What research are you working on during your time at the IIAS?

In my book, The Art of Listening in the Early Church, I argued that we need to remember that the works of the early Christian theologians which are now read in books were often spoken and intended for a listening audience. We miss a good deal of the nature and purpose of these texts if we forget that they were originally voiced and heard.

In the book I am currently writing, I want to take a step back and argue that the same is true of God’s words. The dominant metaphor in Christian theology is of the word. It is used to describe the nature of God; His creation and providence; His incarnation; His inspiration of the prophets, Scriptures, teaching and worship. I would like to suggest that in attending to the Word/words of God, we need similarly to remember that we are not so much reading a text as listening to a voice; that God does not write, He speaks.

In emphasising the voice of God, the book will also reflect on the relation of the voice and words. It will argue that, in contrast to words, the voice – whether pre-linguistic, linguistic, or post-linguistic – avoids any sense of fixed, static, definition but rather entails and invites open-endedness, relation and participation, all of which are essential in theological reflection on the unknowable, ineffable, limitless God, who cannot ultimately be grasped by human words.

The book will engage with scholars and artists across the disciplines who, like the theologian, struggle with the challenge of expressing what words and texts cannot fully capture, and who have similarly emphasised the role of performance, and of the tacit, affective, participatory ways of communicating and knowing which are characteristic of the voice.

How did you first get involved in this area of research?

I was led there by my book on listening, but even more by my last book on St Augustine and music. Music is the best example I can think of the sort of qualities of the voice I want to explore.

Can you share an interesting or thought-provoking fact that you have uncovered in your research?

Some early Christian theologians maintain that, before the Fall, Adam and Eve didn’t need a voice but directly and intuitively knew God’s will and each other’s minds. Imagine if someone could read our thoughts! That gives you a sense of how fallen we are!

Were you always interested in going into academia?

I didn’t have a plan to go into academia – it happened as I drifted through the educational system, enjoying what I was doing and always wanting to pursue it further. I was very fortunate to get funding for my doctoral studies, and to get my first job when I was 27 on the strength of one article and no teaching experience! Thankfully, I found that I enjoyed teaching and haven’t looked back.

How has your experience been so far at the IIAS?

The IIAS is paradise before the Fall for academics, and even though we can’t read each other’s minds we do seem to enjoy communicating our ideas and thoughts. It is an exceptional place in every way. I’ve particularly appreciated the fact that the administrative team have thought of just about everything a visiting fellow might need – practically and academically – from a corkscrew and shopping on arrival; to Fellow’s trips to get to know the country; to excellent food and time to socialise. Above all, they have created a relaxed and friendly environment in which to get lots of thinking and writing done, while sharing this with others on a daily basis. It is a happy place (which is more than I can say for many of the environments I’ve worked in).  

Do you have any hobbies outside of your research?

I’m obsessed with paper and love trying to re-create the marbled papers you find on the covers and end paper of old books. I’ve tried bookbinding too. My big passion is music; I’ve played many instruments – badly – and was learning the lute before I left, but it wouldn’t fit in the overhead locker to bring with me. My husband is a mountain guide, so it’s just as well I share his love of the wild outdoors (the only thing I don’t do is rock climbing – except to belay from the ground). We’ve done lots of trekking and wild camping while we’ve been here and some of the most special moments have been looking out from our tent at dawn on the Sea of Galilee or the Dead Sea and walking some of the Wadis.

How are you finding living in Israel?

Complex, challenging, disturbing – and wonderfully diverse, endlessly fascinating, stunningly beautiful. It is totally and utterly different from life at home (especially the weather!).

What is your favourite spot in Jerusalem?

I love my daily walk to and from the Institute through the Rehavia Park, past the Monastery of the Holy Cross. It’s a chance to appreciate the changing seasons, the birds and, at the moment, the wild red anemones and cyclamen. We picked and cured olives from the trees in October and I’m still excited by it – especially as they now taste so good.  

The sounds of Jerusalem are also very special – especially the chants, singing and calls to prayer from the different religions, which, in some places in the Old City, you can hear all at the same time.

