In fact, this segment has braught with them understandings of their own. One of their teachings for example, which is incompatible with yours, is that anger should never, ever be given validation. Even though in most societies such repression can result in compromised emotional development, it remains their legal and ethical right to practice their teachings as they beleive.

Most of them chose to compromize or mingle their dualistic values of science and their Bible, as apparent from the bulk of this discussion, but some whish to remain loyal to their own. They dont have to accept your (social) science.

It may not feel fair that they aren’t listening; that we have to hold ourselves together and respond gently while they’ve just hurt us; that the practical boundary we set at their level doesn’t fully solve the issue immediately; that by giving them the attention they need for emotion mentoring, we may be reinforcing the behaviour as well. The future of their behaviour may cause us to fear and feel the needs to control it straight away. When we notice and have compassion for these emotions in ourselves (considering them as valid signals for concerns to be met), we can move through them and beyond them.

When we try to push those emotions away too quickly, before hearing them and affirming the needs they came from, then we’re much more likely to be reactive.

As kids see us meeting our emotions and caring for ourselves in that way, they also see us living generous lives sustained by that wellbeing, and they can learn from that.

Most of the modern secular information I’ve seen about sensory and emotional regulation are very focused on developing empathy, and don’t encourage ruminating endlessly on an emotion.

Transitory emotions generally aren’t described in these writings as being always factually accurate, nor as healthy to hold on to long-term. They’re seen though as important signals regarding underlying experiences or needs. Once we hear them, their job is done and they don’t need to keep calling for our attention.

As you said, self-care and unselfishness can exist together. A person whose own needs are met has more capacity to give. Being less distracted and exhausted by unsupported internal distress or sensory needs can give us energy to look outward and notice others. When we have practiced compassion for ourselves, and experienced emotional support from caregivers, we can translate that into understanding and supporting the emotions of others.

It’s a human instinct to be prosocial and empathetic, but being stuck in a fight/flight/freeze/faint state can get in the way of this. Emotional avoidance correlates with narcissism and codependent helper mentality, whereas a balanced emotional state is described in the psychology/neuroscience literature as allowing and encouraging empathy to grow. We develop more receptiveness and reciprocity when unmet sensory and emotional needs aren’t tugging at our attention.

A complete emotional education will focus on compassion and serving each other, while also having a robust emphasis on recognising our own emotional needs. This is because many children have executive function difficulties, sensory processing disorders, insecure attachment styles, and/or trauma that cause them to be caught in emotional distress until they gain literacy in how to recognise and manage it. It’s on par with the way physical hunger or injury cripples the capacity for normal social interactions. If we don’t focus on this properly, balanced well with the foundations of generosity and understanding the needs of others, then many children with additional needs will stay in a state of chronic emotional chaos.

Similarly with boundaries, these need to be explicitly and repeatedly taught because children are exposed to dynamics of control. Generosity as described in Pirkei Avos 5:10 doesn’t mean allowing people to impoverish us, or having no limits. We need to see the red flags of exploitation, and also know what will drain our ability to live and give in sustainable ways. Then, when the situation really calls for us to give in ways that are costly to ourselves, we will have enough inner wellbeing to do so with peace and joy.

I would venture to say that there is misunderstanding on both sides.

On the one hand, acknowledging feelings is not saying it’s fine and good and proper. It just means recognizing and processing what you are feeling. And then continuing on.

It doesn’t mean to wallow in them.

Without this, a person may think they are “not angry,” but they are certainly not calm. Because they haven’t reached any closure. A closure can be that I understand why they did that even if I didn’t like it and I forgive them. Or it could be that I’m upset still and want to bring it up with them. They are both ע”פ תורה, as per the Rambam.

Then obviously there are loftier methods of processing, ע”פ חסידות. But it’s all a way of processing. Though once someone gets used to it, it may be quicker and with less consciousness.

So yes, instead of wallowing in the feeling itself, and indulging in it, observe it from the outside. Don’t stay with the feeling.

This is a principle in phycology and it is certainly not a contradiction to Torah.

It’s certainly not ע”פ תורה to just not think about something that upset you. That is just fooling yourself, because it will continue to sit in you. This indeed may be a יניקת החיצונים from the idea of ביטול. And it can be pretty damaging. (And can actually make a person more self absorbed — more הרגשת עצמו and less פתיחת הלב והמוח.)

I think this is where one camp misunderstands the other.

On the other hand, yes, certainly, without an emphasis on the other, and Hashem, and only about one’s own feelings, we will not be raising people we can be proud of… And obviously, that has to be the main emphasis. And teaching courses about one’s own feelings, as opposed to focusing on individual cases and needs, may indeed detract from what we are trying to imbue. And may make people self absorbed.

