I also agree with the request.
And if not, then at least not to express an opinion on emotional or mental matters. [For example: the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)]
Or at least to look at what affects people more: intellect or emotion.

Without detracting, of course, from the Rabbi’s firm and helpful opinion, which is important to express. And the truth is always helpful. But there is also emotion in the world. And there are people whom that is what affects.

"I probably disagree with you on both counts"—what are those two?
1. Psychology is not the way to understand how to relate to people
2. XXX is the way to understand how to relate to people?

Nur, if you don’t want to read something, then don’t read it. Save your foolish insolence for somewhere else.

Namnamani, simply common sense. Do you really think you need to study psychology in order to know how to relate to people? That’s truly bizarre.

I truly didn’t mean to provoke. Not even sarcastically. I really love reading the Rabbi’s books, posts, and responsa.
I also think that “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
On this point I do not understand the Rabbi at all. Will the Rabbi also be able to heal the mentally ill? Everyone is a little “mentally ill,” and even someone who isn’t—people also need someone to speak to their emotions.

I only meant to ask whether XXX is common sense (and philosophy is one of the tools), or XXX is philosophy (and common sense is an accompanying skill, like a dentist or a mechanic has it, because someone who comes specifically to you and isn’t from your close circle presumably isn’t looking for a shoulder to cry on, but is coming to speak on the reasoned plane).

This isn’t about provocation but about insolence—about giving me instructions on what I should write and what I shouldn’t. I don’t take instructions from anyone. And if you aren’t interested in reading, then of course you are free not to read. That’s all.

Namnamani, I didn’t understand. I said that the proper tool is common sense. That’s all. What isn’t clear here? If you think you need to study psychology in order to talk to people, then in my opinion you need treatment, not psychological study.

Very clear. I only came in my previous comment to defend my honor and explain that even in the question I didn’t think one needs to study psychology in order to talk to people.

As a devoted reader of your writing, I ask you in every possible way, in my name and it seems to me in the name of many others, not to try to study psychology and not to change the style in any way whatsoever. All the beauty in you and in your writings, lectures, etc. could be lost. The magic here on the site is precisely the direct and even blunt style. I ask everyone who agrees with me to affirm these words. Many, many thanks.

I may be a less devoted reader, but I also don’t see how studying psychology (or botany or specializing in peeling potatoes with the back of a fork) could do any harm. The beauty is in the content and not only in the form in which it’s presented.

I didn’t understand what benefit there would be in Rabbi Michi studying psychology. How would it help? If someone asking needs some practical guidance, you don’t need a psychologist for that; life experience is enough, and Rabbi Michi has plenty of that. What would come from digging into the emotional reasons behind the questions?
And in general, in order to advise someone you need to know them personally, not necessarily to be their analyst.

Personally, I don’t see psychologists advising people better than a person with life experience. And in general, they prefer not to advise. If a therapist gives advice to a client in psychotherapy, that is considered a “therapeutic failure.” Look in the therapeutic literature; there is lots of professional material on this. They say that isn’t their role.

With God’s help, 3 Sivan 5780

As appears from the comments here, among the readership there are those who enjoy “the magic and beauty of bluntness,” and there are those who enjoy providing this admiring audience with the “beauty and magic” of crude mockery toward others.

It is worth noting that this ugly practice does not harm someone who comes to the site with self-confidence. He simply understands that the bluntness covers for the embarrassment of someone trying to pave an original path and discovering that he is getting tangled in contradictions from which he has no escape. When a person is backed into a corner—it is clear he has lost his patience.

The problem begins when one also starts harming someone who is truly vulnerable. Someone who comes to the site out of confusion and hesitation and expects that the owner of the site, with his great philosophical and/or scholarly wisdom, will resolve his doubts and hesitations for him. When such a questioner gets a blunt “shower” from the “admired scholar,” the crisis can lead to a complete undermining of the questioner’s self-image and self-confidence, and the consequences of such a crisis may not be simple.

Therefore, it seems to me that a wise man should keep his eyes in his head, so as not to harm someone especially vulnerable with irreparable harm.

Best regards,
Asaf Farger

Which vulnerable questioner here is getting a blunt shower? I don’t understand this bizarre discussion at all.

I am puzzled by the response to Nur (the insolent one??)
In your articles, you instruct the leading sage of the generation, our master Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, may he live long, to go into exile and stop leading the generation.
And does Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky take instructions from you?!?!
And how are you different from Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky??

And I, the small one, still have not merited to understand what the anger is about.
The Rabbi’s words are very helpful to me, and I think to many others as well.
But when he expresses an opinion on an emotional matter, and says “emotion does not help people,” in my eyes that is shutting one’s eyes to different kinds of people.
Just as the Rabbi writes that a scientist who expresses an opinion in philosophy misleads his listeners, and also misleads himself by no longer thinking carefully about his words because he thinks he understands the subject, so too even the wisest person—whom I admire in many respects—when he expresses an opinion about the lack of need for emotion, that is dismissive. If there were an explanation of why emotion does not help even people who see that it does help them—that would be interesting. But simply dismissing it without knowledge in this area is a failure.
I have no problem myself; what doesn’t seem right to me, I do not accept. But since we stand for freedom of speech and its usefulness, I wrote the above.
It is also possible that I am mistaken; I would be happy to receive an explanation.

Read again what you wrote. It doesn’t seem to me that any further explanation is needed here.

An explanation is needed for the question whether emotion helps people?
If so, then the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) helps. Psychology can help people more than a scientist or physicist can. Although I think the Rabbi is more helpful because of life experience and common sense.