Understanding our nervous system states, what influences them, and how we can shift them is essential for trauma recovery and self-regulation. However, Polyvagal Theory (PVT), developed by Dr. Stephen Porges, introduces a heavy layer of complex clinical jargon, such as ventral vagal, dorsal vagal, neuroception, and sympathetic activation. For clinicians, this language may be useful, but for individuals navigating chronic stress or unresolved trauma, the extra cognitive load can be overwhelming.

In contrast, Relational Neuroscience offers universal, intuitive concepts that align directly with how humans naturally experience connection and safety. Instead of forcing us to memorize physiological terms, it translates brain and body states into language that makes immediate sense to your nervous system. This accessible, relationally focused framework is a key reason many practitioners and individuals prefer Relational Neuroscience over traditional polyvagal frameworks.

The Shakiness of Polyvagal Theory 

While Polyvagal Theory has been widely influential in therapy and trauma research, its scientific foundation is complex and increasingly debated. It offers a compelling narrative for understanding the autonomic nervous system’s role in safety, connection, and defense. However, while some of its core concepts align with broad neurobiological principles, specific anatomical and physiological claims remain contentious within the scientific community.

Strengths of PVT:  

• Highlights the role of the vagus nerve in social engagement and stress regulation, which aligns with research on the parasympathetic nervous system.

• Integrates evolutionary perspectives on autonomic function, helping explain why different states (e.g., shutdown vs. fight-or-flight) emerge in response to stress and trauma.

• Has practical applications in trauma therapy, guiding approaches that prioritize co-regulation, safety, and relational healing.  

Criticisms and Limitations:  

• Some claims, such as the idea that the vagus nerve has distinct “pathways” corresponding to social engagement, mobilization, and shutdown, are not fully supported by anatomical research.

• The role of the “dorsal vagal shutdown” response in trauma is often overstated or oversimplified, as immobilization involves multiple neural and hormonal systems beyond the vagus nerve.

• Limited empirical testing of some of PVT’s predictions, and alternative models of autonomic regulation (e.g., the traditional sympathetic-parasympathetic balance) still hold strong explanatory power.  

PVT provides useful insights, particularly in therapeutic and interpersonal contexts, but it shouldn’t be treated as a settled or comprehensive scientific model. It’s best viewed as a conceptual framework that helps guide understanding and intervention, rather than a definitive map of autonomic physiology.

This is why I choose to stick with Interpersonal Neurobiology (IPNB). Rather than relying on rigid or scientifically contentious anatomical models, IPNB provides a grounded, integrative, and accessible framework for understanding how mind, brain, and relationships shape our well-being. Relational Neuroscience/IPNB honors the lived experience of trauma recovery through the transformative power of co-regulation, safety, and human connection, offering intuitive, practical pathways to healing without forcing us to learn layers of overwhelming clinical jargon.