This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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...[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the point of the theory is: the vagal system projects to the insular cortex, which in turn relays info to other cortical systems in humans. I don’t see how this argument about cartilaginous fish applies. 2604:3D08:178C:4100:6000:D913:47AB:9B6B (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just adding on to this old thread, in order to point out that perpetual motion machine has over 10000 hits in Google scholar, the point being that mere number of citations cannot refute WP:FRINGE. Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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…”^[1]
• Paragraph 3, sentence 1: “Grossman also points…” ^[1]
• Paragraph 4, sentence 5: “More recent findings…”^[2][3]
• Paragraph 4, sentence 6: “Furthermore, Monteiro…"^[2]
• Paragraph 5, sentence 3: “Grossman & Taylor…” ^[4]

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..."^[5][6]
• Paragraph 4, sentence 3:"It has been known for roughly..."^[7]
• Paragraph 4, sentence 4:"This contradicts the polyvagal...".^[8]
• Paragraph 7, sentence 3: "Furthermore, the claims..."^[5]

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…”^[9]

• Paragraph 9, sentence 1:“In addition, polyvagal theory…”^[9] 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…” ^[10]
• Paragraph 6, sentence 1: “By overemphasizing…”^[11]
• Paragraph 8, sentence 1:“While other brain areas…”^[11][12]

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

@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)[reply]

Responding to ping - sorry, I mostly can't really make head or tail of what you're trying to suggest here. What I do understand I disagree with. As an editor with a COI (now confirmed by a query at ANI), I think starting with trying to overhaul the criticism section is going to be a very difficult task for you. If you want to improve the article I would suggest proposing the 'brief, lay-friendly short definition' you mentioned a few sections up the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your point #2 from "breakdown" in your 17:51, 17 December 2022 message, and numbered them. I added a link to the edit and user where it was added to the article (all dates 2020, unless specified):

It looks like most of the changes you are addressing come from two users, who should address them. As it happens, each contributes primarily at other Wikipedias; I'll ping them at their main Talk page to this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified users he:Asaf Federman (talk · contribs) and de:Oleasylvestris (talk · contribs). Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

  @b331dot : "I think it's going to be tough for you to demonstrate that it is a generally accepted theory" . In fact, the polyvagal theory has been widely used in different trauma therapies for decades. since publication, therapists can illustrate their patients suffering from the consequences of trauma why their nervous system functions in the way it does, explore the triggers, and the patient himself can contribute to alleviating his symptoms and ultimately bring about his own healing. this is progress compared to the era of misdiagnosis and medication with psychotropic drugs, which cannot alleviate trauma symptoms or even bring about healing. The polyvagal theory and its great contribution came up in every training course of the most varied directions that I have experienced in the field of trauma therapy in years, likewise in every specialist book that I have read. Schutz67 (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  'Widely used' does not equate to generally accepted. You can buy homeopathic remedies at the corner store, but it is clearly not accepted by medical science. MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  there are very good trainings also for laymen like you seem to be one Schutz67 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (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)[reply]

@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)".[1] This contradicts the polyvagal claim of the nucleus ambiguus being unique to mammals.[2]

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

The importance of Stephen Porges' polyvagal theory to modern trauma therapy is explained in the documentary film The Wisdom of Trauma^[3] directed by Zaya and Maurizio Benazzo, that premiered in June 2021 as part of an online training. The film focuses on Hungarian-born, Canadian-based physician Gabor Maté and his trauma work with addicts. His Jewish family narrowly escaped deportation under the German occupation. Porges theorie is of enormous benefit to trauma sufferers because it makes their symptoms understandable to lay people. In the documentary, which was accompanied by interviews with trauma experts such as Peter Levine, Esther Perel, and Resmaa Menakem, Maté explores "why so many people in our Western society struggle with mental illness" and how to understand the "connection between illness, addiction, trauma, and society."^[4] "Trauma is not what happens to you. Trauma is what happens inside you as a result of what happens to you." - Gabor Maté: The Wisdom of Trauma^[5] The website for the film provides material for sufferers and helpers from various disciplines.^[6] Schutz67 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self published documentary films are not reliable sources, and inserting advertorial text about such films is clearly not encyclopedic. MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:, @Mathglot:: In a previous discussion about the closing of a RfC as soon as it was opened, you each said a discussion should take place prior to going to RfC. So, I continued an existing discussion about the Criticism section here: Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism on December 17, 2022. The Criticism section should be straightened out before the problems in the lead can be addressed. I set out a ping to four of the most recent participants on December 23, 2022. One responded on December 27 to say that he didn’t think there should be a discussion of the Criticism section (which IMO is 95% an original essay consisting of sources that don’t even mention the subject of the article) because I have a COI; and to the extent they followed my arguments, they disagreed. No one else has participated.

I think I’ve done what I can without a RfC. And, the one user participating is intractable in their position. But, prior to starting another RfC, I want to see if you are not in agreement that the time is ripe. Thanks. Ian Oelsner (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did the right thing by raising this question, and I need to get back up to speed on this before I can give a better reply, but in the meantime, pinging other participants in previous discussions: @Schutz67, MrOllie, and Hemiauchenia:; feel free to add any I may have missed. As a general thought regarding "done what you can": have you tried listing the discussion at relevant projects to attract wider participation? Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC based on what you've written above would almost certainly fail to produce a result - RFCs need to present a clear (usually simple) question that the community can easily digest and then form an opinion on. It is often something like - should the article use 'wording A' or 'wording B'. What you wrote above is almost impossible to understand, because it is (I'll be frank here) a rather unfocused complaint about the entire existing section that doesn't propose a fix. I honestly found it quite difficult to follow, and I've read the existing article several times. The fresh eyes drawn in by an RFC simply aren't going to invest the time to try to understand it. You're missing the 'wording B'. Propose something, and then there will be something to actually discuss. And then if there is some kind of impasse, we might need an RFC. But please have a read of WP:1AM first. As an editor with a COI you must consider that the community's patience will become exhausted quite rapidly - that is a large part of why your first RFC was closed so quickly. I would suggest that it is probable that the RFC will either fail or will produce a result that does not support your position - if so, you should be prepared to walk away from the issue entirely, as I think it is likely that the Wikipedia community will not be willing to entertain a third bite of the apple. MrOllie (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with MrOllie. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur as well. Ian, I can see that although you registered over two years ago, you are still essentially a brand new editor. It's to your credit that you're trying to follow the rules, as you have done so far with COI disclosure, and raising this issue here, so I think it's clear that you are editing in good faith. That doesn't mean that everything you wish to accomplish at the article will happen, however, and previous comments seem to indicate that consensus may be against you. You wish to test that with an WP:Rfc, but I think that's premature, although neither I nor anyone here can categorically tell you not to do it as that's not our role as editors, but we can describe what Wikipedia policy and guidelines say about it, and point out based on experience what is likely to happen if you do, which is one thing MrOllie rightly alluded to.

An Rfc takes up a lot of community time by a lot of editors, and since everyone is a volunteer here, we want to ensure that editor time is well-spent (because otherwise, all those editors could be doing something productive to benefit the encyclopedia in some other area). When there is a discussion about some content dispute that goes on for quite some time, and it becomes clear that it is deadlocked, or at least it is not clear if there is a WP:CONSENSUS of opinion about it, that's the time to raise an WP:Rfc. Conversely, when a discussion doesn't appear deadlocked because it continues to make progress in discussion, even if consensus isn't clear yet, then an Rfc may be premature. If the consensus is pretty clear, even if the discussion goes on and on because a vocal minority keeps trying and the majority indulges them with responses (which they aren't really required to do) then an Rfc simply isn't needed at all.

