>*"Stuttering doesn't make sense if we reduce it to external triggers. Triggers are like a symptom of stuttering."* **Part 1:** Great reply! I’ve noticed that many people, particularly those less familiar with theoretical frameworks, tend to view "stuttering" as a negative response or behavior. However, I believe it’s time we move beyond that concept. While stuttering-like disfluencies may appear to be the negative behavior on the surface, the real focus should be on the underlying mechanism driving these disfluencies. What underlying mechanism drives the failure to execute speech plans? (probably more insightful than "Why do triggers sometimes result in stuttering?") From a psychological framework, I do not see stuttering as the core issue nor as the unhelpful behavior. Stuttering, in my view, isn’t the unhelpful behavior or the negative conditioned response - I see stuttering-like disfluencies more of an indirect consequence, or perhaps an outcome of this mechanism. A PhD researcher once brainstormed a similar perspective: **Before Conditioning**: Unconditioned stimulus -> unconditioned response US = Social rejection -> UR = a rise in the release threshold for muscle movements and consequent difficulty initiating actions (Symptoms range from depression to full-blown freeze response) Neutral Stimulus (NS) = saying something (to someone ) -> No Response   **During Conditioning**: Neutral Stimulus + Unconditioned Stimulus -> Unconditioned Response NS Saying something (to someone)  + US Social rejection -> UR  a rise in the release threshold for muscle movements and consequent difficulty initiating actions (Symptoms range from depression to full-blown freeze response)   **After Conditioning**: Conditioned stimulus -> Conditioned Response CS Saying something (to someone) -> CR a rise in the release threshold for muscle movements and consequent difficulty initiating actions (Symptoms range from depression to full-blown freeze response) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ However, personally I rather perceive the conditioned response as: **Positive conditioned response:** * Adequate fine-tuning of the release-threshold mechanism * Trying to execute speech plans when they are ready to be executed * Not reducing the likelihood of errors being encoded in the speech plan - to make it available for motor execution (Not preventing the speaker from executing sounds that are likely incorrect or inappropriate) And the silent block is simply the indirect consequential outcome - (probably not part of the negative conditioned response), it's simply the indirect outcome of the underlying conditioned response/mechanism.  **Argument**: Because humans are able to "learn" to adequately fine-tune the release threshold and to stop avoiding perceived errors for speech execution to proceed. These are helpful  voluntary behaviors. Over time they can become more adaptive, unlike the silent block (that's simply the outcome).