Stuttering is Genetic

stutteringdude

http://www.independent.ie/health/health-news/stuttering-is-in-the-genes-not-the-head-say-scientists-2550261.html


Hi all
As most of you probably know stuttering is genetic.My own father has a stammer and as result I stammer myself.I'm on the McGuire programme(which I find very helpful) and all my fellow grads have a history of stammering in their families.
If the general public realised that it's genetic they would have greater respect for the condition instead of thinking 'he/she is too good looking to have a stammer','too intelligent','too good at sport' etc etc to have a stammer.Common opinion is that stammering originates from a negative experience so people have the opinion 'ah he or she could stop stammering if they got a bit of confidence,not true.It 's genetic so we can't just dust ourselves down/improve our self esteem and it'll go away.
Any feedback appreciated

Untense

Hi stutteringdude,

I think it was irresponsible of the Irish Times to declare that stuttering was genetic. Like all the other papers who mindlessly regurgitated what is essentially a bit of PR. From the article (which is from February last year):

The discovery is not a full explanation — only about 9 per cent of stutterers have the defect. However, he suspects more will emerge.

The Irish Times article describes how the genes discussed were only found in 9% of people studied. That's less than 1 in 10. If you were testing for possible causes of an illness and found a specific chemical in 1 person out of 10, would that be common enough for you to deem that specific chemical the cause of everyone's problem? Including the 9 people out of 10 who don't have that specific chemical present ?
Yet this is what this article asserts with the ridiculously sensational headline. The scientist may indeed be 'sure more will emerge', but does that mean they actually will? Well it's two years on and we haven't seen any more articles. The truth is, scientists are just as prone to bias, expectation and error as any other human being. He wasn't acting scientifically if he really said he was "sure" he would find something when he had no evidence of it.

Well maybe they will, but I've googled the scientist's name and found this article from February 2010. The article shows that they used a statistically insignificant number of people for their tests, about 600 people in total - many of whom were from the same family, so any genetic abnormalities may just be familial. Though they found the same genes in some stutterers who did not have family ties, and they didn't find any of these particular genes in non-stutters, nonetheless, the number of non-stutterers tested is statistically insignificant at 300 people and the low numbers mean the sample is much more prone to bias.

From the article:

“The brain actually looks different in people who stutter compared with those that don’t.”

Looks different how? It doesn't specify in the article or the National Institute of Health website. It's either in terms of genetics or in terms of the activity/composition of the brain. Well if they're talking about the first, that means nothing only that the brain looks different because it has the genes which have already been mentioned were present in 9% of those people. If they're talking about activity/composition, which is not by any means necessarily related to genetics, a person's brain activity and composition will change depending on what they're doing. If they're a london cabby, a marathon runner, a chess player, a hunter, a singer or a stammerer, their brain may be measurably different to 'normal' people in tests. This is not because they were born that way, but because our brain is like a muscle in that it will adapt no matter what it is we're doing or experiencing in our lives. It's not by any means indicative of anything other than what we've been up to or have had happening to us - and the brain is incredibly plastic, it can change.

The other thing this article fails to explain is why some people are able to 'grow out' of stuttering from their early years to their latter years. If it's genetic, surely everyone would be stuck with it? So at the very least the suggestion of this article that 'stuttering is in the genes' can't possibly be true for everyone.. At best we can say some stammering is genetic, though even that is questionable given this particular bit of research.

Other aspects which the article fails to address, is why anticipation, fear and all the other 'psychological' issues under the 'tip of the iceberg' of stuttering can cause or at least add to blocks when stuttering. When these issues are solved, blocks can reduce significantly.

And lastly, what about the thousands of people who stutter who don't have stutterers in their family?

