John says that we disagree on the nature of the speech block "because each of us is talking from a different body of experience" and it may be therefore impossible to reconcile our differences.
Well, unless we are solipsists, one of us is giving a wrong interpretation to
his experience. At this point I am neither interested in "being right" nor
"agreeing to disagree" and leaving it at that. Particularly because you are so
influential in the stuttering community and command a lot of respect, it is
important that the consequences of your (and, more modestly, my) thinking be as clear and unanbiguous as possible, and, perhaps, stimulate tests and other ideas.
The consquences of a psychological etiology of stuttering (as you hold) are as
follows:
1. Figure out the psycho/emotional system that holds stuttering together (e.g.
hexagon) and you can, with time and effort, cure the problem.
2. Research in organic causes would, at best, reveal some predisposition to mild
(no blocks or prolongations) disfluency, but could not yield a cure to adult chronic stuttering.
The consequences of an organic view are as follows:
1. An organic cause for stuttering (including blocks), and, as a consequence,
the possibility of a cure, appear very likely and should be the object of
intensive research.
2. Research on the psycho/emotional system that becomes evident in stuttering
can yield to better (un)control (sorry!) of the speech mechanism in adults and,
perhaps, prevent children from learning maladptive behaviors that would further lower their "stuttering threshold".
3. Depending on the nature of the organic cause, it is plausible that it might
be affected (for better or for worse) by changes in the body, hormones (male vs
female ratios), aging (disappearing problem) etc.
I am sure there is much more, in both areas, that I am not thinking of.
Regarding the speech evolution scenarios you mention, they neither prove, nor contradict a starting organic predisposition. In the presence of a problem, the speech mechanism (micro-system) continues to evolve and to incorporate the (bad) coping mechanisms that lead to blocking. PERHAPS at this level it is possible to prevent blocking from becoming "entranched"in spite of a predisposition to do so. I guess this is what Woody would base his ideas on childhood prevention...
(right Woody?).
If this is indeed possible, then it is conceivable that somebody born with the organic predisposition to stutter might be prevented from doing so. So here is some common ground with your view.... more to follow.
Monday, February 12, 1996
Is it easier to learn maladaptive behaviors?
Winston Purdy commented that "maladaptive behaviours seem to be easier and quicker to learn than good ones"
I'm not so sure. Unfortunately, in the immediate moment, it's not usually
obvious what is maladaptive and what isn't. A consequence of a belief in an
organic origin is the possibility that, given an organic "fix" to the problem,
any maladaptive behavior would "melt away" on its own accord. The body would probably "find its own wisdom".
This is by no means sure. It is also plausible that maladaptive stuttering
behavior could have become so entrenched that we would require years of
"unlearning" even after the organic problem has been fixed. I consider this
plausible but unfortunate (because it would mask the "fix" and make it much
harder to prove). I would bet, however, on the former. I.e., given an organic
fix, any maladaptive learning would prove to be very tame.
In mathematical terms, the organic problem is like a "forcing function" that
causes the permanence of the maladaptive behavior. We can, in hindsight,
recognize maladaptive behavior and work on creating a new transformation that is able to reduce the effect of the forcing function, but there is no guarantee
that this will work for everybody (the forcing functions may be different).
Unfortunately this is the ONLY course of action we have available and I, for
one, wouldn't sit around waiting for an organic fix (and I haven't).
Anyhow, my main message is: We learn maladptive behaviors not because they are somehow easier than "good" ones, but because they are an immediate consequence of some real underlying problem. We put our hands in front of our face because we keep falling. Yes, putting our hands in front of our face makes us fall even more, so we can spend years in self- or other therapy to learn how to keep our hands at our sides and accept the occasional bump in the head, and that's fine, I agree that that's a better strategy, but, if you could just eliminate the underlying reason for falling, then your arms would find their way to your sides very naturally and with no need for great revelations. That's my bet.
I'm not so sure. Unfortunately, in the immediate moment, it's not usually
obvious what is maladaptive and what isn't. A consequence of a belief in an
organic origin is the possibility that, given an organic "fix" to the problem,
any maladaptive behavior would "melt away" on its own accord. The body would probably "find its own wisdom".
