Cross-posted to the EA Forum.
Epistemic status: Ewelina is a licensed therapist who works with CFT and ST (among others). She completed a four-year postgraduate training in CBT, and attended several CFT and ST workshops. She is currently taking part in an accredited CFT training.
The psychotherapy school Internal Family Systems (IFS) is based on the idea that our minds have multiple parts. IFS therapy focuses on enabling these parts to “communicate” with each other so that inner conflicts can be resolved and reintegration can take place. For brevity’s sake, we won’t discuss IFS in detail here. We recommend this post for an in-depth introduction.
By ‘multiple parts’ or ‘inner multiplicity’, we don’t mean to suggest that the human psyche comprises multiple conscious agents—though IFS sometimes comes close to suggesting that. By ‘parts’, we mean something like clusters of beliefs, emotions and motivations, characterized by a (somewhat) coherent voice or perspective. Many forms of self-criticism, for instance, could be described as a dominant part of oneself berating another part that feels inferior. Different parts can also get activated at different times. Most people behave and feel differently during a job interview than with their closest friends.
This idea is shared by many theorists of various schools, often using different terminology. Examples include ‘sub-personalities’ (Rowan, 1990), ‘social mentalities’ (Gilbert, 2000), and ‘selves’ (Fadiman & Gruber, 2020). Not only new-agey softies espouse this perspective. The related concept of a modular mind is shared by unsentimental evolutionary psychologists (e.g., Kurzban & Aktipis, 2007; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992).
In any case, this is a complex topic about which much more could be written. For a detailed “gears-level model” of inner multiplicity (and for why working with parts can be helpful), see Kaj Sotala’s Multiagent Models of Mind.
IFS is very popular among EAs and especially rationalists. If you were to only read LessWrong and the EA forum, you might think that there are only two therapy schools: IFS and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).
IFS has its own LessWrong Wiki entry. Searching for “internal family systems” on LessWrong yields many more results than any other therapy, besides CBT. IFS is even credited with inspiring influential CFAR techniques like Internal Double Crux. Most of Ewelina’s clients (Ewelina is a psychotherapist mostly working with EAs) know and respect IFS; few have heard of other therapy schools besides CBT, IFS or perhaps traditional psychodynamic approaches. Some EAs even believe that IFS can “revolutionize” psychotherapy.
IFS is often regarded as superior to standard psychotherapy, i.e., cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), mainly for two reasons. First, while CBT is viewed as treating the psyche as unitary, IFS acknowledges that we have multiple parts. Secondly, IFS treats all parts with empathy and understanding, even if they are irrational or problematic, which ultimately allows them to become integrated. In contrast, CBT is seen as taking the side of rational, analytical parts in order to shut down irrational emotions and thoughts which (if done incorrectly) doesn’t work and might even backfire.
Overall, we agree that these two criticisms of (many forms of) CBT are mostly accurate and that IFS can offer advantages in both areas. However, there exist several other psychotherapy schools besides IFS which i) emphasize the importance of working with one’s multiple parts (or: “parts work”) and which ii) treat these parts with empathy and understanding, rather than attempting to shut them down with force.
Making these approaches more widely known is the main reason we wrote this post. Finding a good IFS therapist can be difficult, especially in Europe. It’d thus be unfortunate if people limited themselves to IFS practitioners in the mistaken belief that this is the only way of finding therapists who skillfully work with inner multiplicity.
Another reason for writing this post is that IFS can be off-putting to some: it can give off a new-agey vibe, is somewhat disconnected from academic, evidence-based psychotherapy research, and certain concepts like the “True Self” are implausible. As long as working with inner multiplicity and IFS are viewed as one and the same, people who don’t like IFS will inevitably be skeptical of parts work. This is a pity because we believe that such work can be very helpful.
Generally, people are drawn to the aesthetics of different therapies for a variety of reasons. We hope that at least some readers benefit from the therapy approaches described below. Note that we picked the three approaches we like and studied the most; this is not an exhaustive list of all therapy schools working with inner multiplicity.
Developed by Paul Gilbert, compassion-focused therapy (CFT) views the human mind through an evolutionary lens, as being formed of multiple, often conflicting, emotional, motivational, and cognitive systems. CFT groups these systems into three different clusters, depending on their primary evolutionary function: i) threat/protection, and ii) drive/seeking/acquisition, both associated with the sympathetic nervous system, and iii) rest/soothing/attachment, associated with the parasympathetic nervous system (Bell et al., 2021).
