The Polyvagal Theory has three brand new additions to the mixed states:

intimacy, fawning and appeasement.

I'll cover appeasement in this episode of my polyvagal 2 0 1 series.

My name's Justin Sunseri.

I'm a therapist, 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.

But today we are going to be focusing on deepening our learning and

understanding of the polyvagal theory.

At the end.

I'm also going to share a really quick thought about Polyvagal criticisms

and what I will be doing with them.

So Porges has a new book coming out.

As of this recording comes out in a couple of weeks.

I think.

Uh, he wrote it with his son, actually, really his son.

You.

Uh, wrote it.

In my last episode, I interviewed Dr.

Porges.

Jus or chatted with him.

And he kind of spelled out that Seth wrote it and it sounds like.

Uh, Dr.

Porges.

You know, gave it the stamp of approval.

And I'll do a book review.

Very soon.

Uh, but it's called our polyvagal world for now.

Just I do overall recommend it.

I will have an Amazon affiliate link to order it in the description.

So our polyvagal world discusses the application of the polyvagal

theory to various life domains like incarceration and schools.

But it also adds three new mixed states to the Polyvagal Theory, which

are intimacy, fawn, and appeasement.

Uh, appeasement and Fon are also discussed by Rebecca Bailey.

Jaycee Dugard, Stephanie Smith and Dr.

Porges.

In a paper called appeasement, replacing Stockholm syndrome as a

definition of a survival strategy.

And I'll have a link for you in the description for that.

What is appeasement through the lens of the Polyvagal Theory?

The basic idea is that appeasement is a sort of co-regulatory mixed state.

When in the face of extreme danger, like in a hostage situation,

I think the isolation aspect.

Of this is really important.

Appeasement through the political theory lens is conceptualize as more of

a replacement for Stockholm syndrome.

In that.

Article, it makes it really clear as to why that is.

We should view appeasement as a two way neuro-biological interaction.

Or as in the, in the paper it says or calls at a super social engagement.

This is the ability to use social interaction.

Even when in these extreme, dangerous situations.

Even though it's called a super social engagement and co-regulation that.

I'm saying that's not true, but it seems to, to me, at least to be

more of a function of deescalation.

Not actual co-regulation like, it's not resulting.

As far as I can tell, it's not resulting in the perpetrator becoming

more empathetic and compassionate.

And truly accessing their safe and social state.

It seems to be more about deescalating, the potential

of harm from the perpetrator.

It also seems to be directly connected to being isolated from others.

But maybe enough co-regulation.

You know is what's happening and that is resulting in deescalation.

And really neutralizing the defensive state of the perpetrator

or neutralizing it enough.

To where significant bodily harm.

Uh, or death is averted.

Appeasement actually is something that we see in other mammals as well.

I found this article, I'll put a link in the description

is from the Cleveland clinic.

And it's more it's on Stockholm syndrome.

They use the language of Stockholm syndrome.

But in that article, they say one theory.

As far as like what, you know, what purpose.

Appeasement might serve.

It says that one theory is that this is a learned technique,

passed down from our ancestors.

In the early civilization, there was always a risk of being captured

or killed by another social group.

Bonding with captors increase the chance of survival.

So they're postulating this as a learning technique.

I think Portis would say it's more of a biological.

Predisposition to extreme.

Isolation circumstances or captivity.

I think they're pretty much saying something similar, but the lens of it is.

More one hand is more of a learned social thing versus something that's

ingrained into our DNA as a potential response to extreme situations.

In that appeasement article I referenced before from Portis, it says that social

connection to the perpetrator may be experienced as a type of lifeline.

So social connection, we should probably view this as, uh, or at

least accessing social connection is, is directly connected to safety.

When it comes to looking at this as like a biological thing or a neuro-biological

interaction between two organisms, We should look at the benefit of connection,

even if it is an extreme situations.

Our bodies, the mammalian bodies.

We do better when we have more access to our safety state.

When our safety state's active, we have more capacity to have

homeostasis, which is basically utilizing our body's resources.

For health and growth and restoration.

So simply connecting with somebody.

Even in a situation like this actually may have a better results.

Not just for survival, but also for our body's utilization or use of its

resources and maintaining homeostasis.

So I wouldn't view this as a, like a choice driven sort of thing.

I don't think someone is consciously choosing to

connect with their perpetrator.

In a w when it comes to appeasement.

Instead, we want to look at this as a biological drive that optimizes resources.

