You know, the polyvagal theory and how it generally relates

to mental health and trauma.

But have you ever considered what the theory implicates for behavior and choice?

If our thoughts and our behaviors are dependent on our states, then what does

this mean in our ability to choose?

What does this mean in our ability to make change?

Or help someone else make a change.

My name's Justin sincerely.

I'm a therapist, a coach, and the creator of the polyvagal trauma relief system.

Welcome to Stuck Not Broken where I teach you how to live with more calm, confidence

and connection without the psychobabble.

We're going to nerd out polyvagal style one more time.

I think maybe more, but at least one more time.

This might be the deepest nerdery yet.

And I'm glad that you're here for it.

If you don't know the political theory, this is definitely

not the episode for you.

Head on over to episode 1 0 1.

Of this podcast and start from there.

Dr.

Steven Portis wrote a paper called the bagel paradox that released in 2023.

And within this paper, he describes the polyvagal theory as an algorithm.

What is an algorithm?

From our friends at Miriam Webster, they define it as a step

by step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end.

That's more of a broader definition though.

Also from our friends at- our good friends at Marion Webster- is a procedure

for solving a mathematical problem in a finite number of steps that frequently

involves repetition of an operation.

Both definitions of an algorithm involve a problem.

There's also reference to a procedure in both definitions being a way to solve

a problem that reoccurs or can reoccur.

And there's an end result in both of those definitions.

This leaves us with a general three-step sort of model for

algorithms and what they do.

And that three-step model is there's a problem.

Procedure and a result, or there is an input.

The algorithm and an output.

Or there's the context.

A process and an output.

We're all kind of saying the same thing, but just different ways.

To word it.

So there is there's some sort of contextual input or a problem.

Then there's a process or problem solving.

And then there's a result.

The word algorithms typically use when we're discussing computer

programming, data and math.

You've probably heard it in reference to social media algorithms.

Where a platform like YouTube adjust their recommendations based on what

they want to see in the results.

So YouTube has a desired outcome.

They changed the equation of their search engine to get the outcome.

But an algorithm could also be making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

The input is the ingredients.

The procedure is the steps required or are the steps required for making the

sandwich, like, you know, piece of bread.

Peanut butter jelly, and another piece of bread.

He use a a knife to put it on.

The bread and put it together.

Like there's a procedure.

And the output is the sandwich, which by the way, any sandwich or anything

really in life should never involve peanut butter because it's disgusting.

It tastes gross.

It smells gross and texturally is, ugh, it's awful as well.

No, I don't take many.

Hard for him lines on things here in the podcast.

It's not many hot takes from me, but that one I'm pretty darn serious about.

But Dr.

Porges is not applying the idea of an algorithm to.

Math or to social media or to making a sandwich.

He's discussing it more in terms of behavior.

And in the paper, he illustrates that the traditional behavioral model is

cause and effect or trigger and response.

One example is a traffic light changing from green to yellow or to red, and

that results in some sort of response.

So when it goes to yellow, the driver slows down the vehicle at red.

The vehicle, the driver stops the vehicle entirely.

And with green, the driver would go.

There's a stimulus and a response.

Another example is a dog hearing a can opener.

And expecting food.

The stimulus or trigger would be the sound of a can opener.

The behavioral response would be that the dog runs to the kitchen and expects food.

One more example would be employee performance and a monthly bonus.

The stimulus or a trigger.

Would be the introduction of a performance-based monthly

bonus, like an incentive.

The behavioral response would be that the employee or employees

increase their work output.

Or improve the quality of their work to meet the criteria for the bonus.

Stimulus response.

That's the traditional way of looking at behavior, but in this paper, When looking

at the polyvagal theory as an algorithm.

Dr.

Porges suggests that the there's a middle piece that's missing

here, which is the step-by-step process for getting the output.

Porges suggests that the political theory acts as an algorithm.

Between the stimuli.

And the behavioral response.

So the driver does not simply break when the traffic light turns red.

The political theory provides the algorithm in between the traffic

light and the driver breaking.

So that would be the traffic light changes to red.

And then the political theory acts as an algorithm and I'll get more detailed.

And that results in the behavior of braking or some other behavior.

So between the red light and the behavior, there is an autonomic

process that calculates the context and spits out the behavior of the driver.

Algorithms have to have a goal to them, a reason or an objective that

frames, the processing of the inputs.

Like I said before social media companies, they may want to

increase clicks on certain types of content and reduce others.

So they changed their algorithm to meet that goal.

For example, if YouTube wanted to enhance polyvagal theory information

they could do so by changing the parameters of their algorithm.

My content then would be input.

Then it would go through the YouTube algorithm or formula.