This is by no means sure. It is also plausible that maladaptive stuttering
behavior could have become so entrenched that we would require years of
"unlearning" even after the organic problem has been fixed. I consider this
plausible but unfortunate (because it would mask the "fix" and make it much
harder to prove). I would bet, however, on the former. I.e., given an organic
fix, any maladaptive learning would prove to be very tame.
In mathematical terms, the organic problem is like a "forcing function" that
causes the permanence of the maladaptive behavior. We can, in hindsight,
recognize maladaptive behavior and work on creating a new transformation that is able to reduce the effect of the forcing function, but there is no guarantee
that this will work for everybody (the forcing functions may be different).
Unfortunately this is the ONLY course of action we have available and I, for
one, wouldn't sit around waiting for an organic fix (and I haven't).
Anyhow, my main message is: We learn maladptive behaviors not because they are somehow easier than "good" ones, but because they are an immediate consequence of some real underlying problem. We put our hands in front of our face because we keep falling. Yes, putting our hands in front of our face makes us fall even more, so we can spend years in self- or other therapy to learn how to keep our hands at our sides and accept the occasional bump in the head, and that's fine, I agree that that's a better strategy, but, if you could just eliminate the underlying reason for falling, then your arms would find their way to your sides very naturally and with no need for great revelations. That's my bet.
Friday, February 09, 1996
J. Harrison's "bobulating" and organic causes
Fine word, but John, I'm gonna say something I've been meaning to say for a
while ... it really confuses the issue. This is why. I feel it gives you a way
to "partially agree" when in reality your disagreement is more profound (and so be it). When you divide up stuttering into behaviors fluent people experience, such as bobulating, and those of stutterers, such as blocking, it allows you to say "some stuttering (i.e. the bobulating part) can be organic in origin", but that doesn't amount to much.
The fact that some people may have more of a predisposition to "become discombobulated" when tense, doesn't interest me any more than saying that some people have a tendency to blush or sweat more than others. When I (and probably most others) debate on the etiology of stuttering, I include "ssssssssssan Francisco" as well as silent blocks as THE essential part of the phenomenon.
So let's call spade a spade. You believe that stuttering is essentially a psychological problem. It's OK. You are not the only one. But it is important to note that when people present evidence for organic causes they are talking about Stutering (capital S), not bobulating.
John says that there is no "need to resort to a mysterious genetic predisposition to explain why a block occurs".
You can probably dissect any particular block and find some reasons why that block, in particular, happened, but I believe that the general tendency to block requires an organic explanation. It's like having a car that stalls a lot. Any particular stalling event might have an explanation of "no spark" or "not enough gas" but the real underlying cause is a badly designed ignition system. There are SYTEMS at this level as well at the level you usually refer to.
John thinks that blocks can be explained as "a programmed, habituated response".
I agree that some of blocking behavior is reinforced by a programmed, habituated response, but what gets habituated is the fear and probably accompanying maladaptive behaviors, such as tensing up. We also agree that we can work at changing the program (and we both have, in ways that seem dissimilar, but are really not) Where we don't agree is that I (and others) think that
1. Blocking behavior (i.e. Stuttering) could only get started and become established enough to begin creating secondary reactions (fear etc.) because of organic reasons The above explanation accounts for its getting a firm hold of our speech system, and even making the problem a lot worse.
2. An "unlearning" process for "un"monitoring and "un"controlling your speech, while almost always helpful, will not necessarily lead to the complete elimination of Stuttering.
My own personal suspicion, is that, in fact, we may have not been as responsible for our "cure" as we think we are. "Organic" doesn't mean perennial. Our body changes and, by the time we find our way back from our maladaptive behaviors, we find the organic core isn't really a big deal any more, or that it's gone altogether. Alternatively, we may find that the organic core continues to overwhelm the speech system and no amount of "unlearning" will do the trick. Basically this is how I explain both your success and mine (more moderate) as well as as the difficulties others seem to keep having.