One important goal of CFT is to balance these three systems, usually by strengthening the rest/soothing/attachment system. Spending too much time in the threat system (e.g., ruminating, feeling anxious) or the drive system (e.g., working hard), and not enough time in the rest/soothing/attachment system seems to contribute to exhaustion and fatigue (e.g., Maslach et al., 2001, p. 411; Russell, 2015, ch. 5). Overstimulation of the threat or drive system can also make one feel threatened or rushed, which makes it difficult to feel empathy, think creatively, act rationally or make good judgments.
CFT focuses on developing a thorough understanding of our brain’s evolutionary origins and how they have made us vulnerable to (self-)destructive behaviors, thoughts and emotions. CFT emphasizes that they are not our fault. We didn’t choose to design our minds such that they regularly feel jealousy or envy, for instance. It thus makes little sense to feel shame, guilt and criticize ourselves for parts of our mind we didn’t create in the first place (Bell et al., 2020; Kolts, 2016). Instead, we want to cultivate (self-)compassion.
This attitude makes it easier to acknowledge and clearly see our “dark sides”, rather than engage in self-deception and rationalize our actions by invoking purely benevolent motives, even to ourselves. According to CFT, we have a responsibility to carefully examine our real motives and strengthen our compassionate and prosocial inclinations.
CFT utilizes insights and techniques from a wide variety of disciplines and therapy schools. Working with one’s multiple parts plays a central role in CFT. To this end, chairwork in its numerous forms, described in more detail below, is used frequently, but whiteboard exercises can be incorporated as well (Bell et al., 2020; 2021).
CFT expands on ‘parts work’ by introducing the notion of a ‘compassionate self’ which is developed and cultivated via various techniques throughout therapy. This ‘compassionate self’ is “used as a ‘secure’ base from which to engage with, and integrate, various other parts [...] that can become segregated and disowned” (Bell et al., 2020, p. 2).
In addition, CFT employs standard cognitive behavioral techniques, more emotions-focused techniques (e.g., expressive letter writing), as well as “meditational practices, guided imagery, body-focused exercises, and method-acting techniques” (Bell et al., 2021), to name just a subset.
CFT emphasizes the evolutionary origins of our minds more than probably any other psychotherapy school. Consequently, CFT has a less panglossian view of human nature, especially compared to therapy schools emerging from humanistic psychology. (After all, natural selection is all about maximizing inclusive genetic fitness, not benevolence.) Likewise, CFT views many of our unhelpful tendencies and problems as at least partly resulting from our evolutionary past. In contrast, most other therapies see mental health problems as almost exclusively arising from distressing experiences in our lives and (early) development, at least in practice.
If the above doesn’t sound too dark or otherwise mistaken, and you like evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and are not allergic to secular Buddhism, CFT might be for you. CFT also places great importance on compassion and helping others, which plausibly makes it a good fit for effective altruists. CFT appears to be helpful in alleviating various mental health problems (e.g., Craig et al., 2020) but might be especially effective if you struggle with guilt, shame, and/or self-criticism (Leaviss & Uttley, 2015).
If you want to read more on CFT, we recommend the overview paper by Gilbert (2019). See Gilbert & Simos (2022) for a more in-depth resource, aimed at clinicians.
Schema therapy (ST) was developed by Jeffrey Young in the 1980s. According to schema therapy, we all share certain needs, such as the need for safety, competence, or belonging. If certain needs are not met, corresponding maladaptive schemas are at risk of developing. Maladaptive schemas are pervasive patterns of thought and emotion regarding oneself and others, causing substantial distress, and are usually developed early in life (Young et al., 2003).
For example, early experiences with perfectionistic and demanding parents, peers, or teachers whose affection is mostly conditional on achieving high performance might give rise to the ‘unrelenting standards’ schema, characterized by deriving one’s self-worth from meeting overly demanding standards which can result in a sense of inadequacy, frequent feelings of stress and time pressure, difficulty relaxing, being competitive and overly critical of oneself and others.
Schema therapists distinguish between more than a dozen distinct types of maladaptive schemas. See Rafaeli et al. (2011, p. 19 to 28) for a full list. (In our view, any such list is somewhat arbitrary.)
In schema therapy, one's parts or selves are called ‘modes’. “Modes refer to the predominant emotional state, schemas, and coping reactions that are active for an individual at a particular time.” (Rafaeli et al., 2011, p. 47). Modes are transient states, in contrast to schemas, which are stable traits.
