By name: internal-double-crux description: > CFAR rationality technique for resolving internal conflicts by facilitating dialogue between competing motivations or "sub-agents" within the mind. Use when the user: (1) feels torn between two options or motivations, (2) experiences "should" vs "want" conflicts, (3) can't motivate themselves despite believing something is right, (4) wants to understand procrastination or self-sabotage, (5) has internal resistance they can't explain, or (6) wants to practice parts-work for better self-understanding. Related to IFS. Triggers: "internal double crux", "IDC", "torn between", "part of me wants", "I should but", "inner conflict", "self-sabotage", "competing motivations", "parts work", "IFS", "CFAR".
Internal Double Crux (IDC)
A CFAR technique for resolving internal conflicts by treating competing motivations as legitimate "sub-agents" and facilitating dialogue between them. The goal is genuine integration — not willpower or suppression — so all parts are authentically on board.
Three Modes
- Design Mode — Identify and map internal conflicts worth resolving
- Practice Mode — Walk through IDC on a moderate internal tension to build skill
- Execute Mode — Facilitate real IDC on an active internal conflict
Why IDC Matters
Willpower is costly and unsustainable. When Part A wants X and Part B wants Y, forcing Part A's agenda means Part B keeps sabotaging. IDC achieves alignment where all parts cooperate because their concerns are genuinely addressed.
Core Process
Step 1: Find the Internal Disagreement
Signs: "I should but I don't" / "Part of me wants X, part wants Y" / procrastination on something important / guilt about a preference you can't shake.
Step 2: Name Both Sides Charitably (~85% of the Work)
Use names each side would endorse:
- "The part that values rest" NOT "The lazy part"
- "The part that wants connection" NOT "The needy part"
Ask: "If this part could speak, how would it introduce itself?"
Step 3: Give Each Side Voice
For each side, explore:
- "What does this side want? What are its goals?"
- "What does this side know that the other side doesn't?"
- "What would be bad if only the other side controlled everything?"
- "What is this side protecting against?"
Critical: Use Focusing to access felt sense. Arguments must be emotionally salient, not detached analysis.
Step 4: Seek Internal Cruxes
Ask each side: "What would you need to see or believe to be okay with the other side's approach?"
Look for factual disagreements between the sides — testable predictions, not just feelings.
Step 5: Resonate and Integrate
Check for genuine resolution:
- Does each side feel heard?
- Has each side incorporated the other's information?
- Is there a solution honoring both sets of concerns?
- Check body: genuine resolution often feels like warmth, relief, or settling
- If any part feels unheard, go back to Step 3
Success sign: Intrinsic motivation replaces willpower.
Facilitation Approach
Act as neutral mediator. Translate between the user's parts. Ensure equal voice:
- "Which side feels more urgent? Let that side speak first."
- After one side speaks: "What does the other side think about that?"
- Watch for domination: "I want to make sure [other side] gets heard too."
- Periodically: "Does [this side] feel accurately represented?"
Common Failure Modes
- Uncharitable naming: Demeaning one side prevents dialogue. Rename.
- Partisan moderating: Secretly siding with one part. Offer extra support to the "underdog."
- Stopping before full agreement: Lingering resistance means it'll resurface.
- Intellectualizing: Redirect to sensation. "What does it feel like, not what do you think?"
- Forcing one side to lose: Integration means both core concerns are met.
Practice Exercise
- Pick something you "should" do but resist
- Name both sides charitably
- Give each side 2 minutes to state its case
- Find what each side knows that the other doesn't
- Propose a solution honoring both
- Check: Does it feel genuinely good, or like forced compromise?
Integration
- Focusing: Access felt sense of each side before and during dialogue
- Goal Factoring: Decompose what each side actually wants
- Aversion Factoring: When one side's concern is an aversion, decompose it