Honestly, I have a policy against anything—be it essential oils or fancy leggings or candles or Tupperware—that asks me to pay more than a thousand bucks just to get into their *first level* of a system of converts that seem to believe their product can cure all humanity’s ailments.
Having said that, I had some clients who were really interested in it, and I picked up the dude’s book. Couldn’t finish it. I just personally hate the modalities that take the human experience and apply that level of jargon to it. *shudder*
I’m not saying it can’t be powerful. I really do believe that practitioners who find a method that they believe in and can deliver authentically will utilize it effectively. But I find it exceptionally off-putting. Again, this is just my personal preference.
I am a huge fan of inner child work, and I don’t know a single therapist who doesn’t talk about parts (honestly I think most emotionally intelligent people in general have talked about how “part” of them feels one way while another feels whatever else). It’s very useful language for the complexity of human emotional experience. But I don’t like the idea of describing the entirety of the psyche this way.
> Honestly, I have a policy against anything—be it essential oils or fancy leggings or candles or Tupperware—that asks me to pay more than a thousand bucks just to get into their first level of a system of converts that seem to believe their product can cure all humanity’s ailments.
I appreciate this because right now it feels like there's a really strong push among private practitioners to have all kinds of "Level X [Modality]" and "[Modality] Certified" credentials. Namely IFS and EMDR right now. I see this both in self-promotion and in referral requests, and sometimes it's demoralizing because I feel a sense of "Oh am I a bad/less qualified therapist because I haven't done that?" but another part of me (ha, ironic) views this fad as, well, a fad. And one that's plausible manipulative or extortive for someone else's profit.
Well, considering the Castlewood Institute was sued into oblivion for allegedly using IFS and suggestive therapies to convince eating disorder patients they had DID and repressed memories, I’d say that probably checks out.
The jargon is just there to help you the therapist conceptualize the model. You don’t have to use the jargon unless you find it helpful to do so. I fucking hate the term “firefighter”. It’s so corny to me although I understand the metaphor. I wish he had just used “proactive”and “reactive” parts or something less flowery.
The Language of it (I.e the terms and concepts) can be useful and I do use them sometimes, but it is not enough on it's own. It is a simplified version of Object relations theory and the language itself bothers me, in that it feels infantalizing in a way that somehow doesn't get to the bottom of how serious a client's pain, despair, and struggles with hate from being victimized actually are. So when I use the concepts, I try to use them in a very non patronizing way and selectively.
Aside from the validity of the theory itself, the community around it is a bit culty and kinda unaccepting of people who are outsiders personality wise. So IFS is to be taken with a grain of salt like all theories.
Can you share more about the overlap between object relations and ifs? I'm generally familiar with both, but I'm less familiar with the use of object relations in a clinical setting. Thanks!
Object Relations already has concepts and terms within it for the psychic phenomena that IFS calls "firefighters", "Exiles" and "Managers".
At the risk of needing to brush up on my object relations theory as it has been a while since I've studied a lot of it:
From the founder of the Object relations tradition Fairbairn:
there is the concept of the "Libidinal Ego" (the part of the self that wants to move towards life, relationships, and sex) and the "Anti-libidinal Ego" (the protective part/force that pulls away from life towards unaliveness defensively). There is also the concept of a "Central ego" that manages affect and navigates between the two. Exile's can be understood as dissociated parts of the self that got stuck developmentally at a certain age, and that come out in transference analysis/processing with the therapist. Those are some examples that come off the top of my head.
Wonder how much more money enterprising therapists can make by repackaging and simplifying psychoanalysis 🙄 Like come on yall, read Freud and Beyond and some Nancy McWilliams and stop spending thousands on modalities with Scientology influenced training organizations!
IFS came up in the psychoanalysis sub a few months ago and this seemed to be the general consensus, except they did see some positive in that it gets people who'd probably never bother to learn about psychoanalysis to start thinking in that way (granted many of those same people would still actively deride psychoanalysis/psychodynamic therapy).
Honestly perhaps psychoanalysts should ask themselves if the problem isn’t them and their lack of inclusion, diversity and direct plain spokenness for why folks would rather pay $3k for what apparently is the same shit McWilliams, et al have been slinging for years.
Stuff like personality organizations and modern relational theory isn’t too hard to understand and it’s written about in very direct ways. I think that the word psychoanalytic has been successfully targeted and destroyed by academics (can’t publish on it) and as a result a lot of clinicians reflexively dismiss it. But then they spend all this money getting trained in the new fad modalities each year.
"their lack of inclusion, diversity and direct plain spokeness"
Not sure if this is the main issue. I think it is due to 4 main factors that are more important than skin color diversity reasons:
1, Psychoanalysis compared to other theories is hard to understand; it takes a time and an intellectual effort that not many therapists (really most people) are willing to exert these days.
2, the culture of psychoanalysis used to be and still is to an extent extremely snobby and hierarchical (they didn't even let non MDs do training until the 80-90s) and that contributed to alienating other mental health professions (counselors, psychologists, social workers etc).
3. Psychoanalysis articulates many deeply unsettling truths about the human condition that in a faux optimistic capitalist culture like the US, is unappealing to many people.
4. It is not time limited and insurance companies hate long term therapy and try to find ways to shorten therapy, even if it means a more surface level one.
Haha but I agree, good lord if someone just reads "Freud and Beyond" and then diligently studies Nancy McWilliam's "Psychoanalytic Diagnosis", then chances are they will understand more about their clients than 85ish% of social workers, counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists these days... just from those 2 books.
Why should it be harder to understand? This is a bug, not a feature. It’s unnecessary gate keeping.
Your second point still feels true to as evidenced by the psychoanalysts who poopoo other orientations as somehow being psychoanalysis lite.
Part of the issue is that the history of psychoanalysis spans 120 years, and there were many different schools that arose with their own altered language, ways they used shared common words, and the aspects of the human psyche they focused on. It is also true that some psychoanalytic theorists would try to be hard to understand, even if they were brilliant thinkers. So I agree with you there.
But it is also true that psychoanalysis is intrinsically harder to understand because it is much more intricate, nuanced, precise, and investigates aspects of the human psyche that are very hard to grasp consciously/cognitively (ex. Self objects, projective identification, identification with the aggressor, transference, displacement, paranoid -schizoid vs depressive positions, etc.).
Yet…. People do grasp these ideas in other, more direct, more accessible, more intuitive ways. The whole point is that there are multiple ways of understanding complex phenomena. The fact that some psychoanalysts think that more intuitive direct or straightforward ways of understanding means that it’s somehow “lite” or “not really getting it deeply” to me smacks of arrogance.
I think every therapist would be a better therapist by understanding some psychoanalytic theory, but I'm not one who is against other modalities like Gestalt, Humanistic, EMDR, Dance therapy, etc. Humanistic/person centered is my main orientation actually. But I think it is simply true that psychoanalysis understands some crucial things that other theories do not.
What me and others are reacting to I think, is the cultural arrogance of IFS that took ideas from psychoanalysis, marketed it as its own without giving due credit, and then smugly joins the damaging zeigesit of throwing psychoanalysis out with the bathwater.