My sense is that we are in this last case, namely, that an Rfc is simply not needed, because consensus is against you at this point. How might you change this situation? I've already mentioned twice the option of notifying related projects, and I think that would be your next step, if you want to continue the discussion. Make sure you follow the guideline at WP:APPNOTE, because you don't want to be viewed as having sought out only editors who you think might support your view. Appropriate notification of this discussion may draw additional eyeballs and comments, and it's possible that consensus might swing in your direction. I rather expect the opposite, and that attracting additional comment would simply concretize the existing consensus against you, but I could be wrong, and you are welcome to try. Or, the discussion might reach an impasse with no clear outcome, and if that happens, then that would be the time to start an Rfc, in my opinion. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there have only been three editors involved in the discussion about the Criticism section; two believe it should be entirely revamped and one is opposed. So it’s too soon to get any sense of consensus. Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism. In other sections, opposition to process decisions, such as when to create a RfC, is not the same thing as opposition on the merits. A few people have speculated about outcomes without participating in the discussion on the merits - that would require reading 10 long academic articles.

For anyone carefully reading the sources in the Criticism section, the Wikipedia violations are rather straightforward and severe. The last time I counted this was a 26 sentence section. Five of those sentences are sourced to an article that critiques Polyvagal Theory and should be preserved. Twenty one of the sentences are sources to articles that do not discuss Polyvagal Theory; (except for the cite to the original article that actually proposed Polyvagal Theory); thus it’s prima facie original research and an original essay. WP:NOR, WP:Essay. The criticism in the lead is the same – the citations do not discuss Polyvagal Theory; (except for one that is actually positive even though it’s cited as negative - the chapter of the text book in question from Oxford was written by the originator of the theory.)

The only reason this is appearing to be a disputed case is because people are weighing in without reading the citations. This is understandable because reading 10 academic articles from beginning to end to confirm that something is not in an article is tedious. It was for me. And the cited text books in the lead aren’t even available online (there are no page numbers given which is the giveaway that the books don’t mention Polyvagal Theory. You can also read the index and chapter headings.) Why is all this fictional sourcing being tolerated? I think people are confusing the scientific theory, which is well within the academic mainstream, with a group of therapists who have proposed novel medical treatments based on their understanding of PVT. But this article is not about these experimental therapies – there is one unsourced paragraph in the Theory section about medical treatments and this should just be deleted.

I’m going to follow the advice of Mathglot and notify relevant Wikipedia projects about the discussion. I agree the RfC is a waste of time because it’s ridiculous that editors aren’t just removing the original research. But that might be the only way to get enough editors focused on what’s going on here. Ian Oelsner (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I only have time right now to address what is perhaps a side issue, namely, "to confirm that something is not in an article is tedious". This, I believe, is an allusion to the difficulty of using evidence of absence to prove a negative, but if the article is viewable or downloadable, and the concept in question is easily boiled down to a handful of keywords relevant to the issue, then it need not be tedious or difficult. Not every question yields to this approach, but imho it's trivial to search a web page or PDF for the expression polyvagal, and if it is not there, then you can safely "prove the negative", and remove that reference and any content that claims verification based on it. (This approach fails for concepts which can be discussed without relying on a limited set of keywords; but I don't think this is the case here, as I cannot envision an article which could be characterized as being "about polyvagal theory", that never uses the term anywhere in the article.) If you perform such searches and turn up nothing for a given reference, I would support your removal of the content, and the reference. (If polyvagal has synonyms, be sure to use an OR'd query (or multiple individual queries) that includes all reasonable alternative keywords in your search.) If it looks more like an accurate assertion and someone simply added the wrong citation, then please just remove the citation and tag the content with ((citation needed)); no need to remove the content in that case. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given Ian Oelsner's COI (confirmed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Self-reporting for COI check) they should report any specific problem cites here rather than making the removals them self. One at a time, please. Throwing up walls of text and long lists of complaints makes it difficult to respond and is part of why this page gets little to no discussion. MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed; I should have kept that in mind. I concur with MrOllie. So, Ian, if you have investigated a case like this and believe some content should be removed, please follow the procedure outlined at WP:EDITREQUEST, starting a new section below for each case if there are more than one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: As User:MrOllie has already expressed their opposition to my proposed updates above in Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism, Request Edit is not the correct forum. “...consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial” according to WP:RE. You can also see earlier vociferous debate on related points at Talk:Polyvagal theory# brief, lay-friendly short definition of Polyvagal Theory needed on Wikipedia page. There are several experienced editors on both sides. Thus, I have been trying to reignite a consensus conversation at Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism. Very recently, editors have expanded the Criticism section and supported more of it with citations. So I am starting a new discussion about a proposed revision that brings together everything that’s actually reliably sourced in the Criticism section.I have worked hard to try to rescue unattributed statements by finding relevant sourcing. If eliminating the original research and unsourced statements continues to be opposed even with a solid criticism section, more serious dispute resolution is the only way forward. Ian Oelsner (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much a lay person looking at this information.

Earlier, it was noted that there has been a response to much of the criticism of the Poly Vagal theory. The statement I found is dated February 2023: https://www.polyvagalinstitute.org/background

As an outsider, this seems a well stated summary of the arguments. Clearly, it is one sided statement, but a considered response to that would be a valuable contribution to this discussion.

I also suspect that doing good science in this field is very hard. First mover advantage regarding theories is powerful. They can be accepted with little evidence, though often that is improved over time. The imperfections of current theories that are actually in use can be and hopefully are studied, which is helpful. Later theories have to reach a higher standard to effectively challenge established theories. If they cut across existing disciplines, then this complicates the matter.

Getting a real sense of the status of a theory is important. I hope these pages can be revisited to help a lay person get a good sense of the issues involved. in the PolyVagal Theory. CuriousMarkE (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I first pointed out at Talk:Polyvagal_theory#Criticism of the criticism, much of the section is lacking citations or constitutes statements based on original research and analysis WP:NOT, WP:NOR.

Editors have since taken the time to find available sources criticizing polyvagal theory (PVT) and updated the criticism section accordingly. There is now plenty of reliably sourced academic criticism without having to also include unsourced statements, original research and original analysis.

I’ve put together all the reliably sourced statements below, and rescued as much original analysis as I could by adjusting and attributing criticism to fit reliable sources. I removed unsourced statements; statements where the source doesn’t mention or discuss polyvagal theory at all WP:Coatracking, or as represented. WP:NOR I have worked very hard to try to capture all the sourced criticism of PVT and present it in a neutral manner.