And lastly, give us a book recommendation:

A novel by the Scottish writer, Muriel Spark, called the Mandelbaum Gate – set in Jerusalem, in all the sites we’ve been visiting. (Reading it here has been like watching Inspector Morse on TV at home in Oxford!)

What research are you working on during your time at the IIAS?

The phenomenon of the Spanish New Christians – Jews who converted to Christianity often under duress in 1391 – has been, and continues to be, studied from many perspectives. Yet, one feature remains somewhat neglected, that of the relationship between the changes in the mentality and attitudes of members of this group and their behavioural manifestations, including the authorship of literary works. My research at the IIAS deals with a specific group of New Christians, those who rabbinical jurisprudence treats as “apostates” or “renegates” (mešummadim) for being engines of change, creating a mentality quite distinct from that of their ancestors. These cognitive changes found expression in new attitudes as well as new identities and frequent participation in anti-Jewish behaviour, ranging from religious polemics, proselytising, Christian apologetics and the incitement of riots, among others.

How did you first get involved in this area of research?

Ever since I wrote my doctorate on the attacks of a New Christian on Jews and Judaism, one of the questions that remained in my mind concerned the psychological reasons that led him, and other New Christians like him, to such anti-Jewish actions. Undoubtedly, the external climate of suspicion and the struggle for integration by New Christians in Iberian Christian society were sufficient to engender a set of mechanisms that guided the New Christians attitude. I have focused on three psychological concepts – ego ideal, shame, and cognitive dissonance – that appear to be particularly apt to describe the mechanisms that influenced the construction of identity and behaviours.

Can you share an interesting or thought-provoking fact that you have uncovered in your research?

My selection of the analytic framework was motivated by the multidimensionality of the conversion process and by the aim of my Research Group devoted to the multi-disciplinary study of New Christians’ and New Jews’ Discourses of Identity between Polemics and Apologetics. As an historian who is trying to apply a psycho-historical approach in my research, I was fortunate to find at the IIAS a parallel Research Group on "Meta Reasoning: Concepts, Open Issues and Methodology", whose members I could consult, and who graciously advised me on cognitive dissonance processes, particularly on the cognitive states of individuals who convert. I am especially grateful to Prof. Klaus Fiedler from Heidelberg University who introduced me to the different paradigms of cognitive dissonance, and to Prof. Monica Undorf from the University of Mannheim who provided me with a useful bibliography and introduced me to different patterns of psychological behaviours and defence mechanisms. I would not be able to find such genuine and fruitful cooperation even in my own university.

Were you always interested in going into academia?

To be honest, my academic studies were firstly in educational administration and then in Jewish history. As the subject of Jewish history was emotionally ingrained in me, my advanced studies have tended to be more historical than administrative. Although my main occupation in academia has been teaching and researching Jewish history, I have no regrets about the time I invested in studying educational administration, as over time I was able to apply some of the theories that I learned in various managerial positions that I held in academia and in the Jewish community in Madrid.

How has your experience been so far at the IIAS?

It has been an outstanding opportunity to develop my research project as well as to finish two articles that were pending, and if it were not for the motivating and encouraging research atmosphere provided by the IIAS I would not have been able to advance all these and conclude some of them so quickly. Our group seminars were interesting, and the organizers, Prof. David Graizbord and Prof. Claude Stuczinsky, to their credit, knew how to choose interesting and leading researchers in their field, and for that, they are to be congratulated. The administrators, from the Director, Prof. Yitzhak Hen, to each one of the staff, generously gave of their time to meet all my needs.

Do you have any hobbies outside of your research?

Volunteering, photography, cooking and visiting museums.

What's your favourite spot in Jerusalem?

The city itself is for me a favourite spot. I have lived in Jerusalem for 36 years and very much love its unique climate with its surreal splendour, the Israel Museum’s special ambience and the Cinematheque's largest collection of Jewish and Israeli films.

And lastly, give us a book recommendation:

I recommend reading Yuval Noah Harari's Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, in which he explores the projects, dreams and nightmares that will affect the 21^st century, from overcoming death to creating artificial life. He asks fundamental questions as to where we go from here. How will we protect this fragile world from our own destructive powers? This is the next stage of evolution. This is Homo Deus.

