A couple of years ago we developed something in this direction in Epistea that seems generally better and a little less confused, called “Internal Communication Framework”.
I won’t describe the whole technique here, but the generative idea mostly is “drop priors used in IFS or IDC, and instead lean into a metaphor of facilitating a conversation between parts from a position of kindness and open curiosity”. (Second part is getting more theoretical clarity on the whole-parts relation)
From the perspective of ICF, what seems suboptimal with the IDC algorithm described here is roughly this: 1. It doesn’t do the unblending that well (IFS is better in this); this protocol seems to mostly asks whoever is the ruling party to be fair. 2. The “doublecrux-like” form nudges/pushes parts to form 2 coalitions, forming the sides of the doublecrux. This is not a natural form for many internal disagreements. (3. Similarly, IFS errs on the side of having strong priors on the form/structure of the parts: exiles, firefighters and managers, and on the side of doing “family therapy” with them.) 4. Both IFS and IDC seem somewhat confused/vague about the vertical relations and run e.g. the risk of empowering the parts layer at the cost of the ‘whole’.
From what I’ve seen in practice, all of these problems are often overcome by skilled facilitators who do something closer in spirit to ICF and mostly use IDC or IFS as a name for it, without really trying to follow the protocol closely.
“Instead lean into a metaphor of facilitating a conversation between parts from a position of kindness and open curiosity” is … straightforwardly what the essay above recommends?
Similarly, IFS errs on the side of having strong priors on the form/structure of the parts: exiles, firefighters and managers, and on the side of doing “family therapy” with them.
For what it’s worth, my experience is that while the written materials for IFS make a somewhat big deal out of the exile/firefighter/manager thing, people trained in IFS don’t give it that much attention when actually doing it. In practice, the categories aren’t very rigid and a part can take on properties of several different categories. I’d assume that most experienced facilitators would recognize this and just focus on understanding each part “as an individual”, without worrying about which category it might happen to fit in.
I guess this is what you already say in the last paragraph, but I’d characterize it more as “the formal protocols are the simplified training wheels version of the real thing” than as “skilled facilitators stop doing the real thing described in the protocols”. (Also not all IFS protocols even make all those distinctions, e.g. “the 6 Fs” only talks about a protector that has some fear.)
A couple of years ago we developed something in this direction in Epistea that seems generally better and a little less confused, called “Internal Communication Framework”.
I won’t describe the whole technique here, but the generative idea mostly is “drop priors used in IFS or IDC, and instead lean into a metaphor of facilitating a conversation between parts from a position of kindness and open curiosity”. (Second part is getting more theoretical clarity on the whole-parts relation)
From the perspective of ICF, what seems suboptimal with the IDC algorithm described here is roughly this:
1. It doesn’t do the unblending that well (IFS is better in this); this protocol seems to mostly asks whoever is the ruling party to be fair.
2. The “doublecrux-like” form nudges/pushes parts to form 2 coalitions, forming the sides of the doublecrux. This is not a natural form for many internal disagreements.
(3. Similarly, IFS errs on the side of having strong priors on the form/structure of the parts: exiles, firefighters and managers, and on the side of doing “family therapy” with them.)
4. Both IFS and IDC seem somewhat confused/vague about the vertical relations and run e.g. the risk of empowering the parts layer at the cost of the ‘whole’.
From what I’ve seen in practice, all of these problems are often overcome by skilled facilitators who do something closer in spirit to ICF and mostly use IDC or IFS as a name for it, without really trying to follow the protocol closely.
“Instead lean into a metaphor of facilitating a conversation between parts from a position of kindness and open curiosity” is … straightforwardly what the essay above recommends?
For what it’s worth, my experience is that while the written materials for IFS make a somewhat big deal out of the exile/firefighter/manager thing, people trained in IFS don’t give it that much attention when actually doing it. In practice, the categories aren’t very rigid and a part can take on properties of several different categories. I’d assume that most experienced facilitators would recognize this and just focus on understanding each part “as an individual”, without worrying about which category it might happen to fit in.
I guess this is what you already say in the last paragraph, but I’d characterize it more as “the formal protocols are the simplified training wheels version of the real thing” than as “skilled facilitators stop doing the real thing described in the protocols”. (Also not all IFS protocols even make all those distinctions, e.g. “the 6 Fs” only talks about a protector that has some fear.)