Hehe u/IggyBG this question makes me smile.

Yes, the "EFS" is one's actual family.

The person who founded IFS, Richard C. Schwartz, began as a family therapist. This means he conceptualized of psychology in terms of systems - multiple actors who all affect each other. This equipped him to understand and pioneer a new way of working with the individual: essentially, by applying family therapy to one's own inner world.

And that's IFS 😃

Hi u/Coliexsunshine, the official IFS directory is always a good resource as it shows people who've completed an official IFS training - https://ifs-institute.com/practitioners. You can filter your search by state and city.

I searched for "Long Island" and found this: https://ifs-institute.com/practitioners?country=All&us_state=NY&city=Long+Island&approved_consultant=All&level=All&availability=All&consultation_availability=All&field_acceptphone_value=All&keyword=&field_geofield_proximity%5Bvalue%5D=100&field_geofield_proximity%5Bsource_configuration%5D%5Borigin_address%5D=

Please note: The IFS directory lists anyone who's done an official IFS training, but not all of them are mental health professionals. Many are coaches or regular lay-people. Check the bios carefully to ensure it's a therapist, if that matters to you.

Is there External Family System therapy (EFS) and if so, how it differs from Internal Family Systems therapy (IFS)?

Hi u/kabre, great question.

Short answer: Yes it's absolutely possible a well-regulated part (i.e., not extreme) might not fit neatly into one of the manager / firefighter / exile categories.

In fact, one of the ways I like to refer to Exiles is: Vulnerable Parts. Because once the Exile is unburdened, it's no longer an Exile - it gets to be a conscious part of the inner system. So we can't accurately call it an Exile anymore.

But I digress.

IFS is an elegantly simple model of the psyche. It's a very effective tool.

And it would be hubris and quite naive to assume that we can have a model that explains everything in psyche. We humans are way too complex for a single system - especially one so simple - to encapsulate everything.

So I hold IFS lightly, knowing that it explains many things, but not everything. I recommend what you're already doing - noticing how your inner world is.

From my view, it's critical to honor the mystery inside, that we can't pin down everything, and that we have no right to, in fact. Our unconscious has the right to exist, too.

In addition, the way I synthesize IFS with the Jungian approach means that I recognize the anima/animus and the shadow as parts. Those definitely don't fit into the neat categories of IFS.

[removed]

Hi Daniël,

No, it's not necessarily necessary, and I discourage any outside expectation like that. Instead, I recommend centering the Exile and (if possible at the end of the unburdening session) asking the Exile itself two things:

1. Does it have any requests of you between now and the next time you visit non-ordinary reality, the dimension where parts reside? (whether in solo IFS or a classic IFS session with a therapist)
2. Does it want to pick a way to signal to you when it wants your attention? This can be physiological (like sending you chills), sending you a particular image, an impulse (like "scratch your chin") etcetera. This gives the part a direct line to you in regular life.

We always want to center our own unique system and what our own parts need and desire.

BTW if the part has a request, you don't have to say yes. It's another chance for authentic connection. If the request will be impossible or too hard, you can explain that, and see if the part has alternative ideas or a compromise.

About the crying -

It's not always necessary to know why you're crying. Psyche is beautifully mysterious and we can respect and honor that mystery without needing to know exactly what's going on. It all depends on what feels right to you.

Hello and happy Wednesday! Thank you for doing this, I've read through some of the below responses and you've got some very insightful things to say.

I'm curious, what's your take on the notion that parts that seem to be outside of the exile/protector dichotomy? i.e. parts that serve a role without the kind of manager-or-firefighter urgency about the vitalness of that role, or parts that advise and keep company without seeming to have significant agenda. These aren't the only examples, just the ones off the top of my head -- it's an idea that comes up with semi-regularity in the IFS spaces online I've been in, people asking "I've got this part that doesn't seem like a manager or a firefighter or an exile, what is it?"

