AgentSkillsCN

internal-double-crux

CFAR 合理化技巧：通过系统性地设想各种失败场景，并提前制定应对措施，从而为计划增添“防弹”般的稳健性。此技巧融合了墨菲定律与事前剖析法。当用户出现以下情况时，可使用此技巧：(1) 拥有一份希望经过压力测试的计划；(2) 希望在问题真正发生之前，就提前识别可能出现的隐患；(3) 需要制定更为稳健的计划；(4) 希望练习事前剖析的思维方式；(5) 即将启动新项目，希望提前预判可能遇到的障碍。触发关键词：“墨菲术”“可能会出什么问题”“事前剖析”“为我的计划做压力测试”“内在模拟器”“意外指数”“失败模式”“计划复盘”“CFAR”。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
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

  1. •Design Mode — Identify and map internal conflicts worth resolving
  2. •Practice Mode — Walk through IDC on a moderate internal tension to build skill
  3. •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

  1. •Pick something you "should" do but resist
  2. •Name both sides charitably
  3. •Give each side 2 minutes to state its case
  4. •Find what each side knows that the other doesn't
  5. •Propose a solution honoring both
  6. •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