I received an inquiry via my site, asking for help with Stuttering:

"I want to know if the "Irresistible Voice" cd-set will help me to cure my mild stuttering.  When I am calm I can barely stutter, but when I start to get nervous, my voice starts to tremble and my stutter gets worse. If you have any other type of method for people who stutter, please let me know. Thank you!"

I should also mention this particular challenge was illustrated vividly in the wonderful recent movie "The King's Speech."  The mindset behind the main speech therapist character's approach, could easily be said to reflect an NLP approach to changework.

Can NLP Cure Stuttering?

First of all, in many states in the USA, NLP Practitioners can't say they'll be able to "cure" anything, especially when it comes to conditions that are governed over or regulated by the medical industry or mental health field, where doctors or psychologists etc are licensed by their states to practice those arts and treat those "conditions."  That said, NLP can help people to learn unique ways to solve their own problems, and NLP Practitioners can help people learn and practice those skills.

So now that you understand the word "Cure" is a hot-button word, I can safely say I neither treat stuttering, nor cure it, nor does NLP cure stuttering. But I most definitely can "help stutterers to reduce or eliminate their own stuttering challenges" through a variety of means:

How can NLP Help Stutterers Speak Smoothly?

• Learn more emotional state control/management.  NLP is a great approach to this.  Stuttering often causes nervousness which in many stutterers, worsens the effect.  Learning to manage and control your emotions will diminish and potentially eliminate this complication.
• Google "Milton Erickson stuttering rhythm".  Granted, what you find from one month to the next may vary.  But essentially, if you do sufficient research, you'll find that Milton Erickson used the training of rhythm to teach certain stutterers how not to stutter.  One of the reference patterns here is that the vast majority of stutterers do not stutter when they sing, but may when they speak.  So if you teach a stutterer to rhythmically sing what they say to people, they interrupt the stutter pattern, and no longer stutter.  Erickson would recommend that someone tap a pencil or pen on their thigh when they speak, so that they learn to keep rhythm as they speak, and speak rhythmically.  Get yourself a metronome, or use an online metronome website.  There are several.
• Google "stuttering biofeedback".  More recent research has found that for at least some stutterers, the neurology behind stuttering involves a defect in the auditory feedback loop, possibly involving how sounds transmit and echo through the skull.  There are a growing set of biofeedback systems involving changing delays on speech fed back to a speaker's ears, and more, designed to find what helps a stutterer, speak more evenly and clearly.  Some of these can produce seemingly miraculous or instant results in some people.  And I do have a variety of speech feedback systems, though there are also many on the market I do not own.

The important thing to remember is that no one solution is guaranteed to work for anyone.  We recommend you keep experimenting, think outside the box, and look for unique ways to wire around the problem, and build new neural pathways!

What about my "Irresistible Voice" Audio Program?

Regarding my "Irresistible Voice" Audio Program, that's not designed intentionally to help with stuttering, and I would expect no direct improvement with stuttering from this audio program. However, it may still be a useful program for you (read on).

That audio program is designed to improve the overall sound quality of your vocal speaking instrument, to teach the use of a number of persuasive speech patterns, and to improve your rhythm of speaking (which can have a very positive indirect effect on stuttering).

So there could be indirect or secondary improvement in stuttering as a result of improved rhythm while speaking, and as a result of greater confidence in how you sound after using my exercises (that seems a reasonable possibility). A better voice would help you stay calmer, longer. Obviously from your comments, your stuttering is related to your emotional state, so staying calmer longer would be good!

However I would not make a firm guarantee or promise of specific gains with stuttering from just this audio program. I do like people to know what they can definitely expect from my materials. If it helps, I have had fewer than 5 "returns" out of over 4000 copies of this set sold as of April 2011. So I do know that my customers have been very happy with this program.

I hope that helps you!

Regards,

- Jonathan

Author: Jonathan Altfeld

This blog entry was one that was moved from my old NLP Forum. Mike DeBusk had asked:

When I look into someone's eyes, I feel the same way as I would if I were looking into the window of their house. I feel as if I might be intruding. This is obviously (no pun intended) not an accurate or useful belief. I'd like to replace it and I don't have a better one to put there. If you're comfortable with holding eye contact with people you don't necessarily know intimately, what do you believe that makes you feel OK, or even good, about it?

Cool question. I have very different beliefs about eye contact.

I think people are secretly (sometimes not so secretly) crying out for more "real" and genuine intimacy in their lives, and eye contact is one of the great ways people can get it.

I do think it can be perceived as intruding if people feel like they're getting the wrong kind of eye contact.

And I think it can be one of the greatest "unconscious communication" gifts you can give someone... to award them the perfect kind and amount of eye contact.

So when I look into someone's eyes, I engage in a balance-finding exercise... to calibrate the right combination of...

• duration of eye contact to deepen intimacy/rapport... before looking away (most guys max out at 3 seconds, most women require at least 7 seconds...)
• frequency of glance-aways: not enough, and it's creepy; too much, and you're not connected or intimate.
• duration of glance-aways: not enough, and you seem too easily distracted; too much, and you're disinterested.