Here is how the new, properly sourced section written in NPOV would read:

Criticism

Paul Grossman of University Hospital Basel and Edwin Taylor of University of Birmingham argue there is no evidence that the dorsal motor nucleus (DMN) is an evolutionarily more primitive center of the brainstem parasympathetic system than the nucleus ambiguus (NA). They also stated in 2007 that they were unable to find publications to support the polyvagal theory claim that sudden decrease in heart rate elicited by extreme emotional circumstances is due to DMN efferent activity on the heart.[1]

Grossman and Taylor said their review of existing research indicates that respiratory sinus arrhythmia is not a reliable marker of vagal tone, since it is subject to both respiratory variables and sympathetic (beta-adrenergic) influences in addition to vagal influences.[1]

Grossman also argues that the results of Stephen Porges' study on two species of lizard was flawed due to inappropriate measurement of heart rate variability.[1]

According to a paper by Diana Monteiro of Federal University of São Carlos and Taylor, more recent findings in lungfish of myelinated vagus nerve fibers leading from the nucleus ambiguus to the heart indicates that polyvagal theory’s hypothesis that the nucleus ambiguus is unique to mammals is incorrect.[2][3] Monteiro says that "the mechanisms [Porges] identifies as solely mammalian are undeniably present in the lungfish that sits at the evolutionary base of the air-breathing vertebrates."[2]

Polyvagal theory argues there is a relationship between RSA responses and forms of psychopathology,  but a meta-analysis found that empirical findings are inconclusive as to the extent to which there is any relationship between RSA reactivity and psychopathology.[4] 

Taylor reviews the evidence for the presence of cardio-respiratory interactions similar to respiratory sinus arrhythmia and their potential purpose with regard to blood oxygenation in many vertebrate species (both air- and water-breathing), concluding that RSA may be a relic of older cardio-respiratory systems.  He criticizes polyvagal theory's grouping of various cranial nerves into a "vagal system" as invalid based on anatomical facts.[5]

Neuhuber and Berthoud argue that polyvagal theory incorrectly portrays the role of the different vagal nuclei in mediating the freeze response.[6]

They argue that polyvagal theory overstates the role of the vagus nerve in activating freeze or other responses, because it neglects what is known scientifically about comparative interspecies anatomy of neural pathways, anatomical structures, and concomitant behavioral responses.[6] Roelofs, who otherwise concurs with some of polyvagal theory's arguments about parasympathetic effects and the nucleus ambiguous, also suggests that the vagus does not have a major role in the freeze response.[7]

In addition to removing unsourced statements in the Criticism section, I would suggest removing entirely unsourced statements about therapists who claim to have developed clinical applications related to theory. All three of these paragraphs can be removed (which also eliminates the justifications for the “fringe” flag on the article because that’s the only content related to PVT not sourced to prestigious peer-reviewed journals.)

Below is a recap of the sentences in the Criticism section that are not included in the new proposal either because there is no citation at all or the absence in the citation of an actual mention or criticism of PVT. WP:Coatracking, WP:NOR (sentence position current as of February 10, 2023) dif. I tried to find a way to rescue the sentences either with attribution or a citation that actually criticizes PVT but could not find a way with the following sentences:

Paragraph 1 , Sentence 1, Section sentence 1:

Polyvagal theory has not, to date, been shown to explain any phenomena or experimental data above and beyond what is explained more precisely by attachment theory, research on emotional self-regulation, psychological stress models, the Neurovisceral Integration Model[8].

Source does not mention polyvagal theory. Obvious OR.

Paragraph 1 , Sentence 2, Section sentence 2:

Its appeal may lie in the fact that it provides a very simple (if inaccurate) neural/evolutionary backstory to already well-established psychiatric knowledge.

No source for statement including the citation in the proceeding sentence. Obvious OR.

Paragraph 2, sentence 1, section sentence 3:

Critics of the polyvagal theory point out that its premises are not supported by empirical, scientific research.

No source for statement; if citation in next sentence is intended, the sentence still violates WP:Synthesis WP:NOR and WP:Weasel

Paragraph 2 , Sentence 3, Section sentence 5:

In fact, there seems to be no evidence that such decrease happens in trauma-related dissociation in the first place.

No source for statement including the citation in the proceeding sentence.

Paragraph 4 , Sentence 1, Section sentence 7:

While Grossman's criticism does not address the clinical speculations of the polyvagal theory directly, it contradicts its premises.	

No source and the next sentence also has no source.

Paragraph 4 , Sentence 2, Section sentence 8:

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).”

No source for statement including the citation in the proceeding sentence.

Paragraph 4 , Sentence 3, Section sentence 9:

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)".[9]

Source does not mention PVT or Porges

Paragraph 4 , Sentence 4, Section sentence 10:

This contradicts the polyvagal claim of the nucleus ambiguus being unique to mammals.[10]

Source does not mention PVT or Porges

Paragraph 5 , Sentence 1, Section sentence 13:

In polyvagal theory the term vagal tone is equated with respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA), which is suggested to be linked to dimensions of psychopathology.	

No source for statement including the citation in the proceeding sentence. This is largely accurate, and could be sourced, but it’s not a criticism and is redundant here.

Paragraph 6 , Sentence 2, Section sentence 19:

While the vagus nerve undoubtedly plays a role in transmitting and integrating emotion-related signals between the brain and the rest of the body (a fact established long before the emergence of polyvagal speculations, see Vagusstoff), there is no evidence to suggest that it has any control over such behaviors.	

No source including the next citation following in the proceeding sentence. Obvious OR.

Paragraph 7 , Sentence 1, Section sentence 21:

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.	

No source and next sentence’s source does not support. Obvious OR.

Paragraph 7 , Sentence 2, Section sentence 22:

For example, the precise functioning of the two proposed distinct "vagal systems" or of the "social engagement system" is not explained,[11] nor is that of the "face-heart connection" supposedly embodied in the ventral branch of the vagus nerve.

The source (Porges) does not support this. The sentence creates an original research from an editor’s original analysis of a paper by Porges (who first proposed PVT) that explains the theory (and doesn’t criticize his own findings).

Paragraph 7 , Sentence 3, Section sentence 23:

Furthermore, the claims do not explain any findings beyond what is more precisely explained by Thayer's Neurovisceral Integration Model.[8]

Source does not mention PVT or Porges. OR.

Paragraph 8 , Sentence 1, Section sentence 24:

While other brain areas known to be involved in fear responses (e. g. the amygdala and periaqueductal gray[7][12] are mentioned by Porges, he does not integrate them into the description of his own hypothesized systems.

First and second sources are just descriptive background not related to PVT. The final clause, about PVT, has no citation.This is all original analysis. That said, the actual claims and content of this sentence are incorporated in one of the sentences I rescued (see last of sentences above).

Paragraph 8 , Sentence 2, Section sentence 25:

The proposed anatomical difference between the vagus nerve origins of mammals vs. other vertebrates, even if it were borne out by more recent studies, would be an insufficient basis for explaining complex social and emotional behaviour differences.

No source and next sentence’s source does not support. Obvious OR.

Paragraph 9, Sentence 1, Section sentence 26:

In addition, polyvagal theory introduces the term "neuroception" for "a neural process that enables humans and other mammals to engage in social behaviors by distinguishing safe from dangerous contexts".[11]

This is accurate but the sentence and the source (by a main proponent of PVT) does not criticize PVT - the sentence could be moved up top in the description of the theory.

Paragraph 9 , Sentence 2, Section sentence 27:

It thus attempts to encompass several categories of psychological phenomena, each one of which constitutes a broad field of research in its own right: fear, threat perception, social behaviour, and emotion regulation.

No source and next sentence’s source does not support. Obvious OR.

Paragraph 9 , Sentence 3, Section sentence 28:

The neural substrates for many of the included phenomena are known at least tentatively, and comprise a large number of brain structures including, but not limited to, the vagus nerve. 

