I spent the last two episodes discussing fawn and appeasement,
which are two of the three new mixed states added to the polyvagal theory.
Intimacy is the third one.
And I'll be discussing that in the next episode.
But in all honesty, I've struggled with conceptualizing fawn and
appeasement in particular.
I want to share my thoughts with you.
Just to kind of get you thinking along with me.
My name is Justin Sunseri.
I am a therapist, a coach, and the creator of the Polyvagal trauma relief system.
Welcome to Stuck Not Broken where I typically teach you
how to live with more calm.
Confidence and connection without the psychobabble.
But in this episode, we're going to be.
Dissecting the two of the three new polyvagal mixed
states, appeasement and fawn.
I guess I have a couple of questions.
One of them is what is the best conceptualization
for fawn and appeasement?
There are no.
Test tubes here.
There's no machines that we're using to identify what's happening
underneath someone's behaviors.
We are inferring.
We are speculating on some level and I think that's okay.
But when it comes down to it, no, one's measuring heart rate variability.
Or no, one's measuring someone's baseline of respiratory sinus arrhythmia.
Respiratory sinus arrhythmia.
And then checking it when they're under duress or if that is happening,
it's in a lab and not day-to-day.
So, I don't know if there's a really objective way that the polyvagal
researchers have come up with, to identify these are the states that
are going on when someone is showing a certain behavioral type of behavior
and on top of that, here are the specific measurements and here is
the quantity of safety activation.
Here's the quantity of shutdown and here's flight fight.
So, I guess the point being here is that there is a lot of inference here and I
think it's okay to discuss these things.
And I want to add my own conceptualization to this.
So I'm kind of wondering if looking at fawn and appeasement -are
looking at these as mixed states, the best way to look at them.
So we have originally we had the three primary states.
Safety, flight fight, and shut down.
And then we also had three mixed states.
I'm going to call those original mixed states.
Cause I want to differentiate, differentiate those from
the three new mixed states.
When you add the three primary states, you get the three original mixed states,
but now we're looking at phenomena like fawning and appeasing, and then
applying the polyvagal lens to them.
Again, it's not like they weren't a lab and they identified, Hey,
when we mix this with and we mix that voila, we get appeasement.
No we're looking at, this is a thing.
And now we're going to kind of like infer what's happening
underneath what we're seeing here.
So what's the best way to conceptualize these through the
lens of the polyvagal theory?
Cause I do think Polyvagal theory has a lot to bring the
table when it comes to these.
But I don't know if looking at them as mixtape is the best way.
Fawn and appeasement have lots of overlap.
Both of them involve being an extreme danger.
And I would say life threat scenarios where there is a captor or an abuser,
flight fight is not an option.
Both these states.
Or mixed states involve significant shutdown activation,
including dissociation, including disconnection from the values
and the empowerment of the self.
Sacrificing of everything, I would imagine.
All of oneself in order to survive a situation.
So.
Would these be better framed as behavioral adaptations?
Versus a mixed state.
Behavioral adaptation- just as a recap is a behavior that one does in
order to reduce the experience or the intensity of their defensive activation.
And typically this is going to be something in response
to a stuck defensive state.
As examples we have: self-harm, hair-pulling, substance and alcohol
use, cutting class, overworking, all kinds of stuff that we do in order to
relieve whatever we're going through.
So fawn and appeasement are behavioral adaptations.
They would be to shut down or freeze primarily.
So we could look at these as behaviors or behavioral groupings that are in
response to a predominant other state, which would be shut down as a primary
state or freeze as a mixed state.
I would speculate there's more of a flavor of shutdown.
Of course when it comes to anything like there's always a mixed state.
There's a mixed state happening at all times.
Right now, you and I are in a mixed state.
You know, I don't think we're ever in just one state and we're probably always
in all three of our primary states on some level, like right now I'm sitting.
And I'm talking.
I'm moving my hands, a lot of the talk.
But I'm also thinking critically.
