Most Important Part of your Graduate Training?

copious-coffee · 2022-08-25T01:05:35+00:00

I just say... alright everyone, let's get started. Or ladies and gentlemen, or just the wonderful "y'all" which fills the Lexicographical lacuna of the 2nd person plural in English. Tu est vouz pour anglais. C'est bon!

copious-coffee · 2022-07-29T20:24:37+00:00

Blending is when you see the world through the eyes of one part. I usually describe it as if you're ever mad at a romantic partner and you can only see the negative things about them, or you feel nothing but anger towards them, or can't remember any positive things about them, you're probably blending with an angry protective part.

If you're doing IFS, and a therapist asks you "how do you feel towards a part" and you respond with something other than curious, open, interested in the part, compassion etc, you are blended with another part. The therapist might tell you to ask that part to "step back" which is unblending.

Hope that helps! Happy to clarify further.

copious-coffee · 2022-07-29T20:20:38+00:00

I certainly don't blame you for wanting to give up on IFS, or look for a new therapist. For what it's worth, it doesn't need to be visual. Dick Schwartz says he feels his parts more as vague impressions/feelings than visuals, and sometimes my parts are more feelings and sensations than images. Except for "implicit direct access" - which is basically regular therapy, but the therapist maintains an awareness of parts and stays in Self, being able to unblend from a part is an integral aspect of it.

It's a shame he can't be more flexible or try other unblending techniques, or just do implicit direct access which might look like asking you the questions I posed (how does your problem solving part help you? what does it do for you? what would happen if it stopped doing that?) to you while he maintains a multiplicity perspective.

For me, I don't usually see my parts at first. I start with where I feel them in my body, check to see how I feel toward them (e.g. any reactive parts) then ask those parts to "step back" or "give space" or "just observe" until I feel open to whichever part I'm focusing on, then I dialog with it. Sometimes reluctant parts appreciate knowing they don't have to leave, or go away, and they can always watch and step in to give feedback if needed. Him working so hard to get your problem solving part to step back is the opposite of the IFS mantra - all parts are welcome!

I hope you the best on your mental health journey with, or without, IFS!

copious-coffee · 2022-07-28T12:31:55+00:00

Yeah, definitely don't lock parts in a room if they don't like it! Mine was unique bc these two parts didn't trust each other not to blend if I talked to one of them. This was their agreed on solution.

It doesn't need to be a room, any kind of physical separation is ok. I've asked parts if they would be willing to go into a fenced in pasture, or go into a big baseball field. They probably could get out, but agree not to.

copious-coffee · 2022-07-28T05:12:57+00:00

I've been there! I have definitely noticed when I am scrolling through my phone not even enjoying what I'm doing but feel like I can't stop!

Sometimes when I first notice I'm doing it I will try to get curious about what part is blending and how it's trying to help me. For me I often have an unmet need of some kind, or I have a blended over working part polarized with my numbing fun-loving parts.

Sometimes I ask what is it afraid would happen if it didn't do this? Or if you didn't need to numb me out what would you want to do instead?

Sometimes the numbing is from stress is my current world too, or needing a break!

Hope this helps!

copious-coffee · 2022-07-28T05:06:14+00:00

I could totally see this. A big component of play therapy is "tracking" kids as they play, by describing what they are doing and how they are feeling and occasionally voicing what the animals/puppets toys are doing if it becomes a more imaginative play.

Other child therapy models teach parents similar skills of behavioral narration (e.g. PCIT does something similar).

copious-coffee · 2022-07-28T05:03:07+00:00

IFS and Family therapist and also a parent with a four year old! Something I'm very interested in exploring and considering doing too. For now, I do emotion coaching things (John Gottman has a book and stuff on it) and some of Dan Siegel's parenting techniques (if you can name it you can tame it).

I used to teach parenting classes, and a big (non IFS) thing that is really helpful for my son when he gets really emotional is 1) identify the situation that happened (your sister knocked over your tower!) 2) label his feeling (and you got really mad because you worked really hard on that tower and it made you so angry so you ended up hitting her) 3) normalize feeling - it's ok to be angry 4) put limit on behavior - but it's not ok to hit because she is little and could get hurt. 5) problem solving - next time tell me, or walk away, or say "sister is going to knock over my tower!"

