IFS, Neuroscience & Safety: A Trauma-Informed Take on The Cut’s IFS Article |

Internal Family Systems (IFS) has exploded in popularity over the past decade. It’s all over TikTok, trainings fill up months in advance, and plenty of clinicians (me included) find the “parts” lens both humane and useful. Recently, The Cut ran a long feature—“The Therapy That Can Break You”—raising caution about IFS, especially when used with highly vulnerable clients and in poorly boundaried settings. It’s worth reading; it’s also worth responding with nuance. The Cut

What the article gets right

Harm happens when any method is practiced without strong ethics, supervision, and safety structures—particularly in high-acuity milieus or groups where pressure to disclose can snowball into “who hurts most” storytelling. Suggestibility, memory contamination, and identities becoming more fragmented (not less) are real risks when therapists chase dramatic material or treat metaphor like literal biography. Those concerns show up throughout the piece and deserve to be taken seriously.

What the article overlooks

1) IFS isn’t the villain; misuse is

IFS is a non-pathologizing way of mapping inner experience. Non-pathologizing lenses often meet skepticism in institutions built around disease labels. That debate is bigger than one modality. For example, complex PTSD (CPTSD) is recognized in ICD-11 but still not listed as a distinct diagnosis in DSM-5-TR, highlighting how frameworks evolve and how “what counts” as evidence shifts over time. Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1

2) The evidence base is emerging (and mixed), not nonexistent

The strongest randomized evidence for IFS so far is in rheumatoid arthritis, where an RCT found clinically meaningful improvements—helpful, but not a psychiatric diagnosis. JRheum
For PTSD specifically, we have pilot and feasibility studies showing symptom reductions and calling for larger randomized trials (which is exactly what good science demands next). Taylor & Francis Online+1
Recent scholarly reviews summarize the growing body of case, quasi-experimental, and a small number of randomized studies; the consensus is “promising, needs more rigorous, independent RCTs,” which is a fair place for a maturing field. Taylor & Francis Online

None of that says IFS is a cure-all. It says use it where it fits, with guardrails. And to be clear, other non-exposure trauma therapies have also shown non-inferiority to gold-standard exposure approaches in head-to-head trials (e.g., IPT vs PE, WET vs PE), which underscores a larger point: multiple routes can help people heal. Integration matters. ScienceDirect+2JAMA Network+2

3) Integration is the future

Trauma expert Frank Anderson put it well in a recent Wired for Connection episode: no single modality fits everyone; the work is increasingly about integrating nervous-system science with parts-based compassion and solid clinical judgment. That perspective resonates across polyvagal-informed care and modern trauma treatment. Apple Podcasts+1

Our stance at Creative Fox Counseling

We start with safety, not spectacle

Our trauma-informed framework follows the widely accepted six principles: Safety; Trust & Transparency; Peer Support; Collaboration & Mutuality; Empowerment/Voice/Choice; Cultural & Historical Humility. In practice, that looks like steady pacing, consent at every step, clarity about what we’re doing and why, and honoring identity and context. SAMHSA+2CDC Stacks+2

We use plain-language parts metaphors

Clients don’t need insider jargon. We often borrow gentle metaphors—Owl / Watchdog / Possum—to describe wise observing, protective activation, and shut-down. If the map helps, great. If it confuses or destabilizes, we stop and re-center.

We protect against suggestibility

No leading questions, no pressure to disclose, no “misery poker.”
Clear boundaries in individual and group work; titration over catharsis.
Documentation and consult when allegations arise; we follow the law on mandated reporting and we work hard not to contaminate memory with therapist interpretations. (The Cut piece centers on a program whose practices and leadership have been controversial for years—a reminder that setting and culture matter.) The Cut+1

We believe survivors—and think critically

A core value here: believe and support until red flags require more assessment. Both minimization and credulity can cause harm; the safest path is compassionate curiosity plus careful, evidence-minded practice.

Where IFS sits alongside neuroscience

IFS dovetails with what we know about the brain under threat: protective strategies (fight/flight/freeze/fawn) show up fast; shame and self-blame bind trauma memories; and co-regulation helps people feel again without being overwhelmed. That’s why we blend body-based regulation with gentle parts work and skills for today’s life. The goal isn’t theatrical transformations—it’s capacity, choice, and a more livable nervous system.

If you’re considering IFS (or any trauma therapy), ask:

Safety first: Do you know how to ground yourself? We will start there.
Training & supervision: What training does your counselor have? Have an open discussion until you feel comfortable.
Cultural humility: How does my counselor adapt care to my history, identities, and community context?

Bottom line

IFS is not a magic wand—AND it’s certainly not “dangerous pseudoscience” when practiced thoughtfully. It’s one useful map among many.

We’ll keep integrating what’s humane about IFS with what’s solid in the evidence, and we’ll keep centering safety, consent, and cultural humility.

IFS, Neuroscience & Safety: A Trauma-Informed Take on The Cut’s IFS Article