So I'm in safety.
I'm in mobility.
And I'm also in immobility.
But I wouldn't say that I'm in a mixed state called podcast recording.
Right.
We wouldn't create a new mix state to identify where I'm at right now.
Instead, we would say I'm doing a behavior of podcast recording.
And I have a, I have primary states and maybe a mixed state
that is underlying what I'm doing.
So I do have a dominant flavor to my system, which is probably
more of a safety state.
Yeah.
I'm mobile, but I'm also immobile.
But primarily, I would say I'm in my safety state.
You could also say that I'm primarily in a mixed state of stillness because I'm
immobile, but safe with some mobility in my system, but primarily, maybe
stillness . You could also argue that maybe I'm in more of a play mixed state.
That yeah, I'm immobile, but there are some playfulness and co-regulative
quality to what I'm doing.
So maybe you could make the case that I'm in a predominantly play mixed state.
But no matter what you want to call my state, I'm podcast recording.
But you wouldn't call podcast recording the mixed state.
I do probably have a dominant state that's flavoring my system.
I would argue that's more safety, whether it's, whether I'm in a
mixed state of stillness or of play.
Safety is involved in both those.
So I think predominantly I have enough safety in my system.
And that's the thing that's sort of guiding all this, I think.
I think we could look at what state that we're in or whatever experience that we're
having and say that there is one primary state or one of the original mixed states
that's flavoring whatever we're doing.
You know, we could look at the same behaviors.
Or generally the same behavior.
And then look at what's happening underneath it and
come to different conclusions.
Like I already kind of illustrated with podcast recording, I suppose,
that could be in play or stillness.
But for another example, you know, someone, we could hear somebody
saying cruel words, like maybe they're making fun of somebody else.
You know, you're yelling at your partner and you're say
something that, that you regret.
Those same words could be from this explosive rage, or maybe
they're come from this, like bullying ragefu l kind of thing.
So the first example would be fight state, probably.
The next example might be freeze mixed state with an underlying anger to it.
Or fight.
But we could also say cruel things from a playful, mixed
state, like a comedian does.
So the same words being spoken could have different flavors based
on what primary or original mixtape that the individual is acting from.
These primary states and the original mixed states, I would say are the
foundation for their S S I E C.
That's something I created stands for state sensation, impulse,
emotions, and cognitions.
The primary state and or the original mixed states flavor our
experiences and really lay the foundation for our sensations,
impulses, emotions, and cognitions.
So maybe it is maybe more useful to look at one's behavior and then infer
the flavor of their system using the primary and the original mixed states.
But again, all behaviors can have an underlying mixed state.
But we don't call it.
We don't call it.
The behavior is a mixed state in and of themselves.
So for example, bullying has observable behaviors.
But we wouldn't say that bullying is a mixed state, would we?
We would say that bullying has a dominant primary state.
Or maybe a dominance original mix state that is driving the
bullying behaviors like frozen rage or a sympathetic fight state.
But we wouldn't say bullying is a mixed state, I don't think.
So I'm worried that we are equating the behavior or a grouping of behaviors with
a state or mixed state in and of itself.
I don't think these're the same.
So maybe it's more useful to infer what dominant primary states or original
mixed state flavors the system of the behaviors that we're seeing.
So let's bring this to fawn and appeasement in particular.
Is it more useful?
And I'm putting this to you.
I don't know the right answer as this is kind of where I've
been stuck for quite a while.
So I'm gonna put this to you for fawning an appeasement- is it more
useful to conceptualize these as behavioral adaptations that have
an underlying primary states.
Or underlying original, mixed state.
Shut down and freeze would be the underlying, in my opinion
would be the underlying primary and original mixed state.
Shut down would be the primary.
Freeze would be the original mixed state that would be
underlying fawn and appeasement.
The fawning and appeasement types of behaviors, I would call those not
behaviors in and of themselves, but there are more behavioral groupings.
There's a lot of things that someone could do that we would
call fawning or appeasing.