No source and next sentence’s source does not support. Obvious OR.

Paragraph 9 , Sentence 4, Section sentence 29:

Polyvagal theory does not explain the mechanism of any of these phenomena with any precision, resulting in an oversimplification rather than an expansion or refinement of existing knowledge.

No source. Obvious OR.

I am pinging every editor who has participated on this Talk page because fixing the Criticism section is very important to this article. Editors who disagreed before should be able to reach consensus now because there is enough sourced criticism that removing unsourced criticism and original research shouldn’t be contentious. @163.116.203.18:, @2003:c8:cf03:2300:384e:d128:87a8:f3ba:, @205.167.120.201:, @331dot:, @84.248.80.139:, @Anaxial:, @Avicennasis:, @Boxed:, @ConflictScience:, @CuriousMarkE:, @Daask:, @Gaia9design:, @Gheemaker:, @Hemiauchenia:, @Hennybean2019:, @HilmarHansWerner:, @Ian Oelsner:, @Legobot:, @Mathglot:, @MaxEnt:, @MrOllie:, @Muboshgu:, @PsychologyGrad2023:, @-samsepi001:, @Schutz67:, @SineBot:, @Srich32977:, @Theboring Ape:, @Tony1:, @WhiteRabbitLAS: Ian Oelsner (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Ian Oelsner (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little hard to deal with so much text, but in order to start somewhere, I've responded to the section above § Criticism of the criticism that you linked. Rather than ping everyone, it would be better to request assistance from editors that added content that is unsourced or that you object to. It appears that 90% (or more) of it is from two editors whose primarily contribution project is a foreign Wikipedia (de-wiki, he-wiki) and I've pinged those users for you at their habitual Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting all the effort into this. My only comment is that the edited criticism section is difficult to read for a lay person and even for psychotherapists because it focuses on complex and technical scientific points. Perhaps ther is a way to sum up the meaning of the criticism? the implications? E.g., How it addresses (refutes or weakens) the main suggestions of PVT.

Perhaps there is also a way to articulate the fact that the criticism is not only about some technical scientific points, but also about how they are mis-translated into therapeutic application.

It is particularly standing out in contrast with the rest of the PVT entry, that does not adopt the same careful approach to accuracy and referencing. Take for example, the section "Vagal tone as a physiological marker of stress" which makes applicable claims, but only refers to Porges' book (and not to peer review science).

It seems problematic to me that one can have an entire entry based predominantly on self promotion (a single book, lectures), while the criticism section needs to painstakingly refute it point by point only through peer reviewed research. Asaf Federman (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for undertaking this, it has been on my to do list for a while! I would add the following sentences to your draft:

Neuhuber and Berthoud point out that polyvagal theory's "basic phylogenetic and functional-anatomical tenets do not withstand closer scrutiny" and state that the dorsal vagal complex "should not be linked to passive defensive behavior" [13]

The supposed dichotomy between asocial reptiles and social mammals has been contested. [14]

In a 2021 publication, Porges states that "the theory was not proposed to be either proven or falsified".[15] This violates the standard of falsifiability, a basic tenet of the Scientific method.[16]

as well as the following paragraph:

Possible plagiarism

In a 2018 book chapter[17] and other publications, Porges' "proposes" "that physiological state is a fundamental part, and not a correlate, of emotion or mood“, a claim not original to him, but dating back to well-known theories of the early and mid 20th century [18][19] which are left uncredited. 

In addition, "neuroception" closely resembles the concept of threat detection which has been subject to research for decades [20], a fact not mentioned by Porges.

The "dorsal vagal complex" can be traced to an earlier publication by Leslie [21], which Porges credits up until 2001 [22], but not since then. Oleasylvestris (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also not interpret Roelofs' citing Porges once as "concurring" with any polyvagal arguments. Oleasylvestris (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And considering the consistent lack of empirical evidence for as well as the mounting evidence against PVT, I would definitely keep it flagged as a fringe theory. Oleasylvestris (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To my above paragraph concerning Neuhuber and Berthoud (2022), I would add the following:

According to their analysis, "the PVT, by construeing a 'new ventral vagal complex' encompassing the entire branchiomotor column ascribed to the vagus much more than it actually can serve." They see it as "misleading to propose that brainstem branchiomotor ('source') nuclei 'communicate directly with the visceromotor portion of the nucleus ambiguus' (Porges, 2001)."

I will add more over the next couple of months. Unfortunately, at the moment my time is very limited. Oleasylvestris (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for Consolidation of Criticism

@Oleasylvestris: You seem not to understand some of the fundamentals of Wikipedia. You can’t use Wikipedia to accuse someone of plagiarism based on your own analysis of texts and you can’t make your own personal observations that one theory resembles another; and you can synthesize together sources to create a novel observation. Please read the policies WP:Forum, WP:NOT, WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Verification, and WP:SYNTHESIS. The “fringe” clean up template also can’t be used to “disagree with an article, or [as] a method of warning readers about an article.” WP:TC. You seem to be an academic with a strong point of view about polyvagal theory. And you’re even using Wikipedia to lodge your own invented accusations of plagiarism against the Stephen Porges, a tenured professor. Wikipedia is not the right forum for you to present your own analysis. Wikipedia is limited to summarizing facts and analysis that have already been published about the article subject in peer reviewed journals or other reliable sources. WP:RS. The reason the Criticism section is such a mess from a Wikipedia standpoint is that you continue to contribute to it without following these very fundamental policies. I hope other editors will now see this. Ian Oelsner (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of my writing could be interpreted as own research if my conclusions weren't so obvious that anyone with a basic respect for the scientific method could reach them. Fortunately, some people (whom I cite above) are finally finding the time to explicitly refute PVT in published articles, which is a thankless job that most academics understandably wouldn't want to do. Porges certainly is not the first tenured professor to commit plagiarism, and his title makes it all the more reprehensible. His blatant disregard of the scientific method is more unusual, and even more shameful. What is surprising to me is that after having seen all this evidence, you can still defend him. Oleasylvestris (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...if my conclusions weren't so obvious that anyone with a basic respect for the scientific method could reach them": sounds like OR to me. Refuting PVT is fine for academics, but if you're a Wikipedia editor (or both an academic and an editor), you can't do it on your own here, you have to cite reliably published secondary material. As far as I'm concerned, everything you've written here that is uncited can, and should be removed, as original research. I'm no friend of PVT, but if you can't cite what you've written, then it has to go. Of course, you're free to reinsert it, along with citations, any time. Mathglot (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, shall I rewrite the Criticism section then based on the drafts above, including all the explicit, peer-reviewed refutations already included, but not the plagiarism part? I would also subdivide it (for better readability) into "Evolutionary claims", "Neuranatomical claims", "Claims regarding cardiac functioning" and "Scientific standards". Regarding the latter, Porges himself observes that his theory is not supposed to be falsifiable, so I would cite him directly. Oleasylvestris (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors recently overhauled the Criticism section by removing original analysis / original research and enhancing the reliably sourced criticisms. Now that the criticism section has been corrected to remove original research analysis (unverified by any reliable source) the lead should also be updated to do the same. I work at the Polyvagal Institute, as disclosed above, which started over a decade after the theory was introduced in the scientific literature.

a) the second sentence is largely WP:OR and doesn’t even represent the criticism from the body of the article. Instead of OR, a concise summary of the reliably sourced and neutral aspects of the Criticism section can be summarized for the lead, as per MOS:LEAD.

b) The word “unproven” in the first sentence is an original analysis (specific aspects of the scientific theory have been critiqued but the criticism is a minority viewpoint in the very extensive peer-reviewed research). There seems to be confusion between the extensive and highly-cited polyvagal theory research - which is about basic human neurobiology and is not a medical therapy - and medical practitioners who say they have created therapies based on the theory. But this page is not about possible medical applications and I think the couple of statements about experimental medical treatments should be removed from this page.