John claims that being aware of the particular circumstances of any particular block allows him to "let go" and can't understand why we are odds about this... (hence his belief in a psychological root to blocking)
We are at odds partly because I came to the same ultimate conclusion (let go,
zen, etc.) precisely by NOT analyzing my blocks and NOT even considering any
approach avoidance issues, but by taking a holistic view immediately). Any rare
residual blocks I have are complete surprises and appear to me completely
devoid of psychological loading (in the past you have asked how I can be so
sure... I guess I just am... that's the best I can do).
John feels that the incidence of stuttering in some families can be due to other common family circumstances rather than genetics... (the old "nature vs. nurture debate").
If I didn't believe in an organic cause, that's how'd I'd try to explain it too,
but my impression (somebody correct me) is that genetic connections are drawn beyond the immediate family. Aren't there studies about twins raised in
different families too (somebody help)? My stuttering relatives were a cousin
(now in his 60s and still stuttering) and an uncle, now in his 70s, whom I
actually never heard stutter, but who told me he did as a young man (he, by the
way, never claimed any particular insight or effort ... it just went away).
Both people are from my mother's side of the family. All families were quite
different as far as I know.
while ... it really confuses the issue. This is why. I feel it gives you a way
to "partially agree" when in reality your disagreement is more profound (and so be it). When you divide up stuttering into behaviors fluent people experience, such as bobulating, and those of stutterers, such as blocking, it allows you to say "some stuttering (i.e. the bobulating part) can be organic in origin", but that doesn't amount to much.
The fact that some people may have more of a predisposition to "become discombobulated" when tense, doesn't interest me any more than saying that some people have a tendency to blush or sweat more than others. When I (and probably most others) debate on the etiology of stuttering, I include "ssssssssssan Francisco" as well as silent blocks as THE essential part of the phenomenon.
So let's call spade a spade. You believe that stuttering is essentially a psychological problem. It's OK. You are not the only one. But it is important to note that when people present evidence for organic causes they are talking about Stutering (capital S), not bobulating.
John says that there is no "need to resort to a mysterious genetic predisposition to explain why a block occurs".
You can probably dissect any particular block and find some reasons why that block, in particular, happened, but I believe that the general tendency to block requires an organic explanation. It's like having a car that stalls a lot. Any particular stalling event might have an explanation of "no spark" or "not enough gas" but the real underlying cause is a badly designed ignition system. There are SYTEMS at this level as well at the level you usually refer to.
John thinks that blocks can be explained as "a programmed, habituated response".
I agree that some of blocking behavior is reinforced by a programmed, habituated response, but what gets habituated is the fear and probably accompanying maladaptive behaviors, such as tensing up. We also agree that we can work at changing the program (and we both have, in ways that seem dissimilar, but are really not) Where we don't agree is that I (and others) think that
1. Blocking behavior (i.e. Stuttering) could only get started and become established enough to begin creating secondary reactions (fear etc.) because of organic reasons The above explanation accounts for its getting a firm hold of our speech system, and even making the problem a lot worse.
2. An "unlearning" process for "un"monitoring and "un"controlling your speech, while almost always helpful, will not necessarily lead to the complete elimination of Stuttering.
My own personal suspicion, is that, in fact, we may have not been as responsible for our "cure" as we think we are. "Organic" doesn't mean perennial. Our body changes and, by the time we find our way back from our maladaptive behaviors, we find the organic core isn't really a big deal any more, or that it's gone altogether. Alternatively, we may find that the organic core continues to overwhelm the speech system and no amount of "unlearning" will do the trick. Basically this is how I explain both your success and mine (more moderate) as well as as the difficulties others seem to keep having.
John claims that being aware of the particular circumstances of any particular block allows him to "let go" and can't understand why we are odds about this... (hence his belief in a psychological root to blocking)
We are at odds partly because I came to the same ultimate conclusion (let go,
zen, etc.) precisely by NOT analyzing my blocks and NOT even considering any
approach avoidance issues, but by taking a holistic view immediately). Any rare
residual blocks I have are complete surprises and appear to me completely
devoid of psychological loading (in the past you have asked how I can be so
sure... I guess I just am... that's the best I can do).