It shouldn’t just be about recognizing what feeling we are experiencing, rather, how we deal with it. And this is primarily on a case by case basis. חנוך לנער על פי דרכו.

Instead of the other side veiwing the article as an attack, they can observe whether this point may indeed be true, even though they may have been a bit understood.

Your comment is spot on. We are usually good with declaring what is muttar and what is assur but Chanoch l’nar al pi darkoi is a little more complex than issur v’hetter. Some kids need to be taught how to feel and some children need to be taught how they shouldn’t be selfish. Some children need to be taught to stick up for themselves and not be a push-over while other kids need to be taught how to be nice to others. I think a big problem with our Chinuch is that teachers are not being paid enough to be able to support their families. Tuition has gone up, our communities are growing financially. Chinuch has to be our number one investment. Mechachnhim have to be paid full salaries so they can throw themselves completely into Chinuch.

General sweeping feel good initiatives to teach everyone feelings are not necessarily accurate or what’s needed for each individual child. As this article expresses, it can be detrimental, and maybe just following the ways of the goyim, when it becomes a movement.

My question is, how can mechanchim be supported to give each child the much-needed personal hadracha? clearly from the comments, and from living life, we see there is a need (and maybe the need still needs to be defined).

It seems with the current methods of teaching, or maybe due to lack of easily accessible personal guidance, people are either misapplying chassidus, or not integrating middos tovos.

How do we address the needs of our community? so the perceived need to resort to curriculums about feelings isn’t there?

well said

Am Haratzis. U are confusing the Aitz Hachayim with the DERECH Aitz Hachayim. All of mental & emotional health is included in Hilchos Derech Eretz as a prerequisite for the rest of Torah. See Yayikra Raba Tzav 9:3. If you are afraid because u believe there are monsters under your bed, calming yourself down by saying that “ the monsters have no free choice, because Hashem what is the world” is silly and ridiculous. That’s some thing you say if the mafia is trying to harm you. But if you believe there are monsters under your bed, you need to calm yourself down by telling yourself, “there are no monsters“. (Even if you are facing what Teva says is a genuine threat and u know you should believe that the mafia cannot harm you but you find it challenging, a therapist can help you with tools to achieve and internalize that belief.)

Rebbe said there is no contradiction between Torah & science. There might be contradiction between Torah and scienTISTS. Similarly, there’s no contradiction between Torah & psycholoGY. There might be contradictions between Torah and psycholoGISTS.

And who determines what a healthy nefesh hasichlis looks like, the nefesh hasichlis itself?! Or, better yet; pshycologists, i.e. the nefesh hasichlis of a goy?!
What a silly and misguided argument.
You’re blinded by chochmos chitzoniyos and trying to shoehorn it into Torah.

This is such an ignorant comment. It’s not a question of matching. The address to different parts of the person. Just like health and nutrition science does not match nor is it a contradiction to Torah, so too psychology

(Hisvaaduyos 5743, vol. 1, p. 318)

taken from Anash Chinuch

The science of mental health deals with the Nefesh Hasichlis. It doesn’t deal with Nefesh Elokis. That’s why the messages are very different. But having a healthy Nefesh Hasichlis will only help internalize the message of Chasidus and integrate the reality of the Nefesh Elokis into the Nefesh Hasichlis. It’s not a contradiction. It’s a facilitator. Psychology books won’t to tell you the purpose of life is Dira Berachtonim. But just like a book about nutrition, they will help you be a healthier person who will be better at making a Dira Bitachtonim.

Psychology has become the new avoda zara to which everyone must bow. Psychology is not Torah Misinai and Chassidus doesn’t have to fit with it. For us, Chassidus is the starting point, and whether psychology agrees or not isn’t relevant.

When I wrote “ We teach him that it’s OK for him to feel angry and he doesn’t have to fight that” I mean that with a child is angry you don’t tell him, “it’s not holy to be angry“. That will not help him. You help him calm down. Even when he’s calm, teaching a child that he’s supposed to work on not being angry as a religious ideal is not the strategic way to reduce anger. You teach him or her self, soothing in the awareness that anger is not an ideal emotion. Otherwise, you will create a child, who when he’s overwhelmed with anger now has two problems for the price of one; he feels angry about someone grabbing his toy, and he feels bad for being angry, which makes him less able to soothe himself, etc. Anybody who has worked with children can attest to this.

The Tanya is addressed to adults who have finished their emotional development and hopefully healthy and emotionally developed, but need guidance in having holding this in their emotions. Children are still in the process of emotional development and are not ready to be told that they’re supposed to fight their anger when they feel overwhelmed. A child does simply not have the physical frontal cortex development in their brain to manage their emotions like an adult can. They can be taught techniques to calm themselves down, and they can be taught that it’s beneficial for them to do so, because they will feel better, and they can also be taught that it’s what Hashem wants. But to teach this concept to a child as an expectation like making a Bracha before eating is simply silly. It can be taught as an ideal through stories that they can hope to live up to when they’re older, not as a goal for a seven year old.

