Reducing fear vs. not reducing fear. What is ultimately better towards stuttering remission and subconscious fluency (over controlled fluency)?

Reducing fear vs. not reducing fear. What is ultimately better towards stuttering remission and subconscious fluency (over controlled fluency)? I think, in general, if a young child learns to speak formally/appropriately - to get a good impression. Then their subconscious brain will more strictly regulate execution of the speech plan. So this doesn't ONLY occur when we consciously experience fear of stuttering, or general anxiety (or other negative emotions). Let's say that I'm happy and excited to speak more formally. This happy emotion, by default, results in more strictly regulation speech-plan execution. But if we speak formally, we generally do not feel or experience any fear. Yet "speaking more formally" is ultimately linked to a non-conscious fear of social judgements/rejection. After all, because if we stop being formal/appropriate/etc - listeners might find it inappropriate or any other judgements. It's not just "speaking more formally or appropriately; non-stutterers interact with stimuli (such as, turn-taking, speaking more formally, etc) - associated with fear of rejection - throughout the whole day, yet they do not stutter. So fear of rejection is not the problem (here I'm pointing to the many SLPs that misunderstood this); rather, the poor fine-tuning of the release threshold is the main problem toward stuttering remission and subconscious fluency (rather than speaking without fear). It’s about properly fine-tuning the release threshold so that the speech plan is executed when it is adaptive to speak and suppressed when it is not adaptive. We do not want to eliminate the approach-avoidance mechanism (it is a healthy, useful mechanism we are born with); instead we want to fine-tune it so that it works in our favor. \~\~ Non-stutterers do not speak uniformly all of the time i.e., by default social communication is not entirely monotone, exactly in the same speech rhythm, or without stopping. This suggests that humans, by default, adjust their regulatory speech-plan execution (which is tied to the brain’s response to potential social judgement or rejection). Why? Because if we spoke in monotone, all the time, listeners wouldn’t like it — as it breaks conversational norms, makes listeners uncomfortable, or can be interpreted as disengagement or abnormality. So: regulating execution of the motor program is an unconditioned response. (important: it’s a healthy, useful response that we do not want to eliminate in any way). In a subset of PWS, authority stress or fear of stuttering - can actually lead to more fluency (e.g., from my own stutter experience). In this case, fear leads to loosening the regulation of speech execution. (Extremely relevant for research labs.) This occurs partly because of the reasons (why I rely on those needs), which gives a low salience/positive valence tag to the basal ganglia. Additionally, acceptance approaches (from SLPs) can result in a subset of PWS believing (mostly subconsciously): "I don't need to resolve the approach–avoidance conflict during a stutter" (after all, I accept my stutter as it is; stuttering is my way of talking). (Extremely relevant for research labs.) My point is: adopting random SLP techniques with a desensitization component is not necessarily effective to resolve the approach–avoidance conflict during a stutter. In fact, random desensitization techniques can sometimes maintain/reinforce the approach–avoidance conflict (stimulus generalization). Also, the classic statement by most SLPs: "Fear exacerbates stuttering." This post counters that statement by saying that fear doesn't trigger stuttering, rather the poor fine-tuning of the release threshold does. Many SLP techniques that include desensitization mainly target the “fear of stuttering” and therefore may miss the many other conditioned stimuli that trigger the approach–avoidance conflict and excessive regulation of speech-plan execution. If SLPs broadened the target to include those additional conditioned stimuli, I think therapy could help a wider range of people and lead to more stuttering remissions and subconscious fluency (over controlled fluency). **Conclusion:** So a subset of PWS still stutter significantly during high confidence, calmness (etc).. here, they do not consciously feel fear of social rejection - when they stutter with a comfortable person or when feeling confident. Yet, their subconscious brain reacts to a fear of social rejection because this is an unconditoined mechanism (i.e., we are born with this response) to repond to it. As I mentioned earlier, even when we just socialize (without feeling any "obvious fear"; even if we are confident, it doesn't matter) - social communication is ultimately tied to a fear of social rejection ***(because that is how humans/creatures have been programmed in their DNA; we can't just STOP using this approach-avoidance mechanism because it's totally unconscious in ALL humans; so we do NOT want to eliminate this approach-avoidance mechanism in any way); we do NOT want to eliminate this unconditioned fear.*** (Reasons why the BLA-amygdala responds to non-conscious fear-processing) So again: this nonconscious fear is not something we CAN feel during a stuttering block; also, this unconditioned fear is not a problem (because non-stutterers interact with it throughout the whole day which doesn't lead them to stutter). Why do non-stutterers speak fluently? After all, their brain also evaluates stimuli as a problem to be avoided (e.g., sometimes they fear introducing themselves while attempting to reduce this fear). Answer: I hypothesize, because there is a difference: (A) People who stutter (PWS) rely on an excessive error-avoidance mechanism for speech-plan execution to proceed (resulting in excessively regulating speech-plan execution). (B) In contrast, non-stutterers also engage in an error-avoidance mechanism but NOT for speech-plan execution to proceed. \~\~ Your thoughts?