Okay, I finally got my two articles properly separated. My "splitting" tangent has been removed from Part 4 of "Is FreeDomain Radio a Destructive Cult?" and turned into its own article, which it deserves.

Here it is!

Stefan Molyneux--the "Splitting" question

I found this article to be very insightful! Not proof, as you say, but the puzzle pieces fit almost too comfortably.

I happen to think Stef is right about a great many things when it comes to religion and politics (and even certain elements of family). But your analysis of splitting makes me really, really, really wonder about what's going on in his head.

And as for the IFS question - I never did like the way this has been perverted at FDR. For those unaware, IFS is a method for getting to know various aspects of your own personality. There is the Self, which is always wise, curious, calm, compassionate, etc. According to IFS, there are other "parts" of your psyche that obstruct the Self. There are angry, critical, judgmental parts known as "protectors" that are responsible for inner turmoil, but these parts are really protecting other parts known as "exiles," which are sad, frightened child parts that have been traumatized.

The idea is to get to know your protectors so they can relax enough to allow you access to the exiles. You then "reparent" the exiles through love and compassion, which in turn allows the protectors to relinquish their former roles and assume healthier roles in your psyche. All of your parts then work in cooperation with the Self.

But the main thing is: none of these parts are to be judged or shunned. In IFS theory, avoiding, criticizing, or ignoring these parts simply doesn't work. You must be curious and accept them in order to make progress and bring balance to your inner world.

So it is interesting to me that in FDR, which praises IFS, that you would heap round condemnation on other people who have not dealt effectively with their protectors. If they really believed in Mecosystem/IFS, then why would they paint a picture of parents being all corrupt or all bad, when in fact, they are simply in need of curiosity, empathy and understanding? In fact, this lashing out in anger simply means that they have not successfully dealt with their OWN protectors! Even though I'm an atheist, I am suddenly reminded of Matthew 7:3...

This is not to say that IFS is true and valid. I recently started working on it, and all I can say is, we'll just have to wait and see if it works for me. But thanks again for this superb article! I think everyone at FDR needs to read and reflect upon this possibility.

Love the last two lines of the splitting article!

They got me thinking about how when I see someone at FDR (publicly) mention LM or FDRLiberated, it's almost always in an exclusively negative light.  That we're all corrupt trolls with no valid points -- just a desire to hurt Stefan and the other FDRers, or something.

Which is funny because it so contradicts my experience of myself and the warm, genuine people I've met here.  And it discounts the wealth of information and analysis that I and others have found so helpful and fascinating.  (So I know for sure of some counterpoints to the "100% evil" characterizations.)

But if these guys are stuck in splitting/black-and-white mode, as they seem to be, it makes sense that they depict us as they do.  Surely we get things wrong sometimes, and if their only two options for us are all-good and all-bad, the first time they come across an incorrect assertion written here, the all-good hypothesis has been disproven, and they are left with all-bad.

How FDR manages to escape the wrath of these snap-judgements is an interesting question.  It's probably something like: FDRers have invested too much in FDR (what with maybe defooing or at least poisoning relationships with family and friends, spamming FDR videos all over the place, throwing their hard-earned cash over to Stefan, and so on) to be able to give it an all-bad valuation.  If avoiding having to do that -- in their minds -- entails ignoring valid critiques of FDR, then so be it.

There is another way, FDRers! Put your black and white boxes on the shelf. You can evaluate things in real time, in full colour. You might find it to be quite liberating.

Also, mijama, thanks for the lucid description of IFS. Sounds like a tool that could be quite useful for some, as long as it's not taken so literally that it loses touch with the realities of (scientific) psychology.

And welcome!

Thanks for the link to the blog! That was a lot to digest, for sure. I think I need to read it again.

In Stef's defense, he recommended IFS to me personally when I asked him what the most transformative part of his therapy was. This conversation happened over a real-life FDR dinner event where I met him and several members. That was quite a night, and reflecting back on it now, I see it somewhat differently than back then. I think I'll have to write a post about it sometime.

IFS does seem to have a lot of plausible promise to it - due to my schedule, I don't set aside enough time to work on myself, but I will certainly post my observations when and if I have a breakthrough... or don't. I've seen a reference to "Three Minute Therapy" somewhere on here. Does anyone have any personal experience with it? Is there something even better? I'd love to hear feedback on this.

I'm really enjoying my experience here so far. Thanks to everyone for all the warm welcomes!

Heh. Calling Moly a salesman is a compliment to him and a deeply insulting put down to sales people. Like me.

Well as Ronald Reagan used to say, "There you go again."

I am a software salesman an an entrepreneur.

How are your acting skills Arthur?

... and did you get an A for your thesis?