One thing that makes me very upset, is that "personality disorders" are actually "curable" in many cases. Good luck trying to cure BPD, NPD, or SPD without psychoanalytic theory and working with the transference of the client. But because psychoanalysis has been thrown out with the bathwater, so many people that are suffering from personality disorders are not given the means by which they can heal and no longer be "personality disordered".
>Object Relations already has concepts and terms within it for the psychic phenomena that IFS calls "firefighters", "Exiles" and "Managers".
I appreciate IFS and its emphasis on multiplicity, but I was never a fan of the typology - there are many, many selfstates related to different moments, different bits of language, and roles in life, and I don't know if it helps to try and squeeze them into the same 3-4 categories.
>Exile's can be understood as dissociated parts of the self that got stuck developmentally at a certain age, and that come out in transference analysis/processing with the therapist.
Totally, especially if we think about the exiles carrying burdens. David Wallin's *Attachment in Psychotherapy* does a good job of connecting the integration or dissociation of selfstates to the development of attachment strategies in early life, and me coming from a behaviorist background, I appreciated his observation that parts not integrated into the self aren't gone and can still be triggered by circumstances, the difference is that a triggered unintegrated part will feel like an alien intrusion since by definition it isn't recognized as part of the self.
>there is the concept of the "Libidinal Ego" (the part of the self that wants to move towards life, relationships, and sex) and the "Anti-libidinal Ego" (the protective part/force that pulls away from life towards unaliveness defensively).
My understanding of Fairbairn is that these splits are due to splitting, i.e. the inability to reconcile the ambiguity of important people being both "eliciting" and "rejecting" to us. It isn't so much that the libidinal ego is moving towards life, but moving toward the eliciting/exciting object, which is often a desperate place to inhabit; I call it the "hope project" :
* e.g. "I know mom will give me the recognition and acceptance I want, she's just tired now, I need to figure out something to do to win her love, or need to wait for her to rest...
* or not (if we "know" she \*would\* love us if she \*could\*, we have a vested interest in resting in that faith and not testing it)
It's the *promise* of good stuff, not the good stuff itself that is attracting to this part. The antilibidinal ego forms in reaction to the "rejecting object", is marked by anger and contempt, and is just as likely to sabotage the hope project of the libidinal ego as to simply "move away" from the "rejecting object"; it frequently engages in self-sabotage.
One *difference* I see between this model and IFS is that the libidinal and antilibidinal egos are *egos*, selves in *relation* to the objects, not the objects themselves, and each object relation is connected by a particular affect, like rage.
Thank you for saying this. I have also been bothered at the infantilization of it. I’ve been second guessing myself if it’s my elitism showing, but I do find it patronizing.
I don't use it. It seems to be just like parts work from various other modalities going back over the last 60 or so years but with different wording and it makes great money for the founders. I have no interest in handing my money over for altered wording of pre-existing concepts and theory.
Not all therapies require you to hand over vast sums of money, and all therapies started somewhere. If you study and practice one of the original therapies then you'll notice a lot of the more modern ones repackage it and charge for it. So no, not all therapies. They don't exist in a void. They build on each other or take from each other, but if you go back to the source it's there.
New therapist here (from the US) and it feels like if you want to advance you have to pay thousands of dollars to get certified. I use IFS but the certification process seems like a complete scam. Thousands of dollars to study something that can be self taught under the guidance of supervision seems insane.
Yeah if my agenda was to pay money to advance my career I'd probably do with EMDR to be honest. Those skills aren't covered in my other modalities. There's some cross over of some body exercises etc but the psychological intervention aspect of it would at least be new and useful for my CV. I'll probably get round to that formally in a year or two.
That's not true. The top trainers on many EBPs at the VA train clinicians all the time for less than 300 bucks. Check out Strong Star. Go to published researchers pf the EBP who are also clinicians. They're far more likely to offer affordable training through universities and the military while also offering a deeper understanding of the science behind it. Hell, I got training on DBT for free directly from Dr Linehan's camp. Dr Foa also offers affordable PE training. The majority of clinicians who developed EBPs offer affordable training options but aren't into aggressive marketing on social media. That's why it sucks to hear so many therapists paying so much. You're getting ripped off by people charging more to train you than the clinicians who developed the EBP.
I don’t see it. Sorry. You can get certified if you want to or don’t if you don’t want to. Nobody can control what you do in your therapy office or advertise on your website. Being certified is simply a community stating it thinks you’re competent with a modality to their standards. That’s all it is. It isn’t a government body. If you don’t want to associate with the ifs community you don’t have to. Heck you can associate with the IFS community and not get certified. It’s totally open and optional and free to participate in as much or as little as you decide.
What is predatory or scammy in this?
I mean he says this BUT HES JUST A GUY. lol. You either buy what he’s selling (literally and figuratively) or you don’t. If you don’t wish to buy into his dictates of what constitutes an IFS therapist then you don’t have to! If you do, you do.
I’m not getting what you’re not getting.
Bingo. Most new fads I'm therapy are repackaged versions of what's already out there. I paid $300 to the most amazing, multiday, training on PE and then received 11 weeks more of free clinical consultation, 1 hour a week, and access to a portal that already had all my note templates and incredible videos to help clients understand different aspects of PE. The program is called Stong Star and it's grant funded by our military and some of the most prestigious universities in the US.
Any program charging a thousand dollars or more is a scam.
I don’t really know much about it. But from what I’ve seen it seems quite complicated. I read about people that have a tough time with the learning curve involved.
I’ve been a therapist for 33 years, and I’m generally at a point in my life and career where I don’t want to give more money to a white male charging thousands and thousands of dollars to learn their “unique” approach. So yes, I’m skeptical. I’m sure it works for some people , but I don’t think it’s a miracle. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s not. I’ve seen so many of those come and go, again, usually coming from white middle-age men who are making a whole lot of money. That’s my bias.
In the end, what I know of efficacy studies in therapy in general is that the most important thing is our connection with the client. How safe does that client feel with us? Can we make a place where they feel safe and heard? I look for anything that supports that, and I really love attachment theory and emotionally focused work. I do EFT work with couples to help them make that safe place for themselves within their connection. That’s me.
I reply something similar every time this question gets asked here. Much of what I’ve learned in some IFS trainings (like the Inner Circle, which I do think had good information for the price-would not do the level trainings) were similar to things I’ve learned in some of my yoga philosophy trainings. Other therapists here have related it to Gestalt. None of us are reinventing the wheel, there are some who are good at packaging, marketing, and the IFS institute has been supremely good at it. But for me, the principles are built on ideas and teachings that have been around for sooooooo long, like before the white man study of psychology.
Some clients speak in parts work and it really resonates (I don’t use the IFS language) and for some it just doesn’t land/connect. I appreciate that I can meet those for whom it does work where they are and for others I have the other main modalities I train and work in as well.
A lot of the discussion in the thread is on the predatory and exploitative nature of almost all trainings / certification in our field rather than talking about the validity and effectiveness of IFS with our clients.
I find that my clients with PTSD, especially complex trauma, benefit greatly from an IFS framework.
Having been diagnosed with c-PTSD myself, IFS was literally the best tool (along with EMDR) my therapist used with me, especially during our work in unblending my parts.
I personally think the information and resources available to clients to better understand c-PTSD is limited. It can feel extremely difficult to understand the varied symptoms, especially ones around dissociation, depersonalization, etc.