And result in maybe getting more clicks.

But the algorithm isn't just acting by itself.

There is a, a goal that it is.

Spitting out or leaning toward.

If we returned to the algorithm of making the sandwich, the goal is to make a

sandwich, the steps or the algorithm.

Meet that goal or result in a sandwich.

So the end result of an algorithm may not be specifically known,

but it may generally be known.

Like we don't know the way that the sandwich will look or the way it's

going to taste, but we can still use the algorithm of making a sandwich.

To get the general and result of a sandwich.

So if the political theory was an algorithm, What would the goal be?

Well, the political theory is really a compilation of many ideas.

Neuroception autonomic primary and mixed states.

Co-regulation.

How our senses are used in neuroception all kinds of

things that go into the theory.

But what do all these pieces when put together?

What do they strive for?

What's the goal of these pieces?

Within us as organisms.

And that would be survival and homeostasis or optimal functioning.

That's the goal.

That's the goal of the political theory in working as an algorithm is

to increase the chances of survival.

And if surviving then to increase the use of bodily resources for homeostasis.

Or optimal functioning.

Survival and optimal functioning are always the goal.

At all times.

Even when we're making a sandwich or when a traffic light turns red.

So the algorithm of the polyvagal theory, even when there was a

traffic light that turns red.

Or even when we have to make a sandwich, the algorithm of survival and

optimal functioning is still active.

So the pieces of the polyvagal theory act as the algorithm leading to a behavior.

The states that are your political state safety, flight fight, shutdown

or the mixed states as well.

The state is an intervening variable.

So when the traffic light turns red, and the driver has a response, the

state of the driver is the algorithm.

The state of the driver is a variable that shouldn't be ignored.

But, you know, like I know that the state of the body changes.

And can actually get, even get stuck like a defensive state.

We can get stuck there in a traumatized state.

So the inputs, the context of the situation that doesn't change,

but the algorithm kind of does.

At least the way I'm understanding it and that can lead to different

behaviors, even with the same context.

For example, the red light is still the red light.

But the states.

Can be with more or less safety leading to different results, like coming

to a stop and following the rule.

Or speeding up at ignoring it.

If you're in a safety state, you're probably more likely to follow

the rules and come to a gentle, complete stop at a red light.

If you're in a dysregulated flight fight state, you might be less

likely to, and you might be more likely to actually speed up.

And ignore the red light or at least ignore the the yellow light.

But here in my lovely city of Stockton, California, there is a serious

problem of people running red lights.

If you live here, please knock it off.

It's it's really bad.

Another hot take for you.

That's the general idea of the algorithm.

It's an intervening variable, the political theory and what state someone

is in is an intervening variable.

It's not something that we could ignore and just look at stimulus and response.

There's something happening that's processing the stimulus

and outputting the response.

So let's think about this algorithm and other contexts.

Like students in your classroom.

If you're a teacher, Or your communication with your loved ones, or if you're

a therapist and you have clients.

What's the potential of their behavior based on their algorithms.

Like I said before the context may not change.

The red light is still the red light.

So I'm going to ask you.

Is there something about the inputs that we can change?

Can we do things to change the context to shift someone's

state to get a different result?

Because if we shift the state, the result is going to be different as well.

Or if we help to shift the state.

And this is exactly why in my polyvagal trauma relief system.

I highly emphasize the environment and manipulating one's environment.

This is the starting point, I think.

If you don't have a safe environment, If you don't have safe context or in

our algorithmic a world right now, if we don't have safe inputs, save

context, then the results or the behaviors, the thoughts, the emotions.

All of those are going to be with less safety because the inputs have

less safety or partially that's why.

So in these different contexts of our lives, or even for yourself in your

own self-regulation whether you're in the political trauma release system

or not, can you set passive safety cues, things that just provide you

with safe context without having to actively do anything about it.

Can you set yourself up with this constant stream of passive safety neuroception?

And then can you build on that through more active means?

So for yourself or in your professional capacity, or maybe, you know, as a

teacher or in your home environment, your family, can you create

more safety in your environment?

Can you create more safety in the structure, the rules and the norms.

Can you create more safety in the predictability of the environment?

All of these things are going to act as inputs that will help shift

someone's state to more safety.

And potentially lead to more safety as an output.

And by the way, You're an input.

You are part of the context of other people.

So, what are you giving off as far as being an input into their algorithm?

Are you giving safety that will be processed by their algorithm and then

have a different outcome or a more positive outcome for everybody involved?

We of course don't control other people's behaviors, but

we absolutely influence them.

And I think one of the ways that we influenced them as by changing

what cues that we're giving them.