Do you think there's space for these kinds of vesicles of identity without it being centered on or explicitly caused by trauma or old coping mechanisms? Or are distinct "parts" always involved in trauma/coping in some respect?

Thank you very much for your replies. I'll see if anything changes in my next official session.

Who is IFS right for? Who is it definitely not right for?

♥️ thank you for sharing

Hi u/SoundlessScream I do have a book coming out autumn 2023! It's a workbook about doing solo IFS.

I'll be gathering an inside circle book launch team. If you want to join it, and get an early copy of the book to review, you can join my email list where I'll announce when the launch team is open https://seekdeeply.com/

Tell me sth about this therapy.l mean how it works?

Hi u/NoLandscape9327,

About the person "here right now typing this" - YES, you can treat that as the Regular You and you start the solo IFS from there. The Regular You is just whoever you are right now as long as you're not blended with one part that has tunnel vision. (Again, the Regular You is more of a mixture of parts)

Regarding

>"I'm currently afraid to do IFS haphazardly due to overwhelm, but I also am confused how to move forward and address this fear when I also am getting in my own way trying to keep track of the process to ensure I don't trip a wire and become overwhelmed. I'm aware that I exist doing this right now and I don't know what to do about it, because to not do it could mean blindly walking on a bomb."

That's a good place to start, but I would emphasize that the solo IFS journaling is a dialogue. So if you were talking to someone inside, how would you express that?

You could also check if that fear about doing IFS haphazardly would be willing to talk directly to you.

Like: "What are you afraid will happen if we get overwhelmed?"

It might not be willing to do that, in which case you'll be at least partially blended with it, which is a fine place to start.

Just remember that you're arriving at this solo IFS space to talk to what's inside. To meet another. To dialogue. To connect.

Do you have a book?

Thank you so much for the detailed reply.

TL:DR is at bottom for your convenience.

​

​

>I'm hearing two questions - lmk if this is correct:
>
>As an atheist, how can you handle containment with solo IFS? (Re. asking that which is greater than us to contain us)
>
>2Whether to allow whatever arises to arise, almost like a free-for-all, given that this feels it'd lead to overwhelm

The first one, yes. The second, I was more so indirectly asking if that's what you meant by your way of dealing with the containment dilemma, rather than what to do if that WAS the case.

I can see that you clarified what you meant though in your reply. Regardless, your answer for #2 is interesting to me.

>Second, you don't have to believe there's something greater than you to make the invitation. I'm curious: If you went ahead and asked something greater than you (going through the motions), even while knowing you don't believe in that, what could that be like?

I guess it would feel like asking/talking to someone that isn't there, while in an empty room. Essentially nothing would happen.

>When we make this invitation, we humble ourselves and name our own inability to contain ourselves as a separate entity (Ex. therapist) would. This is a symbolic act which communicates through layers of the psyche. It's a willingness and acknowledgement that we're not "in charge" in a managerial way.

To make sure I understand this right, you're clarifying that asking "that which is greater than us to help contain us" is essentially saying to acknowledge and accept that we don't have the ability "contain" ourselves, aka internally keep track of the IFS process within?

And to also acknowledge that there is no way for us to "lead" the process of IFS?

If so, alright, I understand now how this can be unrelated to God or spirituality in general.

I also *think* I'm already doing that since I do understand why and how it's impossible for us to do so.

Another response that comes up from my mind is "I intellectually understand why and how we can't lead or track the process in IFS, but the alternative sounds like what I feared regarding letting the chips fall as they may."

I see that you responded to that fear though in the quote below.

