OP's stance is entirely plausible in a neurological framework, that's what I'm trying to say. Genetics and neurophysiology merely add a different dimension of understanding to the problem, namely the third-person objective description. But the first person subjective carries weight here too, more readily apparent than something like diabetes Here's is where OP's stance would be invalid. Consider Jack Menear's claim. His falsifiable claim is stuttering carries with it anticipation and control of words, absent in fluent speakers, without which fluent speech naturally comes out. It's fully within the current paradigm to imagine one can change their subjective thought processes Two sides here. Focusing on the subjective and getting the claims right can give you useful insights into how to change these subjective experiences. A focus on neurophysiology could also lead to insights in physical treatments