IFS is good, actually

A short response to a recent article critical of IFS in New York Magazine

Norman Rockwell painting, used as a meme for controversial statements

There are two surefire ways to get clicks in the internet age: find something most people are scared of and say that it’s actually good (salt, fat, xenophobia) or find something that most people think is good and say that they should be afraid of it (vegetable oil, vaccines, sunscreen). This well-worn path to clicks has come for Internal Family Systems (IFS), a psychotherapeutic approach developed in the 1980s by Richard Schwartz (everyone calls him “Dick”), but has only found wider popularity in the last decade.

I’m no different than the next guy, so I can get swept up in these whiplash clickbait trends. I think twice before putting on my seed oil-based sunscreen. But because my entire life has been changed immeasurably for the better by IFS, I feel obligated to spend a Sunday afternoon writing a rebuttal to Rachel Corbett’s feature article in New York Magazine, “The Therapy That Can Break You,” with the subtitle, “Internal Family Systems is a widely popular trauma treatment. Some patients say it’s destroyed their lives.”¹

I don’t want to spend too much time on this, but I think it’s important to clearly lay out what the criticisms are and explore if there is any validity to them. Full disclosure: I’m an IFS practitioner, level 2 trained by the IFS Institute, and I use IFS in nearly everything I do, from 1:1 coaching and retreat facilitation to ecstatic dance and breathwork. I come in with a lot of training and experience in IFS, as well as a clear bias.

I want to be as honest and lucid in this assessment as possible because I believe the stakes are high. I’ve witnessed first hand how IFS transforms lives for the better (mine especially) and if there is something harmful or ineffective in the model, trainings, and practices, I truly want to know.

So, let’s dig in.

The criticisms

The heart of the article centers on a lawsuit against Castlewood Treatment Center and its director Mark Schwartz (no relation to Dick Schwartz). Mark was trained in IFS by Dick and in the early days of Castlewood, Dick gave trainings to the staff. In 2011, a 16-year-old girl was treated at Castlewood and in the course of her treatment, she says traumatic memories of sexual abuse by her father were uncovered.

The father adamantly denied it, discovered many inconsistencies in the daughter’s story, and sued the treatment center and Mark Schwartz. The father won the case, with the judge ruling that the daughter’s story was “incredible” as her timelines were inconsistent and some names were made up.²

The article is long and meandering so it’s challenging to pull out the exact criticisms, but I’ve done my best. Here are the main ones:

1. IFS implants false memories

2. IFS splits and destabilizes patients

3. IFS lacks a research base

There are other minor criticisms Corbett makes along the way: IFS is more spiritual than it lets on; it used to train those who were not licensed therapists; and it’s been endorsed by Gwyneth Paltrow. To these, I say: yes, IFS is quite spiritual and I’m grateful for that. The concept of Self-energy clearly draws from contemplative traditions. But this is a feature, not a bug. And anyone should be able to learn the IFS model—it’s safe when practiced as it is formally taught by the institute. And the fact that Corbett spends time listing celebrity endorsements of IFS reveals the clickbait game she’s playing with this piece.

So let’s quickly run through the main criticisms . . .

Nothing in the IFS model or IFS Institute training suggests implanting or reinforcing memories of any kind

I have taken Level 1 and 2 trainings from the IFS Institute, six formal trainings by senior institute trainers on other platforms, and have participated in a small group consultation and have a personal consultant who is a senior IFS trainer—and I have never received training that would lead me to plant a memory or even endorse a patient’s memory as objectively true. In fact, I distinctly remember at least two training sessions where early childhood memories were brought up for discussion. The trainers in each session said the same thing: we cannot know if there is any objective truth to the memories. Best practice is to help the client see that a part of them carries the feelings/emotions around this memory and support the client in loving and caring for that part.

The work is always around building and nurturing a Self-to-part relationship. We are trained to be curious and ask questions, not to give advice or seek solid conclusions. It appears from the article that Mark and his staff were taking liberties with the IFS model, and encouraging their patients to identify with their parts rather than seeking integrated Self-leadership.

The article conflates a dysfunctional treatment center with the IFS model itself. From everything the article says about Mark and Castlewood, it appears that they deviated significantly from the IFS model and the formal training. It’s unfortunate that Dick Schwartz appears to have spent time in the aughts training Mark and his staff. At a minimum it shows that Dick didn’t do a sufficient job at monitoring how Mark and his staff were using the model. At worst, it suggests that Dick did a poor job of training others in IFS and could have contributed to harm.

But we need to also be clear that while Dick discovered and developed the model in the early days, there are dozens of other therapists who contributed in the development of what is today the IFS model and its formal training. The training manual for level 1 from the institute was written by Mariel Pastor, LMFT, and Jennifer Gauvin, LCSW, with only a few passages, in its nearly 200 pages, written by Dick.