• a) To start, I suggest removing the second paragraph, consisting of this sentence:

It is popular among some clinical practitioners and patients,^[1] but is not endorsed by current social neuroscience.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7]}

The first clause of the sentence about "popularity with clinical practitioners and patients” does not belong in this article, which is about the scientific theory concerning human neurobiology that is cited in thousands of peer-reviewed papers. See e.g. [25].

It would confuse the article to try to intermingle the pure biological science and the interpretation of the theory by some clinicians who try to create medical applications. There is an unsourced paragraph in the article’s Polyvagal theory#Theory section about clinicians creating treatments based on the theory (beginning with “The polyvagal theory is not simply a "theory of relaxation techniques…”). As I’ve said in previous sections, I think that paragraph should also come out. If someone wants to create an article about these experimental medical applications, they should do it separately.

The second clause of the first sentence violates WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY and is not reflected in the article body (violates WP:LEAD). “[N]ot endorsed by current social neuroscience” is also pure OR. None of the seven cited books are critical of polyvagal theory and one of these, the Oxford Handbook of Social Neuroscience (from Oxford University), even includes a chapter written by Stephen Porges, the academic who first posited polyvagal theory - the chapter is supportive of polyvagal theory. I looked at the index of each book for “Polyvagal” and “Porges”. Six of the volumes have nothing about either. You can verify this yourself by navigating to the books’ indexes:

Baron-Cohen, et al., Oxford University Press, 2013

Todorov, et al., Oxford University Press, 2011

Ward, Psychology Press, 2016

Shutt et al., Harvard University Press, 2015

Litfin et al., MIT Press, 2006

Cacioppo et al., Princeton University Press, 2020

The seventh volume, from Oxford University, has “Polyvagal” and “Porges” in the index because one of the chapters (Chapter 9: The Neurobiology of Social Bonding and Attachment) is written by Porges (index entries only relate to the chapter):

Decety and Cacioppo, Oxford University Press, 2011

In fact, at least two of the editors of these seven textbooks are proponents of polyvagal theory. In 2015, Jean Decety, the editor of The Oxford Handbook of Social Neuroscience (2011), co-authored a paper with Eric Porges that concludes that the paper’s 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). [26]. And in 2008, John Cacioppo, the editor of the Introduction to Social Neuroscience from Princeton University Press, presented a key tenet of polyvagal theory in his research.(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) [27]

In short, nothing about this clause of the sentence or its seven citations or its representation of the views of the authors of these textbooks, is accurate.

Instead, I suggest the lead should include a summary of reliably-sourced, neutral language in the Criticism section, which should become the new final paragraph of the lead, after the theory is described. I’d remind editors that the lead is just for brief highlights - the full Criticism section explains the detail. MOS:LEAD. Here is my recommendation:

 Some academics criticize polyvagal theory for what they argue are faulty presumptions about mammalian-specific functional-anatomical features the theory proposes.[8][9] The critics say the theory provides untenable phylogenetic accounts.[9] Diana Monteiro argues that the theory’s phylogenetic presumptions are at odds with observations that some of the anatomical features the theory proposes exist in species more evolutionarily primitive than mammals.[10][11][12] Paul Grossman and Edwin Taylor also assert that two measures – RSA and heart rate variability – that polyvagal theory uses to establish some of its basic tenets involve too many unmeasured variables to be considered reliable.[13]

I have omitted obvious original research still in the Criticism section, such as the unsourced and superfluous analysis in “Scientific method.”, which should be removed ASAP.

• b) I’d again suggest removing "unproven": from the first sentence: 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.

Again, this one word represents original research/analysis, and is unsupported by actual peer-reviewed research. Unproven suggests there is a scientific consensus that polyvagal theory is fringe (again, I am referring to the neurobiological theory represented in the peer-reviewed research, and not anything having to do with experimental medical therapies) when in fact, the consensus of scientific literature supports polyvagal theory, despite several critics who are represented in the Criticism section. According to Web of Science (one of the two acceptable science academia citation metrics databases, according to WP: Academic), polyvagal theory has been referenced in 448 published peer-reviewed articles and cited 9553 times, accelerating every year. [28]. ​​ One seminal 2007 article, (Stephen W. Porges, “The polyvagal perspective,” Biological Psychology, Volume 74, Issue 2, 2007, pages 116-143) [29] has been cited 1800 times in other peer-reviewed articles.[30]

In the context of scientific theory as a subject matter, “unproven” is superfluous and tautological because theories are by definition unproven. An editor may have used the word “unproven” to refer to medical treatments per WP:MEDRS (treatments can be unproven). But, since the article should have nothing to do with experimental medical treatments, the characterization of a scientific theory that is abundantly supported by mainstream science should not be characterized as “unproven.”

In addition to correcting the lead, the “fringe” flag clearly has no place in an article where the Criticism section is not so thorough (and the scientific theory itself has more support in the scientific literature than the critics.)

I am pinging every editor who has participated on this Talk page because fixing the Lead section is very important to this article. Editors who disagreed before should be able to reach consensus now because there is enough sourced criticism that removing unsourced criticism and original research shouldn’t be contentious. @163.116.203.18:, @2003:c8:cf03:2300:384e:d128:87a8:f3ba:, @205.167.120.201:, @331dot:, @84.248.80.139:, @Anaxial:, @Avicennasis:, @Boxed:, @ConflictScience:, @CuriousMarkE:, @Daask:, @Gaia9design:, @Gheemaker:, @Hemiauchenia:, @Hennybean2019:, @HilmarHansWerner:, @Ian Oelsner:, @Legobot:, @Mathglot:, @MaxEnt:, @MrOllie:, @Muboshgu:, @PsychologyGrad2023:, @-samsepi001:, @Schutz67:, @SineBot:, @Srich32977:, @Theboring Ape:, @Tony1:, @WhiteRabbitLAS:, @Oleasylvestris:Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is prefaced with a comment:

"This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories. (December 2021)"

1. I looked back to December 2021 - when the comment was supposedly added and I found no such edit. The comment was clearly added later. So why add "(December 2021)"?

2. What is the "mainstream view"?

3. Why isn't the "mainstream view" named, with link to it? JackEddyfier (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate for the academic theory, “Polyvagal Theory” to be characterized as “unproven” in the lead? Here’s the sentence:

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. 

• Yes, the characterization as “unproven” should remain in the lead.

• In part. Different language should be used in the lead to reflect criticism of the theory from the body of the article.

• No, the characterization should be removed.

Ian Oelsner (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the characterization as “unproven” should be removed. Reason: Theories do not have to be proven per se. Example: Newton's theory of gravitation did not go wrong when a new theory was set up with the general theory of relativity. It continues to be used, so it has never been falsified. Laws of nature are not “out there” but merely interpretations of our observations. However, the "old" observations never went away, even if we eventually make new ones. The interpretations of the old observations are also still valid.

