Focus on desensitization: it reduces the threat tagging and hyper-responsiveness that keep the system stuck. And we need to move the set-point (Homeostasis vs. Allostasis)

Focus on desensitization: it reduces the threat tagging and hyper-responsiveness that keep the system stuck. And we need to move the set-point (Homeostasis vs. Allostasis) **Extremely relevant:** Imagine that you're a young kid again. Monthly, your parents allow you to buy your favorite croissant bread. *Example:* (A) You are allowed to have 1 croissant (per month) (B) You are allowed to have 2 croissants (per month) (C) You are allowed to have 3 croissants (per month) (D) You are allowed to have 4 croissants (per month) Years later, at age 17, you have adapted to only have (e.g., 1) croissant. *My point is:* It's not that the **AMOUNT** (1, or 2, or 5 croissants) is bad or good. Whether you get 1 or 10 croissants a month, your inner balance adjusts to it as the new normal. So, if 10 croissants is the new normal, anything more or less than that will be perceived as a lack or an excess. \~\~ **Relation to stuttering:** Prior to a stuttering block, we have likely been conditioned to evaluate (and react to) a certain **AMOUNT** of stimuli — to 'control' (or manage or regulate) speech execution. Our subconscious brain has been conditioned to excessively react to a high **AMOUNT** of stimuli (to look for threat valence), resulting in excessive regulation of speech execution, ultimately manifesting outwardly as stuttering-like disfluencies. My point is that that amount \[eg. the adaptation level of 30 or 50\] stimuli is something we don't perceive as good or bad — "it just is," "I just stutter, that's all there is to it." - But in actuality we are so adjusted to that excessive amount that, even if we tried to reduce it, it leads to perturbation in brain processing because this is a threat (i.e., a lack of protection/regulatory mechanism). So the brain steers us back toward the old normal (eg. in which the subconscious brain evaluates eg. 30 or 50 stimuli); to baseline. **Sensitization**: increased response following repeated exposure to a stimulus; the system shows **resistance to change** driven by homeostatic maintenance of the (recalibrated) set-point, possibly combined with **sensitization** of threat circuitry. In other words, once the system has reduces the AMOUNT of reactions to stimuli, homeostatic mechanisms will later act to keep that recalibrated baseline stable. That’s why attempts to reduce such reactions (and evaluations) to stimuli - can feel destabilizing: the system is defending the adopted set-point. * **Allostasis** = when you describe the *initial, durable shift* to a new pattern of over-monitoring or control (the “new normal”). * **Homeostasis** = when you describe *mechanisms that defend or restore that current pattern* after a perturbation. https://preview.redd.it/zyrke58dp3sf1.jpg?width=1220&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54a012592ee4308f5557749aff538e7fabfa983c **Recommended solution:** So we need to desensitize to that sensitization. Desensitization reduces the threat tagging and hyper-responsiveness that keep the system stuck. And we need to move the set-point. Ok. I've made my point clear. So now the important question. This is for everyone: what is your viewpoint or take on it?