3.1.0
How Do We Know the Polyvagal Theory is True?
Many readers will probably answer this question by saying that Porges is an expert on the subject — probably the best. This “Porges Says” — similar to “Simon Says” played by children all over the world — is technically an “authority fallacy.” In the next chapter, we will see which fallacies the Polyvagal Theory uses.
This part of this project takes a step back from the facts and focuses instead on how science collects, analyzes, and verifies them. This is essentially the subject of epistemology (see below).
After critically reviewing the various polyvagal hypotheses, this part of this research shows how Porges' logical reasoning is flawed in many ways. Science is picky not only about the facts, but also about how scientists construct their research. Fallacies, such as distorting observations or jumping to conclusions, are the greatest danger to scientific writers. Let us examine how Porges constructed his Polyvagal Theory.
3.1.1
Misinformation
Misinformation, misstatement, or fallacy
Although I don’t believe that Porges intentionally misled his readers and followers, after reviewing his work we must argue that the PVT is based on and reinforced by several fallacies.
When a statement is presented as fact but is not true, it is generally called a “misstatement” or a “falsehood." The term “fallacy” refers to faulty reasoning or misleading arguments. A statement like “the earth is not warming” might be called a “falsehood” if the person making it knows it's not true. It might be called a “misconception” or “mistaken belief” if the person believes it's true but is misinformed. If this statement is used as part of an argument that is flawed because it's based on this mistaken statement, then it would be a fallacy.
According to Why is misinformation a problem? (Adams, 2023), this question is not merely academic but urgent. In this article, the authors explore the concepts of misinformation — as “false,” “inaccurate,” or “incorrect” information vs. disinformation, false information that is also intentionally disseminated. The term “fake news” gained prominence after President Trump's inauguration in January 2017. Misinformation leads to decreased trust in the media and questioning the credibility of sources, blurring the dichotomy between false and true news. COVID-19 and climate change have recently prompted numerous studies on misinformation and declining trust in scientists. In summary, misinformation is not new in many disciplines, but modern technology is generating misinformation on an unprecedented scale. This increases its potential to cause harm at both the individual and societal levels, underscoring the need for immediate action.
I also recommend Death of Expertise (Nichols, 2017), an exciting book published before the pandemic about how crowds are challenging the expertise of medical professionals.
The Best Available Version of the Truth
«Today, people are looking at media in terms of finding or choosing information to reinforce what they already believe?”
In a YouTube document, Carl Bernstein, an investigative journalist famous for his work with Bob Woodward, in exposing the Watergate scandal, discusses the importance of pursuing the “best available version of the truth” in journalism. This concept emphasizes the responsibility of journalists to present accurate, verifiable, and objective information to the public.
Bernstein has recently expressed concern about the current media landscape, in which people often seek out news sources that confirm, rather than challenge, their existing beliefs. This phenomenon is known as “confirmation bias” and can lead to the spread of misinformation and increased polarization in society.
Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward shared the 1973 Pulitzer Prize on behalf of The Washington Post for their investigative reporting on the Watergate scandal, which ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.
3.1.2
Epistemology
Epistemology, a branch of philosophy of science, studies how we know what we think we know (e.g., “Is the earth round or flat?”). Rhetoric concerns the tools used to communicate or persuade: true or untrue is irrelevant. In recent debates about COVID-19, vaccinations, and climate change, the questions “How do we know?” and “Can we trust the scientific experts?” have become essential. The answers we give have political and social implications.
In the case of the Polyvagal Theory, we are witnessing a growing divide between biology and psychology, with mental health authors promoting theories about the brain that we believe do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. How is this possible? According to Wikipedia, the word “epistemology” first appeared in English in 1847. From the ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη (epi-stemi = to put on) and logos (= discourse, science), it describes the science of making a statement. It is the theory of knowledge, not knowledge itself. How do we know what we know? What authorizes us to pretend that our statement is true? This is not abstract but very practical: how did we acquire this knowledge?
