Talk:Internal Family Systems Model

Language
This article uses language that is rather esoteric and difficult to understand. It would be improved by using more accessible language, and further providing context for the subject being discussed. EvilPhoenix talk 08:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
I think this page needs to be reworked to reflect more of the criticism against the IFS method, and to make the language in the article less POV. I'm especially concerned about statements like "Richard Schwartz developed IFS while working with a population that had experienced considerable trauma, so IFS is very effective in this area", is there really enough empirical evidence to claim this? Although I'm not qualified to do a in-depth rewrite of this article, I've added a section detailing some of the criticism I've found against this method. Arntjay (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Critics always like to point out there is no empirical evidence. Well study it already. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. It may be effective, it's just that no one has taken the time to do a study. So unless you are willing to write a grant and do a study then, lay off. All you can truthfully say is, "we don't know." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:7180:86d:7c7c:a529:425c:7f44 (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2014‎ (UTC)

The above comment is a bit misguided. While lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, one of the issues with IFS is that the model fundamentally isn't disprovable. A model should make specific testable claims which are testable however this isn't possible with the IFS Model. It is untested because it cannot be, therefore in this case a lack of evidence is a key part of the criticism. None of the internal states, exiles, managers or firefighters can be observed and tested. Statements such as "everyone has a true self or spiritual center, called the Self, and everyone has access to it as well as its healing qualities" is a completely pseudoscientific claim and this has no place as a treatment in modern medical care. These issues should be front and centre in any honest unbiased article on this model. Ghosttess18 (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I do wonder if any empirical work has appeared. We have established treatments for trauma that are far from perfect but certainly seem successful enough to serve as a better place to start treatment. I did note one promising depression trial (link below). I am wondering if ethicists would argue that practitioners should start with established treatments rather than this approach. Don't mean to draw everyone's wrath. I know that the devotees have strong feelings.
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jmft.12184 45.47.178.79 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the demographic group refered to? I concur that the article should make it clearer, supported by reliable source material if it is available, of long term clinical outcomes, otherwise it might be better to state there is an unknown involved as regards any longer term efficacy. It would be better that the article not be seen to be presenting this as a psychological cure. A criticism section need not be wholly against but could state if the method is limited in efficacy in other areas or useful only with particular psychological disorders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.210 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Voice Dialogue link
The Voice Dialogue page, which is linked under the "see also" heading has been deleted. This link should be removed or replaced. 71.241.130.238 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism" is biased and unreferenced
One of the major criticisms to IFS is that there's little evidence of treatment efficacy. Something schwarz himself notes in "Treating Complex Traumatic Stress Disorders : An Evidence-Based Guide" on page 358. "Unfortunately, no well-constructed outcome studies testing the IFS model and methods have been completed". Though he notes some will be completed soon none of the studies mentioned have been published. Ghosttess18 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally there are lawsuits of malpractice in the use of the IFS model due to this claim. https://phtherapies.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/update-on-castlewood-treatment-center-lawsuit-other-ex-patients-come-forward/ Ghosttess18 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

There are also claims of extreme bias as getting IFS certification is extremely expensive. Ghosttess18 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internal_Family_Systems_Model&diff=622755113&oldid=622754376 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internal_Family_Systems_Model&diff=prev&oldid=622895533 added some criticisms of IFS that are unreferenced and in an active (not neutral) voice. I'm new to Wikipedia editing so I don't know what the protocol is: should I flag these or just undo them or contact the authors or what?

I mean the criticisms may be valid but as currently written they are not very Wikipedia-ish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasius Bibliothecarius (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a cite this section block. 76.21.90.151 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)