Do Parts-Work models accurately reflect Reality?

Do Parts really have a ‘mind of their own’?
Do the accompanying “invented concepts/constructs” exist?

In a discussion with Gabor Maté on the differences between IFS and Maté’s Compassionate Inquiry process, there is some back and forth over whether Parts exist or whether they are merely “Adaptions” (See the URL to Sounds True in the bibliography below). Dick freely admits that he did not start off believing in these “little inner entities” but that over time, it was the Parts themselves that proved their own existence. For him, thinking, and relating to Parts as entities in their own right allows for greater compassion towards them. For any therapist, whatever the modality, giving the patient/client the ability to objectify a subjective experience, is already a major breakthrough. The tool of dialoguing with Parts as the instigators of intrusive thoughts and flashbacks; or the tool of inquiry into “their” deeply held beliefs, allows us to “create distance” from what one might have previously wholeheartedly identified with. These tools do the vital work of mining greater understanding for the seemingly mischievous coping mechanisms Parts employ to keep us from experiencing ‘Emotional Overwhelm’. It is worth noting that ‘Flooding’ is symbolic language invented to describe Emotional Overwhelm, clearly, for anyone having experienced it, Flooding is not merely an intellectual concept.

Interestingly, one of the biggest differences between the original PHM and descendants of the PHM, such as the Make Anything Possible™ (MAP) Method, is the amount of time dedicated to respecting the ‘Will’ of Parts – especially during the onboarding Education Process. Dr. Flint meticulously ensures that all members of a Treatment Team are willing to proceed with treatment before proceeding. A direct relationship between the Patient and their Parts (and Subconscious) is formed based on respect, informed decisions, working in consensus, verifying and assessing readiness (even through the use of double negative questions) and asking for permission. For descendants of the PHM, the onboarding process is shorter, sometimes omitting direct patient-to-Part checks altogether whilst maintaining a minimum assessment of readiness and permission seeking/approval to proceed. The task of verifying decision making by Parts is (on the whole) given over to practitioner-led responses that removes much of the establishment of a direct patient-to-Part relationship dynamic. In many cases, the practitioner is removed altogether and replaced with a pre-recorded script. Does this mean that the original PHM wasted time by giving too much credence to the Will of Parts when so much work can be achieved without following the full protocols initially created?

Like Dick, Garry invests in a personable, attentive and compassionate approach when talking to and requesting Parts to reveal themselves, especially when asking them to drop their guard and assist in removing barriers to treatment. Ignoring or riding rough-shod over the Will of Parts is seen as a last resort in Garry’s work. (e.g. bypassing problematic Parts and communicating with The Subconscious via a direct line). Certainly, descendants of the PHM continue to have positive results despite the shortened Education Process, their reliance on recordings and the reduced time establishing rapport with Parts. Moreover, this mix of recordings and live online practitioner sessions have enabled group sessions to form as well as courses on specific but widely-held issues such as weight-loss, chronic pain and navigating relationships. Does the expediting of the PHM represent a dilution or evolution of Dr. Flint’s original work? Is there a trade-off for increased efficiency at the cost of a patient’s autonomy through the exploration of patient-led responses? [These questions will be more easily addressed after the next five paragraphs.]

Dr. Flint’s first and second books on the PHM (Flint, 2006, 2012) note an increased efficiency of the Education Process as well as the treatment interventions as more and more patients were taught them. In early development, most of the PHM was dedicated to the removal of barriers to treatment and asking Parts to trust the treatment process. Later, new treatment protocols exhibit a more global approach with less specific instructions given to The Subconscious, as well as asking new constructs such as ‘Wisdom’ and ‘The Manager’ to help in composing treatment protocols. Garry also asks the client/patient’s Subconscious to connect to, and gain knowledge of existing protocols from his own Subconscious. How are such seemingly science-fiction communications possible? Let’s also not overlook the fact that the phenomenon of remote practitioner-led responses, favored by descendants of the PHM, is itself a form of non-local communication.

In his first book, Dr. Flint gained answers from probing The Subconscious directly. For example, in Section 4-31 (Flint, 2006), he illustrates how it is the patient’s own Subconscious that recommends adding a closing statement based on ‘grounding the memories touched on in the session’ and “reconnecting them to the matrix of the universe”. Dr. Flint tested this closing statement on other client’s Subconscious’s without any negative feedback. Garry shares that initially he did not know if the closing statement had any connection to reality. Later he believed there was some basis for it but he saves the explanation/reasoning behind this for his second book (Flint, 2012).

