Should we remove our fear response? remove our approach-avoidance conflict? remove our mechanism in which we respond to errors such as anticipation?

Should we remove our fear response? remove our approach-avoidance conflict? remove our mechanism in which we respond to errors such as anticipation? **In my opinion**: I think it's important to understand that 4-year-old kids more freely say whatever they want; however, as children grow older (around 12 years, for example) they learn to filter — or fine-tune — their speech execution more strictly. The older they become, the more they rely on formality, respect, and accuracy when speaking. Mind you, these stimuli "formality, accuracy etc" are LINKED to a fear of social judgements/rejection. Very important to udnerstand!!! This implies that they depend increasingly on certain NEEDS to regulate speech execution (based on formality and similar considerations). Conclusion: This implies that the release threshold (i.e., whether we allow words/sounds to be executed) tends to rise by default as we age from about 4 years to 12+ years. In that sense, the approach–avoidance conflict in your description — desire for fluency versus desire to avoid stuttering — may increase as well. However, the problem with that description is that an increased approach–avoidance conflict does not necessarily increase stuttering. It does not automatically make the stutter disorder, the stuttering mechanism, or the stutter cycle worse. Stuttering may even reduce between ages 4 and 12 for some children, despite an increased approach–avoidance dynamic. Argument: Because a rise in the release threshold is not bad and doesn't increase (or result in) stuttering. What is bad is a poorly fine-tuned release threshold, because that results in totally unnecessary stuttering blocks. So that’s why I believe describing stuttering primarily as an approach–avoidance conflict (desire vs. fear) (As the researcher SHEEHAN proposed) misses the point: it does not indicate stuttering severity, not even a little. This by itself, does not make the error-avoidance mechanism maladaptive, not at all. (which I think most SLPs overlook) Now, back to the question: “should we remove the approach–avoidance conflict?” \~\~ Below I quote/paraphrase Brocklehurst (PhD): *"Most PWS would indeed assert that a rise in the release threshold as positive (i.e. good) because it makes speech easier, and a fall in the release threshold as negative (or “bad”) because it makes speech more difficult (i.e., a cognitive distortion). But I think this is a perception that we need to change in ourselves.* *It is unhelpful to impose positive and negative value-judgements on the Conditioned response. Essentially, when it is finely tuned, both the rises and the falls of the release threshold are good (positive). Because the rises help us to speak when it is adaptive to speak, and the falls help us to stay silent when it's adaptive to stay silent.* *Conclusion: So, we don’t want to extinguish this conditioned reflex, we just want to fine-tune it so that it works in our favour. After all, it is usually a good thing to stay silent (to block) when speech is likely to elicit hostile listener responses or social rejection. Staying silent (blocking) can sometimes save our lives. Our problem is simply a problem of fine-tuning the conditioned response.* *And the main things that prevent accomplishing such fine tuning are our unhelpful responses to stimuli (such as anticipation) & blocks.* *We can’t reliably know if the release threshold is rising or has risen too high (to enable execution of a sound or word) by relying on words or emotions. We can recognize a rise in the release threshold if we actually try to speak.* *If we don’t try to speak, we may anticipate difficulty getting some sound or words out but that anticipation is based on past experiences, and past experiences are not a reliable guide to what will happen in the future, so sometimes we anticipate that we will have difficulty getting the sounds/words out, and then to our surprise they come out OK."* \~\~ Your thoughts? https://preview.redd.it/ljsxxtp5cbof1.png?width=850&format=png&auto=webp&s=ee63dca7ce39e6a0a04941c302b564316927e9d0 [Source ](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Approach-avoidance-conflict-model-that-provided-the-bases-for-the-current-study-protocol_fig2_338417416)of image