At first glance, modern citizens no longer obey the authority of the church or the king. But despite such easy access to information, we have entered an era of great cognitive uncertainty. Myriads of self-appointed experts have emerged to challenge the authority of science. At the same time, science and new technologies (e.g., optogenetics) are far more advanced than the traditional research of the 20th century. Who to believe? We can argue that science has gone rogue today — serving the hidden agenda of the Deep State — and that we shouldn't consider any study after 2000. Should we be stuck with conspiracy theories, fake news, and disinformation? Just as Bruce Lipton questions the importance of DNA, Porges questions genetics and the “cortico-centric" approach to autism (Porges, 2024). Therefore, the debate here is more than just about the autonomous system but about scientific epistemology. How can we convince readers to stay critical and unbiased?
Aristotle identified the three pillars of persuasive communication as ethos, pathos, and logos.
Ethos appeals to ethics to convince your audience of your credibility. Before the audience accepts what you say, they must accept you. In the first part of this site, we saw how a growing circle of designated experts accepted Porges as the top expert on neuropsychology.
Pathos appeals to emotion. Your arguments must move your audience. With a shocking story (e.g., “The dorsal vagal kills babies”), cute photos, and the promise of safety and happiness — because you are mammals — the PVT does the trick.
Logos appeals to reason and logic. That doesn't mean it's true. Since ancient times, orators (politicians, lawyers, preachers, or salesmen) have perfected convincing their audience of anything.
Rhetoric is an art with inversions of logic, tricks, and artifice that make listeners believe they are in complete control. In the following sections, we will discover which rhetorical strategies the PVT used to successfully convince a broad audience of readers and psychology experts.
3.1.3
Rhetoric
Porges is an excellent rhetorician — as well as a writer and speaker — who has discovered over time that lay people can enjoy his work. As an art, rhetoric has a long history dating back to ancient civilizations.
During the 5th century B.C., several figures played significant roles in developing rhetoric, philosophy, and other fields of knowledge in Ancient Greece. This period, often called the Classical Age of Greece, was marked by significant intellectual and cultural developments.
The Sophists: The Sophists were itinerant teachers and philosophers who made some of the earliest contributions to the development of rhetoric. They were known for their ability to teach effective speaking and reasoning. Two famous Sophists who greatly influenced rhetoric were Georgias and Protagoras.
Gorgias: Known for his sophisticated rhetorical skills and nihilistic approach to knowledge.
Protagoras: Famous for his statement, “Man is the measure of all things,” he helped develop relativism in rhetoric.
Socrates: Although not a rhetorician, Socrates (469-399 B.C.) profoundly influenced philosophy and thought in Greece. His method of questioning, the Socratic, or Maieutic (= to give birth) method, motivated students to find the correct answer through reflection.
Plato: A student of Socrates, Plato (427-347 BCE) was critical of the Sophists and made significant contributions to philosophy. In his dialogues, he often contrasted the Sophists' manipulative techniques with the pursuit of truth and wisdom.
Aristotle: A student of Plato, Aristotle (384-322 BC) is one of the most influential figures in developing Western philosophy and rhetoric. His treatise “Rhetoric” is a foundational text that systematized the art of persuasion and laid the foundation for studying rhetoric as a discipline.
Challenges to Rhetoric
The challenge to traditional rhetoric, a significant development that emerged prominently in the 20th century, was significantly influenced by figures such as Marshall McLuhan, known for his quote "the medium is the message," and postmodern theorists. These influential figures began to question the established foundations of rhetoric, paving the way for a new era of communication. Bandler and Grinder, the pioneers of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), also played a crucial role in deconstructing conventional rhetoric to bring about rapid changes in fields as diverse as therapy, coaching, sales, and marketing.
In the last decade, the relativism developed by Protagoras has experienced a revival in the form of relativism. The authority of scientific experts is being questioned and openly challenged on social media. This has led to a large body of research on misinformation.
3.1.4
Narrative Economics: Is the Polyvagal Theory an Epidemy?
