I have come to the conclusion that he communicates and thinks in a style that is optimized for creating growth and positive change for stutterers, rather than in a style that is optimized for academic discourse or even "truth", whatever that is. As someone with an engineering degree from an Ivy League school I know what academics consider "truth", but I reject the idea that it is the be all and end all for advancing the lives of stutterers.You are constructing a straw man here, because I never said that it is the be all and end all for advancing the lives of stutterers. I have explicitly criticised his causal theories on stuttering. I have nothing against him creating growth and positive change for stutterers. You can do this without knowing anything about stuttering.
Bodenhamer is the one who claims truth. In his website, he tells people what stuttering is about, and he deserves to be de-constructed for his arrogant way of writing about the causes of stuttering.
When he says that genetics are not involved, he is concerned with the realm of future possibilities, rather than the realm of what has been set in the past. In that realm I believe that he is largely correct. Genetics plays little role in determining what an appropriate response to stuttering is for adults. Genetics doesn't help much right now with overcoming the life issues that stutterers face. So in that sense Bob is correctBut he was talking about the causes of stuttering. Genetics is not involved in easing stuttering and its handicap, except in the indirect sense that some subtypes of stuttering might have a better chance for controlling their stuttering due to their special genes, either in terms of neurobiological abnormality or in terms of temperament to go through therapy.
I happen to strongly disagree with Bob about genetics in an academic discourse sort of way, believing that my stutter (and those of many other PWS but perhaps not Bob or John H) is largely driven by my genetically determined neurological makeup, so I tend to agree with the content but not the tone of this post.But why does he not simply remain silent on areas he does not understand? That is what I am critical about. He should be more modest, and stick to what he might well be good at. To help people modulate their symptoms and give them a better perspective. He is open prey to me, the second he talks about causes. That is what science is about.
I feel that the word babble is unnecessarily demeaning for a man who generously freely gives his time and effort in genuine and effective support, helping people who stutter become self actualized.Unfortunately, babble is the right word for what he is doing. He is babbling about causes. An action should be judged by the consequences on people and not on whether the action was of good intention. There are also many healers who want the best for their cancer patients, but they effectively murdered their patients who withdrew from conventional treatment. Another question is whether he is being paid for it for his time and effort.
My message is loud and clear: I will attack his message from until he either deleted his causal theories or puts them in sync with common understanding.