Dissociation is going to be a factor in appeasement as well, because that's

going to help to buffer the understanding of the severity of the situation.

And the, the life threat potential of it.

In other words.

Uh, existing in a dissociative state is an adaptation that allows that

person to not enter a full on shutdown, which would be life-threatening.

So instead of completely shutting down.

The body is able to enter into a more dissociative disconnected state, which

allows basic functioning to continue.

And the chance of survival increases, but the dissociation keeps that individual

from truly recognizing maybe the impact of what they're doing and the connection

they have with, with the perpetrator.

So this is a mixed state.

And the question you are probably asking is, well, what states are

active in the appeasement mixed state.

And the answer to that is all of them.

Uh, the first one is obviously the safety state.

There is enough activation of the safety state.

To provide cues of co-regulation.

To the perpetrator.

Or the captor.

And the paper also argues that the flight fight state is probably active as well.

In order to mobilize, if the opportunity arises to escape.

There does also seem to be a significant amount of dissociation

when it comes to appeasement.

So shutdown is a big part of this as well.

That dissociation again, allows for disconnecting from the experience, which.

Kind of entails at the individual, sacrifice their personal values in

order to connect with the perpetrator and increase their chances of survival.

I really struggled with understanding appeasement and also fawn, which

I'll talk about more next time.

As best I can.

But I really struggled with understanding this in terms of the Polyvagal Theory

and it being its own mixed state.

But I found this article called when agreement is not consent,

I'll link to that and descriptions.

Well, it's a great article and it really helped me understand what the

heck appeasement is and how it connects to the Polyvagal Theory, especially.

In terms of a, like a biological reaction.

To distress or to extreme situations.

And there was this video in that article, uh, of a dog.

That was appeasing another dog.

So one dog was like the dominant one and had this, like this growl to it.

And the other dog was, as it got close to the dominant dog.

The dominant dog would growl and then the other dog would roll over onto its back.

It, it was mobile cause it was stiff.

But it would also do things like lick the dominant dog's face.

So it was submissive.

It completely surrendered its power to the other dog, but also try to connect

and appease it or connect to it.

Through a social interaction like licking.

So when I saw that, that was like, oh, that might be all those states active

at once where they're immobilized.

But also mobilized at the same time in freeze.

And there is some social outreach or social connection going on

there, or an attempt to, to show, Hey, I'm not a threat to you.

There's many potential experiences when it comes to appeasement.

But I am going to highlight three of these here for you.

One of the potential experiences of appeasement is positive feelings

toward the captors or the abusers.

I found this quote from Britannica.Com when it comes to Stockholm

syndrome and they say, Psychologist who have studied the syndrome.

Believe that the bond is initially created when a captor threatens a

captives' life deliberates, and then chooses not to kill the captive.

The captives relief at the removal of the death threat is transposed

into feelings of gratitude.

Toward the captor for giving him or her life.

Britannica sadly does not - or at least, I didn't see it given a citation.

For whoever those psychologists are, who studied.

Stockholm syndrome and said, That's the, uh, the captive's relief at

the removal of the death threat.

Is transposed into feelings of gratitude.

Uh, so I don't know the exact source for that sadly, but it makes sense.

Because the captive is probably connecting their own wellbeing to.

The happiness of two.

To use the word very loosely.

To the happiness of their captor.

Remember that our nervous system adapts based on the need of survival.

So in order to survive, our nervous system potentially could

enter into this, uh, appeasement state where we are surrendering.

Uh, in order to reduce the threat of another.

We shouldn't look at this as a choice.

Exactly.

It's it's that some people will have this capacity to offer up co-regulatory

cues to another, but it's really about adapting to the needs of survival.

Another experience that is possible.

Uh, of appeasement is sympathy for their capture is beliefs, behaviors, and goals.

So the captive identifies that their potential to

survive is directly connected.

To the captors goals.

So it may look like they have sympathy for the goals of the captor.

The captive learning that compliance and submission to the captors goals.

We'll get their needs met.

Which have otherwise been cut off.

Remember this happens in extreme isolation.

Part of Stockholm syndrome or part of appeasement might be that negative

feelings toward, uh, police or other authority figures may occur.

These authority figures are a potential threat to the captives.

Uh, survival, even though at least while in captivity.

even though these authority figures are supposed to help, right?

But in that situation in isolation.

In a duress and life threat.

The captive is now an agreement in a sense with the captor on their goals.

But also viewing others as dangerous or as a, as a threat.

Because the captives needs for survival are being met by the captor

and appeasement is a major way of continuing to get their needs met.