What research are you working on during your time at the IIAS?

My current work examines logical intuitions; emerging evidence that people’s intuitive inferences are not always subject to error and bias. This evidence arises from the metacognitive judgments that accompany the responses that people give on reasoning problems, such as the confidence we feel or how much we like the solution that we arrive at. My research at the institute has focused on how people combine such metacognitive cues and how these guide their judgments, together with the degree of insight that people have into the accuracy of their responses.

How did you first get involved in this area of research?

I was lucky enough to secure a research assistant position shortly after I completed my undergraduate degree in Psychology. The project focused on meta-deduction; how people reason on problems that require reflections about the truth or falsity of assertions. I spent three years working on truth-teller/liar puzzles, of the kind developed by Raymond Smullyan, a philosopher who used the liar paradox as a means of illustrating some fundamental principles of mathematics and logic. I always liked logical puzzles as a child and didn’t realise at the time that you could build a career examining how people solve these sorts of problems. I now understand how study of reasoning can provide deep insights into how the cognitive system operates and the capabilities and limitations of human thought.

Share an interesting or thought-provoking fact that you have uncovered in your research.

I think my most interesting discovery is that, contrary to many of the dominant models in the psychology of reasoning, people’s intuitions are often logical and align with rational principles. Reasoning well does not always require deliberate, effortful thought. This is a much more optimistic view of reasoning which contrasts with the idea that much of human thinking is error prone and subject to systematic biases. I like discoveries that challenge the status quo, that require us to think about things in a different way, rethink theories and challenge dominant narratives. 

Were you always interested in going into academia?

No, not really, but I have always been fascinated by research. My father completed a PhD in chemical engineering as a precursor to a career in the brewing industry. I remember coming across his thesis as a teenager and being captivated by the idea that he had discovered something new, a discovery that would influence the brewing industry for many years. So, although I had never considered academia as a potential career, the idea of completing a PhD, committing many years to engaging deeply in a research question, was a very attractive prospect. It just took a few more years, a little bit of good luck and serendipity before I found myself following in my father’s footsteps!

How has your experience been so far at the IIAS?

The experience has been extraordinary, both professionally and personally. Working with an internationally renowned group of scholars from around the world in a newly emerging field of research is a unique opportunity. To be able to dedicate oneself to deeply engaging in a research topic for an extended period, to the relative exclusion of other concerns, is unusual in the life of a senior academic. It reminds me of my PhD, the only other period in my academic career in which I felt a similar level of engagement, commitment and immersion in purely research pursuits.

Do you have any hobbies outside of your research?

About 20 years ago I started running and rapidly progressed to completing really long-distance races. My proudest achievement was running 220 km as part of a 24-hour race, running around a 400m athletic track, many, many times. Running has taught me some fundamental things about people’s capabilities. When you’re running, you get to the point where you think you can’t move another metre; that your body’s breaking down, but you learn that you can hit the ‘wall’ many times in a long race and still keep going. It teaches you something about resilience; whatever the adversity or no matter how terrible you feel physically or emotionally, if you persevere you will get through it. You can always find new energy to keep moving forward!

Can you give us a book recommendation?

The book I have enjoyed most whilst on the fellowship is called The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis. The book traces the relationship between Danny Kahneman and Amos Tversky from their first meeting in 1960’s Israel to the publication of their transformational research in behavioural economics. Reading about two of the most influential researchers in your field whilst working at the University and the city in which they met is pretty special. It is a great read; I would strongly recommend it!

How are you finding living in Jerusalem, and what's your favourite spot?

It is so unusual to have an opportunity to spend an extended period of time in a place with such a rich cultural and political history. I have enjoyed immersing myself in the city, its people and its extraordinary places. The location that sums up the special character of Jerusalem for me is the Dominus Flevit Catholic Church on the Mount of Olives. The window of this church perfectly frames a view of the Old City, with the altar cross in the foreground and the Temple Mount in background, the embodiment of three cultures and religions in one frame.

