[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Gunars K. Neiders
Date: 10/10/01
Time: 11:00:01 PM
Remote Name: 206.63.38.51
Dear Shelagh and Sarah,
Thanks for the interesting paper AND particularly for timely answers of the questions. This makes the reading for those of us who read the paper later, and revisit it, really interesting and educational. Sometimes the discussions provide as much information as the paper itself, and yours is the one of these instances.
When a paper is good it gets me to think. :-) A good thing for me but not always for the authors of a paper because then I come up with bright :-) ideas, which either lead to some conclusions, which I would like for the author to speculate on or questions which are sometimes a nuisance. :-)
Having been weaned from struggling, strangling stuttering :-) by the combination of cognitive behavior psychology, Van Riper's MIDVAS (Motivation, Identification, DESENSITIZATION, Variation, Approximation, and Stabilization) and Sheehan's Voluntary Pseudo Stuttering on words that one would not ordinarily stutter, I see the stationary AND mobile phones as a very good tools.
In cognitive behavior therapy, such as REBT, we often have to deal with phobias and anxieties. The most common of all irrational ideas is: I have to do well (in the case of people who stutter: speak without or with minimal stuttering) and be loved or at least liked by all the significant people or else I am a no-goodnik :-), a worthless person. In stuttering we take this to EXTREMES we even DEMAND that strangers who serve us in big city department stores, that telephone operators, etc. think that we are OK.:-) In REBT we dispute this irrational idea both in cognitive terms such as 1) where is the evidence that stuttering makes you a bad, worthless person, 2) why do I HAVE to be loved and liked by all the significant persons in my life, and 3) what real practical difference does it make in our lives that a stranger thinks we are OK :-). Does a stranger hold some magical power over us? :-) But cognitive disputation alone is just like one hand clapping. :-) Until we get our clients to go out and do some anti-shame exercises, they still are OVERCONCERNED about what other people think of them. For an ordinary run of the mill psychology client these anti-shame exercises consist of something like a) getting on a bus and calling out the bus stops aloud and staying on the bus, b) in a newsboy fashion trying to sell Monday's paper on Tuesday by yelling "Monday's Daily News!" or c) walking a banana on a leash.:-) The therapist actually demonstrates how it is done.
Van Riper advocated stuttering "unashamedly" to desensitize oneself, and Joe Sheehan made his clients do voluntary pseudo stuttering on the words that they would not usually stutter on. Unfortunately, I have heard a generation of stuttering therapists have not made sure these exercises are done. (See Marty Jezer's book.)
With the coming of age of a cell phone, we can combine the anti-shame exercises with the talking on the phone phobia, by going to a public place and WITHOUT DIALING do pseudo voluntary stuttering on the phone.:-) Saves money. :-) The therapist can model this by doing it FIRST and more SEVERELY than the client, while asking the client to stand beside her or ride on the same seat in a bus. All of the stuttering exercises can be then repeated on either "live" or "dead" phone. Afterwards the feelings can be discussed and the irrationalities further challenged.
Some people do not have as much Ego Anxiety (described by irrational idea above of somehow feeling that a person who stutters is less worthy than one who does not), instead they have a Discomfort Anxiety which is described by the self-talk "It is not only hard to do this speech exercise, it is TOO HARD." Nice theory, but not backed up by any facts. :-) The therapist then, again, first cognitively challenges the irrational self-talk with "Prove it to me that it is TOO hard! Where is the EVIDENCE?" And marches right out with the client in the public and keeps on doing the anti-shame exercise with phone while making the client stay by her side. If the client still refuses to do the exercise she starts to exaggerate :-), tosses in some secondary stuttering, and, if that does not help goes in a St. Vitus dance :-). By this time the client is slinking :-) away. Tough! :-) The therapist follows him until he decides that the better part of the valor :-) is to go ahead and do the desensitization/anti-shame exercise. One might loose a few clients, but it is amazing how many of them would gain a sense of humor :-), take themselves, others and the world less seriously, and practically overcome all anxiety about stuttering.
My question to you is: Do you think that this type of desensitization using both cognitive and behavioral means would work for YOU? I do.
Of course, the therapist would also have to be "tough bird". :-) But, whoever said that doing therapy is going to be a walk in the park? :-) And if the therapist cannot talk herself following through, she can always log onto www.rebt.org and go through a cognitive psychology workshop to toughen herself :-).
Do you think that this type of stuttering therapy process is too hard? Then try struggling :-), strangling :-) stuttering! For me the choice between gaining practical fluency even with the all the noxious exercises was easier. :-) I went through one tough period of doing challenging self-assignments. Just my personal experience. :-) Unfortunately, at that time there were no mobile phones, and, thus, I had to resort to other desensitization exercises.
I would love to hear ALL your thoughts and comments. On top of it I will let you have the last word. :-) If you want to ask me some clarification you will have to SPECIFICALLY ASK.
Respectfully,
Gunars