Early in the history of the cognitive revolution and aligned with the field of cybernetics (feedback theory), three prominent researchers and scholars from different disciplines came together to formulate a model for describing human planning and behavior. George Miller, Eugene Galanter, and Karl Pribram (1960) prepared Plans and the Structure of Behavior that described the dynamic way in which we are guided by a reiterative process of acting, testing, modifying, and re-engaging our behavior. They presented a T.O.T.E. (test-operate-test-exit) process repeatedly engaged as we navigate our world.
As with T.O.T.E, Polystasis blends the concept of Statics (stabilizing structures) with that of Dynamics (adaptive processes). Operating in human systems, we are guided by certain core outcomes that do not readily change (statics); however, we must also be open to modifying these guiding outcomes as our environment changes. As Sterling has proposed, the static notion of homeostasis is inaccurate—especially when applied in our challenging postmodern environment (Bergquist, 1993; Bergquist, 2026).
The model of Polystasis incorporates three processes.
Appraisal
First, there is Appraisal. As Peter Sterling has noted, there is an ongoing need to monitor the environment in which we operate to determine if a new baseline (desired outcomes) is required. We informally or formally predict the probability that our current desired baseline of functioning can be achieved. Is it even desirable? At this point, I introduce a concept offered by another neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio (2005). Damasio proposed that a somatic template continually provides information regarding our bodily state. Perhaps, this template plays a central role in Sterling’s Allostatic process. Similarly, there might be a set of psychosocial templates that we frequently reference when making polystatic predictions and adjustments. These templates offer a view of our psychological status and the status of our external world (especially our social relationships).
While the psychosocial template operates at a different level from the somatic template, they are closely intertwined. The psychosocial template might be infused with the somatic template. As Anthony Damasio (2018) has concluded, feelings (and the somatic state) play a major role in our cognitive processes and in the fundamentals of our consciousness. In many ways, we “feel” our thoughts, decisions, and actions. We anticipate our emotional reaction to what we think is about to happen. We act upon this affective data as much as we act upon our cognitively based anticipation of near-future occurrences. A psychosocial template and intense template-related feelings are likely to trigger our attention when something in the environment is changing.
Under these conditions, we must ask a fundamental discerning question: Is it a thought or emotion that is arising inside our Head and Heart, or is it an externally based condition? The psychosocial template is triggered when something a bit “different” occurs in our psyche or in the world where we dwell. The “new” template doesn’t match the template that existed a few minutes before, or with some relatively stable baseline template we have built during our lifetime. It is a “deviant” template that draws our attention and impacts our polystatic process. Sometimes called a Schema (Bartlett, 1995; Piaget, 1923/2001), the more stable template concerns our view of how other people see us and how much control we have over external forces impinging on us. Michael Polanyi (2009) might propose that we lack full awareness of this template. We have only tacit (rather than explicit/conscious) knowledge of this psychosocial template—or the somatic template (Damasio, 2005).