I had never visited Jerusalem before the fellowship and I will be sad to leave, but I have no doubt that I will return soon to this wonderful place. I’d like to express my gratitude to the IIAS for offering such opportunities – it has genuinely been life changing!

What research are you working on during your time at the IIAS?

I am in the middle of a large project examining the impact on Judaism of predominantly Protestant biblical criticism—the idea that the Bible should be understood as a book in history, and with a history, like other ancient Near Eastern texts. I am working on this together with Professor Edward Breuer, who is also a Fellow at the Institute.

This project has an unusual form: a collection of 50-60 programmatic pieces written by Jewish scholars from the late eighteenth through the early twenty-first century. Each piece is annotated and introduced, and if necessary, translated into English. We aim to make this material better known to scholars of both biblical studies and Jewish intellectual history, so more people appreciate the wide variety of Jewish attitudes toward biblical criticism, sometimes called the “scientific study of the Bible.” Using a wide variety of material, including lectures, post-cards, books, and articles, we try to show that the Jewish reactions to these critical methods are complex, and cannot be described in a linear fashion, as is often the case.  Our texts are penned by professors, rabbis, educators, and community leaders, by a wide variety of individuals living in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Mandatory Palestine, the State of Israel, and the United States.

How did you first get involved in this area of research?

This project is a total (and wonderful) accident. Twelve years ago, Professor Breuer, whom I knew casually from the time we were both graduate students in Massachusetts forty years ago, contacted me. He told me that he was asked to write an article on modern Jewish biblical studies for The New Cambridge History of the Bible, and was looking for a partner to complement his strengths in Jewish intellectual history, and in eighteenth-nineteenth century Jewish history; he approached me since I am a Bible scholar familiar with twentieth-century biblical scholarship. We “clicked;” we had fun researching and writing the article together, but also realized that there is a much longer and complex story to tell, and that many of the striking primary texts dealing with this issue are inaccessible, either because they are not in English, or because their historical context, which is so crucial for understanding them, is not well-known. So we began this project five years ago, and we hope to complete it in about five years.

Can you share an interesting finding that you have uncovered in your research?

The most important Jewish scholar who reacted (negatively) to biblical criticism was, arguably, Nehama Leibowitz (1905-1997), who had a tremendous impact, especially (but not only) in Israel, through her lectures, radio show, classes, and immensely popular written works. Her niece was kind enough to share a (Hebrew and German) postcard that Nehama wrote to her father during her first week as a PhD student in Marburg, Germany, where she notes her impressions of the biblical scholar, Gustav Hölscher, and her logic teacher—Heidegger! I knew Nehama when she was in her seventies, and it was remarkable to read this postcard from her youth.

Were you always interested in going into academia?

Even as an undergraduate I was interested in pursuing an academic career. As a first-year student at Brandeis University, I took a course on the biblical book of Psalms with Nahum Sarna, and was bitten by the Bible bug. The text suddenly became so much richer and more interesting when it was viewed within an academic, historical-critical framework. And there is not much to do with such an interest other than becoming an academic! My older brother was a math professor, so I saw an academic career as something possible and normal.

How has your experience been so far at the IIAS?

This experience has been unlike any of my previous sabbaticals—in a most positive sense. It is great to have an office in a beautiful building containing (real) ancient mosaics and first-century CE storage jars from King Herod’s storerooms. I walk in and I feel the past—where I live. The staff really facilitates getting work done. I was nervous starting, since we “must” come to lunch with the other fellows, and I am a shy person. Aside from some other individual fellows, most of the people here are part of two groups: one on meta-reasoning (a new area in cognitive psychology), the other on Converso identity. I have learned so many things that I never would have learned just by talking to these Fellows over lunch, and have been so enriched and broadened, and have acquired many new, I hope, lifelong friends.

Do you have any hobbies outside of your research?

On and off I have been doing pottery (both wheel and hand building) for the last ten years. One of my favorite projects was fashioning a modern Judean pillar figurine based on ancient models. I love the feel of clay and the challenge of getting it to do what I want—usually the clay, rather than I, wins.

How are you finding living in Israel?

