Moni Chandy (6:03)

Hey everyone, I'm Moni Chandy, one of the editors on the 10% happier substack. For my staff pick, I wanted to highlight a conversation Dan had recently with Dr. Richard Schwartz, the creator of Internal Family Systems Therapy. This episode hit home for me. Like a lot of people, I can be incredibly hard on myself when I screw up, especially when I don't live up to my own standards. There's a part of me that tries to keep everything under control. I get things just right, and when I fall short, another part shows up as an inner critic, saying harsh things to myself I never dream of saying to a friend. Or sometimes it's distractionscrolling TikTok, shopping online for things I don't need. Whatever. What I love about Dr. Schwartz's take is that it doesn't label parts of us as bad or broken. Even my inner critic, or the part that numbs out with shopping or doom scrolling, is genuinely trying to help me get my needs met. Living with all these parts of myself, often with conflicting ideas of what's best for me and how to achieve this, reminds me of the Walt Whitman line, I am large. I contain multitudes. This episode helped me to see those parts not as problems to fix, but as voices worth listening to. When I notice a part has taken over, I often ask myself, what is this part trying to accomplish? Or what does this part need right now? Dr. Schwartz's approach helps me remember that we're all usually just trying to do the best we can with the imperfect tools we've developed. This way of thinking has made me a little kinder, both to myself and to others. I hope it does the same for you.

Dan Harris (7:40)

Thanks so Much, Moni. All right, so now let's hear the part of the interview with Richard Schwartz where he explains the basics of ifs or internal family systems. I thought maybe it would make sense to start with a refresher on ifs internal family systems. Let me hand you the mic, and you can just walk us through the basics of it.

Dick Schwartz (8:01)