But the fawning and appeasing behaviors, general grouping of behaviors.
Would be an adaptation to that dominant shutdown or freeze original mix state.
So maybe this isn't that different from the current conceptualization of fawn and
appeasement, but I think it's an important distinction and I think it's important to
distinguish the behavior from the state, that's underlying it and driving it.
You know, when I work with somebody, I don't think I would spend time
with, I haven't done it before.
And I don't think I would spend time with differentiating whether they're in a
fawn state or an appeasement mixed state.
Instead the way that I work would be to identify their primary defensive
state that is then flavoring their decision-making and their behavior.
And for these, it would be shut down because fawning and
appeasing involve so much.
I think dissociation from the self and one's values, a lot of self-sacrifice.
And also disconnection from the present moment, disconnection
from the self, the true self.
Maybe if you want to call it that.
Then, if we could identify, you probably were in a, not you
listener, but just the general you.
You probably were in a dominant shutdown state.
Then we could look at the behaviors that came from that shutdown state,
like connecting with the captor, engaging with them and with their goals.
Those are more specific behaviors that we would call appeasing.
But we know we could see that those behaviors came from
probably a shutdown state.
We could say you lied for the benefit of your abuser or your captor.
But that lying served to help you to survive and probably came
from shutdown in order to get you to compromise your values.
And maybe we could even say it came from flight and anxiousness and lying helped
to relieve the flight activation, maybe.
We can say that you prioritize the captors needs to survive.
We can say that you agreed with the captors lies.
Or their gaslighting, but we would say that these probably stemmed from
a significant amount of shutdown.
And so we can look at all those behaviors as a grouping and call it appeasement.
Or maybe, you know, I think those would fit into fawning on some level as well.
So the primary factor is probably shutdown or freeze.
And then all these behaviors come from it.
And then we look at those behaviors and we grouped them
into appeasement and or fawning.
They both have a different flavor to them.
So, is it more useful?
And this is how I think in therapy, but is it more useful to identify
that you adjusted your behavior based on the needs of the context?
But more specifically based on the significant probably shut down activation.
So maybe that's more of a practical look at it and how, at least I would look
at these things and frame these things and work with my clients in therapy.
And to take this a step further.
I think that we could, rather than saying all these states are active at
the same time, which of course they are.
They always are right now.
Like I said, I, all these states are always at the same time.
But it doesn't result in appeasement, right?
So there's something different about appeasement in particular, where
we have all three states active, but results in something different.
Because right now I have all states active, but I'm not in an appeasement.
I don't think.
So instead of looking at it as if we'll all three are active and there you go.
Then maybe we should instead look at this as the shutdown
state is the most dominant.
And when someone is in that massive shutdown state- that provides
this sort of new platform that they're going to build off of.
And it kind of puts them onto this autopilot.
And this person is not really an active driver of their body.
Their decision-making their self and they're watching
their life now on autopilot.
And this, this like watching of their life as if it's like in a movie.
Very common description for people who are in a severe shutdown, dissociative state.
But even though they're on autopilot, they're still able to function daily.
They could even utilize.
I'm not saying it's great functioning, but you know, they,
they can get their needs met.
Because of the shutdown autopilot.
So they they're still functioning daily and they might even be on
some level utilizing the biological pathways of the other states.
The kids that I work with in schools who are in a significant
dissociative shutdown state, they're mobile enough to get to school.
They're mobile enough to smile their way through interactions that
they don't want to be a part of or, or cannot be a genuine part of.
So, That significant shutdown seems to put them on this autopilot
where they can get through the day.
I'm not saying it's a great quality of life.
I don't encourage you to to strive for this, but it kind of provides this new
autopilot platform and that's kind of the best word I have for at this time.
But no, I would not call autopilot a mixed state.
To me, it's more of a function of being in significant shutdown.
And I really wonder how much this has to do- if this, this conceptualization is
helpful- I wonder how much this has to do with a dissociative identity disorder.