Newspapers are guilty of regurgitating unverified 'facts' (whether political, scientific or otherwise) for the sake of selling papers and filling space on a deadline. They love half-baked science publications because they are always 'newsworthy', they contain topical factoids. We all love 'facts', even when (as in this case) the facts in question may be spurious. There was a time when 'fact' meant something was indisputably true, but now it just means a bit of information that is asserted without any evidence. Many facts today are patently false. For example the 'fact' that we only use 10% of our brains. Nearly everyone has heard that one, and most people believe it, but it's absolutely false. It is a fact that has been regurgitated and repeated in the newspapers, then 'self-help' books, and so on, till it became part of our 'common sense'. Once it gets there, it becomes unquestionable. For this reason, any scientific study published on a newspaper should be treated with scepticism, and we should avoid taking things as 'fact' just because we read the headline on a newspaper.

You might think I'm being dramatic, but the implication of this article were it to be believed, is that all people who stutter are stuck with what they have right now and that's that. But how do we know that for sure? What about all the people who find benefit from addressing the stuff 'under the iceberg' ? If they believed what they had was genetic so tough luck, would they investigate possible options for improving stuttering? If not, they would miss out on any potential improvement to their ability to communicate. So these kind of articles are damaging, as far as I can see. Many people know improvement is possible. And there are people who have experienced a 'cure', though that seems presently to be elusive for most.

stutteringdude

Hi Untense,thanks for your reply

Untense wrote: »

Hi stutteringdude,

I think it was irresponsible of the Irish Times to declare that stuttering was genetic. Like all the other papers who mindlessly regurgitated what is essentially a bit of PR. From the article (which is from February last year):


The Irish Times article describes how the genes discussed were only found in 9% of people studied. That's less than 1 in 10. If you were testing for possible causes of an illness and found a specific chemical in 1 person out of 10, would that be common enough for you to deem that specific chemical the cause of everyone's problem? Including the 9 people out of 10 who don't have that specific chemical present ?


Yes,your right,it doesn't cover the 9/10 who don't have that specific chemical but I would think that there are other chemicals present which cause stammering in those people that have yet to be found.

Yet this is what this article asserts with the ridiculously sensational headline. The scientist may indeed be 'sure more will emerge', but does that mean they actually will? Well it's two years on and we haven't seen any more articles. The truth is, scientists are just as prone to bias, expectation and error as any other human being. He wasn't acting scientifically if he really said he was "sure" he would find something when he had no evidence of it.

Well maybe they will, but I've googled the scientist's name and found this article from February 2010. The article shows that they used a statistically insignificant number of people for their tests, about 600 people in total - many of whom were from the same family, so any genetic abnormalities may just be familial. Though they found the same genes in some stutterers who did not have family ties, and they didn't find any of these particular genes in non-stutters, nonetheless, the number of non-stutterers tested is statistically insignificant at 300 people and the low numbers mean the sample is much more prone to bias.

From the article:


Looks different how? It doesn't specify in the article or the National Institute of Health website. It's either in terms of genetics or in terms of the activity/composition of the brain. Well if they're talking about the first, that means nothing only that the brain looks different because it has the genes which have already been mentioned were present in 9% of those people. If they're talking about activity/composition, which is not by any means necessarily related to genetics, a person's brain activity and composition will change depending on what they're doing. If they're a london cabby, a marathon runner, a chess player, a hunter, a singer or a stammerer, their brain may be measurably different to 'normal' people in tests. This is not because they were born that way, but because our brain is like a muscle in that it will adapt no matter what it is we're doing or experiencing in our lives. It's not by any means indicative of anything other than what we've been up to or have had happening to us - and the brain is incredibly plastic, it can change.

The other thing this article fails to explain is why some people are able to 'grow out' of stuttering from their early years to their latter years. If it's genetic, surely everyone would be stuck with it? So at the very least the suggestion of this article that 'stuttering is in the genes' can't possibly be true for everyone.. At best we can say some stammering is genetic, though even that is questionable given this particular bit of research.

Yes,I've heard of people who have grown out of it but perhaps the people in question,in their early years never had a stammer and that the dysfluency every baby/child experiences when learning to speak was mistaken for a stammer.

Other aspects which the article fails to address, is why anticipation, fear and all the other 'psychological' issues under the 'tip of the iceberg' of stuttering can cause or at least add to blocks when stuttering. When these issues are solved, blocks can reduce significantly.