There are four types of modes: child modes, coping modes, dysfunctional parent modes, and the healthy adult mode. Note that these are just broad categories. How these modes manifest exactly can be very different for each person. Schema therapists often encourage their clients to come up with their own names for their own unique constellation of modes.
Child modes include the vulnerable, angry, impulsive and happy child (more on this below). The vulnerable child mode can be seen as the “wounded core” of a person (Rafaeli et al., 2011) and is particularly important. In this mode, one feels sad, frightened, and helpless.
By default, people try to avoid experiencing overly distressing emotions, such as the inherent vulnerability of the vulnerable child mode, by engaging in, usually maladaptive, coping behaviors. When doing so, we usually inhabit three different types of coping styles—surrender, avoidance, or overcompensation—corresponding to the freeze, flight and fight response, respectively. Surrender may take the form of submissive compliance, avoidance usually involves detachment or distraction, and overcompensation may entail self-aggrandizement or perfectionistic striving. Coping modes often have been adaptive in the past but usually tend to become inflexible and maladaptive.
Dysfunctional parent modes take the form of inner critics that denigrate or belittle one when not meeting almost impossible standards. They can originate from having internalized criticism, punishment or abuse by one’s parents, peers, or other role models—including of society at large (the term ‘parent mode’ can therefore be misleading.) These modes’ voices can be cruel and leave one feeling worthless and useless.
A core aim of schema therapy is to empower two adaptive modes: The Healthy Adult and the Happy Child mode. One inhabits the Healthy Adult mode when one feels confident, capable, balanced, and compassionate. Its functions include meeting needs and responsibilities, and handling conflicts between different parts. In the Happy Child mode, one feels care-free, curious and joyful. Regularly inhabiting this mode is relaxing and restorative.
In schema therapy, like in CFT, chairwork (explained below) in its various forms is used frequently to work with one’s multiple parts, aka modes.
For those interested, this section in the appendix describes in more detail how schema therapy works in practice, as well as its similarities with IFS and coherence therapy.
Compared to CFT and IFS, schema therapy is arguably most similar to traditional CBT. In fact, Young developed schema therapy in collaboration with Aaron Beck, the father of CBT (Rafaeli et al., 2014). But schema therapy also has much in common with psychoanalytic approaches—e.g., its comparative emphasis on childhood experiences—and attachment theory. If you are put off by that, Schema therapy might not be for you. Schema therapy is well-established within academia and supported by a larger amount of empirical evidence (e.g., Masley et al., 2012), at least compared to IFS and, to a lesser extent, compassion-focused therapy (cf. the section on CFT).
If you want to learn more, Rafaeli et al. (2014) provides a short overview on how schema therapy works with modes. See Arntz & Jacob (2017) for a book-length treatment (aimed at clinicians).
Chairwork is not a therapy school but a technique that works with one’s multiple parts. It was chairwork that introduced Richard Schwartz, the founder of IFS, to the idea of having “inner conversations” with one’s multiple parts (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2019).
There are many forms of chairwork (Pugh, 2019, ch. 3-5). In multi-chair techniques, the client is asked to sit in and speak from two or more chairs representing different parts, to allow these parts to communicate with each other. In chair one the client might speak as her internal critic, in chair two as her vulnerable side, and in chair three as her “wise and rational part”. In the empty-chair technique, the client speaks to a part of herself (e.g., her inner critic) imagined sitting in an empty chair.
The term “chairwork” is potentially misleading because there is nothing magical about chairs. Instead of an empty chair, for instance, you could use a puppet or a drawing. The essential ingredients of “chairwork” are not chairs, but rather i) self-multiplicity, ii) personification and embodiment, iii) and dialogue (Pugh, 2018, 2019). A more descriptive name might be “animating and disentangling one’s multiple self-aspects via personification or embodiment, thereby stimulating their interaction, enabling internal dialogue and transforming conflict into integration”-technique though that admittedly doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as smoothly.
Like with most specific psychotherapy interventions, there is limited research on the effectiveness of chair work. However, there is preliminary evidence that chairwork decreases mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, and self-criticism as, or possibly more, effectively than other conventional techniques. (e.g.; Stiegler et al., 2017; de Oliveira et al., 2012; Shahar et al., 2012). For an overview, see Pugh (2017, p. 13-18).
