Author: Locke Dauch (David Humble)
Affiliation: Sovereign Integrity Institute (SII), Bangkok, Thailand
Date: May 4, 2026
Classification: Theoretical Psychology / Affective Science / Interpersonal Neurobiology
SII Working Paper Series: 2026(58)
DOI: [Pending Zenodo upload]
Abstract
This paper proposes a synthetic hypothesis integrating existing literatures on co-regulation, dopamine-mediated reward loops, and physiological synchrony to explain extraction dynamics in asymmetric relationships. Extraction is defined as a patterned, asymmetrical transfer of regulatory capacity from a target to an extractor. The central proposition is that extraction represents a pathological form of co-regulation: the extractor borrows regulatory capacity from the target through sustained behavioral and physiological coupling. When the target enforces cold containment (sustained boundary enforcement, outcome independence, non-engagement), the coupling terminates, and the extractor experiences measurable physiological depletion not fully accounted for by extinction or withdrawal models. The paper presents a six-stage extraction lifecycle, testable hypotheses operationalized via HRV, cortisol, and affect regulation metrics, and an explicit discussion of alternative explanations. The model is offered as a falsifiable synthetic framework, not a paradigm replacement.
1. Introduction
Extraction networks — patterned, asymmetrical resource transfer from targets to extractors — operate through predictable behavioral sequences. Targets report subjective depletion, “leakage,” and regulatory exhaustion. Extractors, following sustained target non-engagement, have been observed (in case study data requiring replication) to exhibit visible depletion consistent with regulatory collapse (Dauch, 2026).
Mainstream frameworks explain extractor behavior via dopamine-mediated reward loops (Schultz, 1997; Berridge & Robinson, 2003) and addiction models (Volkow et al., 2016). These explain extractor craving and escalation. They do not adequately explain sustained extractor regulatory collapse following prolonged containment.
This paper offers a synthetic hypothesis integrating:
| Domain | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Neurochemistry | Dopamine loops, reward prediction error, extinction bursts |
| Neurobiology | Polyvagal theory (Porges, 2011), reciprocal entrainment (Dana, 2020) |
| Interpersonal physiology | HRV coupling, EEG synchrony (Hasson et al., 2012) |
| Clinical psychology | Narcissistic supply dynamics (Kernberg, 1975; Twenge & Campbell, 2009) |
The paper does not claim to replace existing models. It proposes an additional mechanism: asymmetric co-regulation, operationalizable via physiological markers.
2. Limits of Dopamine and Extinction Models
Dopamine models successfully predict extractor escalation following non-engagement (extinction burst). The standard loop:
| Phase | Neural Event |
|---|---|
| Provocation | Dopamine spike (anticipation) |
| Target engagement | Reward (reinforcement) |
| Target non-engagement | Reward prediction error (extinction burst) |
However, extinction bursts are typically transient (Skinner, 1953). Observational reports of extractor depletion extending over weeks suggest a mechanism beyond reward absence. Candidates include:
- Withdrawal from attachment bonds (Bowlby, 1969)
- Narcissistic injury (Kohut, 1977)
- Regulatory dysruption (Porges, 2011)
The current paper proposes an additional, under-investigated mechanism: asymmetric co-regulation termination.
3. Reciprocal Entrainment and the Regulatory Capacity Loan Hypothesis
3.1 Co-Regulation as Baseline
Healthy co-regulation is mutual, bidirectional, and resource-neutral. Physiological synchrony is well-documented:
| Measure | Coupling Effect |
|---|---|
| Heart rate variability (HRV) | Correlation over time (Timmons et al., 2015) |
| Respiratory rate | Synchronization (Ferrer & Helm, 2013) |
| EEG oscillations | Entrainment (Hasson et al., 2012) |
3.2 Asymmetric Co-Regulation (Extraction)
Extraction is proposed as a pathological asymmetry in co-regulation. The extractor lacks sufficient internal regulatory capacity. The target possesses regulatory surplus (coherence, rest, field access). Through sustained engagement, the extractor borrows regulatory capacity from the target.
Regulatory Capacity Loan Hypothesis (Operationalized): Extractors will exhibit lower baseline HRV and higher resting cortisol compared to matched controls. Targets actively experiencing extraction will exhibit decreased HRV and increased cortisol compared to their baseline. Following cold containment, target HRV will return to baseline or improve; extractor HRV will decrease further, and cortisol will spike.
