The Journey of 1000 MILES!

I have been using the Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy method as a major part of my self-exploration process for about 18 months. I have recognized that my personality is like an ecosystem of competing interests, parts, and viewpoints. Richard Schwartz, author of the Internal Family Systems book, calls this the Internal Family System. Stefan Molyneux, host of the philosophy show “Freedomain Radio,” calls this the MEcosystem. I particularly like the second term because it sounds more all-encompassing of whatever influences a person has experienced. However, both are powerful models for looking at the internal psychological landscape.

I’ve really enjoyed using the IFS framework to learn about myself. I’ve had some of the most incredible images come up around my parts, including:

-Desert Landscapes

- A medieval castle with enormous castle grounds

- Mountain ranges

- Whole planets holding parts of my personality as prisoners

- Moons surrounding the planet where the prison guards live

 - Amazing rainforests filled with fascinating animals and parts of my personality.

- …and many more!

Using this method I’ve been able to learn about how to be accepting of the various parts of my personality (henceforth simply referred to as “parts”). One of the main tenants of IFS is that all of your parts are welcome. Even if they hold feelings, conclusions, or thoughts that are scary or unacceptable to other parts of you, the goal is to learn and understand each part as best as you can. The method for doing this is to do your best to get into “Self.”

“Self” is a concept put forth by Schwartz, and also quite eloquently explained by Jay Earley in his book “Self-Therapy: A Step-By-Step Guide to Creating Wholeness and Healing Your Inner Child Using IFS.” 

Here is the definition of “Self” put forward in Earley’s Book:

We all have a core part of us that is our true self, our spiritual center. When our extreme parts are not activated and in the way, this is who we are. The Self is relaxed, open and accepting of yourself and others. When you are in Self, you are grounded, centered, and non-reactive. You don’t get triggered by what people do. You remain calm and unruffled, even in difficult circumstances. The Self is so much larger and more spacious than our parts and is not frightened by events that would scare them. The Self has the strength and clarity to function well in the world and connect with other people. When you are in Self, you come from a depth of compassion, enabling you to be loving and caring towards others as well as yourself and your parts. The Self is like the sun — it just shines.

I really appreciate this definition, and I think the concept is really useful. However my inner philosopher takes issue with the rigor put into this definition. Notice that definition only describes what the Self is, but makes no attempt to say why this is true. In this definition, Earley puts forward these descriptions of the Self as an axiom. Basically, if we accept this definition of Self, then everything else follows. However, I don’t think that the science behind brain development supports this definition of the Self.

By suggesting that “we all have a core part of us that is our true self,” it is implied that we’ve always had it since birth, because otherwise how could everyone have it? Later, Earley confirms this by saying “[The Self] is, by nature, compassionate and curious about our parts.” It can only be our “nature” if it is something we all have naturally. 

However, based on the research of a number of psychologists and neuroscientists (see below for references), the development of a child’s brain is dramatically different based on trauma. According to the research, when children are in abusive environments their amygdala releases the fight or flight hormone, cortisol, at a frequent enough rate to stunt the development of the pre-frontal cortex, the reasoning center of the brain. 

While brains are too complex for this to be directly proportional, the basic conclusion of the research is that the more trauma one has experienced in childhood, the larger his/her amygdala will become and the less their pre-frontal cortex will develop and vice versa. Because the amygdala, sometimes referred to colloquially as “the reptile brain,” is based on instant reaction and fight or flight, it is fundamentally the opposite of the descriptions of the Self offered by Earley. The pre-frontal cortex, by contrast, is the part of the brain that fires the most when calm and not in a situation of danger, and would therefore be most likely what is firing most when someone is “in Self.”

So this creates a problem with the idea that everyone simply has the self “by nature.” For example, imagine the extreme example of a child who was born during the Rwandan genocide and experienced/observed horrifying atrocities throughout his childhood. This would cause his pre-frontal cortex to hardly develop while his amygdala would be incredibly over-sized and essentially be the main source of action for him. What would it mean to say that somewhere beneath his trauma he has a “Self”? How? What evidence is there for that? 

Does this invalidate the IFS model? Not at all. However, I would modify what the definition of “Self” is to conform to the science. I’d like to put the caveat here that I am by no means saying that this hypothesis is correct, I am merely trying to come up with a definition that more closely conforms to recent discoveries. I am not competent to suggest that this is a correct definition. 

I would argue that the “Self” is the un-traumatized parts of our brains.