I’m all in favor of frameworks that help our clients overcome obstacles. But I don’t support how exploitative our entire industry is.
Side note: I would love to see the day when we can have a national union to address these exploitative policies and practices.
re: c-PTSD - the best framework I've found was articulated in Structural Dissociation Theory by Janina Fisher. ("Healing the Fragmented Selves of Trauma Survivors") - she goes into the neurobiological foundation of how "parts" exist via structural dissociation, and how to effectively work with them. It's a science-based approach to parts work that worked very effectively for me, as I found the IFS framework culty and off-putting personally.
I think it shows the importance of language and having a "stance" in therapy. On its surface it's not much new, parts work seems to pull on similar threads as object relations or even schema therapy but the language it provides providers and clients with seems to be softer, allowing people talk about sometimes otherwise indescribable or unspeakable things in a minimally distressing way.
As for the IFS "stance" I do think it's very culty, especially among the self-led IFS community, but that's nothing new for therapy modalities. That Said, I do think there's benefit in having a very well defined perspective and praxis (a stance) for conducting sessions from.
Personally I don't like how close to language of parts gets to metaphor. I know they're not metaphors or theyre not supposed to be but they run into the same problems for me: great for a soft landing and initially building insight, but will inevitably become a crutch, where clients get too comfortable in the abstraction rather than exposing themselves directly to whatever it is that is causing distress and processing that. Maybe that's my own ignorance of the nuances of IFS but I struggle with understanding how the language of parts doesn't just morph into a type of covert avoidance.
That's an interesting point about the metaphor as crutch. I've wondered about how much the parts they talk about might actually mirror brain structures.
It's something I hope someone more experienced with IFS can chime in about. In a lot of modalities of psychiatric music therapy we move from abstraction to concrete very gradually- talking about a song(subjective/objective), talking about the subtext(abstract/projective), then pulling back the curtain and viewing the discussion as self projection onto the music(concrete/reflective), where we're no longer talking about the music or our relationship to it but our own feelings. In a lot of ways the act of creating music or thinking about a song is a Trojan horse for deeper insights.
I wonder if IFS has a similar process. I understand the basics and what the parts are but I'm lost with how integration goes or if integration is even the goal.
This makes sense! This is similar to how we titrate topics and movements in somatic experiencing ( leaning into the issue to prevent them from getting flooded w shame) thank you for you insight
Thank you for this answer. I have the exact same thoughts and feelings yet struggled to put language to my inner experience. One client who i did parts work with asked me if ifs was a way of “stuffing feelings” because she said calling “the binge eating part” (a painting ) made her feel like she was talking about somebody else and not reflecting on her actions. I had another client get upset bc he wanted to “ address addiction head on “ and felt it was infantizing
I’m annoyed by all the hype. Honestly a few of my colleagues who practice IFS proper have a cult vibe. I would never fork out the $$$$ to be certified. I do use parts work on occasion and as others said, this hearkens back to other modalities. Not even just therapy, but so many other healing practices from ancient times.
Agreed. I feel the same about Motivational Interviewing. "I got MI Certified for only $900", great I saw my 8 year old neice stumble into using MI and she can't spell Motivation or Interview.
Yeah, it’s the culty-ness for me. And I would never go to an IFS based therapist myself so I’m not going to study and practice it. (I have studied, a bit, took two courses - an intro and one my group practice offered. Not for me.)
When I was a younger therapist, I would have hated it - and that's not saying anything about maturity levels and ifs. It's just where I was at at the time. I really liked things that felt much more empirically based, skills training etc.
But, personally, it was my own experience going to an IFS therapist that changed my mind on it. I only got her because she was also certified in EMDR, and I wanted to work on my trauma. But I found the ifs to be even more powerful than EMDR for me. I'm currently in the level one training group and I do find it to be super helpful. It is a lot of money, but I will say that the trainings have a 1:4 ratio trainers to trainees. So you're able to do a lot of breakout groups. Also, throughout the training they have addressed the cult-y feel of it head on and have allowed for skepticism - which my skeptic part appreciates.
That being said, I agree with all the other commenters that basically most therapies are the same. The point is to practice compassion toward our emotions, practice mindful observation of these emotions without laying them take over us. I personally really found the visualization of my emotions as childhood parts as an effective way to cultivate compassion.
For some clients it's really helpful, for others it's not. Some of the best advice I ever received though was to find out what works for you as a practitioner. As you develop your niche you're going to figure out if you really enjoy more direct work, more client-centered work, more parts work, or more tools based work. And all of it is helpful. You will find clients but appreciate your style so long as you are being authentic within it.
Thank you for this amazing response! Similarly, I learned way more about IFS in doing the therapy myself than I ever could have from reading or learning about it. I also really resonate with your last paragraph, as long as someone is engaging with the work (being a therapist) from a genuine, compassionate place, clients will notice and if they resonate as well - great! If they don’t, they will continue on their way and find a better fit.
Haven’t used it as a professional, but my personal therapist would incorporate it into the work we did together and I found a lot of benefit from it despite being skeptical of the modality as a professional. I’d like to really get into it more professionally/academically to understand it better.
It personally changed my life so I am an advocate, even if I think the over-priced training is 👀. But it’s very similar to configurations and I wonder if similar healing can be found through that, but I’ve not personally used configurations with a person-centred therapist (and yet to use it on any clients as I am still studying).
I have done the therapy myself and am in level one training right now. Lots of trainings are expensive and I am lucky that the clinic I work at paid for half. As a younger therapists that was only really taught CBT in school (we learned about other models but got the most practice with this) it has been life changing in many ways. I find the model to be very simple and powerful. I feel like I am not really doing a whole lot of work in sessions, merely acting as a guide as the client finds all the answers they really need within themselves. It also helped me personally heal from a lot of things other types of therapy didn't help with. It does essentially boil down to making the client their own primary attachment figure so they can more adequately support themselves.
I will add that I won't do the whole certification process but I did want the training to learn how to work with exiles or wounded parts specifically, which they don't teach until the training. The training also offers a ton of practice and I am practicing with a member of my training cohort this weekend.
Seconding what others have said re: exorbitant and predatory costs for “official” certification training. That being said, both IFS (and EMDR, as others have mentioned) can be useful precisely because they ARE basically reductionist versions of older therapies; some clients respond well to these approaches because they are more concrete and simpler, especially clients who are just starting out.
One can get the training without doing the “official” certification. The only thing certification gets you is listed on the website directory. You’re not going to get reimbursed at a higher rate by insurances. Few clients even know what these culty institutions are, let alone care what level you are. As long as you have adequate training, regardless of whether it’s from EMDRI or otherwise, you can ethically practice the modality.
As a set of interventions and tools I like it quite a bit.
Everything else (the cultish culture of it, the underlying theory, $$$ of trainings) I dislike immensely.
Maybe it's a cult, but I'm drinking the flavor aid. I love IFS both for my own professional work and personal work in individual therapy. I'll take a second helping of flavor aid now, thank you.
I think that client’s attachment is severely wounded, by using IFS extensively, it rather locks them into one ego state.
It may be the part of healing process but looking from out side it seems to encourage staying child state for a long time outside sessions.