D'accord: "The term “unproven” is a tautology in this context and is meant to disparage a scientific theory widely studied in the scientific literature." D'accord: "The word "proof" and its declensions are better kept for mathematics and court rooms."

And at all: "The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method,[2] such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially call into question substantial parts of scientific knowledge.

The replication crisis is frequently discussed in relation to psychology and medicine, where considerable efforts have been undertaken to reinvestigate classic results, to determine both their reliability and, if found unreliable, the reasons for the failure.[3][4] Data strongly indicate that other natural, and social sciences are affected as well.[5]

The phrase replication crisis was coined in the early 2010s[6] as part of a growing awareness of the problem. Considerations of causes and remedies have given rise to a new scientific discipline, metascience,[7] which uses methods of empirical research to examine empirical research practice." For more info see the source: Replication crisis-- Schutz67 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

In part: The term “unproven” is a tautology in this context and is meant to disparage a scientific theory widely studied in the scientific literature. However, in the same sentence, the word “theoretical” could replace “unproven” or the word “constructs” could be replaced with “hypothesis”.

Polyvagal theory, as applied to the pure biological scientific research that makes up most of this article, is widely discussed in the scientific literature (e.g., |Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Biological Psychology, Social NeuroscienceJournal of Family Psychology). But there is also literature that criticizes it. (See Polyvagal theory#Criticism).

The confusion over the word “unproven” seems to stem from a group of psychologists that have applied this scientific theory to their clinical practice. Unlike polyvagal theory, clinical applications are not supported by major peer-reviewed literature. In order to take account of concerns regarding clinical applications, I think references to clinical treatments and techniques should be deleted from this page. Specifically, in the lead, the sentence that begins: “It is popular among some clinical practitioners and patients…” and in the section “Theory”, the two long paragraphs which begin “Porges describes the three neural circuits as regulators for reactive behavior” and “The polyvagal theory is not simply a "theory of relaxation techniques"”. Once this content is deleted, and the page is just focused on biological theory, “unproven” is not relevant. (And the “fringe” flag can then also be removed as the rest of the article’s references consists of peer-reviewed journals.)

Adding to the confusion about the use of the word “unproven” is this partial (factually-inaccurate) sentence in the lead: “but is not endorsed by current social neuroscience.”^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} This statement does not support “unproven” being used in the lead sentence: none of the seven cited books are critical of polyvagal theory or say anything remotely like it is “not endorsed”. I looked at the index of each book for “Polyvagal Theory” and “Porges”. Six of the volumes say nothing about either. The seventh, the Oxford Handbook of Social Neuroscience, includes a supportive chapter written by Stephen Porges, the academic who first posited polyvagal theory. Editors can verify this by navigating to the books’ indexes on Amazon.

FYI, a previous attempt at an informal consensus did not attract enough attention to reach a consensus. Talk:Polyvagal theory#Revision – Lead needs to represent article body Ian Oelsner (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Ian Oelsner (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unproven is actually being polite about it - this theory has no empirical basis and has been criticized as being unfalsifiable, a hallmark of pseudoscience. Similarly, 'not endorsed by current social neuroscience' is being rather polite. It is supported by the provided sourcing. I think this RFC is probably destined to be closed the same way as Ian Oelsner's last RFC - to quote: Obvious COI editor who seeks to waste community members time against a strong consensus. - MrOllie (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with both of the above. I think "theoretical ... hypotheses" is easier reading (our average reader probably doesn't grok what "constructs" is supposed to mean in this sentence; it's MOS:JARGON). But it is being polite, and WP is probably in a position per WP:DUE to more strongly indicate that this verges on pseudoscience. In short, to the extent that hand-wringing about language like "unproven" or "theoretical" is coming from practitioners who believe in this fringe stuff, we just don't have to care.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that the term "unproven" is generally a misapprehension when the ostensible subject is (pseudo)science. The word "proof" and its declensions are better kept for mathematics and court rooms. jps (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfalsifiable theories are not science. Maybe it would be better to describe it as "unfalsifiable and unsupported by the majority of social neuroscientists." Or something similar. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree - reword to "theoretical ... hypotheses". It is easier reading, is following MOS:FIRST to start with a topic definition, seems more technically correct to say "theoretical" or "hypotheses", and it avoids having the article looking like a rant. Mention of current reputation or existence of criticisms would be second line or later to follow chronology of what evaluation or misuse later emerged and because that evaluation is neither a defining part of the theory itself nor is it the overwhelming WP:WEIGHT showing up from a current simple search. Generally, I suggest to avoid putting a judgemental declaration at the start as that has the appearance of pre-judging the topic or of the article subject being just the criticisms instead of complete coverage of everything about "Polyvagal theory" and the reputation emerging as a natural part of the story. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the word "unproven" which is very un-Popperian. I agree with Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib- unfalsifiable is a better way to phrase it. Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of suggestions as a potential compromise:

1) How about revising the second paragraph of the lead from the present version:

It is popular among some clinical practitioners and patients,^[7] but is not endorsed by current social neuroscience.^{[8][9][10][11][12][13]}

To the following new version:

It is popular among some clinical practitioners and patients,^[14] but is not endorsed as the basis for clinical treatment of trauma by the American Psychological Association.

This version would eliminate the vague “by social neuroscience”, which is not actually supported by any of the textbooks cited in it now (none of them actually say this) with a more specific and verifiable fact involving the current recommendations of one of the leading psychological associations, which do not include PVT-based treatments even though some therapists and other practitioners may use them.

2) What about creating a new section of the Wikipedia article called "Clinical use", which can contain criticisms of unproven clinical applications of the theory?

Please understand that I'm not trying to hide that the clinical practice is not mainstream; I'm just trying to separate the biological theory itself -- which is, for reasons described below, actually taken seriously in the academic literature -- from usages of it that are fringe. Please don't confuse the biological theory itself – which applies to many species, not just people – with any clinical application by medical or therapeutic practitioners. Social neuroscientists are not evaluating medical treatments in their research, and it is unreasonable to conflate a scientific theory with the way that others choose to use it in their own clinical practice.

When it comes to the biological theory itself, I think some editors are misunderstanding how widely discussed this theory is in the mainstream academic literature. It’s important to point out that a scientific theory or hypothesis can be very controversial without being a “pseudoscience”, as some others in this discussion have chosen to characterize it. I am not arguing PVT isn’t controversial, but the characterization of PVT as “fringe” or “pseudoscience” on the basis of a small number of critical papers is inappropriate given that there are also numerous papers that support some or all of the theory, many of which are not currently cited on this Wikipedia article.

The critics of this theory on Wikipedia have scoured the list for all possible critical references and detailed them in the Criticism section of this article, and have only been able to provide eight citations. In contrast, Here, for example, is a very partial list of 15 peer-reviewed journal articles from mainstream scientific publications (which I picked at random from out of more than 400 that can be found in the Web of Science index that are specifically investigating or testing PVT) that have all conducted serious research into Polyvagal Theory: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] Whether or not these papers wholly support PVT or even have some criticism of it, the fact that there are many papers published in mainstream journals that focus on the topic clearly demonstrates that this is FAR from a "fringe" theory or “pseudoscience”, even if some or all of its aspects may be controversial.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on some potential compromises that would improve the accuracy of the page without eliminating discussion of scholarly controversies around PVT.

