When "internal family systems" therapy goes wrong...

[Ronin]

has anyone else experienced any downsides of IFS or it's current popularity?

Something quite similar with psychiatrists when trying to talk *of* D.I.D.
They all assumed & veeery pressed I am just naming my emotions, current moods, etc, when someone else fronted. Damned one dimensional, choosy, for fun, & all.

Nope. These been way more complicated someones, the names were literally names those people used in different social settings or were given by others and will not change one bit if the same guy is pissed off or happy to seventh heavens, & analyzing my thoughts in terms of parts structures... is about the least useful thing for figuring out which trauma block is making me whole nonfunctional at the moment, or for acccessing someone or a group of someones able to solve the situation ahead of me well. I know who is feeling / thinking of this or the other thing, does not really tell me how to process it so well. Shudder.

So yeah. Even from D.I.D. angle, that therapy modality is on my NotUseful list.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

I brought up IFS to my therapist as it sounded intresting having non-DID parts (also named by their discription. The young child, the protector, the angery one, and the rebellious teenager one) but my therapist wouldn't touch IFS with a ten foot pole and he lets me talk about my parts but always brings the convo back to me. I know they are all part of me but he always emphasis "YOU felt this way" or "YOUR thought was...". And all he said about parts was DID or DDNOS, therapy is still about intergration. Not sure that he'd be ok with me attaching actual names to these parts and neither would I. They had names when I was a child and that played a function. The names were dropped when they were no longer needed.

Now I wonder if this might be why he wouldn't go near IFS? He's encouraged letters and letting parts of me write them but he always says they are all ME. You know? Not Billy Joe Bob.

 

[MyWillow]

My psydoc T talks about integration and owning my experience and assuring myself I’m safe. I’m VERY dissociative in session and can be child like at times. And some flashbacks are clearly from a child’s perspective. But the focus (gentle but consistent) is always on me - the adult - supporting the child who hasn’t been parented.

 

[EveHarrington]

What I describe is actually quite common in IFS training programs.

One IFS training center puts it this way:


Despite the lawsuits, Dr. Richard Schwartz is the founder of IFS, is still involved with one of the major organizations certifying IFS. At Outline of the Internal Family Systems Model, they describe how they use parts under "Basic Assumptions of the IFS Model:

and

If a part has clothing they wear, that's complex. "Parts" are further described as these "subpersonalities" and "family members" that can have fantasies and preferences and emotions. Not just a single feeling state, emotion, or action.

Many IFS training systems actually teach therapists to ask questions like:

Elsewhere on this site, he talks about how he developed the model, and at one point working with a client he calls Diane, and describes
If it's not Diane, who is it? If the founder of IFS does this, then it's not surprising that others do as well, and seek to name, well, what the therapist believes is not Diane.

I think this aspect of IFS has a lot of potential for problems for some clients.

Oh now I understand!

I didn’t realize that the original creator was pushing this stuff.

I consider myself lucky that I didn’t learn those aspects of IFS. If I had, I’d be running from this therapy so fast!

I think that for most of us, we don’t need to go that far, naming parts and dressing them. To what end?

To me it’s been incredible helpful just to identify problematic emotions and behaviors and determine how they interact. The goal is for SELF to always be in control and not be over reacting and having a maladaptive behavior/emotion running the show.

The only part that has a name is “fawn”. I call her Bambi. She is still a one dimensional fawning behavior. I hated the Bambi movie as a kid. I hate my fawning behavior as it’s so destructive. Bambi must die.

My only part that is fully fleshed out is my inner child. Since I was completely her at one point, this was no stretch of the imagination.

I have some IFS books. I’ll read further to see if they adapt the naming process.

Oh and of course SELF is fully fleshed out, but SELF isn’t a part.

 

[Ronin]

... So on a second reread of your post, JMH, I just got to the number for a name part (shrug. Knew I am spacing soomething out of the reading) & that suggestion whole is kind of hilarious, in a trauma haha way.

Someone should tell those therapists actually having numbers for names / knowing people just by numbers / knowing of people by series of numbers... complicates normal life & makes for stellar daylong panic attacks when trying to deal with things like waiting in queues, sending letters, & the like. Numbers then don't stop being people.

Good on you for not going with that moronity.

 

[Justmehere]

@Ronin, I am with you on the numbers thing. On my own, I tried it. Made it harder to be functional in the world. It felt dehumanizing... and I can see how it might for a moment provide distance from painful stuff, but, yeah, on the most practical level, complications ensue.

So yeah. Even from D.I.D. angle, that therapy modality is on my NotUseful list.

The inpatient therapist that used IFS in a helpful way also treated a lot of people with DID. He was adamant the goal with DID is to increase integration and realize all the parts are one’s self. Not other than self.

The only part that has a name is “fawn”. I call her Bambi. She is still a one dimensional fawning behavior. I hated the Bambi movie as a kid. I hate my fawning behavior as it’s so destructive. Bambi must die.

Respectfully, in my opinion, naming yourself a movie character you have hated your whole life that you think should die, seems a bit self abusive and aggressive to me. Not integrative. Not this:

identify problematic emotions and behaviors and determine how they interact

Also, as side note... Bambi must die? That’s what the hunters (who are portrayed as villains) in the movie thought. Part of the purpose of the movie was to actually show the opinion that killing deer is terrible. After his mother dies, Bambi actually saves fellow deer Faline from a pack of dogs and later becomes the powerful Great Prince of the Forest. The movie does not portray fawning as appeasement and giving in to abusers to survive, which is what is usually meant as a psych term “fawning.” Maybe it’s time to reconsider if you and/or Bambi must die. You have to do what works for you. I’m simply not sure how the metaphorical death of baby animals as a parallel to stopping unwanted behaviors brings mental wellness.