Which is then processed by their algorithm.

Basically then, do the best you can to be a safe input for their algorithm.

I also kind of wonder with this, is there a predictive nature?

Or predictive potential to the political theory as an algorithm.

Just on a conceptual level, we can make inferences about someone's behavior based

on what we know about their algorithm.

Or what we know about their current states and they're stuck date as well.

So I know that overstimulating someone in shutdown is probably not going to help

and might even lead to further shutdown.

I would need to calm myself down and align with them in an environment

that's conducive to shut down.

So I know enough about that person's algorithm to make some changes.

Because I can likely predict that some pieces or some inputs of the

environment are going to have a less beneficial result for, for them.

In my professional capacity, you know, working as a therapist.

I know that someone who's stuck in freeze likely will not do well with telling

their trauma narrative again and again.

I know that for that person, it likely may result in more significant

shutdown and numbing and association.

In other words, I know enough about their algorithm to change

the inputs that I'm giving them.

So I know that part of shifting their state.

And helping them meet their therapeutic goals is good.

Involve building the strength of their safety state.

And then we might be able to go into their trauma narrative if they want to.

So what if we knew there.

State or their algorithm.

What if we also knew their vehicle efficiency, what if we had access to.

Vega efficiency measurements.

And we had access to self reports.

Internal sensations.

And we had behavior reports from their daily life.

Maybe they're keeping a log.

What if we had observational data and self-report autonomic data.

Yeah, tons of data.

And I don't think anyone's asked you for that.

But all of this actually really might help too.

Build or paint.

A clearer picture of that person's algorithm.

And might actually help to inform more beneficial treatments.

Is it necessary?

No, I don't think so.

And again, I don't think I want to ask you for that.

I think it's kind of cool though.

But that level of.

Objectifying one's trauma recovery journey.

Nah, I dunno.

It, it kinda, it does something to it that.

Takes away.

Some of the luster of the journey, but that might be what someone wants.

Somebody might want that level of.

Of data and that more.

Medical model.

And that's actually probably more of like a.

Elite sport training model.

I would think.

I do think the journey aspect of this is much more important.

Then the objective.

Measurement nature of it.

I, I know they can go hand in hand that those can exist together.

But it, I feel like it's generally.

Possible to go too far.

In either direction.

But I do think a healthy balance can be struck.

Stricken.

Stroking.

One final thought on the polyvagal theory as an algorithm.

The algorithm always leads us toward safety towards self-regulation.

Toward co-regulation towards survival toward homeostasis toward

optimizing our bottle, your resources.

That is the goal of the Al algorithm.

Is to lead us in that direction.

No matter what state you're in.

It's always about survival.

It's always about optimizing our resources.

Yeah, trauma gets in the way.

Sodas.

Society on numerous levels, government religious, other institutions.

Tons of stuff gets in the way.

Fear gets in the way.

Distractions get in the way behavioral adaptations get in the way.

But.

For ourselves as organisms, as living things.

That is.

Always the goal of the algorithm is to.

Optimize resources.

Or ensure survival is as best it can.

Therefore, the goal is always eventually to get to safety and

co-regulation self-regulation.

That algorithm, if you listen closely enough you'll feel

the poles of the algorithm.

You'll feel the poles towards safety and tore connection.

It is there.

It's not always easy to identify.

It's not always easy to feel and to tolerate, but they are there.

It is possible though, to listen and have more awareness and curiosity.

As to what pulls us.

What we feel those safety tugs in the right direction.

As you feel those you can continue to follow those.

That algorithm will take you in the right direction.

I think.

And it might just start with your environment.

And setting yourself up with some passive safety cues.

Thanks so much for joining me on stuck now, broken.

If you're ready to take the next step for you.

I do have my stuck not broken total access membership.

Within the total access membership, you get all of my.

Trauma recovery courses that are built on the political theory.

You get my private community.

You get to meet with me twice a month in virtual meetups.

Ask any questions you need to clarify.

What you need to clarify on your own personal trauma recovery journey.

You won't be alone.

The community is fantastic.

You won't have to wonder.

And I packaged every piece of self-regulation knowledge that I have.

Into those three courses.

That you can use anytime you want at your own pace.

So if you're ready to take those next steps in getting unstuck.

And he don't want to spend a ton of money.

This is your invitation.

This is your personal invitation.

To consider subscribing to stuck now broken total access.

Thanks so much for being a part of the podcast.

I do look forward to the day rugged to greet you in the total access community.

Thank you so much for listening fellow stuck.

Now I do hope this episode has been a helpful resource for you.

And learning about and applying the polyvagal theory to your

trauma recovery journey.

Bye.