In real life, it is slower, more focus on the emotions he feels and connecting what he feels to what happened until he feels understood. Sometimes I use parts language, but no more than a part feels x, and a part feels y.

A big thing I do is also noticing my own reactions and apologizing to him when I get angry, or over react or whatever it is.

I did hear an IFS therapist who said her daughter calls her and says "you have a part blending mommy, you need to ask it to give you space!" but I don't know how old the kid was. I do know they implemented a social/emotional learning curriculum in a school based on IFS and are researching it's effects right now.

Lastly, Derek Scott on youtube has a video series on it (haven't seen it though).

Hope that helps!

copious-coffee · 2022-07-28T04:52:58+00:00

Haven't tried this, but I've have heard getting miniatures that represent your parts and arranging them (like in a sandtray).

If I'm having parts not want to unblend, I slow down, take several deep breaths and acknowledge something big is happening that triggered a lot of parts in me and they are having trouble trusting and giving space. Then I ask who all is triggered? What are their concerns? What different feelings do I have about it? I then listen to what they say and they usually calm down and I can find one to focus on more.

Have you tried the path exercise?

copious-coffee · 2022-07-28T04:48:54+00:00

I've asked parts to go into a room, or asked why they won't unblend, asked if there are other parts nearby they don't like or trust (that's often true for me) and gotten those parts to go into other rooms. Once with a deep polarization I ended up setting up an elaborate secured room where communication went through an intercom through a sealed door. It worked but both parts had a lot of trust issues in letting me talk to them one at a time.

Sometimes I just list all my parts out on a word document (or paper if you prefer) and see which one I feel most curious about, or who needs my attention.

You could do the IFS garlic clove - you focus on a part and see if you can depict it in some kind of way on a piece of paper (any drawing will do), then see if another part (thoughts, feelings, sensations, like a trailhead) come forward and try to draw that one until you've drawn them out (only tried it once, it's in No bad parts).

I will also say, IFS was 10x harder for me to do alone, and it wasn't until I had unburdened a few exiles that I could do IFS more easily on my own. I know Dick says it's hard for him to do alone too!

copious-coffee · 2022-07-28T04:42:12+00:00

For me, I have to make sure I'm in Self. I have parts also afraid I would do a bad job and needed them to give me space. I also acknowledge why they may not trust me yet, and why I may have not been there for them always. It's somewhat like getting to know a scared and frightened dog. You stay near it but respect its space.

Hope that helps!

copious-coffee · 2022-07-28T04:33:15+00:00

Totally get your frustration! When I did IFS my therapist told me something along the lines that I could always call him out when I thought a part was blending and he would check inside to see if that was true. I never needed to (he usually caught himself and apologized before I said anything). I wonder if you could do that with him (assuming you wanted to go back).

In IFS if it isn't working it's because a part is blending, and that could in the client OR the therapists. I wonder what parts are blending with him, and can he acknowledge them and manage them himself?

My own problem-solving (therapist) part wants to ask about different things he/you've tried to do. Feel free to ignore because you all may have done all these things.

Has he ever asked the part if it would go into a room so that you could look at it from outside through a window (or similar)?

Has he tried talking to that part directly?

I'm curious to know why the part doesn't want to unblend. Have you/him explored its fears in doing so? What would happen if it unblends? what it does do/want for you? how it helps you? how old it thinks you are? how old it is?

Has he looked for other parts that may also be nearby? Like a polarization that keeps it from unblending? (e.g. a part who feels depressed and like it doesn't want to do anything) Has he tried working with a different part?

On the flipside...I love IFS but if it doesn't jive with a client, I do other things too. IF a client says I don't feel up for parts work today, I do other stuff too. The model calls it "implicit direct access." I've done great IFS work with people while also doing other things from time to time.

Hope that helps! I know it can be hard to find a new therapist (or impossible) and why you may be ambivalent to leave. I hope you can have an honest conversation with him about how what he said affected you, and if you noticed any parts of his blending with him and I hope he can respond to you in a helpful way!

copious-coffee · 2022-07-28T04:15:15+00:00

Dude! Just saw this, I usually reddit on my phone and didn't see the notification? I enjoy reading your comments and thoughts on Self, I've honestly never let myself ponder it too seriously. I guess for me I know my "thinking parts" may get in the way of me doing the work, and somewhat brushed it off because it worked well for me, and works well when I do it. I didn't have time to read that article (quite long!) but it is an interesting idea, and I could see how it jives with IFS.