Robert J. Shiller was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2013. In the following years, he began exploring narrative's power on consumer economic behavior, publishing Narrative Economics: How Stories Go Viral & Drive Major Economic Events in 2019. In this groundbreaking book, the author explains how good stories create buzz, which leads to increased sales. What makes the book unique (Shiller also has free training on Coursera, Narrative Economics, which we highly recommend) is the comparison he makes between the spread of news and epidemic diseases. It may seem rude to think of PVT as an epidemic phenomenon, but reading Shiller, a wise man, makes a lot of sense. Like Kuhn (1962) before him, he helps us understand how and why new narratives — such as the PVT — spread. Like most economists, Shiller doesn't judge — which is refreshing. He looks at the numbers like a doctor at his temperature and blood work. He confirms our suspicion that the success of a book — or any idea — is independent of its scientific merit. News doesn't have to be authentic to stir the hive. The more exaggerated and absurd the news, the better it spreads. And why is that? Because it shakes our amygdala more and gives us dopamine and adrenaline — the big thrill. Harry and Meghan getting divorced, Bill Gates putting microchips in vaccines, the deep state threatening our democracy — big headlines, big money.
Shiller specifically uses the word “contagion” to describe the spread of news. He observes how long the infection circulates in a given population. But while we think of some ideas as viral, others seem more like fungi — under the radar but resistant to modern science. Such is the case with the reptilian brain meme. In a recent issue of the New York Times (August 10, 2024), a highly educated journalist wrote about how “criminals appear to our lizard brains. Lizard? That's cute but wrong.
Another example of persistent unfounded belief? We recently came across an article by Zach St. George (New York Times, March 3d 2024), The Comet Strike Theory that Just Won’ die, about Richard Firestone’s theory on the Younger Dryas, a catastrophic event – 12’900 years ago.
3.1.5
Teleology
Does the universe have a purpose? If so, we have a teleology — a word with the same root as telescope. From Greek: τηλε tele = at a distance, far away, as in television, telescope, or teleportation), teleology is a perspective on life and the world in which everything happens or is created with a purpose. For example, melons have lines so that we can cut them better. Not to be confused with theology!
“What are we to understand by the best of all possible worlds?” asks Candide in Voltaire's novel. His tutor Pangloss replies: “The one in which everything is good, because everything is made for a purpose; everything fulfills its necessary end, and if, for example, a nose protrudes in the middle of the face, it is to wear glasses, so we have glasses. Legs are visibly instituted to be shod, and we have shoes.”
In this passage, Pangloss demonstrates his philosophy of optimism: everything in the world is made for a reason, and we live in the “best of all possible worlds. Consequently, he argues that if there's a nose on the face, it's to wear glasses. This statement manifests the optimistic philosophy of Leibniz, which Voltaire criticizes throughout the novel.
While this perspective may be comforting to many of us, it doesn't reflect scientific methodology. It is well known that evolutionary biologists are the worst believers among scientists. Conversely, evolutionary theory is at odds with religion for many Americans (Barnes, 2020).
The teleological view of evolution holds that organisms evolve toward a particular ideal form according to a plan, design, or general purpose, such as the emergence of conscience, spirituality, or sociality (Porges). As noted above, biology rejects this approach and sees evolution as a blind and unguided process, a perspective supported by substantial evidence.
One of the most prominent figures in this regard is the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who proposed a theory of evolution based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The giraffe has a long neck to reach the tree's higher branches. This is a reversal of Darwin's perspective–a fallacy. According to the theory of evolution, changes are random and are eventually a posteriori selected as an advantage. The desire to reach the higher branches doesn't make the giraffe's neck grow. Lamarckism appears here and there in Porges's work, suggesting that evolution promotes social competence — such as love, monogamy, and family– a mammalian agenda.
For centuries, the church and the intellectual intelligentsia — after long debates about whether women had souls — refused to attribute emotions or thoughts to animals, maintaining a clear distinction between (white) men and the rest of creation. The idea of the honest, educated gentleman was relevant.
Like Freud, who relegated instincts to the unconscious, the PVT has a top-down hierarchical system: VVC, SNS, and DVC. It is fascinating, but to us, it is a complete fabrication.
Jacques Bernardin Henri de Saint-Pierre was an 18th century French writer and botanist known for his work in natural history and his advocacy of studying nature to understand God's plan for the universe. Although Saint-Pierre did not explicitly advocate a teleological approach to evolution, his writings contain teleological elements.