Okay, so there's a couple big pieces to it. So one, in contrast to the most common way of understanding the mind, which is to think of it as unitary, I believe it's the natural state of the mind to be multiple, and that people with that diagnosis of multiple personality are no different from anybody else, except that their system got blown apart more by the horrific trauma they suffered. But the idea that we all have these little inner beings, these little inner personalities is, for me, a natural state of the mind, and that they also, before they're hurt or when they're not hurt, they're incredibly valuable. Each of them are there for a good reason. They have talents and resources to help us in our lives. But that trauma, and what's called attachment injuries, which is basically bad parenting, and all the things we suffer, especially when we're kids, force them out of their naturally valuable states into roles that can be quite destructive in our lives and freeze them in time. So that many of these parts, you know, if I were to have you ask a part of you, like a critic or something, how old it thought you were, most people get a single digit, they still think you're five or six, and they still have to protect you in the way they did back then. So they get frozen in time and they take in what I call burdens, which are the extreme beliefs and emotions that came into you during the trauma and then graft onto them and then drive the way they operate like a virus might. So that's the state of most of our parts, at least the ones that I tend to work with. Because I'm a therapist, I'm trying to help people with the parts that are getting in their way. So the other couple pieces of this, because I come from a family therapy background, I had two advantages. One is I didn't know anything about intrapsychic work, psychoanalysis, or any of that. So when clients started talking about this back in the early 80s, these parts, I really just had to listen and try to understand what they were saying rather than impose a theory on them. And the second advantage I had is from family therapy. I was a systems thinker. So in families, we would track the interactions of family members with each other. And then try to make a map of who's allied to whom and who's polarized with whom. And you can do that. And with that map, then we would know where to go to try and intervene. So I began doing that with these parts. I wasn't interested in each one individually, but how do they relate to each other as a system? And a map I came up with, ultimately, which is held up as this very useful map over these 40 years, is that there are these. You know, other systems would call them inner children. These young, vulnerable parts of us who are very sensitive, but also when they're not hurt, are playful and joyful and creative and loving. And we love them because they're our most precious qualities a lot of the time. But they're the ones, because they're most sensitive that get hurt the most. And so they take on the burden of terror from some trauma, or the burden of worthlessness and shame, or the burden of emotional pain. And then once they carry that and they're stuck in those scenes, we don't want to be around them anymore. Because they have the power to overwhelm us with those feelings and pull us back into those scenes. And so we have almost natural instinct to lock those parts away. And our culture tells us to do that. This is a just move on, don't look back kind of culture. So we try to move on from the memories and the emotions of the trauma, but not realizing that we're also moving away from the parts of us that were hurt the most. So we call those exiles. When you do that, not only do those parts get hurt because you've abandoned them, but you lose contact with those wonderful qualities they carry. And so most of us growing up in this culture have a bunch of exiles. And when you have a bunch of those kind of raw, vulnerable parts, you feel more delicate because so many things could trigger that. And the world seems more dangerous because so many things could trigger it. And so other parts are forced out of their naturally valuable states to become protectors. Some of them are trying to protect you by managing your life so that your exiles don't get triggered. So they'll manage your relationships so no one gets close enough to hurt you again. Or they'll try to make you look perfect so no one rejects you. Or they'll try to make you achieve at a high level to counter the worthlessness, make you take care of everybody so that they depend on you. They don't leave you, don't let you take care of yourself. So these are just some of the Common what I call manager, protector roles that otherwise people call the ego, basically. But they have in common the desire to keep you safe and in control and to please people, and mainly so that you can not get triggered. But these exiles don't burst out with their flames of raw emotion. Now doesn't always work. And the world has a way of breaking through those defenses and triggering your exiles. And when that happens, that's a big emergency because it feels like these raw flames of emotion are going to take you out. And for many of the people I work with, they do. You know, when you get really triggered, you can't function. And some people are in bed for a week and so on. So it's all very real. So there are other parts who are kind of on standby, waiting to deal with this explosion of flames of emotion by either getting you higher than those flames or dousing them with some substance or distracting you until they burn themselves out. So we call those firefighters. So that's the map. It's pretty simple. Exiles and then two different kinds of protectors. One, the managers who are trying to preempt anything that might trigger the exiles, and then the firefighters who react after the fact after an exile has been triggered. And in contrast to the managers who are careful and try to keep you in control and please people, these firefighters don't care about the consequences to your body, to your relationships. They just got to get you away from those feelings right now, no matter what it takes. And so there's built in polarizations inside of us also between the part that when you feel that wants to get you drunk, and then the part that attacks you for being a drunk and so on. That's the map of the parts. But actually, the big deal about ifs and I, I think this is very related to your work, is that in addition to these parts, there's a kind of essence in people that I call the self with a capital S. And I just stumbled onto that discovery back in the day, you know, wait, a long time ago, because as a family therapist, once I got hip to the fact these parts weren't what they seemed and they needed to be listened to rather than fought with. I would try to get clients to do that. So maybe I'm having you try to get to know your critic and get curious about it rather than hate it. And you're doing that, and you're listening to the critic and it's telling you about how it's trying to protect you by running down your confidence so you don't take risks or by pushing you to achieve more or so there's always a positive intention, even though often it backfires. So I'm trying to get you to listen and even extend some appreciation to this part that you've hated. And then suddenly the part that hates it has jumped in and is doing the talking. And so things go south. And it reminded me of family sessions where I'm trying to have two family members talk to each other and a third member comes in and sides with one against the other, and it goes south. And I began asking clients, could you find the part that hates the critic or afraid of it, or whatever part you're working with that's got an attitude of God? And could you ask that one to give us the space to just get to know this one we're trying to work with? And to my amazement, when these other parts would separate, it was like some other person popped out and would do the talking and had these qualities that were really useful, like was calm, where seconds earlier they were really agitated or had confidence relative to the part, or were just purely curious about it, and also often would suddenly become compassionate toward it. And in that state, whatever part, the critic, let's say, would drop its guard and would really respond well. And then the client would basically take over the session and would know how to relate in a healing way to this part. And when I would do that with other clients, it was like the same person would pop out with those same C word qualities. Calm, confident, compassion, curiosity, but also would be clear, the image would change or would be courageous, and could go to places that couldn't before, or would be creative in how they related to the part or feel connected to it. And when I would ask people, what part of you is that? That's great, let's keep that around. They'd say, some version of that's not a part like these others. That's my self. So that's why I came to call that the self with a capital s. And now, 40 years later, we can safely say that that self is in everybody, can't be damaged, knows how to heal, and is just beneath the surface of these parts, such that when they open space, it pops out spontaneously. And so that's the big deal about ifs. That's what I'm trying to bring. So the culture is this kind of different understanding of human beings and the mind that is much more uplifting.

Dan Harris (18:40)

Actually, you said a lot there, so I'm going to try to sum it up. Although it's a lot to sum up, but essentially the Ifs model says. I think it's intuitive, really. We all have these different modes, these different aspects of our personality. Angry, jealous, happy, creative, ashamed, whatever. And you refer to these as parts. Sometimes these parts get inflamed, exacerbated through the trauma of our lives, and we try to compartmentalize or shut them out because it's too painful to handle. At that point, the part becomes an exile.

Dick Schwartz (19:18)

That's correct.

Dan Harris (19:19)

At which point we see the emergence of two you might call protector parts. The manager, often an inner critic who's kind of like a sheepdog, trying to keep everybody in line to manage things so that the exiles don't grab the mic. And alternatively, the firefighter, who's much less regulated and will try to douse the flames with alcohol or shopping or gambling or whatever it is. Both are trying to manage the exile in different ways.

