>I dont care about studies and science in the case of stuttering because science and research needs funding and funding will not be given anytime soon to psychological approaches to stuttering this is the biggest red flag. you make these sweeping claims but don't care for science? in other words: "i am making strong claims, but i don’t want to be held to evidence, because the evidence does not support my claims." there *are* funded studies and CBT‑style approaches for people who stutter; they just show partial, complicated benefits, not miracle cures, which is exactly why you don't like science and research. >stuttering may have a genetic or neurobiological origin but i would argue that most of it is psychological no one cares about what you would argue. decades of research show stuttering is primarily neurodevelopmental with strong genetic heritability. psychological factors do not cause most factor. they can, however, influence severity and frequency. anxiety is not a cause. it is a modifier. >people like john harrison and tim mackesey studied it extensively over decades john harrison and tim mackesey are not research scientists. harrison's work is more in the realm of self-help, while mackesey is a clinician. >im pretty sure that the psychological approach to treatment can remove like 90 percent of stuttering(dont dwell on the number) you know that this is blatantly wrong, so why make this claim in the first place? i'm tired of the misinformation in this subreddit. and there are better ways to promote optimism than implying that stutters just aren't trying enough.