Interesting. Both my cousin and I stutter. We share maternal grandparents. While allegedly our stuttering was triggered by being suddenly scared, in early childhood, I had always wondered if there is a genetic component to it as well.
Do you positively know the emotionally traumatic event that caused psychogenic stuttering in you and your cousin? It’s a lot rarer than people used to believe, so I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion without good evidence. Both of you having developmental stuttering with a genetic component would seem more likely.
Not positively, no. It's anecdotal. Both him and I must have been around the 3-5 years old. I remember the experience just not if it's 100% what triggered the stuttering. My uncle and aunt are sure it was the trigger for my cousin.
I can see it being both a genetic component but it needed a trigger too to start happening.
Since some years every condition has "a genetic cause". Will be nice if those studies (3.5 miliions $ for playing with data from some databases - wow) will actually do real studies not just correlation.
I remember seeing something on TV a long time ago where they "cured" people who stutter simply by giving them a device that allowed them to hear what they were saying, but there was a tiny delay which was the way it worked. I don't remember the details any more than that.
> Stuttering is not a disease and does not need a cure.
I stutter. I honestly don't understand how you can come to that conclusion. I do not understand how something that makes it more difficult for me to talk is not a disease and should not be cured.
I'm also autistic, and while I can see the arguments that autism opens doors as well as closing them in terms of giving me new ways to think that allistic people don't have, all stuttering does is close doors. I know what I want to say, I just can't get it out without exercising more care than other people.
People have a tendency to conflate adjectives with identity, and don't like it when that identity is threatened. Give it a couple of years and I expect to get messages on social media inviting me to join groups for people with persistent COVID anosmia, and a couple of years after that they'll raise hell if someone comes up with a cure for it. Blindness, deafness, paraplegia, nearly type of bodily non-function is now who you are instead of just something about you.
A very close-minded perspective IMO. Human beings are complex systems molded by genetic evolution and environmental pressures, as well as culture and technology. Being "deficient" in one area nearly always confers a benefit in some other.
If I were you I'd develop a personality that deals with the particulars of your existence in a positive and constructive way. So you stutter. That means your language and by extension thought is different and unique in a way most people couldn't even comprehend. What can you learn about the universe? What kind of system of thinking and self-expression will you develop that works around your bottlenecks and channels your strengths?
> I do not understand how something that makes it more difficult for me to talk is not a disease and should not be cured.
Consider, for example, games. A game that makes it more difficult for you to win is not a disease, does not need curing. It is a challenge that ultimately leads to self-improvement. Difficult challenges commonly begin with frustration and dejection; Neither of which will actually help you move forward. Figure out how to move forward, and you will discover your self along the way.
So... if I have a handicap, I should look at it as an opportunity or challenge? I should just rise-up to the challenge? Yeah, well, if I don't have any options, then I'll make do.
I really only see lack of empathy in your response. Stuttering is a handicap, plain and simple. Yes, some of us can live with it. It is debilitating and humiliating and if you do not suffer from it, I can't imagine how you can begin prescribing advice. You can have the universe, I just want to order some coffee (thank god for self-serve POS).
Calling anything "plain and simple" is an admission of knowing nothing about the subject. Nothing in the universe is plain and simple. Every single mutation, trait and feature of every single human being who has ever been born can be thought of as a handicap. Classically, even being perfect is considered one.
This is only a reflection of one's inability to play the damn game, instead adopting a victim mentality for pity points.
When I went abroad and didn't speak a single word of the local language, I still managed to order coffee just fine by pointing my finger at what I wanted, and smiling. There is nothing debilitating nor humiliating about any of it. Grow up and develop a personality.
> Being "deficient" in one area nearly always confers a benefit in some other.
Not even close
> Consider, for example, games. A game that makes it more difficult for you to win is not a disease, does not need curing. It is a challenge that ultimately leads to self-improvement. Difficult challenges commonly begin with frustration and dejection; Neither of which will actually help you move forward. Figure out how to move forward, and you will discover your self along the way.
A game which increases the intensity of its challenges will make you better at the game. A game which randomly misinterprets your inputs will not.
> A game which randomly misinterprets your inputs will not.