Dick Schwartz (19:50)

That's true.

Dan Harris (19:51)

The route to sanity is to, first of all, to recognize that we have all of these parts and then to the best of your ability to relate to them from what you're calling the capital S self. And so I know we talked about this last time, but I think it's worth bringing up again. What is the link for you between what you're calling the capital S self and what in Buddhism we would call not self? Like our core is that we have no core. That the self, the idea that there's some core, Dan, behind my eyes, between my ears, that's an illusion, in fact, a really harmful illusion. Whereas you're pointing to this capital S self as being the point of origination for healing.

Dick Schwartz (20:36)

Yeah. So I've had many, many of these conversations with Buddhists, and what we can usually come to is it's linguistics. So what they're calling self is really what I'm calling parts. So no self in Buddhism is really the absence of these sometimes extreme voices and parts that are cluttering your mind. And as you get them to open space inside, you find this kind of calm essence that people call no self in Buddhism, but for me is really the self with a capital S. So that's where I've come to reconcile it.

Dan Harris (21:16)

And for somebody who's having. I can imagine at this point, listeners being a little confused, and I'm probably part of the problem because I brought in this hard to understand concept of no self. But just again, very simply, your concept of the self is the best part of us, the sanest, calmest, clearest, most compassionate aspect of the human mind.

Dick Schwartz (21:39)

Yeah. And it's our essence, actually. It's who we are when all these parts separate. And it has these great C word qualities that I just mentioned and some other kinds of qualities. And for me, and this is related to your work too, I think when I encountered it in people, I couldn't reconcile its existence because I'd been trained in what's called attachment theory to believe that to have any of that inside, you had to have gotten it from a relationship. So as a child, you needed to have gotten it from good enough parenting. If you didn't get it there, you had to get it from a therapist. If you didn't get it there, you had to get it from a spouse or someplace for it to be native inside of us. And I was working with people who have been horribly abused on a daily basis as children. And so there was no way I could reconcile encountering this in them with that theory. So it wasn't until I started, and I was sort of directed to look into spirituality, that I could ground that observation. Because like you were saying about Buddhism, virtually every spiritual tradition has a word for this, and almost no other psychologies do. So in Buddhism, it's not only no self, but it's also Buddha nature. And in Christianity would be Christ consciousness, and Hinduism it's atma, and in Judaism it's nefesh and so on. I actually co authored a book where we went through each tradition and identified that essence that we were finding in us and how they describe in very similar ways. But I was finding that we could access that very quickly in people, even people who've been horribly traumatized, in contrast to a lot of those traditions where you have to meditate 20 years to get to it. But for me, it is the same and it is a kind of drop of a bigger ocean. So the model in my own thinking has much more evolved in a spiritual direction that way. That there is this big self that others have other names for, that you can access through meditation, you can access through psychedelics, and that, you know, this is a. A particle of that big wave or a drop of that big ocean.

Dan Harris (23:56)

Yeah, there's a whole debate here that I don't think we should have about big self, because I think there are some in the Buddhist world, including many of my own teachers, who would say as long as you're identifying with anything, you're suffering. But let me set that aside and go to this notion of, in the later schools of Buddhism, of a Buddha nature, which, as you've said, there are names for this in many spiritual traditions. My understanding is this kind of gets us into the debate of, like, what is fundamental about human nature? Are we red in tooth and claw? Are we rotten root and branch, or are we essentially good? And I'm not an expert in this, but my understanding is there. There are some data coming out of the sciences indicating that actually, like, in our rawest state, you know, if you look at a baby, for example, and put in front of a baby, like a mean character or a nice character, they'll very naturally gravitate toward the nice character. Or if you have a baby or a toddler in the. Somebody participating in the experiment pantomimes being in pain, they will naturally express concern and try to help. So there are some indications that this idea of a Buddha nature or essential goodness, it doesn't require exogenous factors like good parenting. It's just in us.

Dick Schwartz (25:15)

Yeah. So I'm just finishing reading for the second time a book by a guy named Rucker Bregman called Humankind, where he goes through all the data there is to show that we've been laboring under this misconception about what people are really like. And we do have this really good essence. So I'd recommend that I wrote it down. Includes the research you're talking about.

