believe Hemiauchenia’s representations that my presence on Talk is unwarranted and abusive. This is highly prejudicial toward future discussion. I think that is all that’s needed to address admin help before restarting Talk discussion.

Since 331dot went into the merits a bit, please let me address what they said, although I know this full discussion should be on Talk, not here. To set the stage, it is empirically false that PVT has been rejected by the scientific community. Rather, its premises continue to be actively researched, tested and explored in peer-reviewed journals. It is not only a part of mainstream scientific debate, it has been highly influential, and this is easy to demonstrate with scholarly citation metrics or recent overviews of peer-review journal articles about PVT such as Taylor, Edwin W., Wang, Tobias, Leite, Cleo A.C. (2022). “An overview of the phylogeny of cardiorespiratory control in vertebrates with some reflections on the ‘Polyvagal Theory’” Biological Psychology 172: 1-16.An overview of the phylogeny of cardiorespiratory control in vertebrates with some reflections on the ‘Polyvagal Theory’ There is one vocal critic in academia, Paul Grossman. The source of almost all of the dispute on Wikipedia is the clash between Grossman, and a large body of scholars whose research takes PVT very seriously. I know most Wikipedia editors are more accustomed to evaluating single references than looking at Citation Metrics behind paywalls - so, just to name a few articles about PVT published in highly influential journals Clinic Journal of Medicine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Social Neuroscience. In a fascinating example of the deception or sloppiness of the editor who inserted the disputed language, one of the prestigious textbooks use to support a statement that PVT is “not endorsed” by social science, actually contains a full chapter by Stephen Porges, the scientist who first hypothesized PVT, along with an extensive discussion of its underlying concepts. Decety, Jean; Cacioppo, John T. (2011). Oxford Handbook of Social Neuroscience Oxford University Press, pp 151-163. ISBN 978-0-19-534216-1.

If you're interested in the high-quality press’ serious treatment of PVT, you might look at this column by David Brooks in The New York Times, useful for his analysis.

In academia rather than just looking at the prestige of the journals for individual articles, we determine influence and research by looking at peer-reviewed citations. I’d refer you to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics, which establishes how academic citations should be counted and assessed - specifically with the method I employed. The Web of Science and Scopus are not open search directories like Google Scholar. Web of Science only includes peer-reviewed academic journals. It’s one of two major academic databases used by scholars to determine how widely a paper, scholar or subject has been cited by peer-reviewed journals. Citation count is the leading indicator of academic influence, and used not only to help determine Wikipedia notability for academics under Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics, but in the real world, is an important factor that helps determine academic tenure at universities, the awarding of grants for further research and the impact factor that determines the influence of academic journals. The Web of Science database also allows you to track whether citations are accelerating or decelerating. Unfortunately, it is not free, even though Wikipedia requires the use of it or Scopus for determining citations. As detailed in the RfC discussion above, according to Web of Science, (PVT) has been referenced in 448 published peer-reviewed articles and cited 9553 times, accelerating every year. [22]. One seminal 2007 article, (Stephen W. Porges, “The polyvagal perspective,” Biological Psychology, Volume 74, Issue 2, 2007, pages 116-143) [23] has been cited 1808 times in other peer-reviewed articles, as of 8/17/2022 [24] These numbers for PVT are very high for a scientific concept or individual paper, although I understand for a non-academic the basis for comparison is not obvious. Here’s some context from a paper in Nature (journal) - on Web of Science, with more than 58 million items, only 14,499 papers (~0.026%) had more than 1,000 citations in 2014. (The top 100 paper, Nature , Volume 514, Issue 7524.)

Articles by Paul Grossman are almost the only peer-reviewed criticism of PVT cited in the Wikipedia article, despite the length of the Criticism section and the citation string in the lead.

I understand why 331dot would think there were many citations that show PVT has been widely doubted – but that’s only because there are so many references in the lead and the Criticism section that are represented as challenging PVT, when in fact, they do not even mention PVT. Instead, these many references are used to support original analysis by a Wikipedian. For example, in the Criticism section, except for the sentences referenced to Grossman, almost all of the rest is original analysis. Here’s just one of many instances Criticism where it is especially obvious that the sources don’t discuss PVT:

While Grossman's criticism does not address the clinical speculations of the polyvagal theory directly, it contradicts its premises. In particular, it undermines the suggestion that there is a phylogenetic hierarchy, where one vagal system is more primitive than the other, and therefore is activated only when the more evolved one fails (as in dissociation, or acute trauma). It has been known for roughly a century that "a differentiation of the visceral efferent column of the vagus nerve into a dorsal motor nucleus and a ventrolateral nucleus (nucleus ambiguus) is first seen in reptiles (Ariens Kappers, '12; Ariens Kappers et al., '36; Addens, '33)". This contradicts the polyvagal claim of the nucleus ambiguus being unique to mammals.

I look forward to discussing further on Talk. Ian Oelsner (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

References