The Subjective Goldilocks Formula

How the formula applies in the context of Communication in relationships and its effect on the nervous system

The subjective Goldilocks formula was first introduced by Mia. By Mia Porriciello, Psychotherapist & Couples Therapist (Milton Keynes, UK) We often neglect or dismiss other people's experiences, describing them as too much or not enough, too emotional, or too negative. These judgements are commonly framed as if they reflect objective truths. Yet in therapeutic work, particularly in relational and couples contexts, this assumption repeatedly breaks down. What is overwhelming for one person may feel insignificant to another. What feels neglectful to one may feel safe or spacious to someone else.

The Subjective Goldilocks Formula

A clinical and relational framework that explains why there is no universal standard for what is “just right”—only what is metabolically tolerable for a given nervous system, shaped by its unique history.

Moving Beyond the Classic Goldilocks Principle

The traditional Goldilocks principle suggests that optimal functioning exists somewhere between extremes—not too much, not too little, but just right. While useful, this idea subtly implies unrealistic expectations which lead to unattainable standards that create distance among individuals, as it hold the idea that “just right” is fixed or universally recognisable. In psychotherapy, this assumption does not hold. The Subjective Goldilocks Formula reframes the question entirely: Just right for whom, and based on what experiences?

Why “Too Much” and “Too Little” Are Learned Experiences

From a developmental and neuropsychological perspective, human beings do not evaluate intensity in the abstract. We evaluate it through memory—often implicit, somatic, and pre-verbal.

• “Too much” often signals an experience that once arrived without safety, choice, or attunement.

• “Too little” often signals an experience that once failed to arrive when it was needed.

These responses are not character flaws or resistance. They are adaptive calibrations of the nervous system.

Subjective Thresholds, Not Universal Standards

Each individual carries two learned thresholds:

• Lower Threshold: below which an experience registers as absence, neglect, or rejection.

• Upper Threshold: above which an experience registers as intrusion, engulfment, or threat.

These thresholds are shaped by relational history, not by conscious preference. As a result, two people can experience the same behaviour in radically different ways—and both experiences can be valid.

The Subjective Goldilocks Formula (Conceptual Model)

What feels “just right” emerges not from the stimulus alone, but from the interaction of these variables.

Perceived Optimality (Pₒ) is a function of four interacting variables:

Pₒ = f ( I × C × H × S )

Where:

• I — Intensity of the stimulus(affection, closeness, autonomy, challenge, emotional expression)

• C — Current context(relational safety, timing, power dynamics, consent, meaning)

• H — Historical imprint(attachment patterns, trauma, emotional deprivation or overwhelm)

• S — Self-regulatory capacity(nervous system flexibility, emotional integration, reflective capacity)

• 
  

Implications for Couples and Relationships

In couples therapy, conflict often arises when partners assume their Goldilocks zone should be shared.

The Subjective Goldilocks Formula offers a different lens:

• The issue is not who is right.

• The issue is whose nervous system learned which limits, and why.

• Growth comes not from forcing alignment, but from expanding tolerance through safety, pacing, and repair.

As regulatory capacity increases, the “just right” zone widens. It is not coerced—it is cultivated.

The Moral of the Story

There is no such thing as “too much” or “too little” in an arbitrary or moral sense.

There is only:

• History

• Context

• Capacity

• Meaning

What feels just right is not found by comparison—it is grown through experience.

About the Author

Mia Porriciello is a psychotherapist and couples therapist based in Milton Keynes, United Kingdom. Her work integrates neuroscience, developmental psychology, psychodynamic and Jungian perspectives, and an existential Fundamentals of human meaning-making. She specialises in relational dynamics, emotional management, and the adaptive function of emotional experience.