I experience that we (almost) never speak about strategies to unlearn stuttering here on Reddit. But.. Why not? **Confidence and techniques:** I think that the main problem among redditers seems to be - that we tend to believe that we lack: (A) confidence (B) a technique We also often tend to believe that we need to reduce: (A) anxiety, doubt or anticipation (B) etc Yes indeed, we might stutter more in those situations, we since the listener will eventually understand our sentence if they wait long enough - it implies that we did succeed in saying words/sounds - in at least some of the time Conclusion: So, by definition we are actually able to execute speech plans in those times when we succeed - despite not relying on confidence, a technique, reducing anxiety etc. In fact, I'd say that it's might actually be a liability to rely on those things that we initially thought were 'helpful' (like confidence). Because: 'Needing to increase confidence' and 'Needing to decrease anxiety' is what increases the defensive mechanism in itself. Suggesting that it wasn't actually the anxiety or lack of confidence that triggered stuttering. Your thoughts? It's similar to what [Axp3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stutter/comments/1dcx3vy/comment/l8835pv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) says: *"Positive prediction errors (more reward than predicted) produces more activation. Here you'd say there is belief distortion, i.e. you expected to stutter on a sound but were actually fluent.* *Negative prediction errors (less reward than predicted) produces less activation. There is belief distortion here too, i.e. you expected to be fluent on a sound but actually stuttered.* *Taken in such context, there is no belief distortion and mismatch between prediction and reality in a fluent person's speech. Baseline neutral response. They do not require faith in their ability to speak without stuttering in order to do so. It's unconscious.* *I'd argue that the very introduction of the notion of belief as conscious actor causal to speech motor program initiation (that is, saying words/sounds) makes it such that only positive and negative prediction errors remain possible while a neutral baseline response is made impossible.* *Beliefs, be it positive (self-affirming) or negative (self-negating) creates polarity. And the danger is that faith/belief might not actually be causal to successful speech execution when I am consciously convinced it is.* *Here's a simplified illustration according to the way I see it:* *Say I hold X belief at one time. Positive prediction error occurs and I experience increased activation and reward. Learning takes place such that I strive for the same reward and so same pathway. Next time, however, with the previous success in mind, my predicted reward is now higher than it was the first time. And so there is increased likelihood that I may receive less reward than predicted (negative prediction error). Then depressed activity and the pathway weakens again. I am no longer so convinced in the effectiveness of X belief to my speech. BUT IT WORKED THE FIRST TIME. THAT IS PROOF BELIEF STANDS CAUSAL TO SPEECH. The problem must have been X belief, not belief in entirety. I'll try Y belief now. And I get stuck in a vicious cycle of chasing my own tail. Rinse and repeat."*