Also, when you combine eye contact with certain other things, it can deepen any effect -- including the ones you don't want to cause, as well as many of the effects you DO want to cause. Consider these, for example. As you're maintaining eye contact, try one or more of these together:

• change your state to one of greater nurturing, or greater contentment.
• start smiling wider -- a genuine smile -- fast or slow.
• tilt your head *slightly* forward, along with a *slight* head tilt to the side, and add a smile or not.

Here's another thing you can use to aid your eye contact games: There's a really neat effect that can be achieved by flaring your eyelids for a half second. It feels a little like a gentler version of bugging your eyes out a bit -- but only for half a second. The effect is that your eyelids open just a hair wider, making your eyes look bigger, showing more of the whites of your eyes, and since you're showing more of your eye's surface, this usually allows your eye-contact partner to enjoy momentary twinkles in your eye(s).

I suspect you'll be pleased with the results!

Author: Jonathan Altfeld

Too many Speakers violate how their audience members think about the past vs. the future.
Public Speaking pitfall: Most speakers I watch (even on youtube) keep getting their "time" references completely wrong for audiences.
When on stage or otherwise in front of groups, you MUST *rewire* how you reference past vs. future, so that your audience connects with your messages more effectively, and internalizes how and when to take appropriate actions in the future.

This isn't just a "good idea" -- it's critical if they're going to adopt & absorb your message.  They're not behind you; they're facing you.  So the normal, natural internal time references that work for you personally, will NOT work for them when they're in the audience. You have to rewire it so that your time references correctly mark out past topics/descriptions towards their left (your right), and future references marked out towards their right side (your left).

If you mess this up... you can count on instant rejection of your suggestions!  And remember, without those feedback loops from live training, you're unlikely to know when you're unconsciously doing it badly!

Solutions are easy to find, though.  I train speakers how to choose the better form of time references, far past the clunky stage, all the way into comfortable habits, in my 5-day speakers course ("Speaking Ingeniously").  Easy peasy!
 
Author: Jonathan Altfeld

Deductive vs. Inductive Course Design == Failure vs. Success.

If I hear about yet another training course whose structure was obviously designed as a result of deductive reasoning (i.e. an "outline-based" syllabus), I think I might just retch a little. When will enough people realize learning _always_ happens more deeply and effectively, when educational experiences are designed inductively (i.e. backwards, from a "results frame" back to the "arrival frame")?

Outlines are deductive.  You begin with a need in mind to cover a certain amount of content and then flesh it out, see how much you can cram in and how to structure it.  This is an awful way to learn.

Skills and experiential capabilities are Inductive.  You aim to help people achieve a certain result or depth of skill.  So you design backwards from that.  This is a completely different approach to learning, and while it does INITIALLY result in an outline... if the trainer is worth their salt, they know that they may need to reorder or redesign the plan on the fly once they meet their students.  When the result is more important than the plan, as I believe it should almost always be, then any outline becomes a distraction for the students.

If you're a Speaker, have you ever had to answer the question "Please Provide Us an Outline?"  Or, do you personally tend to ask that?

This question comes from a mindset about education that does not take into account the vast majority of recent research into more effective and accelerated learning. 

In my field, many trainers consider the desire to lean on the crutch of an outline as an impoverished mindset.  Administrators need outlines.  Government regulators need outlines.  The fastest learners seek gifted trainers who can provide unique learning experiences.

My first response to any question seeking an outline is "Can I ask... Why do you need the outline?"

And then I mention a listing program: "is it because you believe that's the best way to evaluate a trainer's offering? Or because your boss, the decision maker, has asked you for it from everyone you're considering hiring? Or because of some other reason? The reason I'm asking you is... if you're the decision maker, I promise you that I know my own strengths and weaknesses, and also those of my competitors... and I know that in my field, an outline of what I'm going to cover is one of the worst possible criteria for evaluating the future success of a training program like what I offer." And then I hold up an outline anyway, just in case they demand it.

And I also say, before I hand over an outline, "If I show you this outline, I want you to know that IF I see a need to adjust my training on the fly to help your team achieve the stated objectives... then this outline becomes irrelevant. I'd throw it out. I promise you, that an inflexible reliance on a printed outline at the expense of the primary outcomes... is a sign of a deeply unqualified and inflexible trainer. So my ultimate question to you is, would you prefer an outline? Or better yet -- a list of specific outcomes I know I can and will achieve for your team, from a trainer with a history of successful results and extensive testimonials?"

I consider this approach an "acid test."  I do this because I genuinely want to know if the people that are considering hiring me have even an ounce of appreciation for the depth or levels at which I train.  The most progressive and interesting employers will recognize my total commitment to maximizing results, and welcome my refusal to blindly rely on an outline that in every case would have been written before I walked into the training room and met my students in-person, and learned of their unique strengths and weaknesses, and group dynamics.

But the companies that drop the need for an outline and are happy to accept a list of specific outcomes in its place, are the ones for whom I get most excited about training.

Author: Jonathan Altfeld