As always, you bring up excellent questions!!! >*"If that's the case how can I prevent my defensive mechanism from acting?"* **In my humble opinion:** **Ideas for addressing the high defensive mechanism:** (that prevents us from saying words and sounds) * many PWS blame genetics/neurology for execution difficulty type stuttering and anticipation (severe persistent stuttering). **Strategy**: Unlearn this. Stop blaming such global causes. Because it can lead to perceiving ourselves more error-prone and hypersensitive than we actually are, and catastrophizing severe stuttering/anticipation * accept that some of us might be mildly hypersensitive or error-prone (due to genetics or neurology), but not sufficiently so for us (or our listener) to be consciously aware that they are impaired. In other words, not being aware of our **mild** hypersensitivity/error-proneness (in a subset of PWS) can lead to underestimating our speech motor control abilities. The other side of the coin is also true. If we blame genetics/neurology on severe persistent execution difficulty type stuttering (the high defensive mechanism), then it's most likely that we unnecessarily magnify, overestimate and catastrophize (1) genetics, and (2) being error-prone/hypersensitive, leading us to perceive unnecessarily excessive errors in the speech plan (than there actually are) * start analyzing what exactly it is that increases our high defensive mechanism (that prevents execution of speech plans. Like, we impose a 'need to increase/decrease' something first - in order to speak fluently (or, in order to allow the defensive mechanism to allow executing the speech plan) * During a stutter, don’t DISCUSS **needs** with yourself in the inner speech (as in, don't engage in a discussion about this with your inner voice), if that makes any sense. Because that's not necessary for fluent speech production, and will only create doubt and possibility to stutter, and leads to justifying reliance on the defensive mechanism * (1) Repeatedly reminding ourselves that past patterns don’t always repeat: Do not automatically presume that because we blocked on a particular word in a particular speaking situation in the past that we will therefore always block on it in similar situations in the future, and (2) Stay open to the possibility that our anticipation of a negative experience may not lead to an actual negative experience. For example: positive affirmnations as you pointed out, but also many other interventions, such as, not justifying a stutter state, not immersing in a stutter identity, not reinforcing beliefs or attitudes that result in the concept/perception that stuttering is 'always' looming around the corner * Don’t consciously execute articulators (rather subconsciously) * Don’t time executing articulators. The timing should be natural: We should execute a speech plan at the moment that we choose to move the speech muscles. There is no complex system or timing or 'needing confidence' (etc) in order to 'time' the initiation of speech plans * Don’t justify: past, current, future experience - story-telling - hypotheticals - needs (etc) - the need for thoughts/feelings to execute speech plans * Don’t rely on any thoughts/feelings to speak. Because otherwise it will most likely result in relying on a defensive mechanism and perceiving unnecessary errors in the speech plan. So, unlearn reliance. Stop relying on a defensive mechanism that prevents execution of speech plans * Acknowledge and understand that an actual (real) loss of control doesn't exist. Rather, it's a perceived loss of control that we experience during a stutter. **Strategy**: Suggesting that we should learn to stop relying on this experience (or feeling) of loss of control - we should stop 'needing to reduce this experience (or feeling)'. Because this sensation of loss of control is merely a cogntive fusion (imagined), that we label and immerse in 'as if' we cannot get past a speech block. Understand that we are able to execute speech plans (and thus speak fluently) with any or every feeling/experience that exist (as long as we don't justify and activate the defensive mechanism). Does this make sense?