And lastly, what about the thousands of people who stutter who don't have stutterers in their family?


Through my time on the McGuire Programme,attending their courses, support meetings and various ISA conferences everyone who I've spoken to on the 'cause of stammering' claims to have a history of stammering in their family.So,even before research was released it was always my opinion it is genetic

Newspapers are guilty of regurgitating unverified 'facts' (whether political, scientific or otherwise) for the sake of selling papers and filling space on a deadline. They love half-baked science publications because they are always 'newsworthy', they contain topical factoids. We all love 'facts', even when (as in this case) the facts in question may be spurious. There was a time when 'fact' meant something was indisputably true, but now it just means a bit of information that is asserted without any evidence. Many facts today are patently false. For example the 'fact' that we only use 10% of our brains. Nearly everyone has heard that one, and most people believe it, but it's absolutely false. It is a fact that has been regurgitated and repeated in the newspapers, then 'self-help' books, and so on, till it became part of our 'common sense'. Once it gets there, it becomes unquestionable. For this reason, any scientific study published on a newspaper should be treated with scepticism, and we should avoid taking things as 'fact' just because we read the headline on a newspaper.

You might think I'm being dramatic, but the implication of this article were it to be believed, is that all people who stutter are stuck with what they have right now and that's that. But how do we know that for sure? What about all the people who find benefit from addressing the stuff 'under the iceberg' ? If they believed what they had was genetic so tough luck, would they investigate possible options for improving stuttering? If not, they would miss out on any potential improvement to their ability to communicate. So these kind of articles are damaging, as far as I can see. Many people know improvement is possible. And there are people who have experienced a 'cure', though that seems presently to be elusive for most.

I don't believe people are stuck with it because it's genetic,there is no such thing as a cure imo but there are techniques,tools you can use to control your stammer instead of your stammer controlling you.

Kotek Besar

I don't have any stuttering family members, and yet I'm a stutterer. I have a 4 1/2 year old son who, by the grace of God, appears to speak quite fluently and has never shown any signs of stuttering - to my tremendous relief.

stutteringdude

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I don't have any stuttering family members, and yet I'm a stutterer. I have a 4 1/2 year old son who, by the grace of God, appears to speak quite fluently and has never shown any signs of stuttering - to my tremendous relief.

The stuttering gene like most other genes can skip generations which means it can pass down from generation to generation remaining 'dormant' but will become evident eventually in some people.I attended ISA awareness day a year ago,doctor said that the stammering gene like any other can skip up to and including three generations.

PatL23

If i ever have children, i hope they have a stammer, my dad, his sister and myself have it.
I really hope it skips the next generation, its terrible as it effects my confidence terribly.

stutteringdude

PatL23 wrote: »

If i ever have children, i hope they have a stammer, my dad, his sister and myself have it.
I really hope it skips the next generation, its terrible as it effects my confidence terribly.

Hi
My advice would be that if you ever have a child and he/she stammers don't draw any attention to the stammer,positive or negative ie if your child stammers don't correct their speech or look away.If your child goes through a period of fluency dont praise him/her for their fluency because your child will then realise there most be something 'wrong' with their speech at other times.Its an approach a few of my friends who stammer took with their offspring and their children stopped stammering in a few weeks.
Children start to stammer spontaneously but if you bring attention to the stammer it becomes a learned behaviour imo.



‘To learn to speak fluently, a child’s brain must develop many different neural circuits, and these circuits must interact in very precise and rapid ways. Stuttering emerges in childhood as a symptom that the brain’s neural circuits for speech are not being wired normally. For this reason, early intervention is critical, because by shaping the child’s experience, we can affect the on-going wiring process in the child’s rapidly developing brain. The longer the stuttering symptoms persist in early childhood, the more difficult it is for us to change the brain’s wiring, and stuttering becomes a chronic, usually lifelong problem.’ - Smith, A. (2008), Purdue University at the Oxford Dysfluency Conferencee

stutteringdude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK-TyKKW-ok