In his most famous work, “Paul et Virginie,” Saint-Pierre portrays nature as a harmonious and purposeful system in which each organism plays a vital role in the overall functioning of the ecosystem. He also emphasizes the idea that the beauty and complexity of the natural world are evidence of a divine Creator. Saint-Pierre's views on nature were heavily influenced by the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued that humans are inherently good and that society corrupts them. Saint-Pierre believed that by studying nature and living in harmony with its laws, man could rediscover his innate goodness and return to a state of natural virtue.
While Saint-Pierre made no significant contributions to scientific or biological thought, his work helped popularize the idea that the study of nature could reveal essential truths about the universe and its Creator. His emphasis on the interdependence of organisms and the purposefulness of nature can be seen as a precursor to the teleological approaches to evolution that became popular in the 19th century.
Proponents of the teleological approach argue that evolution is directed by a higher power, such as God or a cosmic force, and that the ultimate goal of evolution is to create increasingly perfect and complex organisms. They believe that the progression of life on Earth is not random but rather the result of a predetermined plan or design.
This teleological approach to evolution has often been used to justify social and political hierarchies, as it suggests that some organisms are more evolved and closer to the ideal form than others. It has also led to the development of ideas such as Social Darwinism (Spencer), which applies the principles of natural selection to human society and argues that the strong should dominate the weak. In the polyvagal world, social beings are better.
Modern biology, however, has largely discredited the teleological approach to evolution. The modern synthesis of evolutionary theory emphasizes that evolution is an unguided and random process driven by natural selection and genetic variation. While evolution can lead to increased complexity and diversity, the process has no predetermined goal or endpoint.
Today, most scientists and biologists view evolution as a natural, unguided process and reject the idea that it has a purpose or goal. Instead, they seek to understand the underlying genetic and environmental factors that drive evolution and use this knowledge to understand the diversity of life on Earth better.
3.1.6
Does Evolution Have a Mammalian Agenda?
In Polyvagal Safety (1921, p. 25), Porges writes: “This progression, (...) provides the neuroanatomical pathways that support the mammalian agenda of sociality and co-regulation”. In the current world of biology, evolution has no agenda or purpose. Anyone can disagree, of course, but the scientific concept of evolution has been clear for many decades.
Does teleology have epistemological implications for the PVT?
Teleological explanations understand natural and human phenomena as assigned to a purpose or an end goal. This gives a different perspective on why things happen. For Porges' readers, the PVT offers a new “logical” interpretation of psychology, physiology, and evolution. Is teleological thinking wrong? Not always.
Human Action: Understanding human behavior often requires teleological reasoning because actions are typically goal-directed. This is critical to fields such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology. However, the PVT reduces the richness of science to a few possible fields (e.g., social engagement or safety).
Biology and evolution: In biology, teleological thinking has historically been used to explain the functionality of biological features. While modern biology favors evolutionary explanations, the language of purpose and function (e.g., “the function of the heart is to pump blood”) remains valuable. PVT makes a giant leap by attributing an exclusively social function to the mammalian face or making HRV a psychological safety source rather than an energetic efficacy index.
Systems Theory: In complex systems and cybernetics, teleology helps explain how systems self-regulate and maintain goals. This helps to understand natural and artificial systems. PVT postulates a “ventral” only circuit. There are several options based on the orthovagal model.
Natural Theology: Teleological arguments, such as the argument from design, have been central to discussions about God's existence and the universe's purpose. These discussions shape epistemological views about what counts as evidence and rational belief. Although Porges doesn't mention the issue of religion, it would be interesting to know more about the possible support of the PVT by religious or fundamentalist groups to explain this polyvagal fervor.
Ethics and morality: Teleology influences ethical theories such as virtue ethics and utilitarianism. The social agenda is pervasive in the PVT. Teleology introduces normative aspects to epistemology (e.g., social vs. asocial).
In sum, while modern science often emphasizes mechanistic explanations, teleological perspectives still play an important role in conceptualizing knowledge. However, we must approach them cautiously, as they can also introduce biases and fallacies that require us to be alert and mindful in our analysis.
>> to the next chapter Polyvagal Fallacies