I was twelve years old when I first visited here, and have spent much time here; my partner lives here, so for me Jerusalem is a home in many ways. I was a visiting graduate student at Hebrew University from 1978-1980, and most of my classes were in the Maiser building, which is now the Feldman building, the home of the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies. Those were two wonderful years—I was not pursuing a degree, and just took all the courses that interested me, at a time when the University was at its strongest in Bible and Semitics. Walking into this building, and to the National Library not even five minutes away—these are my favorite Jerusalem spots.

Lastly, give us a book/podcast recommendation:

I have become addicted to the Three Pines mysteries of Louise Penny. They are fun and psychologically insightful. (The Amazon version, on the other hand…) And I am an NPR (National Public Radio) junkie, especially enjoying “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross; one of my really fun and unexpected experiences was being interviewed on her show. 

What research are you working on during your time at the IIAS?

I am working on the history and thought of early modern Iberian Jews, converts, and their descendants. After the mass conversions and expulsions of the Jews from the Iberian Peninsula in the 14^th and 15^th centuries, those who left – together with thousands of converts and their descendants – constituted a new diaspora with important networks in the Ottoman Empire, North Africa, the Mediterranean, Western Europe, and the Atlantic World. Some features of this so-called Sephardi diaspora (Sepharad = Spain) were very unusual and have attracted a lot of attention in recent years. Most remarkably, there was a high rate of conversion and re-conversion. Especially in Western countries, a high percentage of early modern Sephardim had actually grown up as Christians and they had been educated in Christian institutions. Their ancestors had once converted to Christianity and their families had sometimes continued to keep their Jewish traditions in secret. Even though their conception of Judaism was often explicitly anti-Christian, they were also deeply rooted in a Catholic Iberian world. As a consequence, many of them had a very pronounced knowledge of Christianity. This made them helpful mediators in Jewish-Christian scholarly exchange. Others developed certain notions of skepticism which brought them into serious conflict with their contemporaries (both Jewish and Christian) but tend to feel very “modern” for researchers today.

My particular interest in recent years has been in Conversos and Sephardim in the early modern colonial Americas. Coversos, who secretly kept the Jewish traditions of their families, and Sephardim, who had founded Portuguese Jewish communities in Western Europe, were among the first Jews to participate in European colonial enterprises. In the 16^th and 17^th centuries, there were important secret Jewish networks in the Iberian viceroyalties in the Americas where Jewish life was officially forbidden and persecuted by the Inquisition. In the 17^th century, Portuguese Jews were the founders of the first open Jewish communities on American soil – in Dutch Brazil, the Dutch, English, and French Caribbean, and later in the English colonies in North America. I study how the experiences in the “New World” changed these Jews and how they and their descendants influenced the “making” of the Americas: How did they perceive the Americas and how did they look back at Europe? How did they relate to indigenous and enslaved people? How did they adapt their religious traditions to the new continent and how did these changes translate back into Europe? How did their relations with non-Jews and other Jews differ from European relations? And last but not least: How does their history provide us with examples to draw a more differentiated picture of early modern colonialism and how does it urge us to reframe some of the narratives that we have all too often taken for granted?

How did you first get involved in this area of research?

It took me a long time to discover what I really wanted to do. First, I studied mathematics. After my diploma I decided to switch to philosophy for my PhD. The recommendation to study Iberian Jewish philosophy and thought came from my supervisor, and I will always be thankful for that. After my PhD, I continued working on Sephardi and Converso thought but switched from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic world, and I moved from philosophy to history. My Habilitation (my second book and its defense) was in early modern history. Since 2014, I have been a professor in Religious Studies and Jewish Thought, yet I continue to see myself as an early modern historian with a special interest in Jewish-Christian history and thought.

How has your experience been so far at the IIAS?

It is wonderful to be at the IIAS; the atmosphere is so inspiring and friendly. It very much reminds me of the Berlin Wissenschaftskolleg where I had the honor to spend an academic year a long time ago. In addition, our Research Group is just wonderful. It feels as if we were all one team. I can’t say how much I regret that I only applied to stay for five months.

Do you have any hobbies outside of your research?