You clearly know nothing about games. This specific kind of challenge (called 'output randomness') is widely employed in games and it absolutely makes you better at carefully considering what you're doing (because it might go wrong), making contingency plans (inevitably it will go wrong), efficient encoding of intent (maximize the outcome despite going wrong), and priorization (dedicate more effort to the important first).
The results of getting better at this kind of thing can be seen in telecommunications, where the unreliability of links has required very smart people figure out how to communicate over them anyway. And our networks are more robust because of it.
Please enlighten me on the games that intentionally implement misinterpreting player inputs. Accusing me of knowing nothing about games is a pretty reckless claim. Think about how fucking stupid that kind of thing is to claim of a random stranger. Games aren’t even a niche subject area,
“Output randomness”, as in, rolling a d20 to see how your attack goes is not remotely close conceptually to the idea of a game that intentionally misinterprets your controls.
If you choose to attack, your attack might not succeed. But that’s not a good analogy for a disability. Those are the rules everybody plays by. A disability like a stutter would be you decide you want to attack but then the game decides you’re going to use a useless item instead.
Traditional roguelikes sometimes implement a spell or effect of 'confusion' that causes the symbols by which you read the game world to shuffle around randomly, thus obscuring the information of what is what. Then attempting to use an item you thought was an X turns out to be a Y instead. Many of them have items or spells with inherently uncertain outcomes, like wands of random effects.
The modern traditional roguelike Cogmind has a mechanism where a certain type of damage causes corruption to accumulate, causing your character to increasingly perform random actions instead of the actions you input, such as randomly triggering weapons to fire at random targets. Skilled players take this into account to avoid catastrophic accidents, for example by dropping all their weapons before talking to a friendly NPC.
The tactical/strategy game XCOM models the psychological stress of combat operations as a chance that a soldier will inadvertantly reject your order and do something else instead, in panic. Darkest Dungeon leans heavily on a similar mechanic, where accumulating stress or negative personality traits can cause your party members to act against your command, on their own volition, messing up your plans, necessitating the organization of actions around the least reliable elements.
Deck building card games in general present an inconsistent and unreliable set of options at any given moment, as your available actions are a randomly drawn set of cards. Despite your best efforts to include tools for dealing with situations, you can never rely on a particular tool being available when it's needed, leading to heavy planning around probabilities, redundancy, and flexible card combinations.
Since your understanding of the subject is "rolling a d20 to see how your attack goes", I would say my accusation is perfectly well placed. No need to get defensive about it. I've been researching games for decades. The problem is when you make factual statements like "a game which randomly misinterprets your inputs will not make you better at playing it" (paraphrased) as if you are an expert on the subject, when absolutely clearly to anyone who has studied games to any length can immediately see that your claim is false.
Let me know if you'd like more examples, these are the ones off the top of my head.
None of those are misinterpreted inputs. Those are clearly defined mechanics within the games that have a chance to have an unexpected outcome but in exclusively designed contexts.
I don’t see any of them making you better at the game either, but rather just being a context that you need to adapt to. Dropping all weapons before talking to someone because there’s a chance you might attack them if you don’t isn’t making you better at the game, it’s adding tedium to circumvent a risk that is only present due to your confusion state. If you had no such confusion, this behavior would just be a waste of time. You’re not better at the game generically for doing this.
Also fwiw that sounds like an incredibly stupid game mechanic in cogmind. None of your other examples felt remotely relevant to me.
> None of those are misinterpreted inputs. Those are clearly defined mechanics within the games that have a chance to have an unexpected outcome but in exclusively designed contexts.
Video games are computer programs. As a programmer, you have to clearly define the rules to the computer, otherwise the computer will refuse to run your code. Programming unexpected outcomes is by necessity defining clearly probabilities and consequences of failure. How else would you even do it? Actually corrupting the program's memory? Yeah good luck with that.
All I hear is "I don't understand this so I think it's stupid so you must be stupid and these games must be stupid as well."
Try going on a stage in front of your whole school and be stuck on repeat saying a single syllable for over 5 minutes while your friends try to do something in the background so they aren't just standing and waiting.
Stuttering might not be a disease but it definitely needs a cure.
