It was beautiful. And I am guilty on a few counts.💀 I don't know what you wrote the previous 300 pages, but this part alone could become a book in itself. Fuck the post about the 3-factor model. This is better. To start: 1. Say I was to follow along every point. Do you suppose I would get cured of stuttering, or reach a point of contentment and fulfillment so that whether I am cured or not matters not? 2. Say you write a book on that. If a cure was discovered today and there is no more stutter, does the book become obsolete or would it still be necessary because there will be all these lingering destructive learned behaviors over years and years? I'd say the latter no doubt. 3. If the latter and they persist despite no more stutter, are those really triggers or acquired personality traits? Is that then trigger mechanism or maladaptive behavior and personality formation? Let's keep in mind that a person doesn't start stuttering because they display these behaviors, and so removing them does not stop it. 4. Would a physiological model contradict this one or go hand in hand? I'd say hand-in-hand, but it'd be best for the two models to remain mutually exclusive. 5. I think there is still work to be done on synthesizing the information so you could arrive at a viable Personality Model and testable hypotheses. 'Past experiences & values' has 1 factor. It leads to 'Helplessness attitude' which has 17 factors. This is a claim that experience of error-prone speech leads to all 17 factors within the HA cluster. HA leads to 'Negative attitude' which has 4 factors. In this case, you wouldn't need each of the 17 factors to tie into each of the four, but each of the 17 to tie into at least 1 of the 4. Further, given the NA leads to 'Implicit associations' which has 4 factors, the same process repeats. If 1 factor in NA does not tie into at least 1 other in IA, then you either need to add a factor in IA or remove the factor in NA. If you remove the factor in NA, then you trace back its connection to HA. If 1 of the 17 factors was only tied into the factor you remove in NA, you remove that too. This process of elimination leaves you with solid hypotheses to test. Example: Panic response which triggers stuttering is caused by or correlated to anticipatory struggle (Avoidance-approach mechanism) which is caused by/correlated to self-fulfilling prophecy (Implicit associations) which is caused by/correlated to applying incorrect fluency goals & interventions (Negative attitude) which is caused by/correlated to generalization (Helplessness attitude) which is caused by/correlated to experience of error-prone speech (Past experiences & values). You traced back the panic response each step of the way. Now you create a questionnaire/survey with tens of questions. 6 of those questions will be connected to these ones. 1. I panic before I stutter. 2. I anticipate blocks. (Anticipatory struggle) 3. Bllablla, you get the drift. If enough respondents answer positively to this clump of questions to produce a statistically significant response, the hypothesis is proven. And that's a step forward to personalized approaches because not every stutterer will exhibit all of the factors. And you end with a Personality Test akin to the Big Five but specialized for stutterers. And then reach becomes global because you do not need the clinical one-on-one setting. And I barely passed my statistics classes ffs 😤