John feels that the incidence of stuttering in some families can be due to other common family circumstances rather than genetics... (the old "nature vs. nurture debate").
If I didn't believe in an organic cause, that's how'd I'd try to explain it too,
but my impression (somebody correct me) is that genetic connections are drawn beyond the immediate family. Aren't there studies about twins raised in
different families too (somebody help)? My stuttering relatives were a cousin
(now in his 60s and still stuttering) and an uncle, now in his 70s, whom I
actually never heard stutter, but who told me he did as a young man (he, by the
way, never claimed any particular insight or effort ... it just went away).
Both people are from my mother's side of the family. All families were quite
different as far as I know.
Thursday, February 08, 1996
habits/organic predisposition
John Harrison commented that it was hard for him to understand how locking his vocal cords in a three second block could be organic. Same point for prolongation of a sound like "s" in Sssssssssssssssssssssan Francisco...
I have a hard time understanding how it might NOT be! But I fear we are like the blind wise people who are surrounding an elephant and are trying to determine what it is....It's a snake! ...It's a tree!
However John also commented that talking quickly and rising emotions could bring out genetic issues as different people react differently to stress and such "interference" could "end up in stumbling-like disfluencies".
I was about to say that I agreed until I realized you were edging with a "slight of definition". It seems to me that your "stumbling-like disfluencies" are meant to exclude blocks. To me they are a primary and far more important sympton of an organic problem than "stumbling-like disfluencies" (what you used to call "bobulating"?).
In the past we have worked hard at finding commonality in our thinking, and we have, but we are good friends enough that it's entirely OK if we don't agree. I think it would actually be more useful now to really stress where where we do not agree. I know we beat the "origin of block" to death a while back, but it might be worth a rehash.
I have a hard time understanding how it might NOT be! But I fear we are like the blind wise people who are surrounding an elephant and are trying to determine what it is....It's a snake! ...It's a tree!
However John also commented that talking quickly and rising emotions could bring out genetic issues as different people react differently to stress and such "interference" could "end up in stumbling-like disfluencies".
I was about to say that I agreed until I realized you were edging with a "slight of definition". It seems to me that your "stumbling-like disfluencies" are meant to exclude blocks. To me they are a primary and far more important sympton of an organic problem than "stumbling-like disfluencies" (what you used to call "bobulating"?).
In the past we have worked hard at finding commonality in our thinking, and we have, but we are good friends enough that it's entirely OK if we don't agree. I think it would actually be more useful now to really stress where where we do not agree. I know we beat the "origin of block" to death a while back, but it might be worth a rehash.
Bad habits and organic predisposition
A (sarcastic) question was posed as to whether an "organically predisposed alcoholic"
would be "predisposed to recognize Jack Daniels and Jim Beam"....
No, what I am saying is that his body processes alcohol differently from mine.
I can drink a glass of wine and not feel drunk nor feel an overwhelming desire
to keep drinking. I'm no expert on alcoholism but it is entirely plausible that
some enzymes that break down alcohol for me are lacking in the other fellow and
that alcohol goes to his brain in greater quantities and much faster.
It is entirely plausible that "stress" produces some chemical that affects our
speech apparatus. Fluent speakers are organically more fit to deal with that
chemical (just an example of what "organic" might mean, unfortunately no
specific mechanism has been proven yet).
Comment: To become alcoholic one needs first to make the choice to start drinking. One cannot possibly be "predisposed" to making that choice.
The predisposition is not in the choice itself (unless later he becomes, as he
well may, less "free" to choose) but simply in what happens as a consequence of
the choice. Suppose a bird is born with only one wing and sees all its siblings
jump off their nest and fly away. Of course it would choose to try and fly off
as well, with obvious dire consequences.
We are more like the bird than the alcoholic. We don't really have a choice not
to talk.
Can the "organic" weakness be in the lack of will power rather than in the system?
