I think it sounds like an interesting enough approach, but I'm not so sure about the details or the general applicability. I know it's generally not fun to stutter. It's a disruption. Lots of things are, of course. Stutter is just one of them. Sometimes we might be able to have fun with it, but other times we can't. Depends on the context. Being impartial seems, to me, to let go of the idea that we can actually have fun due to a stutter. It also lets go of the idea that stuttering is not fun, and I don't think we need to do that (in this direct sense). There are things that are hard in the world. Also, being impartial towards our own speech sounds like an unusual stance to me. I'm not impartial - I'm invested in everything I say. I want to say things that I feel like are good things to say. I don't want to be impartial to what comes out - I want to feel it. I also want to say these things in the way I'm intending them, more or less *(we never quite achieve perfection, of course - nor were we ever meant to)*. That is in and of itself an effort, and it's not bad that this effort exists. It's just the way we perform when we talk. However, the stutter adds and extra level of effort. Again - it disrupts. I don't necessarily need that distraction. But I can follow your idea of impartiality in so far as we should apply it to ourselves in terms of the _end result_. So, if we stuttered, that's okay, because we still got something out (with all the intentions and feelings that are part of it). And if we didn't stutter, that's also okay, because that's the sort of thing that one could expect in a speaking situation. The impartiality comes from not wanting to _discard_ the success of the former, simply because it didn't deliver as the latter. We should not have the criteria of _fluency_ as the only valid delivery. That's impartiality too, I think. A focus on what we manage to communicate. So, I want all those emotional responses, because they're part of who I am and how I respond to things that happen. I see no need to be impartial to that. Perhaps we could say that the struggle of achieving a beneficial mindset is one of figuring out what's important and what's not, in the grand scheme of things. I don't mind a struggle - but for me, the resolution comes in the achievement _beyond_ the struggle. We might consider this sort of mindset a _growth_, as opposed to fear and evasion. - I make it a point here of using words similar to yours, because I think there's a certain malleability to the approach, and how we elect to fit the "model" together.