Several modern schools have incorporated chairwork as a therapeutic technique (e.g., Kellog, 2012; Pugh, 2019, ch. 2). However, most “standard” CBT therapists rarely use chairwork in their practice (Pugh et al., 2021). Therefore, if you are particularly interested in “parts work”, going to a standard CBT therapist is probably not the best option. As mentioned, Chairwork is especially common in compassion-focused and schema therapy.
Since the ~1980s, working with inner multiplicity has become increasingly common among many therapy approaches. Prominent examples include Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) which distinguishes emotional, rational, and wise mindsets (Linehan, 2014, ch. 7), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which recognises three dimensions of the self: the conceptualized self, the knowing self, and the observing self (Zettle, 2016), Voice Dialogue Therapy (1970s) which describes multiple selves as ”discrete units of consciousness and ways of being, which possesses a will, emotional spectrum and worldview of its own” (Berchik, Rock, Friedman, 2016), and Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) which also emphasizes working with inner multiplicity; a guiding principle of one of MBCT’s founders, John Teasdale, was: “We don’t have one mind, but many” (Teasdale, 1997).
We thank Amber Dawn, Kaj Sotala, and Damon Pourtahmaseb-Sasi for helpful comments.
Rafaeli et al. (2014, emphasis ours) describes some important principles of working with modes, much of which seems reminiscent of “parts work” in IFS (note that there is more to Schema therapy than mode work even though mode work is quite essential):
In collaboration with the client, the therapist labels [various] modes, explores their origin, and links them to current problems. [...] A unique aspect of ST is its emphasis on deliberately inviting or activating all of a client’s modes, including the maladaptive ones, in session. Schema therapists seek to give voice to various modes, to differentiate them, and to use experiential techniques to set up deliberate interactions between these normally dissociated self-states. This “hot” emotional activation of the client’s neural and cognitive circuitry is seen as essential for affecting change for deeply rooted, long-standing problems.
Noticeably, Rafaeli et al. (2014) explicitly describe similarities between ST and structural (family) therapy:
We use the metaphor of structural therapy here, as it emphasizes the idea that in ST, we view the person as a system, comprising multiple and mutually interacting modes. Our aim is to change the way these parts work together. In broad terms, this requires three key processes: clarifying what the modes are; giving voice to adaptive and vulnerable modes; and creating adaptive boundaries between the modes. One technique often used in ST to facilitate all three of these processes is chairwork (Kellogg, 2004), and in particular, two-chair dialogues [...] but ST mode work may at times involve three, four, or even more chairs.
The following dynamic described by Rafaeli et al. (2014) parallels IFS explanations of how “exiles” (corresponding to child modes) can be suppressed by “firefighters” or “protectors” (corresponding to coping modes):
Among many clients, even those with ample reasons for hurt or angry feelings, the Vulnerable and Angry Child modes often sound very muffled or cannot be heard at all. These modes hold most of the client’s distress and negative affect, but are often buffered or obscured by coping modes, or overpowered by internalized parental modes.
Interestingly enough, some prominent coping modes in schema therapy have names like “Detached Protector” or “Avoidant Protector”.
Schema therapy’s approach to healing the vulnerable child mode also seems similar to how IFS (or coherence therapy) approach “healing” exiles and traumatic memories, respectively. All three approaches posit that one needs to stop pushing traumatic memories / our vulnerabilities away and in fact experience and activate distressing memories first, then nurture and sooth them/present them with disconfirming evidence in a compassionate manner, in order to integrate/reconsolidate them.
From Rafaeli et al. (2014, emphasis ours):
The [vulnerable child] mode [...] can often be triggered in an adult’s life. “Triggers” are situations that bear varying degrees of similarity to the originating experience (e.g., aversive or ambiguous interpersonal interactions). When these situations occur, clients essentially reexperience an earlier trauma [...and] concomitant distress (e.g., fear, shame, loneliness). Typically, the client is not aware that the distress is linked to earlier experiences [...] ST aims to help clients make their VC mode present and visible, allow it to receive care (at first, from the therapists themselves), and, over time, learn how to internalize and generalize this care. This process, in which therapists identify and partially gratify the unmet needs of the VC, is the central therapeutic stance within ST, and is referred to as limited Reparenting.