Don't look at this again, as like they're choosing or that they like to

be a part of this type of relationship.

Think of it in terms of the Polyvagal ladder.

The captive cannot connect with the other person in a very meaningful, safe, and

social kind of way, but they can do so.

You know, enough of a way to reduce threat.

But they also cannot run away.

Exactly.

They can't fight.

Exactly.

They've they have been isolated.

And trap basically.

They also can't exist in a shutdown state for very long, because

that would result in death.

So the captive as a mammal is utilizing their best means of getting

their needs met and of surviving.

And that is existing in a dissociative state.

That also allows them to be mobilized for, uh, for running away, if, if

they can, but also allows them to surrender their own personal values.

And connect with the capture in a way that is.

Convincing enough.

Through co-regulatory cues to get the captor or to reduce their defenses.

And if you think about it, that way, the potential for escape probably goes up.

I don't know.

Stats on how often this is effective, but I think we could

see from a biological interaction between a captor and a captive.

Through these neuroception of co-regulation.

Or even pseudo co-regulation that there's probably more of a chance of escape.

If the captor reduces their, uh, their defensive level.

Or they're aggressive level.

If the Capitol war is.

Feeling calmer.

I'm not sure if that's the right word or less defensive.

Or less aggressive, then there may be some sort of pseudo trusts.

There may be some sort of, uh, space given to the person that allows

them to get out of the situation.

That's it for appeasement.

I'll talk about fawn and intimacy in upcoming episodes, but I'm going to wrap

this up with a really quick thought.

On polyvagal criticisms lasts.

In the last episode.

I said I would be touching upon that.

And also my email newsletter I did, but I'm not going to.

I did a lot of research into Polyvagal criticisms.

I take him seriously.

But I'm also a therapist, you know, it's so it's, even though I can see

the things that porges has talks about as far as what they get wrong and how

they're not understanding the theory.

I'm going to leave that up to Porges and the polyvagal Institute to handle.

So I think this is fascinating stuff, but I want to encourage you to go

and read it from them in particular.

But also to read Polyvagal criticisms for yourself.

I look at this as if there's two levels, two criticisms, and one of those are,

you know, people's blogs on the website.

Or on medium, but these are not primary critics.

These are.

Uh, these are pulling information from.

The primary critics.

And these are interesting to read in the more accessible, but to me there.

I don't take them too seriously.

The primary critics are really only two people and that's a Grossman

and Taylor and Grossman pulls most of what he talks about from Taylor.

So really from what I can tell, there's really only one very serious

critical of the polyvagal theory.

And the other one, Grossman he's more out in the forefront.

He talks a lot about it.

So you can find his stuff pretty easily.

If you, if you do a search for it, just look for Grossman and.

Polyvagal theory.

But for the most part, what Porges says seems to be true.

Like they're just not understanding the theory and what they're

criticizing or responding to are, what they think the theory says,

but it's not what the theory says.

But anyhow, there's only so far.

I can take us.

I'm a therapist.

I'm going to keep working on what I work on and focusing on trauma recovery and

how to help people be the best version of.

Themselves that they can.

And I hope you're okay with that.

If you really are into this stuff, go to the polyvagal Institute, they

have a bunch of free resources.

Uh, Porges has responded to criticisms.

Numerous times at this point.

And they're for free and easily accessible as well.

I'll have link links for you in the description.

To those rebuttals that Porges has already put out there.

That's really it.

I don't wanna use my time on it any more than I already have.

I it's interesting, but I don't think it's worth putting a much more time.

And in all honesty, and I'm a therapist.

So there's only so far I can take it.

Thank you so much for listening to this episode.

One last thing for you though.

Uh, I have a website membership that you can sign up.

It's free.

It's different than my stock.

Not broken total access membership.

If you go to Justin L M F t.com.

Become a member of my site.

Again, it's for free.

There's a whole bunch of resources that I have there for you.

Like, uh, my free polyvagal theory ebook that connects Polyvagal theory to trauma.

And my learning hubs.

And now that this new book is out with these new mixed states, I'm going

to have to be updating everything.

So now's a really good chance for you to become a free member.

And very soon, I hope I will have those resources updated for you with.

Yeah, all this new Polyvagal stuff coming out.

Otherwise, thank you so much for listening Fellow Stucknaut now I do hope that

this episode has been a helpful resource for you in understanding the polyvagal

theory and the new addition to it.

Appeasement.

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 Justin lm ft.com.