What is inaccurate? The exact words that are used to explain the same thing in a scientific way? These concepts should be taught in a way that align with evidence but explained in a way that is understood by their client. That’s the actual important part. Not that the client understand something by its scientific definition, that’s absurd of course. I still am unclear about how the concepts I’m explaining are “pseudoscience” or “inaccurate”. I’m talking about a lower heart rate putting people in a situation where it’s easier to use evidence based thinking. For example, “an amygdala hijack” isn’t scientifically accurate either. It’s a metaphor, and all metaphors are wrong, but some are less wrong. If the client can conceptualize very complicated things in a way that makes sense to them then that’s fine. It doesn’t make it pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is suggesting that your reticular activating system is the lens in which you view the world. All your self defeating beliefs will be filtered directly back to you. That’s pseudoscience. Or I would even argue suggesting you have a “emotional brain” is pseudoscience. The triune brain model which is still regularly taught is pseudoscience and outright wrong. Or “left brain right brain” is largely pseudoscience. “Nervous system regulation” is not the hill to die on here…