Most people already talk about themselves this way without noticing. Part of me wants to leave. Some part of me knows better. I do not know what came over me. Internal Family Systems takes that ordinary experience seriously and works with it directly.
The premise is that a mind is not one voice but several, and that none of them are the enemy. The critic that will not let up, the part that shuts down mid-argument, the one that reaches for a drink or a phone: each took on its job at some point because it helped. Usually it helped a younger version of you survive something.
Why this matters in trauma work
People often arrive at therapy already at war with themselves, having been told for years to stop being anxious, stop overthinking, stop pushing people away. That fight is exhausting and it rarely works, because the behavior is protecting something.
IFS changes the question from how do I get rid of this to what is this trying to protect. When a protective part is understood rather than overruled, it usually relaxes, and what it was guarding becomes reachable. That is often the difference between managing symptoms and actually resolving what is underneath them.
How I use it alongside EMDR
I do not usually offer IFS as a separate course of treatment. I use it inside the work, and most often before and around EMDR.
Trauma processing goes badly when a part of you is not on board with doing it. If something in you believes that remembering is dangerous, or that you will fall apart and not come back, pushing ahead tends to confirm the fear. So we get to know that part first, hear what it is worried about, and get its agreement before going near the memory. Clients often describe this as the point where therapy stopped feeling like something being done to them.
I use it with couples too, usually alongside Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy, because the part of you that goes cold in an argument is far easier to talk about than the accusation that you do not care.
What a session is actually like
Quieter than people expect. I might ask where you notice something in your body, how old it feels, or what it is afraid would happen if it stopped doing its job. You are not asked to perform anything or to talk to an empty chair. Nothing gets forced, and if a part does not want to be approached today, that is information rather than an obstacle.
What the research says, honestly
Less than for EMDR, and I would rather tell you that than imply otherwise. IFS is a younger model and its evidence base is still forming.
The most rigorous test so far is a 2026 randomised controlled trial in Psychological Trauma of a 16-week group programme built on IFS, with 60 participants. Participants in the IFS arm attended more sessions and were more satisfied with treatment. PTSD symptoms fell significantly in that arm, but they also fell in the comparison group, and the difference between the two was not statistically significant. The authors present it as evidence that the approach is feasible and acceptable, not that it outperforms the alternative.
That is a fair summary of where things stand: promising, well tolerated, and not yet proven superior to established trauma treatments. It is one of the reasons I use IFS as part of a course of work built around a more heavily researched modality rather than on its own. The IFS Institute keeps the current research list if you want to look further.
Practical details
Sessions are $260 for 50 minutes, in person in Los Angeles or by video anywhere in California. See the rates page for fees and superbills, and the telehealth page for how online sessions work.
Talk to me first
We can speak at no cost before you commit to anything. Call (310) 926-4001 or send a note through the contact page.