Importantly, the nurturance of the Vulnerable Child mode, and the access to the mode that it requires, are often quite difficult to achieve. The experiences of vulnerability and distress that are inherent to this mode are painful and patients often expend great effort to avoid or combat the mode. Most commonly, the patient would engage in some coping behaviors to escape the mode. Ironically, these maladaptive coping efforts and reactions only increase and prolong the distress. The schema therapist's role is to gently encourage the patient to accept, and participate in, a counterintuitive process of recognizing and experiencing the vulnerability rather than pushing it away. If the vulnerability is kept hidden or obscured, no such process can take place [...]. If it is allowed to come to the surface, the slow process of addressing it can occur.
Arntz, A., & Jacob, G. (2017). Schema therapy in practice: An introductory guide to the schema mode approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Bell, T., Montague, J., Elander, J., & Gilbert, P. (2020). “Suddenly you are King Solomon”: Multiplicity, transformation and integration in compassion focused therapy chairwork. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration.
Bell, T., Montague, J., Elander, J., & Gilbert, P. (2021). Multiple emotions, multiple selves: compassion focused therapy chairwork. the Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 14.
Berchik, Z. E., Rock, A. J., & Friedman, H. (2016). Allow me to introduce my selves: An introduction to and phenomenological study of voice dialogue therapy. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 48(1).
Craig, C., Hiskey, S., & Spector, A. (2020). Compassion focused therapy: a systematic review of its effectiveness and acceptability in clinical populations. Expert review of neurotherapeutics, 20(4), 385-400.
de Oliveira, I. R., Hemmany, C., Powell, V. B., Bonfim, T. D., Duran, É. P., Novais, N., ... & Cesnik, J. A. (2012). Trial-based psychotherapy and the efficacy of trial-based thought record in changing unhelpful core beliefs and reducing self-criticism. CNS spectrums, 17(1), 16-23.
Dimaggio, G., & Stiles, W. B. (2007). Psychotherapy in light of internal multiplicity. Journal of clinical psychology, 63(2), 119-127.
Gilbert, P. (2000). Internal ‘social’conflict and the role of inner warmth and compassion in cognitive therapy. Genes on the couch: Explorations in evolutionary psychotherapy, 118-150.
Gilbert, P. (2005). Social mentalities: A biopsychosocial and evolutionary reflection on social relationships. In M. Baldwin (Ed.), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 299–333). New York, NY: Guilford.
Gilbert, P. (2010). Compassion focused therapy: Distinctive features. Routledge.
Gilbert, P. (2014). The origins and nature of compassion focused therapy. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(1), 6–41.
Gilbert, P. (2019). Psychotherapy for the 21st century: An integrative, evolutionary, contextual, biopsychosocial approach. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 92(2), 164-189.
Gilbert, P., & Simos, G. (2022). Compassion Focused Therapy: Clinical Practice and Applications. Routledge.
Kellogg, S. (2012). Using chairwork dialogues in schema therapy. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of schema therapy: Theory, research, and practice, 197-207.
Kolts, R. L. (2016). CFT made simple: A clinician's guide to practicing compassion-focused therapy. New Harbinger Publications.
Kurzban, R., & Athena Aktipis, C. (2007). Modularity and the social mind: Are psychologists too self-ish?. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 131-149.
Leaviss, J., & Uttley, L. (2015). Psychotherapeutic benefits of compassion-focused therapy: An early systematic review. Psychological medicine, 45(5), 927-945.
Linehan, M. (2014). DBT Skills training manual. Guilford Publications.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 397-422.
Masley, S. A., Gillanders, D. T., Simpson, S. G., & Taylor, M. A. (2012). A systematic review of the evidence base for schema therapy. Cognitive behaviour therapy, 41(3), 185-202.
Pugh, M., Bell, T., Waller, G., & Petrova, E. (2021). Attitudes and applications of chairwork amongst CBT therapists: a preliminary survey. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 14.
Pugh, M. (2017). Chairwork in cognitive behavioural therapy: A narrative review. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 41(1), 16-30.
Pugh, M. (2018). Cognitive behavioural chairwork. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 11, 100–116.
Pugh, M. (2019). Cognitive behavioural chairwork: Distinctive features. Routledge.
Rafaeli, E., Bernstein, D. P., & Young, J. (2011). Schema therapy: Distinctive features. New York: Routledge.
Rafaeli, E., Maurer, O., & Thoma, N. C. (2014). Working with modes in schema therapy. Working with emotion in cognitive behavioral therapy: Techniques for clinical practice, 263-287.
Rowan, J. (1990). Subpersonalities: The people inside us. London: Routledge.
Russell, B. (2015). The conquest of happiness. Routledge.