 

[DharmaGirl]

Several people who I know have had that therapy believe they have DID. They insist that they have it because they have parts. I don't think it's helpful to allow people to think they have an illness they don't, but that is the individual therapist not explaining enough. Many people on forums across the web believe they are DID because of IFS. I don't know why they don't want it.

 

[EveHarrington]

@Ronin, I am with you on the numbers thing. On my own, I tried it. Made it harder to be functional in the world. It felt dehumanizing... and I can see how it might for a moment provide distance from painful stuff, but, yeah, on the most practical level, complications ensue.

The inpatient therapist that used IFS in a helpful way also treated a lot of people with DID. He was adamant the goal with DID is to increase integration and realize all the parts are one’s self. Not other than self.

Respectfully, in my opinion, naming yourself a movie character you have hated your whole life that you think should die, seems a bit self abusive and aggressive to me. Not integrative. Not this:

Also, as side note... Bambi must die? That’s what the hunters (who are portrayed as villains) in the movie thought. Part of the purpose of the movie was to actually show the opinion that killing deer is terrible. After his mother dies, Bambi actually saves fellow deer Faline from a pack of dogs and later becomes the powerful Great Prince of the Forest. The movie does not portray fawning as appeasement and giving in to abusers to survive, which is what is usually meant as a psych term “fawning.” Maybe it’s time to reconsider if you and/or Bambi must die. You have to do what works for you. I’m simply not sure how the metaphorical death of baby animals as a parallel to stopping unwanted behaviors brings mental wellness.

Ok so you are reading FAR too much into this Bambi name. Bambi was a fawn. I hated Bambi. The crossover stops there.

If you have read my diary or my posts about fawning you’d know this part is problematic to me. Others have posted about how they want parts to die, too. This isn’t something unique. I’ve been working on this for a year and a half now, and I’m making progress.

I DID NOT NAME MYSELF BAMBI!

I named a maladaptive BEHAVIOR Bambi.

Stuff like this makes me not want to share my experiences anymore. No offense, but I know what I’m doing. I didn’t learn IFS the way you did.

 

[Justmehere]

As I process through what I see as significant potential drawbacks to IFS for some, I still think ego state theory seems sound with what is known right now. They are states. It is a theory. But when emotions gain personhood and subpersonalities that is not self... things get more complicated.

 

[Justmehere]

The movie Inside Out uses some of the principles of these two therapy models and IFS seemed to be in even more vogue after the movie came out. It was created using the input of psych experts, but it's a movie. So many therapists took it all so much further. The fictional animated character had emotions portrayed as parts, but the main character didn't go by other names or process themselves as other names. Emotions could all exist in one person and they were all needed. The message of the movie was that sadness can be a helpful tool towards comfort and connection and change. It doesn't need to die. Not for sadness to be disavowed as "not Diane" or not self, like the founder and other practitioners of IFS promote.
Opinion | The Science of ‘Inside Out’

I DID NOT NAME MYSELF BAMBI!

I named a maladaptive BEHAVIOR Bambi.

I understand. If it works for you, it works for you. For me, it doesn't work and it's harmful.

For me, my name is intimately connected to my identity. My maladaptive behaviors are something I do. They are not identity. They are an action. It's an action for which I have to take responsibility. It's a choice. It can also be compulsive, a problem I struggle to stop, but it's not who I am. My worst days and moments and behaviors do not define my identity.

For me, other names felt painful. As a kid, I was treated as either non-existent or a problem or sometimes loved. I don't think it is helpful to be treated like things I do are being done by any part that doesn't have my name. I like my name and I've worked hard to like it.

 

[EveHarrington]

For me, it doesn't work and it's harmful.

So please stop projecting.
You’re putting in this Freudian psychoanalysis as to names (my names) and such.....this isn’t that kind of therapy. That’s not what I’m doing.

You haven’t read any of my posts about my struggles with problematic parts or even my diary entries to know that I have made a lot of progress in this realm. When I first met Fawn, it took me a MONTH to get her to stand down and let Self take over. Now when fawning behavior pops up, I can get it to stand down pretty fast. This is progress (and naming her “Bambi” is just something cutesy I did, nothing less, nothing more.)

You are still reading FAR too much into what I said. Fawn is a behavior, nothing but a behavior. My fawning behavior made me VERY sick last year. Did you ever get to the point of talking to your parts? Did you ask them what they need? Did you ask them why they do what they do? Did you ask them who they interact with? Have you ever asked them to stand down? Do you understand the concept of self? Do you know about protectors? Do you know what blending is? THESE are the keys to this kind of therapy, not worrying about the naming issue. You’re seriously getting sidetracked here and you can’t understand the bigger picture as to why this kind of therapy works for many.

As said before, I think you just had bad therapists. IFS is an effective way for many to manage their feelings and behaviors because you ultimately end up with an interconnected family tree that cues you in to why you do what you do. (My family tree explains a lot!)

 

[Ronin]

So please stop projecting.

Eve, JMH only & solely spoke about herself, & the usefulness of an approach, to the issue she is exploring in a thread she made... just to that very issue.

Things tangential, as your issues with parts? Best explored in your own thread dedicated to them, or your diary.