**In my viewpoint:** Drawing from research studies, it seems that neurogenic stuttering is primarily linked to neurological causes, while persistent developmental stuttering tends to exhibit neurological effects. This is just my take on it. From age 3 until adulthood, I consistently experienced severe stuttering in various situations, such as when alone, not feeling anxious, or singing. So, I have always stuttered the same in all situations. I believe that a common mistake we tend to make is to lean towards viewing stuttering as more neurological than psychological, when we stutter in all situations. This is my attempt to explain why, in my own thoughts. Upon analyzing my own stuttering, I concluded that during instances of stuttering, I failed to instruct my brain to send motor commands for speech movements. Importantly, whenever we avoid **instructing speech motor execution**, then I see this as an avoidance response. - Essentially it means, that I failed the decision-making or intent-forming phase, because of a lack of knowledge (or lack of mindful observation basically). Interestingly, once I actually decided to instruct my brain to execute speech motor plans, my stuttering changed significantly. I realized that subconscious **disruptions**, such as self-imposing demands on anticipation, perception, evaluation, and judgment, were **disrupting** my attempts to instruct speech motor execution. Then I started to experiment: \- For example, I changed my **demands**: "*I require that I believe that I'm truly alone (to instruct motor execution)*" - whenever I'm speaking when I"m alone (see [Yaruss](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2021.105878)' similar findings) This led me to stutter significantly less when I was alone. Above demand is what I call a conditional demand (because I limit myself to stutter less if the conditional demand is met). Then I experimented with unconditional positive **demands**, such as: * demand: "*If I decide to speak fluently (or execute speech movements), then speak exactly like a non-stutterer!*" Result: After a week of dedicated practice, I found that I could speak fluently in any situation whenever I chose to do so. However, this fluency lasted only for about 5 minutes initially. Over subsequent weeks, I expanded this duration, first to 10 minutes, then 30 minutes, 1 hour, and eventually, I achieved the ability to speak fluently like a non-stutterer throughout an entire day without using a technique - I only 'chose' (or decided) to speak fluently. This choose-technique (or *decision-making-technique*) seemed to be effective for me. However, the drawback was that I only speak fluently whenever I decide to speak fluently. I regressed to severe stuttering, if I stopped deciding to speak fluently. Given my upbringing, I was raised to accept stuttering and to integrate stuttering into my self-concept. **Because of this, I had subconsciously linked this to stop deciding to speak fluently**. So, applying this choose-technique for a long time comes with difficulty simply because I was raised to allow or justify stuttering. For instance, if I would speak fluently for an hour followed by one stutter.. if a classmate in University would then give a well-intentioned comment, such as "it's okay to stutter, you don't have to feel ashamed". Despite the intended respect, this comment actually has a counterproductive effect, resulting in allowing or justifying my stuttering, and then it becomes harder to apply the choose-technique. So, you could say that I was very sensitive to remarks that allows or justifies stuttering, and I **linked** this to limit speech performance. Then, I changed my strategy and I aimed for **unlinking** demands from */instructing execution of speech motor plans/*. Then I changed a few goals, such as: * fluency is not my goal, rather addressing the underlying **demands** Then I changed a few definitions, such as: * avoidance is not just avoiding feared words or feared situations. Rather, avoidance responses is everything that avoids: \[instructing speech motor execution\] * In other words: the following I considered my avoidance-responses: * relying on secondaries or any behavior to execute speech movements * implementing techniques, such as breathing or fluency shaping techniques, that attempt to execute speech movements * reducing triggers, such as reducing fear, judgements, anticipation, etc etc, in an attempt to execute speech movements * blaming things that I don't have control over (e.g., blaming genetics) to disrupt execution of speech movements * meeting the maladaptive demands that require a certain trigger-threshold to execute speech movements * etc etc Then I changed another goal: * **Old goal**: apply avoidance responses to execute speech movements. **New goal**: don't use any avoidance responses to execute speech movements. Only instruct speech motor execution (to execute speech movements), anything else is an avoidance response that only enables me to meet the maladaptive **demands** reinforcing my stutter disorder and the vicious loop Then I improved my stuttering by observing (and NOT avoiding/reducing) triggers, while instructing speech motor execution. This resulted in: * I spoke fluently whenever I'm observing triggers e.g., whenever I anticipated stuttering At this moment, I don't stutter anymore unless I feel a head or neck pain that causes me to faint. **Conclusion:** So, I draw the conclusion that, just because I stuttered the same in all situations, it doesn't have the implication that it's more neurological and less psychological. My experience suggests otherwise. Rather, I believe that it's actually because of: * I was not instructing execution of speech motor plans * I reinforced overreliance on an impaired timing mechanism to execute speech motor plans * I simply attempted to meet different psychological demands e.g., some PWS self-impose the demand: "*I require the belief that I'm truly alone*" "*I require the belief that I have confidence etc etc*" - in order to make it easier to execute speech movements. Each PWS simply developed different demands to speech performance, and different avoidance responses (that avoids instructing speech motor execution). This is just my take on it. What is your own view on the matter?