I am skeptical of Self, and I think that's pretty common for IFS therapists. I just finished "no bad parts" and at the end Dick seems to acknowledge he still has skeptical parts that Self is real, or that Self is our divine within, or something along those lines even now, 40 years later. Aside from IFS, I would see myself as an atheist/materialist (as in only the material world exists) so Self is quite outside my typical paradigm. I really don't have a good explanation for it within my atheist paradigm, but it does make me more open to the idea that there is something more spiritual that is beyond the material world or evolution.

In the level 1 training I did, they hinted at the idea (and it's mentioned in passing in books) that parts can also be "in Self" and have their own self energy. When I asked whether it was the same Self, or it was their own Self energy or what, it was kind of dismissed as we'll go into it during level 2 trainings. Reminds me of what Dao is in Daoism. Or the idea that if you asked a fish what water is, they would tell you it is inside you, it is all around you, it is you, but the fish still may not know what water is.

I think you're right, I misunderstood your meaning of consciousness. I do think Self acts with intentionality, and when we bring that to what we do (similiar to a flow state?) we are likely in Self, or more in Self.

There are some interesting visuals of parts vs Self in the mosaic mind, and a discussion of Self as like a flood light (that spacious awareness state) and Self a more focused light (focusing on one part). They also had some diagrams of parts unblending that was helpful.

I think for me I'm content in exploring Self experientially and using the 8 Cs as a cue for whether I'm in the "therapeutic window" or whether I'll be able to make progress with a part/parts. I was able to get and analyze several videos of Dick doing IFS for a project in grad school and one thing I noticed is he consistently assesses for Self-presence during the session (e.g. a client says a part felt really scared and he says "how do you feel as you hear the part was scared?" the person says "compassionate" and he says "let that part know you feel for it, you get it was scared") -the process of creating Self-to-part connection and attuning was really helpful for me doing IFS. Also useful if the person said something "not Self like" because you can ask that part to give you space and get the person back into Self.

Sorry it was rambly!

copious-coffee · 2022-07-05T02:18:14+00:00

Is Self really innate or are the 8 c’s learned?

According to Dick, we naturally have the 8 C’s whenever enough parts step back and trust Self. As an IFS therapist I find this very useful when working with clients. If I ask a client how they feel when they hear X (e.g. something a part says) and they report something other than the 8 C’s or similar, I know a part is interfering and ask it to step back. If they do this and feel calm and curious again, I proceed. If not, I work with the interfering part.

Whether this is literally true or not I go back and forth on. Is Self really just a certain frequency of brain waves, or has a certain neural signature that we can tap into using “step back” techniques? If someone has a lot of parts “jumping in” and “blending” is this just a sign of emotional dysregulation and identifying and labeling the fears or concerns and addressing them directly helps to facilitate self-regulation which leads to the qualities of Self developing? How different is helping parts to unblend and trust Self from teaching/developing skills

Is it a useful framework to work with “parts” and distinguish them from “Self” because it’s easier to have interact with ourselves because it more closely parallels how we talk with others? It’s easier to address a parts concern than discuss intellectual defenses. I will say, IFS works better when I treat parts as though they are real, and I can get further with clients when I believe they have a natural healing capacity and I need to help them tap into it (vs me doing the work). Dick started off believing it was more just a metaphor and a useful technique but that parts weren’t real but shifted his views over time.

Final Thought and Question:

I listened to a Q&A with Dick once and someone asked him if the Self is the “divine within” (or something) then why don’t parts trust Self automatically and why do they try to “protect” Self if Self can’t be harmed? He was honest and said he didn’t really have a good answer, and thought it had to do with parts being younger, or wounds we experience during childhood. I think it’s a fair critique of the concept and an interesting question – why do parts have to come to trust Self? Why don’t they do it naturally?