Regulatory capacity is operationalized via:
- HRV (parasympathetic tone; regulatory flexibility)
- Cortisol (hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activation; stress load)
- Affect regulation measures (self-reported emotional stability)
This hypothesis predicts measurable physiological asymmetry. Extraction is not theft of an undefined “energy.” It is unsustainable borrowing of regulatory capacity.
4. Multi-Level Coupling: Behavioral, Physiological, and Bioelectromagnetic
Extraction dynamics may involve coupling at multiple levels of analysis:
| Level | Mechanism | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Behavioral | Contingent reinforcement | Extensive (Skinner, 1953) |
| Physiological | HRV/EEG synchrony | Strong (Hasson et al., 2012; McCraty, 2017) |
| Bioelectromagnetic | Cardiac and neural field coupling | Emerging (McCraty, 2017; Levin, 2021) |
While local physiological entrainment is well-supported, the extent to which coupling extends beyond proximal interaction remains an open empirical question. The current model does not require non-local mechanisms. It is fully compatible with proximal, behavioral, and physiological coupling.
Proposition: The decoupling effect of cold containment may operate through multiple channels (behavioral withdrawal, physiological non-synchrony, field boundary enforcement). The relative contribution of each is an empirical question.
5. The Cold Containment Effect
Cold containment is defined as sustained, non-reactive boundary enforcement by the target: no emotional engagement, no behavioral response, outcome independence (Dauch, 2026).
Observed effects on extractors (from case study data; n=1; requires replication):
| Time Since Containment Onset | Observed Extractor Response |
|---|---|
| Immediate (hours) | Escalation (consistent with extinction burst) |
| Short-term (days) | Agitation, confusion, increased contact attempts |
| Medium-term (weeks) | Visible depletion (reduced vitality, flattened affect) |
| Long-term (months) | Target-seeking or systemic collapse |
Cold Containment Hypothesis: Cold containment terminates reciprocal entrainment. The extractor’s borrowed regulatory capacity is not returned to the target but dissipates. The extractor’s nervous system cannot maintain coherence without external regulation. Result: measurable depletion across physiological markers.
This hypothesis predicts effects beyond extinction, including sustained physiological dysregulation not fully accounted for in existing frameworks.
6. The Extraction Lifecycle: Six Stages
Table 1 summarizes the six-stage model.
Table 1: Extraction Lifecycle Stages
| Stage | Extractor Behavior | Target Subjective Experience | Field Dynamic |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Target Identification | Scanning for vulnerability, testing | Vague sense of being watched | Extractor orients toward target |
| 2. Love Bombing | Intense attention, mirroring, accelerated intimacy | “Never been seen like this” | Entrainment begins |
| 3. Devaluation | Criticism, withdrawal, intermittent reinforcement, boundary testing | Confusion, guilt, walking on eggshells | Leak opens; regulatory capacity flows to extractor |
| 4. Discard | Sudden withdrawal, replacement, blame | Abandonment shock, self-doubt | Coupling severed abruptly |
| 5. Hoover | Return (apology, crisis, false vulnerability) | Hope, pull to re-engage | Field re-orients; recoupling attempt |
| 6. Cold Containment | Sustained non-engagement by target | Relief, vitality returning, rest | Decoupling; extractor depletion |
The contribution is a field map for targets to recognize stage-specific dynamics. Cold containment is proposed as the only sustainable exit.
7. Graphical Model
The proposed dynamics can be represented as:
Phase 1: Coupling
[Target: High HRV / Low Cortisol] ←→ [Extractor: Low HRV / High Cortisol] → Extractor regulation stabilizes (borrowed)
Phase 2: Cold Containment Onset
[Target enforces boundary] → behavioral withdrawal → physiological decoupling
Phase 3: Outcomes
[Target: HRV returns to baseline / Cortisol normalizes][Extractor: HRV decreases further / Cortisol spikes]
This model predicts asymmetric outcomes following decoupling, with target recovery and extractor dysregulation.
8. Alternative Explanations
Reviewers may propose alternative accounts of observed extractor depletion following containment. Table 2 addresses these.