Schwartz, R. C., & Sweezy, M. (2019). Internal family systems therapy. Guilford Publications.
Shahar, B., Carlin, E. R., Engle, D. E., Hegde, J., Szepsenwol, O., & Arkowitz, H. (2012). A pilot investigation of emotion-focused two-chair dialogue intervention for self-criticism. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 19(6), 496-507.
Stiegler, J., Molde, H., and Schanche, E. (2017). Does an emotion-focused two-chair dialogue add to the therapeutic effect of the empathic attunement to affect? Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 25, 86-95.
Teasdale, J. D. (1997). The relationship between cognition and emotion: The mind-in-place in mood disorders. In D. M. Clark & C. G. Fairburn (Eds.), Science and practice of cognitive behaviour therapy (pp. 67–94). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). Oxford University Press.
Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford Press.
Zettle, R. D. (2016). The self in acceptance and commitment therapy. The Self in Understanding and Treating Psychological Disorders. (Section 2, ch. 6). Cambridge University Press.
Generally, people differ in the degree to which they experience such inner multiplicity. On the one end of the spectrum, there might be people who almost never experience psychic multiplicity, on the other end you could have people with full-blown dissociative identity disorder.
See Dimaggio & Stiles (2007) for a non-comprehensive overview.
One example out of many is Psychotherapy in Light of Internal Multiplicity, in which Dimaggio & Stiles (2007) argue that it’s crucial to treat one’s different parts with empathy and understanding: “As respect and empathy are offered to each voice individually, conflicting internal voices can hear and begin to understand each other, a crucial step toward developing internal meaning bridges. [...] Accurate empathy can thus be understood as facilitating conversation and hence mutual understanding among the client’s internal voices.”
See Gilbert (2014) for more details about the origins and nature of compassion focused therapy.
The paper by Maslach et al. (2001) is about burnout. But exhaustion is one of the core symptoms of burnout.
As an aside, many individuals seem to have the impression that such feelings of exhaustion and fatigue have exclusively non-psychological origins. At least this has been the case for David and several of Ewelina’ clients. Of course, exhaustion and fatigue can have non-psychological origins. In fact, they are, as most things, often the result of a combination of mutually reinforcing factors. Last, it’s not always easy to neatly separate psychological and physiological factors. For example, psychological factors can alter the function of one’s immune system, and sickness can change one’s mood and cognition.
Of course, some amount of guilt or shame can be adaptive and might help to prevent us from committing immoral actions. E.g., feeling ashamed of murderous thoughts helps to keep such impulses in check. Stalin, for instance, could have certainly benefited from feeling more guilt. (See also the next footnote.) But overall, most people who seek therapy because of depression, anxiety and self-criticism probably experience too much guilt and shame, for their own good and that of the world at large. (Thanks to Kaj Sotala for raising this point.)
A complete inability to admit to anything less than purely benevolent motives is probably most common among narcissists. It’s certainly possible that some of the most malevolent individuals in history actually believed that they were perfectly altruistic heros.
See also this quote by Gilbert (2010, ch. 4): “[..] we are not an integrated coherent whole self, but are rather made up of a variety of motives and competencies that combine and interact in complex ways. [...] This turns us to the question of [...] what enables us to open up and explore new potentials within us and integrate them into our sense of self [...]. One answer is compassion, because compassion creates conditions that facilitate openness, caring, safeness and integration.”
The 'compassionate self' could be viewed as a parent providing a secure base for a child’s development (cf. attachment theory). Bell et al. (2020, p. 2) continue: “[...T]he use of compassion to create a sense of safeness and a capacity for inner exploration and coordination links closely to the role of attachment in creating the neurobiological and emotional context for mentalization, mental integration and pro-sociality [...]”.
Of course, people differ in the strength of certain needs.
We like this quote by Rafaeli et al. (2011, p. 17): “Schemas are cognitive-affective traits, and as such, are dimensional: each exists on a continuum ranging in severity and pervasiveness.”