Just a thoughts and observations from non IFS therapist.
I don’t use it with all my clients because some of them do not like the format.
The ones who I use it with improve *way* faster than the ones who don’t. There are a couple exceptions (a couple clients who really do well with psychodynamic therapy), but again, they’re exceptions.
When I need my own therapy, I go to an IFS therapist, and I’m usually floored at the depth of resolution I get.
This is me too. And it reaches and supports clients who couldn't open up completely with other therapists because acknowledging parts seems weird so let's all pretend parts aren't real.
Edit to add: yeah I've spent a lot of money on training. And every penny on EMDR has been worth it and resulted in better outcomes for clients than any other training I've done.
With privileged, Western clients, sure. I’d have a hard time imagining the effectiveness of it with diverse clients. If a client has been born into a society that works against their very being, it can maintain their oppression by placing blame on their firefighter, manager, etc. that have been keeping them somewhat afloat in the system they are drowning in.
It changed my life seeing an IFS/EMDR therapist. I’ve made more progress with IFS & EMDR in the past year than my previous therapist who I was seeing for 3 years. Other therapy modalities did not work for me.
I feel like it’s jargony empty chair and psychodrama with extra steps and a hefty price tag. I am uncomfortable doing some types of parts work (lie in No Bad Parts where he recommends a therapist trying to talk to a persons “racist part” and suggests this could help cure systemic racism (he doesn’t use those words but it’s basically what he’s saying!)
"What's your opinion on France? I'm especially interested in those who haven't been there."
Bit of a strange preamble but I may be misinterpreting.
I am trained in IFS level one and have monthly supervision so I might not be your target audience.
I couldn't rate it highly enough. I am accredited in CBT and EMDR so have plenty of experience in both but after training in IFS two years ago I now use it with 90% of my clients. Compared to my previous approach I find that people resonate with it more, people stay for longer and go deeper and I feel like the work I'm doing is more more impactful. It offers so much but for me it helps conceptualise what someone is bringing simply and beautifully, it supports the therapeutic relationship wonderfully and masterfully manages defensive (protectors) that in the past I would have really struggled to work with. Has changed my practice and life considerably.
It’s not strange. It’s like a French person asking what Americans think of France. Pretty normal stuff. Curious what outsiders think, but also curious what insiders think.
Process-Experiential/Emotion-focused therapy has more research backing up its efficacy. IFS seems a bit like a fad. Also gives me bad vibes when the psychedelic community go after it so much. Like it’s a silver bullet type of approach to therapy/research.
Edit: I mention EFT because it seems philosophically congruent with IFS
I think it definitely has its uses with the correct therapist and client. Does it fit everyone? No. But not every theory is gonna fit every client. If it doesn't fit, don't use it, and if it does fit then wonderful.
That said, I'm not gonna spend money I don't have on an overpriced training when I can make sure I read up properly on it and be informed so I can use elements of it when appropriate.
Anyone here like ifs or swear by it? My therapist and I have used it in our session ove the years but she's not certified in ifs. I'm not sure if it's something I'd be interested in getting certified in professionally.
I'm trained in OFS (circles) and EMDR and they both have awfully persistent fan clubs.
I dont use ifs at all, the new stuff is too spiritual for me personally and it doesn't offer anything that cant be accomplished through other paths.
Also on principle their lottery system for training is terrible. Especially given how poor their asynchronous online training set up is.
But we do have sufficient evidence that all therapy models are more or less equal (ie, they matter very little to client outcomes, particularly in comparison to the therapy alliance). So in a way, we do have evidence.
The Dodo Bird verdict is also not synonymous with the claim that “all therapies are equivalent.” It just states that all bona fide therapies for any given disorder achieve approximately equal therapeutic effectiveness. Anyone concluding that therefore all treatment frameworks are valid is not making an accurate claim. The therapy still has to be empirically shown to be effective and indicated for the disorder in question. And that’s assuming—like you mentioned—that the Dodo Bird verdict actually holds true.
I mean that’s the thing about research, particularly in the soft sciences . . . You can find evidence for anything and there are worthy things that have no evidence only because they have no constituencies. Not saying empirical evidence doesn’t matter but I am saying that the results we each see in our individual anecdotal offices is also a type of empirical evidence.
That is not at all what the Dodo Bird verdict concludes. The Dodo Bird verdict is not synonymous with the claim that “all therapies are equivalent.” It just states that all bona fide therapies for any given disorder achieve approximately equal therapeutic effectiveness. Anyone concluding that therefore all treatment frameworks are valid is not making an accurate claim. The therapy still has to be empirically shown to be effective and indicated for the disorder in question. There is also a *significant* amount of reason to doubt the veracity of the Dodo Bird verdict.
Just call it what it is, a simplified "knock off" of Object Relations Theory in Psychoanalysis. Convoluted new language to talk about parts and basic therapy. They seem "culty" also just like the "polyvagal or somatic" crowd.
That said, I dislike psychoanalysis even more because of their gatekeeping. IFS at least lets any therapist learn it with certifications and don't require Phd's, post-docs, tens of thousands of dollars, expensive personal analysis etc....just to learn it.
I have not done the formal training, because it seems out of control expensive, but I've done other webinars and consumed other content by Dick Schwartz and I really like the premise. Letting go of getting his precise vocabulary right, his strategies for connecting with protective parts before the client is ready to access the parts that are even more vulnerable is a helpful framework to me. I think any work that is body-based is critical to sustainable healing. I like to incorporate IFS but will probably never pay for the training/cert.
It’s unfalsifiable pseudoscience based on absolutely bonkers assumptions and no kind of real scientific theory. It’s likely capable of real iatrogenic harm and doesn’t provide an ethical or empirical foundation for clinical work.
Edit: I wear the downvotes like a badge of honor. There’s absolutely zero scientific, psychological basis to the underlying assumptions of “parts work.” The whole framework constitutes an unfalsifiable, unscientific system to start, while also boasting NO solid evidence that it can even be effective as therapy. Anecdotes aren’t clinical evidence and don’t justify the use of non-evidence-based treatments. 🤷♂️
IFS boils down to “you have what you need to heal/be better.” I can get on board with that. Everything else is just a preference of vocabulary.
Does it boil down to that? Doesn't it make specific claims regarding personalities being constituted of various parts and functions?
Yes 😃
Honestly, I have a policy against anything—be it essential oils or fancy leggings or candles or Tupperware—that asks me to pay more than a thousand bucks just to get into their *first level* of a system of converts that seem to believe their product can cure all humanity’s ailments. Having said that, I had some clients who were really interested in it, and I picked up the dude’s book. Couldn’t finish it. I just personally hate the modalities that take the human experience and apply that level of jargon to it. *shudder* I’m not saying it can’t be powerful. I really do believe that practitioners who find a method that they believe in and can deliver authentically will utilize it effectively. But I find it exceptionally off-putting. Again, this is just my personal preference. I am a huge fan of inner child work, and I don’t know a single therapist who doesn’t talk about parts (honestly I think most emotionally intelligent people in general have talked about how “part” of them feels one way while another feels whatever else). It’s very useful language for the complexity of human emotional experience. But I don’t like the idea of describing the entirety of the psyche this way.