It is in Healing Your Mind and Soul (2012) that one reads how the PHM evolved along a quantum model and in the search for answers, new territory was mapped out along concepts borrowed from String Theory. This effort proved itself rewarding in the treatment of Generational Trauma by way of conceptualizing Pain stored within Generational Fields. Furthermore, the exploration of ‘Fields’ revealed that The Subconscious of a perpetrator can remain influential on a victim’s Field and Parts long after the attack/abuse as taken place.

Likewise, the IFS community also discuss research into what it terms ‘Legacy Burdens’ – traumas, beliefs and behavioral patterns that are inherited from previous generations, be that on a genetic level or societal. In Q&A time after presentations, Dr. Schwartz has lamented the fact that the subject of ‘Unattached Burdens’ are not discussed more openly or avoided altogether. These are Burdens that enter the mind when the person is ‘out of their body’ on drugs, or whilst being abused. Unattached Burdens are not the same as Parts (as Parts, no matter the surface level complications, always have positive intent). Unattached Burdens carry negative intentions and may actively seek to harm the person and others. Dr. Flint developed a very similar construct termed ‘Intrusive Fields’ which also carry out harm to the patient and those around them and can be located in non-physical dimensions. For both Garry and Dick, the development of their research models began with the simple premise of treating pain and yet both expanded into metaphysical domains.

It is difficult to prove these theories in any academically verifiable way, and again – it is not necessary for the patient or practitioner to ‘believe’ in the metaphysical direction both pioneers have taken in order for meaningful work to be done. Sometimes it is beneficial to take the ‘overthinking, control-seeking, doubtful elements’ of disbelief out of the equation altogether. In the PHM, it is possible for interventions to be given to a client/patient’s Subconscious in a language their Main Personality does not understand and still the change process takes place. For example, in the case of clients/patients that try to control sessions or think that ‘they are the one that has to do the healing’; using a non-native language takes away the ability for the client/patient’s Parts and Main Personality to interfere, facilitating a greater “handing over” (or surrender) to the Process Healing by The Subconscious, with excellent results.

To answer the question of the increasing speed of ‘Learning’ and onboarding, Dr. Flint writes of the increase of knowledge held in different ‘Dimensions’, much in the way Carl Jung refers to ‘The Collective Unconscious’ or Rupert Sheldrake writes about ‘Morphic Fields’ that are beyond the scope of this article. [Curious readers can find out more in the bibliography below]. When treating patients, it is important to be aware of these Higher Dimensions, however their inclusion also raises the question, to what extent is a practitioner of the PHM required to become a researcher (or even a pioneer) of these theories? Although fully comprehending these new constructs is not an imperative, Dr. Flint continually encourages practitioners to probe thoroughly and investigate fully the issues presented. In terms of composing treatment interventions, it is incumbent on the practitioner when gathering information (be that through direct questioning or the use of intuitive methods) to conduct proper systematic research and be mindful of developing ‘avoidance behaviors’ or ‘diminished initiative’. That said, it is not advisable for everyone to go down the rabbit hole, especially obtuse patients or those who suffer from magical thinking, delusions and paranoia.

Suffice to say, the pragmatic answer for the increasing speed of onboarding and the use of recordings is one dictated by the economy of time and therefore financial cost to the Patient and the Practitioner. In online demonstrations of IFS, Dr. Schwartz talks slowly and carefully, paying as much attention to the Part (or Parts) as required in order for the issue to be treated. Issues are rarely fully resolved in the minutes of a demonstration and often necessitate more investigation, but already one can see a relaxing of the client/patient within these minutes. IFS provides a safety mechanism for more complex issues necessitating multiple sessions with Parts, storing them in a visually constructed “Safe Space” or room, between appointments. Dr. Flint writes that extending or providing free sessions is worth the knowledge gained by the additional rapport, knowledge, understanding and wisdom gained from working with Parts and The Subconscious. He also asks The Subconscious to tag and treat Parts and Issues automatically between sessions. It is up to the practitioner to weigh the pros and cons of efficient goal setting vs exploration. The majority of 1 to 1 sessions are between 60 and 90 minutes in duration and require a high degree of concentration and attentiveness. What is not always discussed is that often, recovery time is needed for both the patient and the practitioner, depending on the intensity of the issues and level of problem-solving that was required. Practitioners of any modality/therapy run the risk of burn-out and “Compassion Fatigue”. This is important to bear in mind when balancing the Will of Parts vs the time on the clock.