Like how many times can the mind go on to autopilot?
And create this new platform and then switch between them.
I don't know.
I'm just purely speculating.
So could we look at fawning and appeasement in particular as significant
shutdown states that then put somebody on this sort of autopilot.
That really disconnects them from their values and what they know is right
or wrong- their inner power to act on that, knowing their healthy boundaries.
This isn't issue of blame.
I think people do these things as a means of survival and I
don't blame them whatsoever.
So it's not about that.
I don't think people are choosing to do this.
At all.
So I basically, I guess, to get back to the point in here, I don't know if looking
at the fawning and appeasement phenomena as mixed states in and of themselves is
the best way to look at these things.
Or we could.
You know, look at them as mixed states, but with more dominant of a flavor
of a primary state or original mixed state, like shutdown or like freeze.
If not, it's like, what does mixed state mean anymore?
It seems to have lost its meaning.
We're always in a mixed state.
Any type of behavior.
Or grouping of behaviors has an underlying mixed state, right?
The person who's bullying, the person who is addicted to something, there
is a mixed state going on, but we wouldn't call their state addiction.
We wouldn't call their state bullying.
But yeah, there is a mixed state underlying that's driving their
addiction or their bullying.
But it might be more useful to identify what the predominant
flavor of their system is.
And then from that predominant flavor, Then the behaviors come
from that as a way to adapt to whatever they're going through.
I don't think we need to keep on adding mixed states to the
polyvagal theory, in my opinion.
I don't think, and this is not you know, Dr.
Porges' stance.
His son and him had written the last book that's coming out really soon-
our Polyvagal world- it's not, their stance is not Polyvagal Institute.
This is just me speculating and wondering.
And honestly, I think this is a more helpful way of looking
at things in a more useful way.
Although.
Yeah, I know that other mammals have been shown to do appeasing behaviors.
So maybe appeasement is more of a, a mixed state, like a true mixed
state and not just a grouping of behaviors or behavioral adaptation.
Fawning to me seems distinct.
And seems like more of a behavioral adaptation to an
ongoing stuck defensive state.
Appeasement can be, seems like something that's immediate, but also
something that's a long-term adaptation.
So, again, I don't know the correct answer.
I at least wanted to give you a new wrinkle to this and a new way of framing
it and just let you know where I'm coming from, when it comes to these things.
But I don't know the right answer.
I look forward to the day where we have- you know, through our
watches, it'll tell us what our respiratory sinus arrhythmia is.
And it'll tell us what our heart rate variability is.
Actually, I think does that already?
But at some point there might be a polyvagal Institute app that tells you
through your watch what state you're in.
I look forward to that day, but we're not there quite yet.
Otherwise, thank you so much for joining me on stuck, not broken here.
Being stuck as you know, shows up in many different ways.
Like anxiety.
Anger depression, overwhelm, panic, fear, and a lot more.
If you're ready to take those next steps in getting unstuck without
spending a lot of money, I invite you to consider subscribing to
stuck, not broken total access.
You'll get exclusive access to the- no, actually not just exclusive, but total
access- to the knowledge that you need through my Polyvagal Trauma Relief System.
You'll have the option of connecting with others and spending more
time with me in the community.
Plus a bunch of other stuff if you want to go even deeper in your unstacking process.
Thank you for being a part of my podcast.
And I look forward to welcoming you as a member of my total access community.
Thank you so much for listening Fellow Stucknaut.
I do hope that this episode has been a helpful resource for you
in conceptualizing this polyvagal theory stuff and applying it to
your own trauma recovery journey.
Bye.
This podcast is not therapy, not intended to be therapy or
be a replacement for therapy.
Nothing in this creates or indicates a therapeutic relationship.
Please consult with your therapist or seek for one in your area if you are
experiencing mental health symptoms.
Nothing in this podcast should be construed to be specific life advice.
It is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
More resources are available in the description of this episode
and in the footer of justinlmft.
com.