>I'm not sure if this terminology is from another speech therapy programme Thank you. The academic terminology used are mainly adopted by PhD researchers, not by thereapists. The reason I used scientific terms is to make sure we use the same definitions to engage in a discussion. In my opinion, a major reason that therapists haven't found a way to recover from or outgrow stuttering, is because most therapists and people who stutter apply different definitions e.g., for fluency, stuttering, speech blocks, compulsion, disruptions (of the forward flow of speech), maladaptive interventions, strategies or coping mechanisms. Even though the common conception is that a speech block occurs when PWS cancel a speech plan, in contrast, it seems PWS also do speech blocks by starting a defective speech plan but not many people know or discuss this process. Likely, the chance to outgrow stuttering increases if the stutter community focuses more on accurate knowledge (instead of focusing on tricks/techniques because of a lack of a better solution). How do you define and perceive these definitions? >What I would say is what is the goal of the therapy if it's to allow stuttering to exist and happen, then that can only be good. Strategies are merely tools to achieve a specific purpose. Allowing oneself to stutter certainly has many positive effects like calming down, not caring anymore about negative listeners responses and not trying anymore to speak fluently. Every strategy (even the best strategies) often have negative effects as well, hence the suggestion to approach the stutter cycle from all angles instead of only one. Negative effects of allowing oneself to stutter could be: * justifying the stutter cycle * justifying coping mechanisms (after all, by applying this strategy we learn that stuttering is okay) * maintaining the maladaptive attitude of blaming triggers * reinforcing the impaired stutter program (or defective speech plan) * maintaining the maladaptive condition of prioritizing disruptions (like coping mechanisms) over forward flow of speech * losing faith in the forward flow (after all, this strategy could lead to **giving in** to triggers like anticipation, maintaining the stutter cycle or unprioritizing the forward flow) By definition 'trying to speak fluently' does not necessarily lead to (more) speech blocks. For example, in non-stutterers when they try to speak more fluently (e.g., when pronouncing a difficult foreign word) often leads to more fluency. In other words, a helpful strategy to try to speak fluently leads to more fluency. For example, by focusing on maintaining the forward flow over sensory feedback while not caring about failing to speak fluently. Conclusion: I recommend to develop a helpful attitude of not caring about 'failing to move speech muscles'. Additionally, I recommend to stop adopting the term 'stuttering'. Often researchers perceive the main issue of stuttering as '*a speech block*' or the halting of speech structures (or speech muscles). In my opinion, instead of the term 'stuttering' it is more effective to use the term '*speech block*' or rather '*stop moving speech muscles*' or '*stop instructing/deciding to send command signals to move speech muscles (like lips, tongue, jaw, laryngual or respiratory muscles)*'.