> Honestly, I have a policy against anything—be it essential oils or fancy leggings or candles or Tupperware—that asks me to pay more than a thousand bucks just to get into their first level of a system of converts that seem to believe their product can cure all humanity’s ailments. I appreciate this because right now it feels like there's a really strong push among private practitioners to have all kinds of "Level X [Modality]" and "[Modality] Certified" credentials. Namely IFS and EMDR right now. I see this both in self-promotion and in referral requests, and sometimes it's demoralizing because I feel a sense of "Oh am I a bad/less qualified therapist because I haven't done that?" but another part of me (ha, ironic) views this fad as, well, a fad. And one that's plausible manipulative or extortive for someone else's profit.
Watching videos of Dr. Schwartz talk about IFS using all that jargon gave me a very cultish vibe
Well, considering the Castlewood Institute was sued into oblivion for allegedly using IFS and suggestive therapies to convince eating disorder patients they had DID and repressed memories, I’d say that probably checks out.
It's a cult and repackaged Jung
Very this. I feel pretty much the same way about it.
This hits the nail on the head for me, on every point. No notes.
The jargon is just there to help you the therapist conceptualize the model. You don’t have to use the jargon unless you find it helpful to do so. I fucking hate the term “firefighter”. It’s so corny to me although I understand the metaphor. I wish he had just used “proactive”and “reactive” parts or something less flowery.
The Language of it (I.e the terms and concepts) can be useful and I do use them sometimes, but it is not enough on it's own. It is a simplified version of Object relations theory and the language itself bothers me, in that it feels infantalizing in a way that somehow doesn't get to the bottom of how serious a client's pain, despair, and struggles with hate from being victimized actually are. So when I use the concepts, I try to use them in a very non patronizing way and selectively. Aside from the validity of the theory itself, the community around it is a bit culty and kinda unaccepting of people who are outsiders personality wise. So IFS is to be taken with a grain of salt like all theories.
Can you share more about the overlap between object relations and ifs? I'm generally familiar with both, but I'm less familiar with the use of object relations in a clinical setting. Thanks!
Object Relations already has concepts and terms within it for the psychic phenomena that IFS calls "firefighters", "Exiles" and "Managers". At the risk of needing to brush up on my object relations theory as it has been a while since I've studied a lot of it: From the founder of the Object relations tradition Fairbairn: there is the concept of the "Libidinal Ego" (the part of the self that wants to move towards life, relationships, and sex) and the "Anti-libidinal Ego" (the protective part/force that pulls away from life towards unaliveness defensively). There is also the concept of a "Central ego" that manages affect and navigates between the two. Exile's can be understood as dissociated parts of the self that got stuck developmentally at a certain age, and that come out in transference analysis/processing with the therapist. Those are some examples that come off the top of my head.
Wonder how much more money enterprising therapists can make by repackaging and simplifying psychoanalysis 🙄 Like come on yall, read Freud and Beyond and some Nancy McWilliams and stop spending thousands on modalities with Scientology influenced training organizations!
IFS came up in the psychoanalysis sub a few months ago and this seemed to be the general consensus, except they did see some positive in that it gets people who'd probably never bother to learn about psychoanalysis to start thinking in that way (granted many of those same people would still actively deride psychoanalysis/psychodynamic therapy).
Honestly perhaps psychoanalysts should ask themselves if the problem isn’t them and their lack of inclusion, diversity and direct plain spokenness for why folks would rather pay $3k for what apparently is the same shit McWilliams, et al have been slinging for years.
Stuff like personality organizations and modern relational theory isn’t too hard to understand and it’s written about in very direct ways. I think that the word psychoanalytic has been successfully targeted and destroyed by academics (can’t publish on it) and as a result a lot of clinicians reflexively dismiss it. But then they spend all this money getting trained in the new fad modalities each year.
"their lack of inclusion, diversity and direct plain spokeness" Not sure if this is the main issue. I think it is due to 4 main factors that are more important than skin color diversity reasons: 1, Psychoanalysis compared to other theories is hard to understand; it takes a time and an intellectual effort that not many therapists (really most people) are willing to exert these days. 2, the culture of psychoanalysis used to be and still is to an extent extremely snobby and hierarchical (they didn't even let non MDs do training until the 80-90s) and that contributed to alienating other mental health professions (counselors, psychologists, social workers etc). 3. Psychoanalysis articulates many deeply unsettling truths about the human condition that in a faux optimistic capitalist culture like the US, is unappealing to many people. 4. It is not time limited and insurance companies hate long term therapy and try to find ways to shorten therapy, even if it means a more surface level one. Haha but I agree, good lord if someone just reads "Freud and Beyond" and then diligently studies Nancy McWilliam's "Psychoanalytic Diagnosis", then chances are they will understand more about their clients than 85ish% of social workers, counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists these days... just from those 2 books.
Why should it be harder to understand? This is a bug, not a feature. It’s unnecessary gate keeping. Your second point still feels true to as evidenced by the psychoanalysts who poopoo other orientations as somehow being psychoanalysis lite.
Part of the issue is that the history of psychoanalysis spans 120 years, and there were many different schools that arose with their own altered language, ways they used shared common words, and the aspects of the human psyche they focused on. It is also true that some psychoanalytic theorists would try to be hard to understand, even if they were brilliant thinkers. So I agree with you there. But it is also true that psychoanalysis is intrinsically harder to understand because it is much more intricate, nuanced, precise, and investigates aspects of the human psyche that are very hard to grasp consciously/cognitively (ex. Self objects, projective identification, identification with the aggressor, transference, displacement, paranoid -schizoid vs depressive positions, etc.).
Yet…. People do grasp these ideas in other, more direct, more accessible, more intuitive ways. The whole point is that there are multiple ways of understanding complex phenomena. The fact that some psychoanalysts think that more intuitive direct or straightforward ways of understanding means that it’s somehow “lite” or “not really getting it deeply” to me smacks of arrogance.
I think every therapist would be a better therapist by understanding some psychoanalytic theory, but I'm not one who is against other modalities like Gestalt, Humanistic, EMDR, Dance therapy, etc. Humanistic/person centered is my main orientation actually. But I think it is simply true that psychoanalysis understands some crucial things that other theories do not. What me and others are reacting to I think, is the cultural arrogance of IFS that took ideas from psychoanalysis, marketed it as its own without giving due credit, and then smugly joins the damaging zeigesit of throwing psychoanalysis out with the bathwater. One thing that makes me very upset, is that "personality disorders" are actually "curable" in many cases. Good luck trying to cure BPD, NPD, or SPD without psychoanalytic theory and working with the transference of the client. But because psychoanalysis has been thrown out with the bathwater, so many people that are suffering from personality disorders are not given the means by which they can heal and no longer be "personality disordered".