When my husband was still here, we used to walk around in the evenings, exploring parts of the city we did not know until now. Both of us love traveling and meeting colleagues and friends. Since my husband has left, I do a lot of yoga and reading, and I enjoy watching documentaries and listening to music. Before I got my position, I used to play the piano and the harp but it became difficult to reserve time for daily practice. One of my plans after my return to Germany is to reorganize my daily routine and reserve more time for family, hobbies and leisure.  

What's your favourite spot in Jerusalem?

My favourite spot is the reconstruction of the Surinamese Zedeq we-Shalom synagogue in back corner of the Israel Museum. Over the last few years, I have begun to work on Jewish thought in colonial Suriname. I had always seen photos and shown them to my students, but I was overwhelmed when I first saw the synagogue in the museum. It is so similar to the Amsterdam Esnoga, and at the same time, so different. This is exactly what fascinates me when studying Caribbean Jewish history.

Lastly, give us a book recommendation:

As I have just mentioned Suriname, Cynthia McLeod’s The Cost of Sugar (2013 [1994]) might be a good recommendation. It is a fascinating novel and gives you an idea of how Jewish life in 18^th century Suriname could have been.

What research are you working on during your time at the IIAS?

My field is modern Jewish intellectual history, and I am looking at the way in which Jews responded to new ideas that they encountered as they integrated into European societies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. I am now focused on one set of ideas that would prove challenging not only then, but to this day, namely new ways of understanding the Hebrew Bible. Beginning in the eighteenth century, European scholars – overwhelmingly German Protestants – began to raise all kinds of questions regarding the Bible: did the Hebrew text undergo any changes through the millennia? If so, can we recover the original readings? When were the various biblical books written, and under what circumstances?

The field of study spawned by these questions – biblical criticism – presented a serious challenge to traditional notions of the Bible. Many assume that traditional Jews in the 19^th and 20^th centuries stood in opposition to biblical criticism, and that those who sought to reform Judaism, or those who began to espouse a Jewish nationalism that turned its back on traditional Judaism, were more open to it. But the historical picture is more complicated, more nuanced, and far more interesting. Many Reform leaders of the nineteenth century expressed hostility to biblical criticism, in some cases espousing a mild variety of biblical fundamentalism.  Important thinkers like Solomon Schechter tried to articulate a nuanced response – only to have that nuance largely miss its mark. Jewish nationalists and Zionists were also initially hostile to the critical study of the Hebrew Bible, or deeply ambivalent about its conclusions. On the other hand, there were traditionalists who demonstrated an openness to the notion that the biblical text was in need of careful emendation, and later, those who felt strongly that no one could ignore the results of this scholarship. All these positions shifted over time, and that is very much the point of this project: if one traces the ways in which Jews handled these questions over the past two and a half centuries, we are presented with a fascinating tableau – really a moving picture – of the modern Jewish experience.

What materials and resources are you using to explore this?

One of the interesting aspects of our project is that in casting our net broadly, we have encountered all kinds of texts: beyond the obvious – editions of the bible, or essays about how to study the bible – we are also including speeches, popular writings, dissertations, letters home, responsa literature, and more.

How did you first get involved in this area of research?

It began with a book chapter written with Marc Brettler, a Bible scholar at Duke University. We not only realized just how interesting the question was, but how important it was to work as an interdisciplinary team.

How has your experience been so far at the IIAS?

Everyone will tell you that their experience at the IIAS is wonderful – and everyone is right. But for this project, the fact that the IIAS is now accepting Individual Fellows has been a godsend. The fact that Marc and I could arrive at the IIAS and work together, and only a few hundred meters from the National Library of Israel, is an incredible opportunity.

I would only add that the mix of scholars and fields at the IIAS makes for an incredibly stimulating environment. We all come to work on our well-defined projects, but we get to interact regularly with scholars of so many different fields and of such varied interests and perspectives. This social-intellectual aspect is very special.

Do you have any hobbies outside of your research?

As someone born and raised in Canada, I developed an early passion for canoeing; in recent years, I turned to kayaking, and as my family will tell you, once I am out there it is hard getting me back to shore.