People have been blamed throughout history for being "weak" ... just stop eating!.... just think happy thoughts! ... I fear, as stutterers, we have no immunity against this sort as weakness as well. Yes, I could be a PWS and be unwilling to face the issue. It is also absolutely true that extra will power and desire can go a long way towards making stuttering a non-problem, as many of us bear witness to. But it remains EXTREMELY important to know exactly what we are dealing with.
We find now that people may have a weight "set point" just like we have a set
body temperature. Yes, if you don't eat you lose weight, but for some people it
may be sheer hell, for others no big deal. I can tell you that stuttering is no
longer an issue for me, and how I've done it. But, I simply don't know if my
effort is equivalent to yours. I don't know if your speech "set point" is
different from mine
A quote from the movie "12 Monkeys": "There is no right or wrong, just popular opinion."
No, there is observation and good science.
1. Is it plausible that an organic problem could cause stuttering? -Yes
2. Is there any data in support of this hypothesis? -Yes (genetic studies)
- much more coming in from scans etc.
3. Has a specific mechanism been demonstrated yet? - No
4. Is it plausible that the problem is compounded by psychological factors? -Yes
5. Do we need to work in all of these areas? - Yes
(I'm sure people will quibble here and there, but I doubt that we can steer away
too much from these basic facts).
would be "predisposed to recognize Jack Daniels and Jim Beam"....
No, what I am saying is that his body processes alcohol differently from mine.
I can drink a glass of wine and not feel drunk nor feel an overwhelming desire
to keep drinking. I'm no expert on alcoholism but it is entirely plausible that
some enzymes that break down alcohol for me are lacking in the other fellow and
that alcohol goes to his brain in greater quantities and much faster.
It is entirely plausible that "stress" produces some chemical that affects our
speech apparatus. Fluent speakers are organically more fit to deal with that
chemical (just an example of what "organic" might mean, unfortunately no
specific mechanism has been proven yet).
Comment: To become alcoholic one needs first to make the choice to start drinking. One cannot possibly be "predisposed" to making that choice.
The predisposition is not in the choice itself (unless later he becomes, as he
well may, less "free" to choose) but simply in what happens as a consequence of
the choice. Suppose a bird is born with only one wing and sees all its siblings
jump off their nest and fly away. Of course it would choose to try and fly off
as well, with obvious dire consequences.
We are more like the bird than the alcoholic. We don't really have a choice not
to talk.
Can the "organic" weakness be in the lack of will power rather than in the system?
People have been blamed throughout history for being "weak" ... just stop eating!.... just think happy thoughts! ... I fear, as stutterers, we have no immunity against this sort as weakness as well. Yes, I could be a PWS and be unwilling to face the issue. It is also absolutely true that extra will power and desire can go a long way towards making stuttering a non-problem, as many of us bear witness to. But it remains EXTREMELY important to know exactly what we are dealing with.
We find now that people may have a weight "set point" just like we have a set
body temperature. Yes, if you don't eat you lose weight, but for some people it
may be sheer hell, for others no big deal. I can tell you that stuttering is no
longer an issue for me, and how I've done it. But, I simply don't know if my
effort is equivalent to yours. I don't know if your speech "set point" is
different from mine
A quote from the movie "12 Monkeys": "There is no right or wrong, just popular opinion."
No, there is observation and good science.
1. Is it plausible that an organic problem could cause stuttering? -Yes
2. Is there any data in support of this hypothesis? -Yes (genetic studies)
- much more coming in from scans etc.
3. Has a specific mechanism been demonstrated yet? - No
4. Is it plausible that the problem is compounded by psychological factors? -Yes
5. Do we need to work in all of these areas? - Yes
(I'm sure people will quibble here and there, but I doubt that we can steer away
too much from these basic facts).
Saturday, February 03, 1996
Questions on "organic predisposition"
Is there a predisposition specifically for stuttering or for the system that supports it?
There is system and there is system.. What you call "act" is in the fact the
result of a very complex control system that transforms your thoughts into that
very complex sequence of articulations that produce the sounds we call speech.
