So, you might wonder: If people who stutter also experience the disintegration effect under more severe emotional conditions, could anyone develop stuttering? Theoretically, yes, but it is very, very rare. Cases like this are called "psychogenic stuttering," which is a reversible condition that can arise at any age due to some emotional trauma. Interesting, right? There is documentation of such cases. I’ll leave an article for you to check out on one of these: [Link to article](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924933816013936) Okay, we can discuss the power that emotions have on stuttering (which the authors do, and they end up choosing to defend a particular position), but I find it hard for any other theory to completely disapprove, because to do that you would need to present another theory that can concretely prove and with sufficient evidence the causes of stuttering. And we do not have that. Saying that the cause is "genetic" or "hereditary" ultimately only explains a higher probabilistic tendency for people to stutter, and at the same time, it does not mean that they cannot be cured. But it doesn’t explain what happens physiologically in the body, which is what the authors' theory tries to explain through the process of disintegration. Saying it is a "learned" behavior does not imply that you can manipulate or extinguish it the way you want, especially in the process of classical conditioning. **->** "If the below statement is true, then significantly more kids with a stuttering parent/family member would also stutter since they have the disposition for it and are in an emotionally negative environment. That is incredibly unlikely due to the small number of people who stutter. If that was true, then my siblings should stutter, and most of my stuttering friends should have siblings or more family that stutter." Genetic inheritance doesn’t work that way. It’s not black and white—either you inherited the inheritance = you show the condition, or you didn’t inherit it = you don’t show it. If it were like that, all the children of bald people would be bald, or all the children of autistic people would be autistic. The manifestation of inheritance depends on a series of factors, including sex (which is why we may have a 4:1 gender ratio for stuttering, and something similar for autism), other physiological factors, and environmental factors. And for the theory, it is important to inherit the genetic predisposition, with this understanding that I have just stated. **->** Clinically and academically, stuttering is categorized into different descriptors. Primary behaviors are the actual speech (prolongation, repetition, blocks). Secondary behaviors are any other movement, which is what you describe, and they are often learned behaviors. They do not make stuttered speech worse. That is a separate occurrence than the actual stuttered speech. Exactly, and that’s why I didn’t say these behaviors cause stuttering, but that they worsen speech fluency. "Fluency" is a socially constructed concept as a socially desirable characteristic of speech, which can even be improved by people who don’t stutter. If you search for public speaking courses, you’ll probably find teachings on how to improve your verbal "fluency." In most speech therapy treatments for people who stutter, you will learn what behaviors help or hinder fluency, such as starting to speak smoothly, not using force to expel a sound, breathing correctly, etc. But at no point will it be said that these behaviors cause stuttering. This is the learned aspect being referred to. You can learn things that improve fluency, but not things that cure stuttering. If you disagree that these behaviors worsen fluency (as it is socially conceived), I disagree with you, and speech therapists would too. But yes, they are separate occurrences in speech, even though they happen at the same time. These behaviors are indeed learned by another type of conditioning, called operant conditioning.