The IFS model and its training can stand on their own, apart from Dick’s oversight at Castlewood or the misapplication of the model by Mark.

IFS has built-in safeguards against splitting and destabilization

The concern that IFS could cause or exacerbate splitting in patients or destabilize them is completely theoretical. Corbett’s article presents exactly zero evidence for this outside of quoting a few mental health professionals who have this concern.

But there is no evidence provided that IFS, as properly practiced, has contributed to splitting or destabilization. These concerns have been long held in mainstream psychiatry; Dick tells stories about his early days of presenting his findings in grand rounds and facing the outrage of skeptical psychiatrists.

We now have clinical trials on IFS and none of these harms arise in those studies. Over the last 30 years, tens of thousands of therapists and clients have practiced IFS in countless sessions. If systemic harm was an issue, it would have become widely known by now.

It’s important to know that when we learn the model, we begin with two basic assumptions: first, the human mind is made of sub-personalities, or parts; and second, everyone has a core Self. The entire model is designed to integrate parts with the core Self. In IFS, we call this Self leadership.

The standard protocol in IFS is known as the 6 Fs (Find, Focus, Feel toward, beFriend, Flesh Out, Fears (ask about the central fear of the part)). The third F is all about checking for how much of that core Self the client has on board. And if there isn’t sufficient Self on board then we continue to work with the client’s system until there is.

The aim is not to let parts take control—we call that “blending.” The aim is to help the client “unblend” so that the core Self can take the lead. At every step, the pace is controlled by the client’s system, not the therapist pushing. We are taught to go slow—and then go even slower. We’re also checking in with all the protective parts that have concerns precisely so that we do not destabilize the system. And when practiced as it is taught, clients feel calmer, clearer, and more integrated at the end of a session.

My assumption is that some mental health professionals hear that IFS is affirming of people’s parts and assume that such affirmation would lead to “splitting” and destabilization. But the opposite occurs: parts relax as they are acknowledged and witnessed. In that relaxation, there’s room for the core Self to emerge and integrate the system.

IFS has a sufficient evidence base and it’s growing

Corbett implies that IFS lacks evidence but she admits that there are three clinical studies that show the safety and effectiveness of IFS. One expert she quotes as dismissing IFS as a “revenant that keeps popping out of the grave” was clearly referring to recovering repressed memories—something that the IFS model doesn’t mention and the training doesn’t endorse.

Another expert says that the way IFS is “packaged” doesn’t “have a scientific basis.” Who knows what she’s referring to? Social media? The movie Inside Out? Something Gwyneth Paltrow once said?

What we do know from the three clinical studies is that IFS was effective for treating depression, PTSD, and physical symptoms associated with arthritis. More importantly, no adverse effects (like splitting or destabilization) were reported.

What we also know is that the evidence base for IFS is sufficient for practitioners to include it in their mental health repertoire, and the evidence base is growing. A systematic review of all published research on IFS came out this summer in the journal Clinical Psychologist. There are seven studies that examine outcomes experimentally (either randomized-controlled trials or single-arm outcome studies) along with 17 case studies and three qualitative studies. The author concludes:

Existing evidence highlights IFS as promising treatment, particularly useful for chronic pain, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and developing self-compassion and self-forgiveness. However, the current body of research remains limited in scope. The studies conducted thus far provide valuable insights and a strong foundation for future research.

IFS is good, actually

The therapy that can break you? I understand why Corbett wrote her article. Trendy therapy on social media + scandalous lawsuit of dysfunctional treatment center + a few skeptical mental health professionals = clickbait. But the actual theoretical model, training, and practice of IFS are found nowhere in her piece.

When the dust settles, here is what we know to be true:

• the research is still catching up to the popularity, but the research is real, significant, and growing;

• the theoretical harms are wholly theoretical and completely disconnected to what the research shows and tens of thousands of therapists and clients have experienced; and

• IFS is not immune to being misused and misunderstood, but when it is practiced as it is formally taught, it is gentle, cautious, and integrative.

Critics like Corbett seem more interested in headlines than engaging with the substance of IFS. For those of us who’ve experienced its effects first-hand, articles like this miss the nuance, the rigor, and the humanity at the heart of the model. It’s pretty clear to me that IFS is good, actually.

1. Writers almost never choose the title, so I can’t get too upset with Corbett for this. But as you’ll see, the article doesn’t show that IFS broke anyone or destroyed any patient’s life. The main focus is on a father whose daughter accused him of sexual abuse after she received treatment from someone supposedly practicing IFS.

2. It’s worth noting that the daughter in the case continues to believe that she was harmed by her father and has no problems with Mark and Castlewood. Regardless, of the harm caused by Mark and Castlewood, the patient in question does not feel broken or destabilized.