2022-12-29 Thu 18:34 PM > [!-cf-]+ [[Related notes]] > - [[Hierarchical emergent subjectivity]] > - [[No bad parts]] > - Anti-[[Punishment]] > - [[Ref. Karen Pryor 2018 - Don't Shoot the Dog]] > - [[Positive reinforcement]]-prioritizing > - [[All parts are welcome]] > - [[All parts have good intentions]] ![[moses_inside_the_big_scary_monsters_are_actually_kind_gentle_an_4323f2dd-d5b6-4ec2-a529-805742963a2a.png]] A core premise of the [[Internal Family Systems (IFS)]] model is that none of the [[Part_IFS|parts]] are bad. IFS [[IFS origin story|has its origin]] in family therapy, and in that context it's obvious that the solution isn't going to be to identify the bad family member and kick them out. The same holds for the [[The internal system of IFS|inner system]]: we assume that all parts are trying to do good; they might have miguided or immature strategies, and they might be acting in opposition to another part or set of parts, but at bottom, from their possibly-limited point of view, they are trying to help. The [[Parts are not their burdens]]. # [[Journal section]] ### 2022-12-29 Thu 20:12 PM This principle puts IFS at odds with models like [[Phil Stutz's "Tools" model]]. An important part of Stutz's model is "Part X", which he holds to a part that's inherently "trying to fuck you up". I'm currently (2022-12-29 Thu 20:12 PM) new to Stutz and his model, and fairly experienced with IFS. From my present point of view, I expect that [[Phil Stutz is wrong about "Part X"]] — that it's actually trying to do something that it thinks is helpful (like, for example, keep its host out of danger), and that Stutz's model would be more powerful if he were able to make this update.