I, and probably most of those who think in terms of predisposition, see a
likely weakness in this system. BUT, this doesn't exclude the importance of the
LARGER SYSTEM, which includes fears, bad habits etc. This larger system can
make it very hard to get to the bottom of the problem, but this is the system
can can be undoubtedly modified (in fact it MUST be). Here I agree with John H.
Is there also an organic predisposition for other "habits"?
We stutterers have other habits too. Drinking, smoking (and some good ones too) etc. come to mind as possibilities. I, for one, don't think they compare at all with stuttering. Somebody can probably bring some statistics to bear, but I think that will and support (e.g. 12 steps programs) can, in fact break many habits in a way no stuttering therapy has. Now, there are certainly aspects of what we label stuttering that include "habits". Looking away while blocking, closing one's eyes, twitching, whatever.... come to mind, and these can in fact be eliminated the way unwanted habits can.
Can we be organically predisposed to some habits? Some people think this is the case for alcoholism, for example, and there is much talk about "addictive personalities", but, again, I suspect that whatever organic weaknesses make one prone to drinking, smoking, overeating, depression are different from each other, and different from whatever causes stuttering. The trend seems to be that more and more of what we used to view as (controllable) bad habits have in fact some organic origin.
Comment: everybody seems to be coming from different stuttering paradigms
Actually they seem to be only two: genetic/organic and psychological (bad habit,
just say no.. etc.). But of course there are all kinds of shades in between. The problem is really that the two are not mutually exclusive and it's very hard to sort out the relative weights of both in the "full blown" manifestation of stuttering. I suspect that these relative weights are different for each stutterer, which leads to the differences in perception we often seem to display.
There is system and there is system.. What you call "act" is in the fact the
result of a very complex control system that transforms your thoughts into that
very complex sequence of articulations that produce the sounds we call speech.
I, and probably most of those who think in terms of predisposition, see a
likely weakness in this system. BUT, this doesn't exclude the importance of the
LARGER SYSTEM, which includes fears, bad habits etc. This larger system can
make it very hard to get to the bottom of the problem, but this is the system
can can be undoubtedly modified (in fact it MUST be). Here I agree with John H.
Is there also an organic predisposition for other "habits"?
We stutterers have other habits too. Drinking, smoking (and some good ones too) etc. come to mind as possibilities. I, for one, don't think they compare at all with stuttering. Somebody can probably bring some statistics to bear, but I think that will and support (e.g. 12 steps programs) can, in fact break many habits in a way no stuttering therapy has. Now, there are certainly aspects of what we label stuttering that include "habits". Looking away while blocking, closing one's eyes, twitching, whatever.... come to mind, and these can in fact be eliminated the way unwanted habits can.
Can we be organically predisposed to some habits? Some people think this is the case for alcoholism, for example, and there is much talk about "addictive personalities", but, again, I suspect that whatever organic weaknesses make one prone to drinking, smoking, overeating, depression are different from each other, and different from whatever causes stuttering. The trend seems to be that more and more of what we used to view as (controllable) bad habits have in fact some organic origin.
Comment: everybody seems to be coming from different stuttering paradigms
Actually they seem to be only two: genetic/organic and psychological (bad habit,
just say no.. etc.). But of course there are all kinds of shades in between. The problem is really that the two are not mutually exclusive and it's very hard to sort out the relative weights of both in the "full blown" manifestation of stuttering. I suspect that these relative weights are different for each stutterer, which leads to the differences in perception we often seem to display.
Thursday, February 01, 1996
Stuttering as a "limit cycle"
John Harrison responded to my remark" "we pay attention because we stutter rather than the other way around..." by stating that it wasn't an "either-or" situation.
It is either-or in the following sense: we must not confuse the "final" manifestation of a problem with its origins. It's simple misfortune that "paying undue attention" tends in fact to make the problem worse. If paying attention helped, stuttering would probably be nipped in the bud immediately. We'd have a mathematically stable system stutter-payAttention-stutterLess, just like a ball at the bottom of a cup, you move it and gravity pushes it back to the bottom.