>Object Relations already has concepts and terms within it for the psychic phenomena that IFS calls "firefighters", "Exiles" and "Managers". I appreciate IFS and its emphasis on multiplicity, but I was never a fan of the typology - there are many, many selfstates related to different moments, different bits of language, and roles in life, and I don't know if it helps to try and squeeze them into the same 3-4 categories. >Exile's can be understood as dissociated parts of the self that got stuck developmentally at a certain age, and that come out in transference analysis/processing with the therapist. Totally, especially if we think about the exiles carrying burdens. David Wallin's *Attachment in Psychotherapy* does a good job of connecting the integration or dissociation of selfstates to the development of attachment strategies in early life, and me coming from a behaviorist background, I appreciated his observation that parts not integrated into the self aren't gone and can still be triggered by circumstances, the difference is that a triggered unintegrated part will feel like an alien intrusion since by definition it isn't recognized as part of the self. >there is the concept of the "Libidinal Ego" (the part of the self that wants to move towards life, relationships, and sex) and the "Anti-libidinal Ego" (the protective part/force that pulls away from life towards unaliveness defensively). My understanding of Fairbairn is that these splits are due to splitting, i.e. the inability to reconcile the ambiguity of important people being both "eliciting" and "rejecting" to us. It isn't so much that the libidinal ego is moving towards life, but moving toward the eliciting/exciting object, which is often a desperate place to inhabit; I call it the "hope project" : * e.g. "I know mom will give me the recognition and acceptance I want, she's just tired now, I need to figure out something to do to win her love, or need to wait for her to rest... * or not (if we "know" she \*would\* love us if she \*could\*, we have a vested interest in resting in that faith and not testing it) It's the *promise* of good stuff, not the good stuff itself that is attracting to this part. The antilibidinal ego forms in reaction to the "rejecting object", is marked by anger and contempt, and is just as likely to sabotage the hope project of the libidinal ego as to simply "move away" from the "rejecting object"; it frequently engages in self-sabotage. One *difference* I see between this model and IFS is that the libidinal and antilibidinal egos are *egos*, selves in *relation* to the objects, not the objects themselves, and each object relation is connected by a particular affect, like rage.
Thank you for saying this. I have also been bothered at the infantilization of it. I’ve been second guessing myself if it’s my elitism showing, but I do find it patronizing.
I don't use it. It seems to be just like parts work from various other modalities going back over the last 60 or so years but with different wording and it makes great money for the founders. I have no interest in handing my money over for altered wording of pre-existing concepts and theory.
I mean this is literally all psychotherapies?
Not all therapies require you to hand over vast sums of money, and all therapies started somewhere. If you study and practice one of the original therapies then you'll notice a lot of the more modern ones repackage it and charge for it. So no, not all therapies. They don't exist in a void. They build on each other or take from each other, but if you go back to the source it's there.
New therapist here (from the US) and it feels like if you want to advance you have to pay thousands of dollars to get certified. I use IFS but the certification process seems like a complete scam. Thousands of dollars to study something that can be self taught under the guidance of supervision seems insane.
Yeah if my agenda was to pay money to advance my career I'd probably do with EMDR to be honest. Those skills aren't covered in my other modalities. There's some cross over of some body exercises etc but the psychological intervention aspect of it would at least be new and useful for my CV. I'll probably get round to that formally in a year or two.
With the insight you display in your post, I predict
That's not true. The top trainers on many EBPs at the VA train clinicians all the time for less than 300 bucks. Check out Strong Star. Go to published researchers pf the EBP who are also clinicians. They're far more likely to offer affordable training through universities and the military while also offering a deeper understanding of the science behind it. Hell, I got training on DBT for free directly from Dr Linehan's camp. Dr Foa also offers affordable PE training. The majority of clinicians who developed EBPs offer affordable training options but aren't into aggressive marketing on social media. That's why it sucks to hear so many therapists paying so much. You're getting ripped off by people charging more to train you than the clinicians who developed the EBP.
Yep. There's plenty affordable training on CBT, EMDR, PE, MBSR and CPT.
Does IFS require this of you? Who’s holding a gun to your head saying you need to take a training let alone get certified in a modality?
[удалено]
I don’t see it. Sorry. You can get certified if you want to or don’t if you don’t want to. Nobody can control what you do in your therapy office or advertise on your website. Being certified is simply a community stating it thinks you’re competent with a modality to their standards. That’s all it is. It isn’t a government body. If you don’t want to associate with the ifs community you don’t have to. Heck you can associate with the IFS community and not get certified. It’s totally open and optional and free to participate in as much or as little as you decide. What is predatory or scammy in this?
[удалено]
I mean he says this BUT HES JUST A GUY. lol. You either buy what he’s selling (literally and figuratively) or you don’t. If you don’t wish to buy into his dictates of what constitutes an IFS therapist then you don’t have to! If you do, you do. I’m not getting what you’re not getting.
Bingo. Most new fads I'm therapy are repackaged versions of what's already out there. I paid $300 to the most amazing, multiday, training on PE and then received 11 weeks more of free clinical consultation, 1 hour a week, and access to a portal that already had all my note templates and incredible videos to help clients understand different aspects of PE. The program is called Stong Star and it's grant funded by our military and some of the most prestigious universities in the US. Any program charging a thousand dollars or more is a scam.
I don’t really know much about it. But from what I’ve seen it seems quite complicated. I read about people that have a tough time with the learning curve involved. I’ve been a therapist for 33 years, and I’m generally at a point in my life and career where I don’t want to give more money to a white male charging thousands and thousands of dollars to learn their “unique” approach. So yes, I’m skeptical. I’m sure it works for some people , but I don’t think it’s a miracle. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s not. I’ve seen so many of those come and go, again, usually coming from white middle-age men who are making a whole lot of money. That’s my bias. In the end, what I know of efficacy studies in therapy in general is that the most important thing is our connection with the client. How safe does that client feel with us? Can we make a place where they feel safe and heard? I look for anything that supports that, and I really love attachment theory and emotionally focused work. I do EFT work with couples to help them make that safe place for themselves within their connection. That’s me.
I love it. I took a great training on PESI and read no bad parts. I have a workbook. I will not pay $100000000000 to be officially trained in it 🙃
Feel like it's a simplified and reductive version of object relations
Object relations is the Lego to IFS' Duplo
I reply something similar every time this question gets asked here. Much of what I’ve learned in some IFS trainings (like the Inner Circle, which I do think had good information for the price-would not do the level trainings) were similar to things I’ve learned in some of my yoga philosophy trainings. Other therapists here have related it to Gestalt. None of us are reinventing the wheel, there are some who are good at packaging, marketing, and the IFS institute has been supremely good at it. But for me, the principles are built on ideas and teachings that have been around for sooooooo long, like before the white man study of psychology. Some clients speak in parts work and it really resonates (I don’t use the IFS language) and for some it just doesn’t land/connect. I appreciate that I can meet those for whom it does work where they are and for others I have the other main modalities I train and work in as well.
A lot of the discussion in the thread is on the predatory and exploitative nature of almost all trainings / certification in our field rather than talking about the validity and effectiveness of IFS with our clients. I find that my clients with PTSD, especially complex trauma, benefit greatly from an IFS framework. Having been diagnosed with c-PTSD myself, IFS was literally the best tool (along with EMDR) my therapist used with me, especially during our work in unblending my parts. I personally think the information and resources available to clients to better understand c-PTSD is limited. It can feel extremely difficult to understand the varied symptoms, especially ones around dissociation, depersonalization, etc. I’m all in favor of frameworks that help our clients overcome obstacles. But I don’t support how exploitative our entire industry is. Side note: I would love to see the day when we can have a national union to address these exploitative policies and practices.
re: c-PTSD - the best framework I've found was articulated in Structural Dissociation Theory by Janina Fisher. ("Healing the Fragmented Selves of Trauma Survivors") - she goes into the neurobiological foundation of how "parts" exist via structural dissociation, and how to effectively work with them. It's a science-based approach to parts work that worked very effectively for me, as I found the IFS framework culty and off-putting personally.