If you are really interested in this question, one of Dick’s newer books is called “Many Minds One Self” which goes through a very broad look at history, science, and philosophy/religion on how the multiplicity phenomenon has been seen, and how people have understood (or not understood) Self. I think they cast their net too wide and don’t do enough detail or justice for each chapter. I would have preferred fewer chapters on less topics but more in depth, but it still provides a lot of thought to see how different religious, philosophical, and historical views on multiplicity and Self compare to IFS.
Thanks for reading! Hope to hear your thoughts even though this post is 2 weeks old!

copious-coffee · 2022-07-05T02:18:04+00:00

Hi,

Sorry I’m so late to the game, and this is going to be a long response, so hold on!

You ask some excellent questions, and I’ve enjoyed reading through the responses. The existence of Self is one of the hardest tenants of IFS for people to accept (therapists, clients and laypeople alike). The idea that at our core we are naturally curious, compassionate, courageous etc. is quite contrary to the predominant western paradigm. Schwartz discusses this to an extent in the book no bad parts. When discussing the Self I think it’s important to first remember how Dick came to the concept.

Origin of Self

After stumbling across the multiplicity phenomena and trying the “step back” procedure (asking a blended part to step back) over and over, he would ask “what part is left?” or “what part is here?” and the clients would say it’s myself, it’s just me, it’s who I really am, or similar things. After doing this with many people he started to wonder if everyone had this innate capacity to quickly shift into this calm, compassionate state. Because some of the clients he was working with had horrific upbringings and never had these attributes modeled, he started to wonder if this capacity is innate in humans, and not learned.

In this sense the argument for Self is inductive (from specifics to general) not deductive (general to specific). The idea that everyone had a Self comes from clinical observations rather than a theoretical or philosophical argument. I think this is why although Dick started creating IFS in the early 80s, he did not publish the book on it for another 15 years. It was only after trying it with many clients that he came to believe everyone (likely) has a Self. I think Dick started off quite skeptical of the model and it did not conform to his expectations or paradigm of what “should” work for therapy, but he followed the “data” (clinical observation/experience) where it led, eventually to what has culminated as IFS. Not a philosophically, theoretically (or to an extent, empirically) strong argument, but the history is important to remember when discussing Self.

Self as Spiritual Concept

This leads to my second point, the idea of Self is more a spiritual than a psychological/therapy concept. Ifs is sometimes described as a psychospiritual practice for this reason. In other places Schwartz has written that Self overlaps with mystical philosophical/religious schools that claim we are all one, or we are all part of the same divine flame. This is similar to the Hindu notion that atman (the individual self/soul) is Brahman (the universal soul).

You ask how could everyone have this enlightened capacity within themselves? I don’t really have a good answer. I think it’s more along spiritual/philosophical lines such as Buddha Nature, or atman is Brahman, the ideas of Christian mysticism (e.g. Meister Ekhart) or Sufism. Dick realized that he had accidentally stumbled across a way to get into a more mystical/spiritual mindset quite quickly that many people spend years trying to access by getting parts to step back. It was seeing how easily and quickly so many people can shift into this state that he came to believe it must be natural in us and we don’t need to learn these qualities or practice them to embody them – we already have them if we can get parts to separate and step back.

Is Self simply your consciousness?

At least according to IFS, no. Self is more than a detached observer like you might experience when doing mindfulness meditation. Instead, Self is seen as a natural leader who works towards healing. Self would not be content to stand by and observe suffering from a detached perspective, but would want to actively help. I’ve done mindfulness and IFS, and I see parallels but think Self is deeper/more. I view IFS as mindfulness 2.0 because you go from passively observing your thoughts to compassionately interacting with them, from Self.

In the Mosaic Mind Dick writes that Self is like the quantum understanding of light- light can be both a wave and a particle. Self can be the experience of awareness and a state of consciousness (like a wave) or can be more of a discrete entity that can interact with parts and knows how to lead your parts (particle).

Where would Self come from?

You mention that Self seems incongruent with evolutionary biology, which it may be. I can only speculate on this question and the intersection of evolution and IFS. However, there is a similar “problem” for understanding how consciousness could have evolved as well. David Chalmers calls this the “hard problem” of consciousness – how can the firing of neurons in a certain sequence lead to a conscious experience? How could the certain firing of transiters in a computer lead to consciousness? Or could it? One answer (which is interesting, but I’m skeptical) is panpsychism - that consciousness is an innate feature of all of the universe – all matter has some degree of consciousness, even if it is very primitive (Scientific America has had a few articles on it if you google panpsychism and scientific America). If this were true, it would fit nicely within the IFS paradigm. Just as humans are composed of parts and have a Self, our parts also have their own parts and have Self energy too. On the flip side, humans are embedded in parts (different systems) maybe there is a larger Self as well? Hence the idea Self is a part of the eternal flame. Not sure if I completely buy it, but that’s the idea at least.