@331dot, Anaxial, Avicennasis, Boxed, ConflictScience, CuriousMarkE, Hennybean2019, HilmarHansWerner, Legobot, Mathglot, MaxEnt, MrOllie, Muboshgu, PsychologyGrad2023, Schutz67, SineBot, Srich32977, Theboring Ape, Tony1, WhiteRabbitLAS, Oleasylvestris, MrOllie, SMcCandlish, Qflib, Gheemaker, Boxed, Daask, Schutz67, Hemiauchenia, ජපස, Markbassett, and Drthorgithecorgi:: Pinging since all of you have participated in Talk page discussions here over the last decade or so. (I know some of you are already participating in this RfC now, thanks for being a part of this!)

I have also left notifications about this RfC at the Neuroscience and Psychology WikiProjects so members of those groups can weigh in as well. Ian Oelsner (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC) Ian Oelsner (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the page in question has been continuously edited by several people during this discussion. Since the RfC is not finished, this is not the best thing to be happening. IF everyone can refrain from making changes until this is done with, I'm happy to continue discussing. Otherwise, not. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be blunt: @Ian Oelsner, you have a fairly large conflict of interest here, and I think the overwhelming majority of people in this RFC are of a fairly negative view of this amendment. I would actually suggest this article should not be edited by you at all. For example, I would never edit UC Irvine, because that's where I work.

My personal view is that on an evidence basis, this article should be burned to the ground and redone entirely, to be far more critical.

@Qflib, can we ask to lock to stop edits? Drthorgithecorgi (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ian Oelsner - #2 a separate section re clinical use seems fine and unrelated to the RFC topic of first line. #1 putting language into the lower lead may suit, and if you mean instead of first line then is related to RFC. But it seems more a case of trying to figure out what a separate vague item might mean and the rephrasing to specific subgroup doesn’t really help much in absence of specific text and maybe that line should just be removed. A claim for the whole “social neuroscience” really should have a position from multiple official groups, not just the United States APA - at least some others like cpa.ca and bps.org.uk if not more. And the text needs to convey what a source cite actually said, but a vague “not endorsed” is only conveying that no official position has been stated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drthorgithecorgi User:Qflib I completely agree since the lead is under discussion right now, nobody should be making changes to it. I’ve just asked User:MrOllie on their Talk page to revert it to its “original” state when the RfC began, since Olliemade a substantial edit, adding controversial content that I believe is contrary to Wikipedia policy (and contradicted by about 400 peer-reveiwed sources.) We should be discussing this edit here in the RfC

As for my edits, I did not touch the lead at all. Further down, in the body of the article, I removed unsourced statements about medical treatments, which clearly fail WP:MEDRS and are also coatracking on a page about a non-medical scientific topic. Nonetheless, MrOllie restored these unsourced medical claims to the page, so unlike the lead, this section is back to its original state. Ian Oelsner (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding of how RFCs work. They aren't an arbitrary 30-day lock on changes to the article - if anybody could freeze an article like that nothing would get done around here. MrOllie (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree that RFCs are not an "arbitrary 30-day lock on changes to the article." But every one I've participated in has involved editors waiting to make further edits on the part of the article in question until the RFC was over. Other parts can and should continue to be edited. Of course, you can continue to make changes despite my opinion. I just think that it's more collegial to discuss, reach consensus, and then edit. You need not agree. Cheers, Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – haven't examined sources in detail (yet), but my first inclination would be to likely oppose, due to a WP:FALSEBALANCE problem. Mathglot (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No - The term in question is a WP:WTW, and its character in this instance (especially in the lede) hits WP:DOUBT and WP:LABEL. The reader's understanding will not suffer by striking the term entirely. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Qflib's suggestion of "unfalsifiable and unsupported by the majority of social neuroscientists" seems better and more specific, summarizing statements later in the article. That preempts arguments that some claim to have applied the theory to their own satisfaction. – SJ + 17:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Since my original suggestion, a number of edits have been made to the lead paragraph. Personally, I think that the lead paragraph is now in quite good shape although it could use another citation or two to further explain the "consensus" comment. So I withdraw my (vague) suggestion in favor of the current (06 Dec 2023) version, although I might modify it slightly as follows: "Polyvagal theory (PVT) is a collection of proposed evolutionary, neuroscientific, and psychological constructs pertaining to the role of the vagus nerve in emotion regulation, social connection and fear response. The theory was introduced in 1994 by Stephen Porges. There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable. PVT is popular among some clinical practitioners and patients, but it is not endorsed by current social neuroscience and is not endorsed as the basis for clinical treatment of trauma by the American Psychological Association." Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• This comment is (almost) completely o/t, for which I apologize in advance, but I was struck by this sentence in the OP:

  Laws of nature are not “out there” but merely interpretations of our observations.

This formulation is actually the statement of one of two opposing theories in the philosophy of science concerning the nature of reality, and is called scientific instrumentalism. (The opposing view is scientific realism.) Wiki editors notoriously have eclectic interests, and I thought this might tickle your interest. Also, if nothing is really real, then in this Rfc... but I digress. Have a nice day, Mathglot (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address solely the point that numerous scholarly responses proves PVT is not fringe, as expressed above following the list of fifteen linked articles:

Whether or not these papers wholly support PVT or even have some criticism of it, the fact that there are many papers published in mainstream journals that focus on the topic clearly demonstrates that this is FAR from a "fringe" theory or “pseudoscience”, even if some or all of its aspects may be controversial.

Even accepting your claim that these fifteen papers are not entirely critical of PVT (I haven't examined them), I reject your conclusion that their existence demonstrates that PVT is not fringe.

If you check out the scholarly responses to: 1) cold fusion, 2) chemtrails, 3) water memory, and 4) young earth creationism, one can see without examining any results that the sheer number of academic responses to a fringe science topic doesn't mean it isn't fringe. Of course, a large percentage of those results are critical responses, which is the whole point of WP:DUEWEIGHT and helps explain why they are considered fringe or pseudoscience at Wikipedia.

But not all of them are critical even if a large majority are, and by painstakingly going through the search result sets, you can find articles attempting support of young-earth creationism or any of the other ones. Assembling a list of such supportive articles might then be used in an attempt to demonstrate content worthy of inclusion in an article because several reliable sources can be found for it, but the process is invalid because it amounts to WP:CHERRYPICKING, which is an end-run around WP:DUEWEIGHT. In my opinion, your list of fifteen links is the result of cherry-picking results in order to demonstrate that your theory has support, and therefore you have not demonstrated anything. If you want serious consideration of your list (or any list) of sources, you'll have to show an unbiased process that turns up your link set to the exclusion of a much larger set of results critical of PVT, but I seriously doubt you can do that.

As things stand now, I consider your fifteen links invalid because they are likely cherry-picked results chosen from a large set purely with the intention of supporting your view, so I reject the list; consequently, your postulate that PVT is therefore "FAR from a 'fringe' theory or 'pseudoscience'" has no support, and is rejected. Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs (rfc)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I am seeking the assistance of an administrator to address the disruption of the above RfC. User:MrOllie made substantial edits to the lead of this page while that same lead was still under discussion in an RfC he was participating in. This made the RfC untenable; not only have other participants who were already involved said that they will no longer participate if the lead keeps getting changed, but anyone new was not easily be able to judge what was originally under discussion. I have already asked MrOllie to revert their edits because other editors have complained about the impact of those changes on their ability to evaluate the RfC, but they have declined. And I also attempted to bring this dispute to a resolution with an admin’s help on MrOllie’s Talk page, but MrOllie stopped that discussion by removing the tag.