A child or anyone, can only empathize with another if he is connected to and aware of his own feelings. Teaching emotional awareness does not have to mean “self absorption”. The classroom can be an ideal setting to teach and model ” Ve”Ahavta Reyecha CiMocha. What pleases Hashem is when we connect with others and transcend our own “self” interest. So please, let us distinguish between “awareness” ( daas) and obsession

I would suggest that you read the article again slowly and you will see that he didn’t knock feelings, just a certain kind of feelings that has become widespread recently.

From his words it seems that he is saying that feelings are asur. Wallowing in self has nothing to do with feelings. Wallowing in Self can be a cognitive problem as well. It’s important to make a distinction between universal truths and distorted realities. feelings are not good or bad, knowledge is not good or bad. Using one example where feelings can be selfish doesn’t make feelings in general bad or good.

The article doesn’t say that feelings are ossur. What the article is only saying is that wallowing in “self” is not the way of Torah and is also unhealthy.

Our feelings should be directed towards Hashem and other Yidden, and less on our own wants.

“Always, the left should repel and the right draw near.”

The left is first, says the Gemara.

You also quote Tanya perek alef, which speaks about Bad midos and how you must push them away with two hands. But explain to me this, How do you know that they are bad middos if “feelings” are asur?

You write, “It is not the derech hachinuch to highlight and explore in detail our own feelings.”
Are you suggesting that we should shut our emotions down?

And what about Krias shel Hamittah. We say, ” I hereby forgive anyone who has angered me. Forgiving someone is “feelings.” it’s not a physical correction but an emotional one. Feelings are a cornerstone of Chassidus Chabad. Torah and Mitzvos should be felt with feelings. Davining should be done with Hislavos and fire. Feelings are a cornerstone of Chassidus Chabad.

can you provide any sources for your very novel ideas? This article is discussing the TORAH veiwpoint, not a personal hergesh…
“The method described in this article doesn’t work in today’s generation. If it would, the article wouldn’t need to be written” – The reason this article is being written is because unfortunately there is an age old Yetzer Horo to be like the Goyim
ככל הגוים בית ישראל
The Maskilim of old said that the ways of the past didn’t work, but the Rabeyim fought them.
You can speak to experienced Mechanchim – the fact is that what is described in the article works very well. The reason people are are looking for other ways, is because goyishkeit has crept in to our minds and hearts וה’ ירחם

You write – “We teach him that it’s OK for him to feel angry and he doesn’t have to fight that”
“Let’s not try to teach our children to be Tzadikim before they’re Benonim”
For a change, let’s explore what the Torah actually says about this.
In Tanya Perek 12 the Alter Rebbe describes the BENONI (not the tzadik).
He says:
ואפי’ במוח לבדו להרהר ברע אין לו שליטה וממשלה להרהר ח”ו ברצונו שבמוחו שיקבל ברצון ח”ו הרהור זה הרע העולה מאליו מהלב למוח כנ”ל אלא מיד בעלייתו לשם דוחהו בשתי ידים ומסיח דעתו מיד שנזכר שהוא הרהור רע ואינו מקבלו ברצון אפי’ להרהר בו ברצון . . וכן בדברים שבין אדם לחבירו מיד שעולה לו מהלב למוח איזו טינא ושנאה ח”ו או איזו קנאה או כעס או קפידא ודומיהן אינו מקבלן כלל במוחו וברצונו
– In short, when a benoni feels any anger whatsoever, he right away PUSHES AWAY the anger.
The author of this article explained quite clearly, that we don’t expect everyone to be on the Darga of the Beinoni of Tanya, and therefore we don’t need to condemn a child for being angry, we can even acknowledge the good reasons he or she have to be angry.
But שלא בשעת כעסו, when he is calm and ready to hear what the true goals of life are, he should simply be taught what Troah says: that being angry is not at all ideal, and we should all be working to push away that emotion as much as possible.

A couple of points
1) I agree with the other comment on this, that this is a straw man argument. The proposal isn’t someone who is disconnected from their children and family and is preoccupied and distracted by the idea of giving others (not actually the other person). Where then you present the antidote to be that the person should be in touch with their feelings. Those are 2 opposite extremes.

2) The idea of giving in the secular world is completely different than the idea of giving in Torah and Chassidus. Not just in terms of there being a natural selfless desire to do good. But rather also, and maybe more importantly, on the intention, energy, and experience of what it means to help another Yid. What Chassidus says, e.g. that all Yidden are one entity as in one body, isn’t an abstract idea to be learned and studied and then remain in the Sefer. The intention is that it should authentically and truly be the motivation and experience in helping another Yid.