Unfortunately the system is unstable: stutter-payAttention-stutterMore-payMoreAttention...
Eventually we get trapped in a "limit cycle" (sorry about the math...) and we lose track of how we got there.
The "chicken and egg" problem is not a conundrum, it is a hystorical artifact. If you could reconstruct evolution precisely you'd find "what" came first (neither the chicken nor the egg).
I agree with you that the final manifestation of stuttering is an interlocked system, and that, yes, learning to "pay less attention", more zen, whatever... has the positive effect of releasing us from the tighly locked cycle that can make stuttering much worse.
I simply want to make sure that nobody gets the illusion that unlocking or "melting away" the cycle automatically makes us non-stutterers. I know, you probably want to say "it depends on what you mean by stuttering...". I'll preempt you. I mean that, when all is said and done and we have achieved the highest zen mastery, at least some of us, will still be prone to blocking once in a while. There will still be a fundamental "organic" difference between us and fluent folks.
I don't want to sound defeatist. Unlocking the cycle is precisely what I have worked on and I consider myself "recovered" in the sense that stuttering has ceased to be an issue in my life. I just don't want us to lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a real organic problem as opposed to some chance "psychodynamic event" whose consequences can be undone with the right attitude.
I keep having the nagging feeling, I have often expressed, that we are talking about apples and oranges. Could it be that the there are vast differences in the "original" organic problems we have? Could it be that the final "system" manifestations of these problems are, instead, fairly similar? After all, whether we trip on a pebble or a rock our fall is going to look remarkably similar!
So people like you would say "if you melt away the cycle you've got nothing left!" (and indeed I've never heard you stutter). I say "I've got nothing left that I really worry about.." ( but I still experience some occasional "surprise" stumble..), and others will say "you guys are full of it...I worked and worked and I keep falling back into the same patterns!"
How I hope we'll figure it out some day!
It is either-or in the following sense: we must not confuse the "final" manifestation of a problem with its origins. It's simple misfortune that "paying undue attention" tends in fact to make the problem worse. If paying attention helped, stuttering would probably be nipped in the bud immediately. We'd have a mathematically stable system stutter-payAttention-stutterLess, just like a ball at the bottom of a cup, you move it and gravity pushes it back to the bottom.
Unfortunately the system is unstable: stutter-payAttention-stutterMore-payMoreAttention...
Eventually we get trapped in a "limit cycle" (sorry about the math...) and we lose track of how we got there.
The "chicken and egg" problem is not a conundrum, it is a hystorical artifact. If you could reconstruct evolution precisely you'd find "what" came first (neither the chicken nor the egg).
I agree with you that the final manifestation of stuttering is an interlocked system, and that, yes, learning to "pay less attention", more zen, whatever... has the positive effect of releasing us from the tighly locked cycle that can make stuttering much worse.
I simply want to make sure that nobody gets the illusion that unlocking or "melting away" the cycle automatically makes us non-stutterers. I know, you probably want to say "it depends on what you mean by stuttering...". I'll preempt you. I mean that, when all is said and done and we have achieved the highest zen mastery, at least some of us, will still be prone to blocking once in a while. There will still be a fundamental "organic" difference between us and fluent folks.
I don't want to sound defeatist. Unlocking the cycle is precisely what I have worked on and I consider myself "recovered" in the sense that stuttering has ceased to be an issue in my life. I just don't want us to lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a real organic problem as opposed to some chance "psychodynamic event" whose consequences can be undone with the right attitude.
I keep having the nagging feeling, I have often expressed, that we are talking about apples and oranges. Could it be that the there are vast differences in the "original" organic problems we have? Could it be that the final "system" manifestations of these problems are, instead, fairly similar? After all, whether we trip on a pebble or a rock our fall is going to look remarkably similar!
So people like you would say "if you melt away the cycle you've got nothing left!" (and indeed I've never heard you stutter). I say "I've got nothing left that I really worry about.." ( but I still experience some occasional "surprise" stumble..), and others will say "you guys are full of it...I worked and worked and I keep falling back into the same patterns!"
How I hope we'll figure it out some day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)