>For #2:
>
>Great question. So what we're actually going for in solo IFS is to be the Regular You. I don't know your name, let's pretend it's Lee. So in solo IFS, we'd want the Regular Lee to be showing up. This is distinct from Self, and it's distinct from parts. It's basically who you are in regular day-to-day life, your normal state of consciousness, when you're not blended with one part. Don't overthink it. It's just you, the person you feel you are, the person who will close the journal after your session and move on with your day.
>
>The Regular You is a mixture of parts all swirled together in your consciousness. The key difference is that you're not blended with one part, because when that happens, when one part is behind the wheel, there is no room for anything else - aka no room for Self. When you're in the Regular You, there is space, and it makes it possible for Self to get in naturally as the solo session progresses. Without striving to have Self come.
>
>Not only is the Regular You the only state from which we can really approach authentic parts work on ourselves, but it's also the bridge between IFS work and your regular life.
>
>So as you become comfortable with the concept of being able to meet your parts from the Regular You - knowing that you don't have to be in that altered state of Self - it becomes easier to be in contact with these parts in day-to-day life. And that means that you can access IFS more easily. You won't need to pull out an official session just to connect inside.

So hopefully I understand this: You're saying that what we're shooting for in IFS is not to let whoever comes up comes up in a literal sense, but that whoever is here RIGHT NOW is the person to direct your attention on?

If so, well that's good to know we're not just letting inner bombs go off, but I also suppose this is confusing me again, because if I think "who is the 'regular me' that is my current everyday Self?" I see that as the me right now typing this message to you trying to figure out the answer to these issues. This is the same person that attempts IFS too.

If I went more in depth, it would be me saying in a journal "I'm currently afraid to do IFS haphazardly due to overwhelm, but I also am confused how to move forward and address this fear when I also am getting in my own way trying to keep track of the process to ensure I don't trip a wire and become overwhelmed. I'm aware that I exist doing this right now and I don't know what to do about it, because to not do it could mean blindly walking on a bomb."

So the person who appears in my internal IFS session, is the person here right now confused on what to do.

So I feel confused because it's like, wouldn't that be redundant and put me back in the same situation I'm in now?

---

TL;DR:

So overall, I perceived you saying that by asking "that which is greater than us to help contain us" you're saying we want to acknowledge and accept that we don't and can't have control in the internal IFS process.

I perceived that you're also saying that this doesn't mean "letting go" in the sense of allowing anything to come up, but instead asking "Who is here RIGHT NOW, and what is it you'd like to speak on?"

To which, I feel confused because the person "here right now" in the IFS session is the person typing this.

[removed]

I don’t have any questions. Just so glad to hear that something like this exists out there.

Holy shit.

[removed]

This is such a fantastic concept.

Thank you for sharing.

First, let me say, thank you for taking the time to do this AMA. It's highly informative and insightful.

I asked questions pertaining to DID as I know someone with DID that I'm close to. Their therapist has discussed IFS to help frame my understanding of DID (I was requested to be a part of one of their sessions so that I understood DID better) and has used IFS (although how much, I am unsure) to help their patient.

I have also read "The Body Keeps Score" to better understand therapy and mental health and it's been transformative to understand how trauma plays out for people.

One more question if you don't mind. After reading the Body Keeps Score, I am struck by the fact that a lot of new therapeutic practices are integrating the entire body in recovery. Has there been any research or practices regarding integrating the body into IFS therapy, like mindfulness, yoga, art, etc?

Hey Lucille!

My question is: is it really necessary to check in for 30 days with an exile after unburdoning?

I struggle with it because a lot of the 'talking with parts' doesnt happen in my system. They barely talk, so its hard to even know which part is which. I often cry and it feels healing, but Im often unsure if it was an exile or maybe a stressed out manager that was crying. Sometimes I dont even know why im crying, I just feel grief without a clear reason. So I dont even see how I could check back in with the part in that case.

​

kind regards,

Daniël

Thanks, yeah I had a feeling it hasn't been explored much (yet) in that context.

Hello! Do you know of any IFS work with families who have a child exhibiting reactive attachment disorder?

The unique thing about IFS is clients don't have to share the personal details with the therapist. The therapist is there to guide, and the client can keep the personal info to themselves. It's pretty unique to have this be possible in therapy, as you'd imagine.

Does that answer help?

Great question, u/b00jum. I did a quick scan of Google Scholar and don't see any published research, unfortunately. There are some general articles on the topic if you want to simply Google.