Inner child

[Welo]

Lately my t has been bringing my child part and a need to integrate different parts. The problem is no matter how much I try I just can't seem to buy into the idea of parts, inner child etc. I am an adult and I just don't understand why this seems so important to him. Is there anyone else here that doesn't espouse this way of thinking?

 

[Nabehon]

I didn’t buy into it at first but now I’m 100% onboard.

I do IFST.

Integration?

Do you have dissociated parts? I’m assuming you do as if you didn’t, there would be nothing to integrate. What are your dissociated parts? Mine are fear and anger. I can’t say I’m working on integration though.

 

[Welo]

Do I have dissociate parts, not that I recognize or acknowledge. That is part of the issue, I just don't see what he apparently sees which makes things really hard. T talks about how everyone is a cluster of selves and that trauma breaks apart those bonds. To me I am a "what you see is what you get" kind of person and

 

[Welo]

Sorry about the abrupt end to the last post, I am struggling with my computer logging me out of the site frequently. Any way I just don't grasp the concept and it honestly makes me feel very uncomfortable to talk about this with t.

 

[Havug]

Hmmm. I’m not sure how to explain it as I can actually FEEL my dissociated parts and my child parts. It’s not an easy concept to wrap ones head around though.

Has your therapist tried to explain it to you in depth?

I know it’s a concept that works well for me, but I know it doesn’t work for everyone.

 

[Busavi]

T talks about how everyone is a cluster of selves and that trauma breaks apart those bonds.

This is a theory, not a fact. And it’s not everyone’s theory.

For every T who believes working with parts is the answer? There’s another one believes that encouraging a disintegrated concept of self is countertherapeutic.

If it’s not for you? Don’t let someone convince you that you have parts if you know that you don’t. Maybe find a T that has a different approach. Because there’s plenty of work to be done in therapy that doesn’t have anything to do with parts, and your T should be able to help you with your recovery regardless of whether or not you have parts.

I have DID. Personally? I find the concept of encouraging people to create parts, when actually they are one whole person (because we are, even those of us with DID, just one person) to be a little odd, if not dangerous.

 

[Havug]

This is a theory, not a fact. And it’s not everyone’s theory.

For every T who believes working with parts is the...

Different part theories.

IFST parts are not the same parts as in DID.

 

[Welo]

My t is working to explain this to me I wouldn't say that he is trying to convince me I have parts it is just how he refers to certain things related to how I have adapted/matured post trauma. When I read information related to IFS parts I can understand why he might want to explore this as a possibility.

 

[Utuf]

IFST parts are not the same parts as in DID

Right. And IFST isn’t the only non-DID therapy that involved seperating the self into distonct parts. For example, schema therapy does something similar through schema modes.

Working with the “inner child” is really about working with the state of feeling vulnerable and scared. It’s more about addressing (your) beliefs, emotions and behaviours that are involved with that vulnerability, and trying to find a way to resolve them, as part of the healing process.

But for a lot of people, language is incredibly important. And distinguishing this vulnerability, which arises from unresolved traumatic experience, as a distinct “part”, is a very particular way of dealing with those issues. And all too often, it leads to assigning an entire personality, distinct from the self, oftentimes with its own name and evem thhe ability to speak as if seperately from the person actually in therapy.

In fact, there is no child in the room, there’s only the patient. And they don’t actually have a seperate personality. I’ve certainly seen it play out many times in non-DID patients where creating that inner child, creates a new issue. For some people (not all), the child personality, which was only meant to play a role in therapy, takes on its own life outside of therapy. This disintegrated concept of self, for some patients, creates as much dysfunction as it resolves.

A good trauma therapist dealing with a non-DID patient should be able to address the needs of the individual patient. And if it is being made clear by the patient that they don’t relate to the concept pf a fragmented self, and have reason to believe that DID is not at play, then working through recovery issues such as vulnerability should be well-within their scope of practice without having to resort to persuading their client that they should consider themselves as fragmented.

For some non-DID people, identifying distinct parts of their personality is helpful. For others, it can (and too often does) create a fragmented identity that ultimately needs reintegration.

 

[Havug]

Right. And IFST isn’t the only non-DID therapy that involved seperating the self into distonct parts. For example, sc...

But again, “parts” does not equate with “fragmented”, not in IFST.

If a therapist is trying to convince a client that they are fragmented when they are not, well I don’t think that’s a good thing.

 

[Utuf]

If a therapist is trying to convince a client that they are fragmented when they are not, well I don’t think that’s a good thing.

Exactly. And for some people, the conceptualisation of “parts”, no matter what therapy mode is being used? Doesn’t work. For example for some people, you’ll achieve much better results in resolving issues related to vulnerability through modes such as creative therapy. Some people do art much better than concepts.

And even with a DID diagnosis? There’s reason to be prudent with the opinion you’ve received. It’s not easily diagnosed without an established therapeutic relationship over a period of time, and that’s assuming a practitioner who is trained with dissociative disorders.

If you’re in the US? Even more reason to keep your wits about you. For many mental health disorders, diagnosis is becoming very standardised. So, no matter where you are in the world, roughly 1 in 4 people will experience depression at some time in their life. But for DID, which many practitioners don’t understand well, let alone agree about diagnostically, you’re a shittonne more likely to walk out of a therapist’s office with a DID diagnosis if you live in the US compared with any other country. It’s a statistical anomaly that is so profound that it can’t be explained merely by access to treatment, and is strongly suggestive of massove overdiagnosis.

But that’s just my opinion. Take it or leave it:)

 

[Atu]

Again, he isn't trying to convince me that I am fragmented. An example of things that he has said in the past include conversations about allowing my younger self the chance to play which is I think childish and just not something I do, he talks about things like getting down and playing with my kids when they were younger which I didn't do because it is not something I did when I was growing up. He has talked about listening to the "me" at the ages when my trauma happened which I completely don't understand. My t and I have been working together for a few years and I trust him I just don't get these concepts and they make me feel uncomfortable.