What makes the edits in question especially disruptive is that MrOllie added a new sentence to the lead in the midst of the RfC discussion that if allowable, would largely resolve the matter. [46] But the sentence is not allowable under Wikipedia policy. It makes claims about the entire state of the academic literature as if it is supported by a systematic review paper, but it is not. It’s just the highly biased opinion of one vocal opponent of the theory, making this part in the source Primary. WP:SECONDARY. There are 400 peer-reviewed journal articles to the contrary. A discussion of the merits of substantially changing the content of the lead with this sentence should have happened in the RfC on this topic, not with unilateral edits during the discussion. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Responding to an RfC Anyone who come to the RfC after MrOllie made his edits to the article did not understand the context and saw editors arguing about user behavior rather than the merits.

What should be done with the RfC, since the disruptive behavior of MrOllie disrupted the discussion and left things in limbo. Maybe the article should be restored to its original condition and the RfC relisted, with previous participants notified? This is something for an admin to decide since anything I suggest will be opposed by MrOllie.

Also, since I know MrOllie will make an issue of it, I want to point out that further down in the page, in the body of the article, I removed unsourced statements about medical treatments, which I thought would be completely uncontroversial and thus allowed under WP:COIU. (I have declared what I think is a weak COI - this page is about a widely published academic theory and I work for an institute that studies the theory.) MrOllie restored the lengthy paragraphs I removed - even though as unsourced medical claims they obviously fail WP:MEDRS (and are coatracking, as the page is about an academic theory concerning basic neurobiology, not medical treatments). Since MrOllie has objected, it’s now a contentious matter under COIU and I won’t edit these paragraphs again. I’ll just request to have them removed through a COI edit request. Ian Oelsner (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Oelsner, something is wrong with the diff links. Both the "substantial edits" and the "will no longer participate" diffs do not link to relevant edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Ian meant 1) this ("substantial edits"), and 2) this ("no longer participate"), but that's for Ian to confirm or refute. In particular, either I'm wrong about #1, or maybe he meant "substantive". Mathglot (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, that edit of mine was in part a response to other edits to the lead section which had been made minutes before. The wording comes from a statement in the body of the article which had been added a few weeks before which quotes from a new review article (a top-tier source IMO). When Ian came to my talk page to ask me to revert, he actually asked me to revert both my edits as well as edits from the other editor. Since a RFC is not an arbitrary lock on editing, particularly a surprise RFC started by a person with obvious conflict of interest, I refused. The other claims here about primary sourcing and the '400 peer-reviewed journal articles to the contrary' are similarly misleading. If Ian wants to complain about my behaviour, WP:ANI is the proper venue, not posting the admin-help template in random places it is not designed to be used. He knows this, he has started discussions at ANI before. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathglot, thanks so much for correcting my diffs! These were the ones I was intending, you were correct. (And yes, by "substantial" I did mean "substantive".)

@Firefangledfeathers: I am still seeking advice about how to revive the discussion process for this RfC following that disruption. Given that Mathglot has identified the correct diffs, could you please have a second look and advise me about what to do next? Thank you! Ian Oelsner (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is keeping the RfC from continuing, it doesn't seem disrupted. Individuals will participate or not as suits them. Please write less, propose short + actionable changes, avoid spending your limited time on policy boards, don't treat wikipedia as a personal battleground. We all want the same thing: effective, well sourced free knowledge. You have only ever edited this article? and have been sparring with the same other editors for a couple years now. Try editing other topics! Working on topics too close to your own daily life and work leads to angst and drama (and isn't great for the encyclopedia). Cheers, – SJ + 17:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the sentence stating that the theory is not endorsed by current social neuroscience, and wanted to verify that in the cited sources, but I was unable to, despite obtaining copies of the books and doing a full-text search. The first six books appear to be reliable sources for general information about social neuroscience, but they make no mention whatsoever of polyvagal theory or Stephen Porges. Thus, I removed the citations, and copied them below in case they are useful in the future.

The seventh source, the Oxford Handbook of Social Neuroscience, contains a chapter co-written by Porges. It discusses some of the main concepts of the theory, for example, the "ventral vagal complex". Its inclusion in the Oxford Handbook can't be used to support the "not endorsed" statement. I moved it to a statement in the "Proposed ventral vagal complex (VVC)" section that it does support, and added a page number. I added a "citation needed" template to the original statement. I suspect the wording may be too broad and vague to be verifiable though.

Here is the diff where these citations were added.

<ref>((Cite book|last1=Todorov|first1=Alexander|title=Social Neuroscience: Toward Understanding the Underpinnings of the Social Mind|last2=Fiske|first2=Susan|last3=Prentice|first3=Deborah|year=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-972406-2))((page needed|date=January 2022))</ref><ref>((Cite book|last=Ward|first=Jamie|title=The Student's Guide to Social Neuroscience|year=2016|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-1-317-43918-9))((page needed|date=January 2022))</ref><ref>((Cite book|last1=Schutt|first1=Russell K.|title=Social Neuroscience: Brain, Mind, and Society|last2=Seidman|first2=Larry J.|last3=Keshavan|first3=Matcheri S.|date=2015|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-72897-4))((page needed|date=January 2022)) ((Cite book|last1=Litfin|first1=Karen T.|title=Social Neuroscience: People Thinking about Thinking People|last2=Berntson|first2=Gary G.|date=2006|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-03335-0))((page needed|date=January 2022))</ref><ref>((Cite book|last1=Baron-Cohen|first1=Simon|title=Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from Developmental Social Neuroscience|last2=Tager-Flusberg|first2=Helen|last3=Lombardo|first3=Michael|year=2013|publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-969297-2))((page needed|date=January 2022))</ref><ref>((Cite book|last1=Cacioppo|first1=Stephanie|title=Introduction to Social Neuroscience|last2=Cacioppo|first2=John T.|year=2020|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-16727-5))((page needed|date=January 2022))</ref>

89.12.116.102 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: I see that you have reverted my edit, despite my argument above. Please explain your rationale. Six of the cited sources make no mention whatsoever of the article's subject. The fact that there are books which do not mention the theory, does not enable readers to verify the statement that the theory is "not endorsed by current social neuroscience". I would also greatly appreciate it, if you would refrain from making assumptions that I am editing from a "profringe" point of view. I am not. In fact, I came to the article with the purpose of "fact-checking" whether the theory is commonly considered to be fringe or pseudoscience - because I suspect that it is - and to find reliable sources that verify it. The six sources were not of any value in doing so. They very clearly do not support the statement, or have anything to say about it at all, and I wasted my time tracking them down and looking at them. The seventh book cited would in fact seem to verify the opposite. I have not been able to find appropriate sources myself in searching, which is why I came to Wikipedia. I can't see any reason that these should be included, so I would ask you to help improve the article, by either providing new sources that do support the statement, or letting the "citation needed" template stand, so that someone else can, or else re-word the text. It's not in the interests of Wikipedia to cite sources that don't support the article content or allow users to verify it. Thanks. 89.12.116.102 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]