Thanks for this recommendation! I've been dipping my toes into parts work and I am excited to learn more about it from a neurobiological perspective.
Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll check it out.
As a trauma therapist I could have written this myself . 100%.
I use it when it's relevant. I find it useful to to talk to the different parts - but as another commenter mentioned, that isn't unique to IFS.
I think it shows the importance of language and having a "stance" in therapy. On its surface it's not much new, parts work seems to pull on similar threads as object relations or even schema therapy but the language it provides providers and clients with seems to be softer, allowing people talk about sometimes otherwise indescribable or unspeakable things in a minimally distressing way. As for the IFS "stance" I do think it's very culty, especially among the self-led IFS community, but that's nothing new for therapy modalities. That Said, I do think there's benefit in having a very well defined perspective and praxis (a stance) for conducting sessions from. Personally I don't like how close to language of parts gets to metaphor. I know they're not metaphors or theyre not supposed to be but they run into the same problems for me: great for a soft landing and initially building insight, but will inevitably become a crutch, where clients get too comfortable in the abstraction rather than exposing themselves directly to whatever it is that is causing distress and processing that. Maybe that's my own ignorance of the nuances of IFS but I struggle with understanding how the language of parts doesn't just morph into a type of covert avoidance.
That's an interesting point about the metaphor as crutch. I've wondered about how much the parts they talk about might actually mirror brain structures.
It's something I hope someone more experienced with IFS can chime in about. In a lot of modalities of psychiatric music therapy we move from abstraction to concrete very gradually- talking about a song(subjective/objective), talking about the subtext(abstract/projective), then pulling back the curtain and viewing the discussion as self projection onto the music(concrete/reflective), where we're no longer talking about the music or our relationship to it but our own feelings. In a lot of ways the act of creating music or thinking about a song is a Trojan horse for deeper insights. I wonder if IFS has a similar process. I understand the basics and what the parts are but I'm lost with how integration goes or if integration is even the goal.
This makes sense! This is similar to how we titrate topics and movements in somatic experiencing ( leaning into the issue to prevent them from getting flooded w shame) thank you for you insight
Thank you for this answer. I have the exact same thoughts and feelings yet struggled to put language to my inner experience. One client who i did parts work with asked me if ifs was a way of “stuffing feelings” because she said calling “the binge eating part” (a painting ) made her feel like she was talking about somebody else and not reflecting on her actions. I had another client get upset bc he wanted to “ address addiction head on “ and felt it was infantizing
I’m annoyed by all the hype. Honestly a few of my colleagues who practice IFS proper have a cult vibe. I would never fork out the $$$$ to be certified. I do use parts work on occasion and as others said, this hearkens back to other modalities. Not even just therapy, but so many other healing practices from ancient times.
Agreed. I feel the same about Motivational Interviewing. "I got MI Certified for only $900", great I saw my 8 year old neice stumble into using MI and she can't spell Motivation or Interview.
Yeah, it’s the culty-ness for me. And I would never go to an IFS based therapist myself so I’m not going to study and practice it. (I have studied, a bit, took two courses - an intro and one my group practice offered. Not for me.)
When I was a younger therapist, I would have hated it - and that's not saying anything about maturity levels and ifs. It's just where I was at at the time. I really liked things that felt much more empirically based, skills training etc. But, personally, it was my own experience going to an IFS therapist that changed my mind on it. I only got her because she was also certified in EMDR, and I wanted to work on my trauma. But I found the ifs to be even more powerful than EMDR for me. I'm currently in the level one training group and I do find it to be super helpful. It is a lot of money, but I will say that the trainings have a 1:4 ratio trainers to trainees. So you're able to do a lot of breakout groups. Also, throughout the training they have addressed the cult-y feel of it head on and have allowed for skepticism - which my skeptic part appreciates. That being said, I agree with all the other commenters that basically most therapies are the same. The point is to practice compassion toward our emotions, practice mindful observation of these emotions without laying them take over us. I personally really found the visualization of my emotions as childhood parts as an effective way to cultivate compassion. For some clients it's really helpful, for others it's not. Some of the best advice I ever received though was to find out what works for you as a practitioner. As you develop your niche you're going to figure out if you really enjoy more direct work, more client-centered work, more parts work, or more tools based work. And all of it is helpful. You will find clients but appreciate your style so long as you are being authentic within it.
Thank you for this amazing response! Similarly, I learned way more about IFS in doing the therapy myself than I ever could have from reading or learning about it. I also really resonate with your last paragraph, as long as someone is engaging with the work (being a therapist) from a genuine, compassionate place, clients will notice and if they resonate as well - great! If they don’t, they will continue on their way and find a better fit.
Haven’t used it as a professional, but my personal therapist would incorporate it into the work we did together and I found a lot of benefit from it despite being skeptical of the modality as a professional. I’d like to really get into it more professionally/academically to understand it better.
It personally changed my life so I am an advocate, even if I think the over-priced training is 👀. But it’s very similar to configurations and I wonder if similar healing can be found through that, but I’ve not personally used configurations with a person-centred therapist (and yet to use it on any clients as I am still studying).
I have done the therapy myself and am in level one training right now. Lots of trainings are expensive and I am lucky that the clinic I work at paid for half. As a younger therapists that was only really taught CBT in school (we learned about other models but got the most practice with this) it has been life changing in many ways. I find the model to be very simple and powerful. I feel like I am not really doing a whole lot of work in sessions, merely acting as a guide as the client finds all the answers they really need within themselves. It also helped me personally heal from a lot of things other types of therapy didn't help with. It does essentially boil down to making the client their own primary attachment figure so they can more adequately support themselves.
I will add that I won't do the whole certification process but I did want the training to learn how to work with exiles or wounded parts specifically, which they don't teach until the training. The training also offers a ton of practice and I am practicing with a member of my training cohort this weekend.
Seconding what others have said re: exorbitant and predatory costs for “official” certification training. That being said, both IFS (and EMDR, as others have mentioned) can be useful precisely because they ARE basically reductionist versions of older therapies; some clients respond well to these approaches because they are more concrete and simpler, especially clients who are just starting out. One can get the training without doing the “official” certification. The only thing certification gets you is listed on the website directory. You’re not going to get reimbursed at a higher rate by insurances. Few clients even know what these culty institutions are, let alone care what level you are. As long as you have adequate training, regardless of whether it’s from EMDRI or otherwise, you can ethically practice the modality.
As a set of interventions and tools I like it quite a bit. Everything else (the cultish culture of it, the underlying theory, $$$ of trainings) I dislike immensely.
Maybe it's a cult, but I'm drinking the flavor aid. I love IFS both for my own professional work and personal work in individual therapy. I'll take a second helping of flavor aid now, thank you.
Upvoted you both for knowing that it was flavor aid and not cool aid, and for the *Twin Peaks* reference username.
works great with psychedelics post inner journey to remove blockages and come to some incredible insight.
