How do we fill the vacuum left behind by discredited NeuroMyths?

The first half of this year has been a bit wild for “official” debunkings of very popular psychology and neuroscience narratives. First came the latest in a series of scientific rebuttals of polyvagal theory, then an opinion piece outlining a scientifically supported theory of posttraumatic stress disorder might be maintained, showing that trauma is, in fact, not stored in the body.

Both polyvagal theory and the idea that trauma is stored in the body are frameworks that a lot of people are very attached to - I became extremely aware of that whenever I wrote about both over on my Instagram page. And, granted, my sense of humour can come across a little dry and dismissive, so I do understand that some people were offended. And that did make some people dismiss the criticism entirely. Few took it on board, got their noses into the books and papers and started studying (I still sometimes become aware of people who turned their entire practice around on the basis of these posts and it never fails to make me happy). And then there’s a group of people who just feel a little lost. They can see the arguments the scientists are making, they understand that there are flaws in the theories. But a large part of their existence as therapists or coaches was built on these very ideas so the worry is quite existential. Recently, I have come across more and more comments from therapists and coaches who are in this situation. Who struggle to let go of the frameworks they have based their practice on, unsure what to replace them with.

I think it’s understandable. These frameworks feel very complete, they claim to explain mental and physical well-being, behaviour, attitudes to a level of detail that feels like no expansion or further exploration are needed. When questions arise, answers exist that come from inside the circle of trust, one teacher recommends the next. So when the basis falls away, the cracks reach into every aspect of the work. And with that, there can come a disillusionment, an expectation that the critics also deliver alternative explanations to what these practitioners were previously told.

So it feels like the floor caved and there is no stepladder to climb out of the hole that is now gaping.

For the longest time, I struggled to understand this question - after all, a little scroll down my Instagram page would reveal a vat of knowledge about the nervous system, emotions, and mental health. Other science communicators also never tire of explaining different aspects of the same questions. So there is a mismatch here between the answers people might be looking for and those we as science communicators think we provide. I think there are a couple of reasons for that.

1. People are asking the wrong questions in terms of what can scientifically be answered, and,

2. Science communicators don’t know they’re not answering these questions.

So I want to be really clear in this piece.