While there are likely parts of the world where children are so horrendously traumatized that they cannot salvage a true self at all, most people in the world (especially in the West) are not 100% traumatized. While we would also be hard-pressed to find a brain that is 0% traumatized, most people fall somewhere in between. Thus, those parts of our personality that are activated when our pre-frontal cortex is firing likely were able to develop in situations of calm and rationality in our childhoods. Because these parts were never stunted in their development, they aren’t extreme and it is difficult for us to distinguish them as distinct parts…they just feel like us. These parts I would call the “Self.”

This clarification can be useful because of something that Earley refers to as “the seat of consciousness.” At any given moment, some part of your personality is in the driver’s seat of consciousness and is essentially in control of your behavior. One of the major goals of IFS therapy is to work with your traumatized childhood parts so that they can allow the Self into the seat of consciousness as much as possible. However, suppose you are a person who has more trouble getting hurt child parts to step aside and allow the Self to enter the seat of consciousness. If we accept my hypothesis, then it is naturally going to be harder for people who have been more traumatized to get into Self. This is not our fault, it is the fault of our traumatizers. This can help us to avoid self-attack for this difficulty, and instead place the responsibility on the abusers, not the victims. 

Now that we’ve established a potentially more accurate definition of the Self, I’d like to point the attention toward the second easy trap to fall into while practicing IFS. In order to illustrate this, I’d like to share some personal experience related to my relationships.

I live in Beijing, and my six closest friends all practice IFS therapy. I must say, this is really wicked cool! In some ways, it makes conversations much easier, because I don’t have to explain to them what I mean when I refer to the parts of my personality as “protectors,” “Self parts” or “exiles” (all explained thoroughly in the IFS literature). My friends get that I’m a MEcosystem of many different parts, and therefore having contradictory thoughts, feelings or opinions is completely understandable. This is rad! It allows me to feel safe expressing feelings…however it also allows me to avoid true emotional vulnerability in a wonderfully intellectual way. Allow me to elaborate…

Psychological projection is a well-known phenomenon among therapists, and it involves taking a feeling, thought, or opinion that you are experiencing and then projecting it onto another person. A simple example would be a man who has a compulsion to steal becoming fearful that someone is going to take his wallet. A slightly more complicated example might be a woman who feels resentment toward her boyfriend and then says to him “You never respect me!” 

So how does IFS help with this? Well, it is much easier not to project onto others, because we recognize that just because a part of our personality feels one way does not mean that it defines our entire personality. Thus, saying to someone “I felt resentment after you did/said x” does not lead to any particular conclusions other than “this feeling exists in me.” However, the trap that people can fall into (as I have fallen into many times) is to project not onto others, but onto our parts. Oh snap!

It wasn’t me, Your Honor! It was my part!

This allows us to hedge in our relationships quite a bit. You don’t have to say “I felt angry after you did x,” because instead you can weasel out of it and say “well, a part of me felt angry after you did x. It wasn’t me! Don’t react strongly to me! It was just my part!“ 

It is certainly true that our personalities are complicated and that they are made up of many parts. This doesn’t mean we aren’t responsible for our parts. If I have a part that feels resentful, then the feeling exists within my body and I own it. The fact that the feeling may have its origins in the traumas I experienced in my childhood does not release me from my ownership of it. Therefore, it is more honest and less avoidant to just say “I feel resentment” when that feeling arises within me.

The recognition of our own complexity helps us to empathize with others, and I greatly thank Richard Schwartz and Jay Earley for offering tools to understanding my own complexity. Finding that centered and compassionate “True Self” is incredibly liberating and my love for my friends has grown drastically. I view these tools offered in the IFS paradigm as methods to practice for our relationships in the real world. 

When I took drum lessons in university, my teacher told me to work on good technique in the practice room. But when I was at a performance, he said, “Don’t think too much about your technique. Just play. Eventually, the technique will naturally work its way into your performances.” 

I feel the same way about working with my sub-personalities. When I’m alone with my journal, I’ll dig in deeply and learn as much about the nitty-gritty details of my parts as possible. However, when I go out into the world and interact with people, I “just play.” Any of my parts’ feelings are my feelings. Any of my parts’ thoughts are my thoughts. The more I talk to them when I’m “practicing” on my own, the more integrated and united I am when I’m interacting in my external relationships. 

This way, I don’t alienate my parts by saying something like, “Well, it’s not really what I think, its just what a part of me thinks.” No. That part is just as much me as another part that disagrees with it. We are a team.

Overall, the IFS method has helped me remain calm, centered and rational in my day to day interactions. I feel happier, more curious, and excited about new challenges and opportunities. These traps that are easy to fall into are mere sunspots on the sun of what is otherwise an incredible method for self-growth and understanding. I’d highly recommend IFS therapy to anyone, and hopefully with the knowledge of these possible speed bumps, the growth process can be even faster and more enjoyable.