I think the problem is that they get to excited about the possibilities and spend too much time trying to find some core. Used in moderation, as a support for action in the real world, I doubt there are any risks.
I find that the parts are fairly aligned if you depolarize them, so there is rarely a need to prioritize. If a part sounds like something you don't want to have influence your life, it is probably just upset lol.
Coming back to the way later.. I think my understanding now is that people who go mad from IFS do not value the Self enough. They see it as an excersise in getting to know all parts of themselves, and they let themselves be blended and go into all the parts, instead of trying to center themselves in the Self and to talk to and look at the parts from some distance. Also, they probably take the existence of parts to literary.
For these reasons, among others, I now prefer more Carl Rodgers and Eugene Gendlin colored inner work stuff. It has fewer of the pitfalls, but gets the key things right.
Thank you for writing this! IFS reminded me quite a lot about jungian psychology and the idea of archetypes that play in our subconscious. There is even the practice of active imagination as a way of "talking" with one of the archetypes to better understand and integrate it
Yes, that is one of the precursors! I find Jung less useful because he presupposes how the archetypes look, whereas IFS is more adaptive to the individual since you get to apply your own creativity. There is also a deeper understanding of interpersonal dynamics, borrowed from the family therapy tradtion of the 1960s-80s, which provides many useful tools for dealing with internal conflict and polarization, whereas Jung is more limited in easy practical tools.
This is so refreshing, like all of your works. Thankyou for this
> some people take the metaphor “I am made up of many parts” too seriously and go mad.
How do you defend against this? Prioritize or weight the opinion of certain “people”/parts?
I think the problem is that they get to excited about the possibilities and spend too much time trying to find some core. Used in moderation, as a support for action in the real world, I doubt there are any risks.
I find that the parts are fairly aligned if you depolarize them, so there is rarely a need to prioritize. If a part sounds like something you don't want to have influence your life, it is probably just upset lol.
Coming back to the way later.. I think my understanding now is that people who go mad from IFS do not value the Self enough. They see it as an excersise in getting to know all parts of themselves, and they let themselves be blended and go into all the parts, instead of trying to center themselves in the Self and to talk to and look at the parts from some distance. Also, they probably take the existence of parts to literary.
For these reasons, among others, I now prefer more Carl Rodgers and Eugene Gendlin colored inner work stuff. It has fewer of the pitfalls, but gets the key things right.
I love that you revisit these works - and the comments!
Going to check them out, appreciate the rec.
Thank you for writing this! IFS reminded me quite a lot about jungian psychology and the idea of archetypes that play in our subconscious. There is even the practice of active imagination as a way of "talking" with one of the archetypes to better understand and integrate it
Yes, that is one of the precursors! I find Jung less useful because he presupposes how the archetypes look, whereas IFS is more adaptive to the individual since you get to apply your own creativity. There is also a deeper understanding of interpersonal dynamics, borrowed from the family therapy tradtion of the 1960s-80s, which provides many useful tools for dealing with internal conflict and polarization, whereas Jung is more limited in easy practical tools.
Do either of you have good recommendations on the topic, that delves into more of the recent developments and applications over the historical?
I've only read Barry Schwartz' Internal Family Systems Therapy - which gives a good theoretical overview and the basics of how you do it.