Dan Harris (25:41)

Yeah, maybe a guest on this show. I do want to get to the practical, because that's the subject of your new book. But just to stay on the. With the sort of esoterica for a second. You know, when you talk about managers and firefighters, again, just to refresh people's memories, these are the parts that we develop to keep our shit together. In the case of the manager, often the manager manifests as a kind of inner critic, keeping you in line. And then the firefighter is kind of a wanton, reckless. Pain relief, often, you know, just, let's just get us out of this. Let's save us from the exiled, unwanted parts of ourselves by drowning it in some sort of dopamine ocean. It reminds me a little bit, especially the managers. And here is where I could probably get myself in trouble with Buddhist scholars, but to the very small extent to which I understand, protect your deities within Tibetan Buddhism. I'm wondering whether there's some overlap there.

Dick Schwartz (26:45)

I think so, yeah. I've been collaborating a little bit with just Sultramaleone. Do you know that name? She wrote a book called Feeding your demons, and she's a Tibetan llama. You know, that's where we've come to some agreement that those demons, they call them, are really just these protective parts, and that rather than fight with them, feed them and help them calm down and relax and transform. So, yeah, I agree with that.

Dan Harris (27:14)

It's so interesting. She has this term feeding your demons. I kind of independently arrived. Well, independently. Nothing's independent in a codependent universe or an interdependent universe. But I've started using the term high fiving your demons.

Dick Schwartz (27:29)

That's great. Yeah.

Dan Harris (27:30)

You know, and I've learned this from you, and I've also learned it through the work of Kristin Neff and others involved in self compassion and of course, in my Buddhist practice and studies. You know, I think my traditional approach and the approach of many people is to use the managers or the firefighters to keep the exiles at bay. And it's pretty hostile. Whereas if you blow them a kiss or give them a high five or feed them not in the sense of indulgence exactly, but in a sense of like, thank you. I recognize that these exile parts, or even the managers I may not like, are essentially, as you said before, the organism trying to protect itself totally. We develop these habits and patterns often for very good reasons, but they're not skillful. If you welcome them to the party and give them a party hat and let them sit at the table, they often get quite compliant.

Dick Schwartz (28:22)

Very much. Yeah. That is part of what I'm trying to bring. I actually could reference a book because we're talking so much about Buddhism that just came out called Outshining Trauma by a guy named Ralph Dolorosa. And it's all about ifs and Buddhism. And one of the big pieces of it is that there's been such an attitude about the ego, quote unquote, in so many Buddhist traditions. And that we're really trying to get Buddhists to do what you're talking about, which is to love them up. And if you do that, instead of trying to shoo them away, these parts, that you get much more cooperation in your meditation.

Dan Harris (29:04)

Yes. What I realized doing high dose loving kindness meditation, where you flood the mind with warmth, it can feel quite forced or treacly or saccharine, this practice. But what I realized after I got over myself and allowed myself to do it at a high dosage was as my demons, let's call them that, or my parts, whatever you want to say, were emerging in my practice. I was meeting them with more warmth. And I was realizing that my mindfulness practice heretofore was shot through with aversion.

Dick Schwartz (29:34)

Totally.

Dan Harris (29:34)

And aversion is, in Buddhist speak, a hindrance.

Dick Schwartz (29:38)

That's right.

Dan Harris (29:39)

If you're actually feeling aversion towards something, you're not truly being mindful of it. So mindfulness properly understood, self awareness properly understood, contains in it a kind of mixture of warmth and non judgmentalism. And I was practicing mindfulness improperly up until that point. Really?

Dick Schwartz (29:59)

Maybe. I mean, I've just run into many Buddhist teachings that actually encourage you to do it that way. So yeah, so this is revolutionary in the Buddhist world. And another woman named Lama Willow Baker has really transformed her teaching around that. And it's hard to be loving and compassionate to this ego that gets vilified in Buddhism. It's a lot easier if you think of them as these little inner beings who are trying their best to keep you safe. And sometimes they're misguided. So how you think of this makes a big difference in how you how you can relate to them.

Dan Harris (30:47)

Thank you to Dick Schwartz and also to Mani Chandy for suggesting that excerpt. We'll put a link to the full episode in the show. Notes Dr. Schwartz has also published a number of books, including the Internal Family Systems Workbook, which has some great tools for learning about your own parts and how to deal with them. And don't forget, head on over to danharris.com to become a paid subscriber and you can access our growing library of meditations that are customized to our Monday Wednesday episodes. Danharris.com Join the party. Finally, thank you very much to everybody who worked so hard to make this show. Our producers are Tara Anderson, Caroline Keenan and Eleanor Vasily. Our recording and engineering is handled by the great folks over at Pod People. Lauren Smith is our managing producer, Marissa Schneiderman is our senior producer, DJ Cashmere is our executive producer, and Nick Thorburn of the band Islands wrote our theme.