It is also important to note that, for the self-aware client/patient, it is their own responsibility to form a relationship to their Parts and question how much time they are willing to invest researching and exploring their inner-world. The spectrum of disorders and issues is so wide that for some, the simple intervention of asking The Subconscious to “fix-it” may work fine (Appendix 1 of A Theory and Treatment of Your Personality, 2006) whilst for others, great care must be taken to navigate Parts that actively wish to sabotage the treatment process. For those without access to a practitioner, or with a limited budget, it is worthwhile reading the section titled ‘How to use Process Healing at home’ in this same Appendix 1. Dr. Flint asks us to be cautious of feeling faint or unwell when using the PHM and addressing Parts as this may be an indication of the presence of a Trauma Part – in negative situations, the reader is advised not to proceed and to seek professional help. In any scenario, one is reminded to watch out for the Will of Parts being made known through physical symptoms, an increase in negative behaviors, foggy thinking, intrusive thoughts/images, reduced communication (with Parts or The Subconscious) or a total blockage of the treatment process.

Both the PHM and the later descendants of it are not well known to the general public and there is no publicly available statistical data on which to draw evidence-based conclusions on the wide variety of concepts and constructs presented. Conducting experiments that test against the placebo effect, e.g. the measuring and subsequent reduction of belief-based issues such as anxiety disorders and OCD; (as opposed to chemical or physical based issues) would differentiate between a tangible change brought on by the PHM protocols and what could be dismissed as simply ‘mind-over-matter’. Perhaps in future, it will also be possible to create an anonymous database of case-studies to measure percentages of the needs and requirements of clients/patients and provide treatment statistics on critical conditions like Schizophrenia and Cluster B Personality Disorders.

For now, that a discussion on ‘the quality of the relationship a client/patient has with their Parts’ exists, adds merit to these Parts-Work models as worthwhile therapeutic approaches. There is something to learn from Dr. Schwartz’s and Dr. Flint’s lifetime of work. To the Materialist, this discussion offers no conclusive proof that Parts, Fields and Dimensions exist; however what is conclusive, is that Parts-Work does demand some form of direct engagement in order to determine its therapeutic value. Unwarranted harsh criticism from the sidelines or dismissing these approaches outright does not further the discussion. Parts-Work research is mostly subjective in nature and requires the skeptic to investigate these methods from an inner experiential point of view. In Emotional Freedom (1999), Dr. Flint notes that it is important to experiment with smaller issues first – in order to build confidence and trust the EFT method. Later, when the reader has seen for themselves that the method works, they will be able to tackle more complex and highly emotionally charged problems. The same approach applies to the PHM.

The discussion on ‘the quality of ones relationship to their Parts’ invites both practitioners and patients to question for themselves whether ignoring Parts, the Self and The Subconscious altogether is beneficial or a hindrance to problem-solving. What is clear, from the numerous testimonies over the past decades of engagement with Parts-Work models, is that ‘treatment protocols which include and address a multifaceted model of the personality’, produce results that are tangible, irrefutable and lasting, even if the models and protocols themselves are variable and open to further questions. Those who dismiss alternative approaches are reminded that today’s “Gold Standard” of CBT + Medication (where required) has allowed an unacceptable percentage of patients to slip through the fingers of institutional care. In the midst of a mental health epidemic, Parts-Work offers patients and therapists a fresh, low-risk, non-pharmaceutical modality to grab with both hands and put to the test.