Pugh (2019, ch. 8) lists several more reasons for the effectiveness of such dialogue: “Firstly, ‘speaking to’ one’s distressing thoughts and feelings is considerably more evocative than merely ‘speaking about’ these experiences, thus enabling more productive cognitive-affective modification [...]. Secondly, speaking from the perspective of self-parts promotes ownership of these experiences: when individuals enact distressing intrapersonal events through chairwork (e.g. self-criticism), they recognise these processes are said and done to oneself (e.g. self-to-self-criticism) [...]. Thirdly, speaking from the perspective of dysfunctional thoughts and feelings allows therapists to assess both the content and the tone of these experiences. In doing so, parallels with other (external) voices are established (Therapist: “Did speaking as your inner critic remind you of anyone in your life?”). Finally, dialogue by its very nature assumes a plurality of perspectives (Perls, 1969), thus challenging singular explanations and responses to events (Therapist: “Although you believe this negative thought a great deal, does any part of you view this situation differently? Can you change seats and speak from that perspective?”).”
Similarly, Dimaggio & Stiles (2007) write: “Problems seem to arise not because the self has many parts but because communication between the parts is poor. [...] when there is no dialogue of the various parts of the self, behavior may seem incoherent. Individuals may swing between anger aimed at getting their way, guilt feelings at the idea of harming others, and the idea of not deserving anything. As the positions shift, their actions also change, with the result that none of them is pursued long enough to be effective.”
In the 1980s, various CBT-related psychotherapy schools emerged, often referred to as the “third wave” of cognitive therapy. These approaches tend to share two core principles: i) the importance of non-judgmental acceptance and metacognitive awareness (being aware of one’s thoughts and emotions and learning to accept them while not “getting lost” in them) and ii) a growing emphasis on (various forms of) inner multiplicity. (Cf. Pugh, 2019, ch. 2).
You are right that other therapies do recognize multiple parts in various ways. From studying and using all of the above my conclusion is that IFS offers the most tractable approach to this issue of competing 'parts'. And in many ways the most powerful. When you read about modern therapies, they all borrow from one another in a way that did not occur say 50 years ago where there were very entrenched schools of thought.General comment:There was a post in this thread claiming therapies are useless. This seems ironic as IMHO there are now available powerful and life changing therapies that simply were not well known 20+ years ago.Quite often I run into people with trauma and other issues who gave up on therapies years ago and who do not realize that the game has changed.Examples: CFTIFSThe various memory reconsolidation techniques (EMDR, see also the book "Unlocking the emotional brain"). Holotropic Breathwork (inb4 woo woo)Reparenting therapy for lack of secure attachment.One thing that I think is neglected is the power of stacking therapies. As one example I achieved a huge breakthrough by doing IFS during a Holotropic Breathwork session. This led to a cascade of breakthroughs to the point where I now seem to be - to my complete surprise - basically trauma free.
From studying and using all of the above my conclusion is that IFS offers the most tractable approach to this issue of competing 'parts'. And in many ways the most powerful.
In our experience, different people respond to different therapies. I know several people for whom, say, CFT worked better than IFS. Glad to hear that IFS worked for you!
When you read about modern therapies, they all borrow from one another in a way that did not occur say 50 years ago where there were very entrenched schools of thought.
Yes, that's definitely the case. My sense is that many people overestimate how revolutionary various therapies are because their founders downplay how many concepts and techniques they took from other modalities. (Though this can be advantageous because the "hype" increases motivation and probably fuels various self-fulfilling prophecies.)
By ‘multiple parts’ or ‘inner multiplicity’, we don’t mean to suggest that the human psyche comprises multiple conscious agents
Disappointingly, that leaves out those on the more severe end of the CPTSD spectrum. But maybe it works for milder cases, those whose childhood trauma didn't leave their psyche in pieces.
compassion-focused therapy (CFT) views the human mind through an evolutionary lens, as being formed of multiple, often conflicting, emotional, motivational, and cognitive systems. CFT groups these systems into three different clusters, depending on their primary evolutionary function: i) threat/protection, and ii) drive/seeking/acquisition, both associated with the sympathetic nervous system, and iii) rest/soothing/attachment, associated with the parasympathetic nervous system
That does make sense as a model, or one of many, potentially with some explanatory and predictive powers, though therapy is not really a science, so one can't ask for too much.
A quick look through https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/compassion-focused-therapy gives an impression of yet another mix of CBT, DBT and ACT, nothing revolutionary or especially new, though maybe I missed something.
Likewise, CFT views many of our unhelpful tendencies and problems as at least partly resulting from our evolutionary past. In contrast, most other therapies see mental health problems as almost exclusively arising from distressing experiences in our lives and (early) development, at least in practice.
Is this assertion borne out by twin studies? Or is believing it a test for CFT suitability only?
I must say that most of this post sounds like an example from https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/20/book-review-all-therapy-books/ though maybe I missed something.
