A Thoughtful Response to the Current Polyvagal Theory Debate
- Dr. Jennifer Williams
- Apr 7
- 3 min read
Dr. Ashley Austin & Dr. Jennifer Williams
As psychotherapists who teach, practice, and deeply value a neurobiologically informed approach to healing, we have been following the recent critique of Polyvagal Theory with both interest and care. We want to be clear about what we are—and are not—seeing in this moment.
There are meaningful scientific questions being raised about specific aspects of Polyvagal Theory. These include whether branches of the vagus nerve can be cleanly mapped onto emotional states, whether the nervous system operates in a predictable hierarchy, and how constructs like neuroception can be clearly defined and measured. These are important conversations, and they reflect the natural process of science continuing to refine itself.
As Dr. Williams often shares with her students, during a training with Louis Cozolino, she was told: “Don’t marry this information—date it.” At the time, that landed as both surprising and grounding. Over the years, it has become a guiding principle. In academia, this is not a weakness—it is the work. Our understanding evolves. Our language becomes more precise. And our responsibility is to stay engaged, not rigid.
At the same time, it is equally important to recognize what is not being undone.
The current debate is not a rejection of the role of the body in emotional experience. It is not a rejection of regulation, connection, or the impact of the nervous system on how we respond to the world. Rather, it is a re-examination of how precisely we explain the underlying mechanisms.
A helpful way to understand this is to look at the history of the triune brain model, originally proposed by Paul MacLean. Over time, neuroscience has shown that the brain does not develop or function in the clean, hierarchical layers that model once suggested. And yet, the triune brain has remained useful as a way to organize and make sense of survival, emotion, and higher-order thinking. In a similar way, current critiques of Polyvagal Theory highlight areas where the biology may be more complex or less precise than originally described. At the same time, this does not diminish the value of the theory as a clinical framework for understanding patterns of regulation, protection, and connection.
In our work with clients—and in our classrooms—we continue to see strong support for several foundational ideas that extend beyond any single theory.
We know that the brain is continuously processing signals from the body, and that this internal awareness is closely tied to emotional regulation and mental health. We know that individuals function best within a manageable range of arousal, and that trauma can narrow that range in ways that shape behavior, mood, and relationships. We know that emotional and relational experiences are deeply embodied, and that the nervous system is adaptive, responsive, and shaped by context. And we know that humans regulate not only within themselves, but through connection with others.
These are not abstract ideas. They show up every day in clinical practice.
From our perspective, the most grounded and responsible stance is this: we can remain open to refining how we describe and measure the nervous system, while continuing to use frameworks that help us make sense of our clients’ lived experiences.
If anything, this moment invites us to be more precise, more thoughtful, and more integrated in how we teach and apply these ideas—not to abandon them.
The work of helping people feel safer in their bodies, more connected in their relationships, and more capable of navigating their internal experiences remains unchanged.
We can continue to grow in our understanding without losing what is already helping people heal—and that balance is where both good science and good clinical work live.
Comments