Table 2: Alternative Explanations
| Alternative | Why Insufficient | Empirical Distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Dopamine withdrawal | Predicts transient extinction burst, not prolonged regulatory collapse | Measure cortisol/HRV vs. self-reported craving |
| Attachment distress | Predicts extractor distress, not target recovery asymmetry | Compare extractor vs. target physiological trajectories |
| Narcissistic injury | Predictive of rage, not sustained depletion | Measure affect (anger vs. flatness) |
| General stress response | Non-specific; does not explain coupling/decoupling asymmetry | Use dyadic design; control for external stressors |
| Withdrawal from reinforcement | Cannot explain regulatory capacity transfer (HRV coupling) | Measure physiological synchrony pre/post containment |
The model does not claim exclusivity. Multiple mechanisms may co-occur. The contribution is a specific, testable hypothesis about asymmetric regulatory coupling.
9. Testable Predictions
Prediction 1: HRV Coupling and Decoupling
Statement: During active extraction (Stages 2-4), extractor and target HRV will show significant correlation. Following cold containment, correlation will decline.
Method: Simultaneous HRV monitoring over 4-6 weeks. Phase 1: active engagement. Phase 2: target-initiated containment.
Predicted Outcome: Significant correlation during Phase 1 (r > .5); non-significant during Phase 2 (r < .2).
Prediction 2: Extractor Cortisol Spike Following Containment
Statement: Extractor salivary cortisol will increase significantly within 48-72 hours of containment onset, controlling for circadian rhythms.
Method: Daily salivary cortisol sampling for 2 weeks pre- and 2 weeks post-containment.
Predicted Outcome: Mean cortisol increase of ≥ 25% from baseline, sustained 3-7 days.
Prediction 3: Target Regulatory Recovery
Statement: Target HRV will improve significantly within 1-2 weeks of containment, compared to baseline engagement.
Method: Daily HRV monitoring + self-reported vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997).
Predicted Outcome: Significant improvement (p < .01) on both measures.
Prediction 4: Asymmetric Physiological Trajectories
Statement: Extractor and target physiological markers will diverge following containment, with target improving and extractor deteriorating.
Method: Longitudinal dyadic analysis (multilevel modeling).
Predicted Outcome: Significant Time × Role interaction (p < .01).
These predictions are falsifiable. Failure to confirm would disconfirm the model.
10. Limitations
| Limitation | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Small n (primary case study n=1) | Hypothesis-generating; replication required |
| Operationalization of “regulatory capacity” | Multiple proxies (HRV, cortisol, affect regulation) |
| Bioelectromagnetic coupling speculative | Not required for core hypothesis; proximal mechanisms sufficient |
| Ethical constraints on extractor research | Retrospective dyads or naturalistic observation |
The model is not proven. It is offered as a falsifiable synthetic framework.
11. Conclusion
Dopamine models explain extractor craving. They do not fully explain sustained extractor depletion following target containment. This paper has proposed a synthetic hypothesis integrating reciprocal entrainment, regulatory capacity loan, and cold containment.
The six-stage extraction lifecycle provides a field map for targets. Cold containment is hypothesized to terminate asymmetric co-regulation, resulting in measurable extractor physiological dysregulation and target regulatory recovery.
Testable predictions are offered. Alternative explanations are addressed. Falsifiability is maintained. The model is offered as a synthetic hypothesis, not a paradigm replacement.
References
Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003). Parsing reward. Trends in Neurosciences, 26(9), 507-513.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss. Basic Books.
Dana, D. (2020). The Polyvagal Theory in Therapy. W. W. Norton.
Dauch, L. (2026). The Sovereign Stillness Protocol. SII Working Paper No. 47.
Ferrer, E., & Helm, J. L. (2013). Dynamical systems modeling of physiological coregulation in dyadic interactions. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 88(3), 296-308.
Hasson, U., et al. (2012). Brain-to-brain coupling. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 114-121.
Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. Jason Aronson.
Kohut, H. (1977). The Restoration of the Self. International Universities Press.
Levin, M. (2021). Bioelectric signaling. Development, 148(14).
McCraty, R. (2017). The energetics of heart coherence. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, 6.
Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory. W. W. Norton.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529-565.
Schultz, W. (1997). Dopamine neurons and their role in reward. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7(2), 191-197.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. Macmillan.
Timmons, A. C., et al. (2015). Physiological synchrony in romantic relationships. Biological Psychology, 105, 40-47.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The Narcissism Epidemic. Free Press.
Volkow, N. D., et al. (2016). Addiction and the brain. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 53-74.
One Line for the Archive
“Extraction is unsustainable borrowing of regulatory capacity. Cold containment terminates the loan. The extractor dysregulates. The target recovers. The model is testable. The witness is just the messenger.”