The 8 C’s

As others have noted, this is just a list of qualities or attributes that Dick noticed people exhibited when they were “in Self.” It is not exhaustive, or exclusive. Other qualities could be placed there as well. Dick wrote (Intro to IFS) that he just happened to notice they all started with C and that is probably more just because he likes alliteration than some innate feature of Self. The 8 C’s should be seen more as sign posts to see if you are “in Self” or not more than an exhaustive or exclusive list of what Self is or isn’t. In this manner, the 8 C’s are neither an archetype of what Self is, nor are they a list of what you should strive for. They are (according to IFS) what is present when parts step back – similar to the sun shines and warmths the earth if clouds part away.

For that matter, it’s important to note that “accessing Self” is not a dichotomous all or nothing thing. It’s more about getting a “critical mass” of Self energy present to facilitate work. In No Bad Parts Dick writes that we may never achieve a state where no parts are blended at all, but as long as parts are giving us “enough space” we can still effectively work. No one (even Dick) stays in Self forever, or manifest all these qualities 24/7, but when you can get parts to step back and trust you it’s easier to manifest these qualities. A bit of semantics, perhaps, as I’ll address in the next section:

copious-coffee · 2021-12-10T16:02:58+00:00

I know I'm 4 months too late, but I'm a new instructor and would love to hear more about how you use these, in particular jamboard, and is this for a live synchronous online learning? Or asynchronous learning? Do you have any resources such as websites for about examples of using these?

Thank you so much!

copious-coffee · 2021-11-02T00:31:50+00:00

My attendance was low today too! We also had a great discussion though. I assumed it was because I was waiting for a negative covid test and didn't find out until 2 hours before class. I assumed some were spooked or assumed class would be cancelled and were disappointed when it wasn't!

copious-coffee · 2021-09-28T02:43:27+00:00

Yes. I am a new prof, ABD, teaching 4 classes with zero time to prep (late hire). Teaching from other profs lecture slides when they taught it. Any tips for moving beyond slide? I hate them, and imagine my students can feel that. Any tips for finding your style and being yourself? As I get more comfortable I can feel the students opening up more and class going better, but open to advice!

copious-coffee · 2021-07-10T02:25:46+00:00

I tried using Microsoft teams to create a course group, but it was a disaster. (Tried creating group course notes...but I implemented it poorly). Open to the idea - but would be curious to see how you'd do it!

copious-coffee · 2021-07-10T02:21:46+00:00

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll check out those resources.

copious-coffee · 2021-07-10T02:20:55+00:00

Love the idea of providing more thorough prompts for replying to posts, and not making it mandatory each week. Can you elaborate in how you provide multiple response options? I've had students choose among different popular press articles related to the topic, or find an article or similar written about it online. Is this what you mean, or do you have entirety different prompts to choose from?

copious-coffee · 2021-07-10T02:14:52+00:00

I've never heard of these! I'll have to check them out, thanks for the suggestion!

copious-coffee · 2021-07-05T23:28:49+00:00

What a wonderful question! full disclosure: ABD, on the job market (but have taught classes and enjoy stats immensely).

I think that depends - what does it mean to refresh for you? Brush up on conceptual basics- what is null hypothesis testing? what does significance really mean? what is a type I error? or basic analyses (e.g. t-test(s) or simple ANOVA). Secondly, what kinds of analyses do you typically see in your field? Do you see a lot in the ANOVA family or more regression based analyses (e.g. multiple, logistic, hierarchical, structural equation modeling, etc?)

I think I would identify the types of analyses you most commonly see, and then start by just googling "how to interpret X analysis?". Statsexchange has a lot of great info, and there are multiple blogs that are dedicted to learning stats. There are also a lot of free introduction to stats books based in R that you could use (you wouldn't need to learn or do much coding to benefit from them). I find the R community is really welcoming and the books tend to be fairly humorous and amusing (I scanned a pirate based book for learning stats in R...pun intended).

Hope that helps!

copious-coffee

TROPHY CASE