2 people can be doing the same thing, and they as different from one another as can possibly be. That difference matters, and it matters a lot and in many ways.

I would say that they type of emphasis placed on feelings in psychology, not only doesn’t encourage that, but rather it completely negates it and doesn’t leave any possibility for it whatsoever.

Chassidus teaches us that for the basic level of Yichuda Tatah you need Yichuda Ilah. The reality is that for the basic behaviors of Pirkei Avos (explained by many Meforshim to be basic and universal ideas) one needs the lofty Mili Dchasidusa of Pirkei Avos (which is the other explanation of what’s Pirkei Avos).

This is also connected to and is one of the explanations, for why on Yom Kippur we read both about the holiest of holies (the Avoda of the Kohen Gadol in the Kodesh Hakodashim on Yom Kippur) and the basic of all basics (forbidden relationships).

As the Ramban says, that a Talmid Chacham is recognized in his walking, talking, eating, etc. (another 7 basic human behaviors). It doesn’t work to be focused on self and even on self for holy purposes, and within that have a connection to what’s completely Above. Conversely, it doesn’t work to not be connected to Above and not to see the effects on the basic of basics.

It’s not just the intention, it’ll show itself in the results and in the realities on the ground. Basic and real realities.

It’s about the context and purpose of why we’re doing what we’re doing. The underlining focus and foundation is to serve Hashem. Part of doing that may require all sorts of things, like spending most of our day in the physical and material aspects of this world, but the foundation and basis is to serve Hashem. Sometimes we need to look at the “human” and even “dark” parts within ourselves, but the foundation must remain. With that foundation, the activity may look the same as what someone else is doing, but it’s as far from it as can be.

3) Another somewhat related point is that today we live in a world where since something matters, it becomes the center of everything. If you put your hand in front of your face, you can literally block out the whole world. Today, we are presented with ideas with the claim that this one idea (which the way it’s presented may be completely against the Torah, but even if it’s not) should be the center of everything and whoever doesn’t agree with it and advertise it everywhere or comments about it being advertised everywhere, is doing a most terrible thing.

In reality these ideas are almost always againts the values of Torah and Chassidus. Even if they weren’t, they shouldn’t become the only thing that exists and maybe they shouldn’t matter at all considering why we’re here and what life is truly all about. Now add to that, that they are often foundational ideas that undermine the basics of Torah and Chassidus.

A part of the Beinoni is self absorbed, but he is working to change that. That’s why he’s not a Tzadik. Children need to first feel secure in their own feelings before they can graduate to selflessness. The child who has one cookie and is asked by his friend who has five cookies to please have a sixth can have two unhealthy reactions. One unhealthy reaction is to say. “get lost”. The other unhealthy reaction is to say “of course you can have it. It’s more important for you to have a sixth cookie then for me to have one.” The healthy child knows he can say no, but chooses to say yes, because the other child might really need a sixth one very badly more than he needs to have one. Alternatively, he can say, “I’m sorry, but I need to treat myself as fairly as I treat you and I’m allowed to have one cookie even if it means you only have five and not six.”

A Beinoni isn’t self absorbed…

The two approaches may sound similar but they are vastly different. The Torah way is to feed the selfless neshama, though without necessarily crushing the nefesh habehamis (by acknowledging it). The other way is to build up the nefesh habehamis to feel content and ultimately selfish.

This is the 101 of nefesh ha’adam according to Chassidus.

It would seem you did not read the article. The author writes that teaching children to “ explore, and noticed their feelings” can lead to a “OBSESSION with self” and “ Rather than teaching children to be conscious of their own feelings, let us invest in teaching them to be sensitive to the emotions of others.”. It is simply impossible to teach a child, with average brain development, to be sensitive to the feelings of others without awareness of their own feelings. It also might teach them that any upset feelings they have when someone grabs away their toy is a cause for shame and makes them bad. The author further asserts that the secular idea that “all feelings are OK” is incompatible with Torah. This is a misunderstanding of both concepts. Psychology doesn’t say the feeling is necessarily good or worthy. It’s simply saying that it’s a legitimate feeling to have. Torah doesn’t see the feeling is forbidden. It’s just unholy. (the authors effort to distinguish between a feeling being “acknowledged“ versus “acceptable” is meaningless, because both terms refer to noticing the feeling without condemning one’s self while agreeing that the the feeling of something to work on, and eventually change). The point is is that we don’t try to help the child deal with someone grabbing his toy by teaching him he shouldn’t be angry. We teach him that it’s OK for him to feel angry and he doesn’t have to fight that. He has to use that feeling in a healthy productive way. Maybe when he’s older he’ll be able to think that it’s simply Hashgacha Pratis and he won’t even be upset. Let’s not try to teach our children to be Tzadikim before they’re Benonim.