Two things here - one minor and one major. >My brain knows the word I want to say I know this is just vernacular, but in the interest of preserving the right perspective(s), I'll note that "brain" doesn't know anything. Knowledge is used abuot the agent, which is us. So, _you_ know what you want to say indeed. And you're the one having the difficulty in saying it. It's not healthy to think of it in terms of an error on your part, contrasted to "brain knows the word". We get too disjointed in our self-image if we allow for such models of understanding. :) >completely restructure a sentence to get what I want to say out >I just say "nevermind". >can say it at a later time just fine This is the major one. • If you restructure what you want to say, you're no longer saying what you wanted to say. You might be communicating the same kind of thing, but it wasn't in the way was originally intended*. • Choosing to give up altogether is so to say the extreme version of the same point. • Stutter variance is one of those things that takes a long time to get used to. It's able to change so much depending on so many contexts, and that's really hard to adjust to. But it is what it is. - --- - *: In truth, nobody ever says what they originally intended, because that's not how communication really works. This may be a sufficiently relevant point to expound on a bit here: In the simple model, we tend to think of communication as a package we put together in our heads, and then deliver it to the recipient for them to unpack in symmetry. This model is terribly flawed, though. Communication is a living thing that changes at a whim, depending on the circumstances. It's also more fragile than the simple model would have us believe - and at the same time, it's more solid than it sounds like. Thing is, "perfection" was never meant to be a criteria for successful communication. Only in contrast to "perfection" does it sound like the more complex model presents communication as something flawed. But it's sort of supposed to be flawed. The way communication functions requires "non-perfection", otherwise language and interplay would never move anywhere. And since it moves all the time, despite us not noticing it, our model must necessarily become complex to reflect that. - So - back to stutter. Are we "just the same as everyone else"? No, obviously not. But you may in principle call us merely an exaggerated version of the dynamics of communication. This is, of course, just a way to reframe the context to try and help those who are stuck in the simple model _and_ stuck with a stutter as well. Once we realize that the "perfection" we're seeking is not the right criteria, we should be able to ease up. _Successful_ communication is what matters, and that's totally doable, even if the delivery breaks down in certain spots. We're not alone in the "responsibility" to carry out a communication, so we should stop understanding ourselves like that: Like a move from "perfection" (the word/sentence in "brain") and then to a "perfect delivery", to finally a "perfect understanding" in the other. Instead, we're something that's constantly in process, so whatever we want to express is always a matter of getting it across in the best effort. We are not beholden to principles of "perfection" at all.