You three people are talking over each other: \- one is trying to convey 'techniques' support accepting compulsion \- one is trying to convey 'techniques' contradict removing stuttering permanently \- one is trying to change the description of acceptance ​ My opinion is: The general opinion of people who stutter is, they think that acceptance means 'one who accepts his compulsion'. Obviously, this is a common misconception, because instead, we should accept our stutter trigger (which is our anticipation). For example, I am speaking and one second before I stutter I already know or feel that I will stutter. Let's call this a trigger. \- if we apply this anticipation (trigger) as a prediction tool in order to change our stutter (for example, by using a technique or onset), then you are REACTING to the trigger. The more you anticipate by using techniques, the more you attach importance to the trigger and the harder it is to stop the compulsion \- if we don't try fluency, we don't stutter. Why is that? Because the more we try techniques, the more we make the trigger important. \- In order to **remove stuttering completely**, we should not attach importance. The solution is to detach importance by observing the trigger and learning to not react to it while not doing the compulsion. Because this will result in: building resilience against the stutter trigger, disconfirming expectancy and detaching importance