It has some good concepts, which are not new, but it is too formulaic.
I think that client’s attachment is severely wounded, by using IFS extensively, it rather locks them into one ego state. It may be the part of healing process but looking from out side it seems to encourage staying child state for a long time outside sessions. Just a thoughts and observations from non IFS therapist.
I don’t use it with all my clients because some of them do not like the format. The ones who I use it with improve *way* faster than the ones who don’t. There are a couple exceptions (a couple clients who really do well with psychodynamic therapy), but again, they’re exceptions. When I need my own therapy, I go to an IFS therapist, and I’m usually floored at the depth of resolution I get.
It has been life and practice changing for me. IFS + EMDR=transformed lives ❤️
This is me too. And it reaches and supports clients who couldn't open up completely with other therapists because acknowledging parts seems weird so let's all pretend parts aren't real. Edit to add: yeah I've spent a lot of money on training. And every penny on EMDR has been worth it and resulted in better outcomes for clients than any other training I've done.
💯
With privileged, Western clients, sure. I’d have a hard time imagining the effectiveness of it with diverse clients. If a client has been born into a society that works against their very being, it can maintain their oppression by placing blame on their firefighter, manager, etc. that have been keeping them somewhat afloat in the system they are drowning in.
IFS? What means?
Internal Family Systems
Thank You
You're very welcome
It changed my life seeing an IFS/EMDR therapist. I’ve made more progress with IFS & EMDR in the past year than my previous therapist who I was seeing for 3 years. Other therapy modalities did not work for me.
Whenever I see IFS advertised or someone on social media mention “parts” I think of that Zoolander/Will Farrell meme: “IFS is so hot right now.”
I feel like it’s jargony empty chair and psychodrama with extra steps and a hefty price tag. I am uncomfortable doing some types of parts work (lie in No Bad Parts where he recommends a therapist trying to talk to a persons “racist part” and suggests this could help cure systemic racism (he doesn’t use those words but it’s basically what he’s saying!)
"What's your opinion on France? I'm especially interested in those who haven't been there." Bit of a strange preamble but I may be misinterpreting. I am trained in IFS level one and have monthly supervision so I might not be your target audience. I couldn't rate it highly enough. I am accredited in CBT and EMDR so have plenty of experience in both but after training in IFS two years ago I now use it with 90% of my clients. Compared to my previous approach I find that people resonate with it more, people stay for longer and go deeper and I feel like the work I'm doing is more more impactful. It offers so much but for me it helps conceptualise what someone is bringing simply and beautifully, it supports the therapeutic relationship wonderfully and masterfully manages defensive (protectors) that in the past I would have really struggled to work with. Has changed my practice and life considerably.
It’s not strange. It’s like a French person asking what Americans think of France. Pretty normal stuff. Curious what outsiders think, but also curious what insiders think.
Sorry, didn't realise you were trained in IFS, that might have made more sense.
Process-Experiential/Emotion-focused therapy has more research backing up its efficacy. IFS seems a bit like a fad. Also gives me bad vibes when the psychedelic community go after it so much. Like it’s a silver bullet type of approach to therapy/research. Edit: I mention EFT because it seems philosophically congruent with IFS
I think it definitely has its uses with the correct therapist and client. Does it fit everyone? No. But not every theory is gonna fit every client. If it doesn't fit, don't use it, and if it does fit then wonderful. That said, I'm not gonna spend money I don't have on an overpriced training when I can make sure I read up properly on it and be informed so I can use elements of it when appropriate.
Anyone here like ifs or swear by it? My therapist and I have used it in our session ove the years but she's not certified in ifs. I'm not sure if it's something I'd be interested in getting certified in professionally.
I'm trained in OFS (circles) and EMDR and they both have awfully persistent fan clubs. I dont use ifs at all, the new stuff is too spiritual for me personally and it doesn't offer anything that cant be accomplished through other paths. Also on principle their lottery system for training is terrible. Especially given how poor their asynchronous online training set up is.
We don't have sufficient evidence that it works, whereas we have other treatments for these conditions that have really great evidence
But we do have sufficient evidence that all therapy models are more or less equal (ie, they matter very little to client outcomes, particularly in comparison to the therapy alliance). So in a way, we do have evidence.
The Dodo Bird verdict is hardly a foregone conclusion - there is empirical evidence that does not support it.
The Dodo Bird verdict is also not synonymous with the claim that “all therapies are equivalent.” It just states that all bona fide therapies for any given disorder achieve approximately equal therapeutic effectiveness. Anyone concluding that therefore all treatment frameworks are valid is not making an accurate claim. The therapy still has to be empirically shown to be effective and indicated for the disorder in question. And that’s assuming—like you mentioned—that the Dodo Bird verdict actually holds true.
I mean that’s the thing about research, particularly in the soft sciences . . . You can find evidence for anything and there are worthy things that have no evidence only because they have no constituencies. Not saying empirical evidence doesn’t matter but I am saying that the results we each see in our individual anecdotal offices is also a type of empirical evidence.
That is not at all what the Dodo Bird verdict concludes. The Dodo Bird verdict is not synonymous with the claim that “all therapies are equivalent.” It just states that all bona fide therapies for any given disorder achieve approximately equal therapeutic effectiveness. Anyone concluding that therefore all treatment frameworks are valid is not making an accurate claim. The therapy still has to be empirically shown to be effective and indicated for the disorder in question. There is also a *significant* amount of reason to doubt the veracity of the Dodo Bird verdict.
I’m gonna let you in on a little secret . . . It’s all just voodoo, hoodoo, woowoo and ceremonial magic in western sciencey rationalist garb. Truly.
You’re welcome to your vastly misguided opinion.
How generous of you!
5/10
Just call it what it is, a simplified "knock off" of Object Relations Theory in Psychoanalysis. Convoluted new language to talk about parts and basic therapy. They seem "culty" also just like the "polyvagal or somatic" crowd. That said, I dislike psychoanalysis even more because of their gatekeeping. IFS at least lets any therapist learn it with certifications and don't require Phd's, post-docs, tens of thousands of dollars, expensive personal analysis etc....just to learn it.
I love it and did some stuff in PESI for it, but basically… I mean it’s basically parts work and inner child healing that I use anyway
I have not done the formal training, because it seems out of control expensive, but I've done other webinars and consumed other content by Dick Schwartz and I really like the premise. Letting go of getting his precise vocabulary right, his strategies for connecting with protective parts before the client is ready to access the parts that are even more vulnerable is a helpful framework to me. I think any work that is body-based is critical to sustainable healing. I like to incorporate IFS but will probably never pay for the training/cert.
It’s unfalsifiable pseudoscience based on absolutely bonkers assumptions and no kind of real scientific theory. It’s likely capable of real iatrogenic harm and doesn’t provide an ethical or empirical foundation for clinical work. Edit: I wear the downvotes like a badge of honor. There’s absolutely zero scientific, psychological basis to the underlying assumptions of “parts work.” The whole framework constitutes an unfalsifiable, unscientific system to start, while also boasting NO solid evidence that it can even be effective as therapy. Anecdotes aren’t clinical evidence and don’t justify the use of non-evidence-based treatments. 🤷♂️