Dr. Joaquin Andrade (who wrote the Foreward to A Theory and Treatment of Your Personality, 2006), and Dr. David Feinstein have published remarkable results when applying a so called ‘Energy Psychology’ technique of EFT (Tapping) to Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), compared to the current ‘gold-standard’ of CBT + Medication. [Which Dr. Flint shared on his own website (Emotional-Freedom.com) and can be found reconstructed on this website here]. Dr. Flint also posted images of brain scans published on ‘Energy Psychology Interactive’ (given to him via Dr. Andrade) that illustrate in great detail the reduction of ‘the ratio of dysfunctional brainwave frequencies’ over the course of 4, 8 and 12 EFT sessions. The South American study (which included approx 29,000 patients with GAD) was proof for Dr. Andrade that EFT was more effective than CBT + Medication:

Our conclusion, in brief: No reasonable clinician, regardless of school of practice, can disregard the clinical responses that tapping elicits in anxiety disorders (over 70% improvement in a large sample in 11 centers involving 36 therapists over 14 years).

Although the PHM was birthed from EFT, none of the results of this South American study and other efficacy studies can be applied to the PHM as it does not yet had the same quantity of practitioners/patients with which to carry out such large scale research. What is interesting, (and why this study has been included above) is that Dr. Andrade, after having carried out such a large scale clinical research, was more impressed with the PHM as a therapeutic approach than EFT; especially when applied to cases he personally could not treat with either EFT or traditional methods. What does this say about the efficacy and potency of the PHM, if even on an anecdotal level?

In 2020, the Map Coaching Institute shared online, brain scans taken during the Process Healing treatment process on a client’s fear of heights. The EEG scans show a change process occurring in areas of the brain related to pain regulation, emotions and memory consolidation.

Behavioral change is clearly happening on a measurable, replicable level, even if the methods employed are not yet fully understood by the broader scientific community. Dr. Flint’s explanations for how and why the PHM works challenge our perception of reality. For now, not enough peer research has been carried out to verify everything that he detailed in his books, however, that the PHM works at all, is already a paradigm shifting discovery.

Returning back to the question of validity with regards to the semantics and semiotics employed, Dr. Flint does not seem to attach great importance to strictly following the terminology he established. He freely advises those studying the PHM to experiment and construct their own terminology as the labels themselves are not set in stone and are even expected to be tailored to the client/patient’s needs. Some later practitioners now prefer substituting the label for the Treatment Team construct with the word “Parties” or using the term Superconscious to describe The Subconscious/Innerself. Even the metaphor at the heart of the PHM treatment protocol can and has been added to and in some practices, totally reinvented. The validation for whether a construct/concept works is if its inclusion or exclusion in the treatment protocol solves the problem/issue presented by the client/patient. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 8 – Section 1 of A Theory and Treatment of Your Personality. (2006) to further illustrate Dr. Flint’s open-minded approach:

8-1 Systems participating in our behavior:

The figure below explains most of the systems identified in this book that participate in running our brain and body (see Figure 8-1). These systems are all involved in generating our behavior. There may well be other systems that exist that I have not yet found. The systems listed are the ones that have emerged, as needed, to solve problems. I have learned of no complications stemming from creating a new system to solve a problem. My assumption that memory runs everything supports the approach of composing any metaphor or memory construct necessary that relates to and solves the problem.

For those wishing to dive deeper into this material, a good place to start is by downloading the reformatted Introduction and first three chapters of A Theory and Treatment of Your Personality available for free by clicking here.

Bibliography and recommended further reading:

Berne, Eric. Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships. Grove Press, 1964.

Flint, Garry A. Emotional Freedom : Techniques for dealing with psychological, emotional and physical distress. NeoSolTerric, 1999.

Flint, Garry A. A Theory and Treatment of Your Personality. NeoSolTerric, 2006.

Flint, Garry A. Healing Your Mind and Soul. NeoSolTerric, 2012.

Jung, Carl. The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious (Collected Works of C.G. Jung Vol. 9 Part 1). Paperback, 1981.

Schwartz, Richard C. No Bad Parts: Healing Trauma and Restoring Wholeness with the Internal Family Systems Model. St. Martin’s Essentials / Sounds True, 2021.

URLs:
 Map Coaching Institute. “The Science and Research behind the MAP Method.” Accessed January 7, 2026: https://youtu.be/kbBCiZjXPp4?si=ZoDoSTYX5UAZoltT.

 Sheldrake, Rupert. “Morphic Fields – Section on Morphic Resonance in Human Learning.” Accessed January 7, 2026: https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/Morphic-Fields.pdf.

Sounds True. “Embracing All of You: Compassionate Inquiry Meets Internal Family Systems – Session Three.” Accessed January 7, 2026. https://www.soundstrue.com/products/embracing-all-of-you.