By the way, one of the more promising "therapies" I came across recently is some form of Accelerated Resolution Therapy, where the logical part of the brain is less engaged than in other therapies, and the subconscious part is involved much more.
In my experience, ~nothing in this area is downright revolutionary. Most therapies are heavily influenced by previous concepts and techniques. (Personally, I'd still say that CFT brings something new to the table.)I guess what matters if it works for you or not.
To some extent. Most human traits have a genetic component, including (Big-Five) personality traits, depressive tendencies, anxiety disorders, conduct disorders, personality disorders, and so on. (e.g., Polderman et al., 2015). This is also true for (self-)destructive tendencies like malevolent personality traits (citing my own summary of some studies here because I'm lazy, sorry).(Also agree with Kaj's warning about misinterpreting heritability.)More generally speaking, I'd say this belief is borne out of understanding evolutionary psychology/history. Basically, all of our motivations and fears have an evolutionary basis. We fear death, because the ancestors who didn't were eaten by lions. We fear being ostracized and care about being respected because in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness our survival and reproductive success was dependent on our social status. Therefore, it's to be expected that most humans, at some point or another, worry about death or health problems or feel emotions like jealousy or envy. They don't have to be rooted in some trauma or early life experience—though they are usually exacerbated by them. In most cases, it's not realistic to eliminate such emotions entirely. This doesn't mean that one is an "abnormal" or "defective" person that experienced irreversible harm inflicted by another human sometime in one's development. (Just to be clear, as mentioned in the main text, no one believes that life experiences don't matter. Of course, they matter a great deal!)But yeah, if you are skeptical of the above, it's a good reason to not seek a CFT therapist.
When presenting a concept to an audience that is not aware of the concept it's easy to explain it in terms that the reader likely understands. Aspects that are hard to explain get usually explained during the actual training of a method and not in summary descriptions of it.
Is this assertion borne out by twin studies?
How would you test it with twin studies?
Well, the usual nurture vs nature? Which "unhelpful tendencies and problems" occur in both twins with radically different upbringing and which do not?
Which "unhelpful tendencies and problems" occur in both twins with radically different upbringing and which do not?
That doesn't distinguish between e.g. unhelpful tendencies that occur due to genes that all humans share vs. unhelpful tendencies that occur due to living in an industrialized society.
In general, twin studies only tell you what proportion of the variance in a trait is genetic in a given society. But you can't use that information to determine whether the trait is evolved vs. cultural; that's not the question that the studies are asking. E.g. in a society that had a custom of lobotomizing all red-haired people, "being lobotomized" would be an entirely hereditary trait (since hair color is genetically determined) that turned up in twins with radically different upbringing, even though it was an entirely cultural practice. (More examples here, here and here.)
Yeah, I get that shared cultural aspects (including prenatal) are hard to tell from inherited. In this particular case of someone seeking therapy for a specific issue that troubles them, I would expect that the situation can be uncommon enough to stand out in twin studies if the cause is genetic. I am no expert though.
It's not just hard in practice, it's a question that the studies are theoretically incapable of answering.
I think therapy is one of the defining superstitions of our era. Even in communities where people are over the target on most issues, this one always seems to slip through.
I would be surprised if any kind of therapy is more effective than placebo, even the "academic, evidence-based psychotherapy research."
One of the author of this post is actually a psychotherapeut working precisely in this domain. Who said there is a clear conflict of interest here?
This is mentioned in the introduction. I'm biased, of course, but it seems fine to write a post like this. (Similarly, it's fine for CFAR staff members to write a post about CFAR techniques. In fact, I prefer if precisely these people write such posts because they have the relevant expertise.)Would you like us to add a more prominent disclaimer somewhere? (We worried that this might look like advertising.)
The post speaks about Ewelina's experience in the third person which is untypical for LessWrong posts and quite a bit into the text. I guess that in many cases a reader would not remember at this point that she's the author of the article.
A good portion of LessWrong posts start with an "epistemic status" paragraph in which information such as "Ewelina Tur is trained in therapy X" could be presented. Whether or not she's formally trained in CFT and schema therapy is useful information when reading her presentation of it. She is unlikely to misrepresent therapies for which she has formal training while at the same time maybe exaggerating their benefits.
While I don't think it makes sense to focus on this as an issue of conflict of interest, having epistemic legibility is always good.
Good idea, thanks. We added such an ‘epistemic status’ paragraph.