What's your favourite spot in Jerusalem?

Truth be told, I don’t have a favourite spot – I really love walking all the streets of this city. We live in a really complex place with no small number of serious issues, but there is nothing like Jerusalem in its variegated beauty and character.

What research are you working on during your time at the IIAS?

The Meta-Reasoning Research Group has 11 researchers from different countries, and we are all studying the mental processes underlying reasoning from diverse perspectives, including cognitive, social, and educational psychology, as well as philosophy. Meta-Reasoning research is nascent, and we are aiming to expand and enrich this research domain by raising novel research questions and adding new perspectives.

How would you define 'reasoning', and what is ‘meta-reasoning’?

Reasoning is about drawing inferences or conclusions that go beyond the given information. It includes logic challenges, problem-solving, and decision making. For instance, a doctor who is engaged in diagnosis has to take the described symptoms and the already available test results, and decide whether and how to act. The information processing itself is the reasoning part. The meta-reasoning part of the process is the assessment of whether the available information is solid enough to make a diagnosis, or if additional tests are required for distinguishing between several alternative diagnoses. It is the subjective assessment of the completeness or reliability of the information that is at the core of the domain our group is studying. This is what guides people in their decisions on how to act, and thus is very important. Any bias in this assessment will misguide following decisions. In my own research I try to identify situations which tend to be particularly misleading and lead to non-optimal decisions, premature decisions, or waste of long time without advancing the chance to find the correct solution to the problem at hand. In my research typically I use riddles of various types to demonstrate how people cope with reasoning challenges.

How did you first get involved in this area of research?

My Ph.D. research dealt with answering knowledge questions based on memory retrieval. Already then, I focused on the role of confidence in the correctness of retrieved information when phrasing answers in social contexts (e.g., a friend asking a question about a past event). In my postdoc, I extended this research into similar confidence-guided processes in problem-solving. Reading the reasoning literature, the overarching domain including problem-solving, I discovered a huge gap in research into confidence as a guide for people's reasoning behaviour. Then I came across a paper by Prof. Valerie Thompson from Canada who addressed this very same gap in the literature. I got in touch with her, and since then we have worked together to establish the Meta-Reasoning research domain and bring in more and more researchers, including our current group members at the IIAS.

Can you share an interesting finding that you have uncovered in your research?

I have an extended line of research with several colleagues dealing with performing cognitive tasks on screen vs. on paper. Participants received identical tasks, learned texts or solved problems, either on computers or printed on paper. Overall, we found robust screen inferiority across tasks and populations. Screen inferiority means not only lower scores in the task, but also larger overconfidence and less effective time management on screens than on paper.

Moreover, we conducted a meta-analysis, which integrated research published from 2000-2017 from many labs around the world, using a diversity of methods and populations. In this large-scale integrative analysis, we found robust reduced success when performing the tasks on digital devices compared to performing the same tasks on paper. This was consistently the case across age groups, including children and young adults who were born as "digital natives". We also found that this screen inferiority did not lessen with technological advances and the population acquiring digital-oriented habits, but actually increased along the examined years. This finding is highly worrisome, as it might suggest that younger generations do not develop or do not apply effective thinking strategies when working in digital environments, despite their daily use.

Were you always interested in going into academia?

No – I was sure that my career would be in hi-tech. I studied Computer Science at university, but at the time it was not offered as a major. I didn't want to study Maths as most my peers did, and chose to study Psychology as my major just because it was interesting, and I had no intention to use it for work. I worked in software companies for many years, leading large software development teams. However, I reached a point where I felt that the state-of-the-art data management tools of that time were not satisfactory. I decided to learn more about human knowledge management, in an effort to improve computerized data management. I applied for a graduate program in Cognitive Psychology to delve into human knowledge management. I was already 35 years old with three children when I started graduate school. During my studies I learned that scientists know little about human knowledge management. This led me to stay in the academia for better understanding how these processes function, the sources for biases, and how to improve human thinking.

How has your experience been so far at the IIAS?

Fantastic. This is a dream come true. It is an unimaginable opportunity to devote the time to research with wonderful team members, who are totally devoted to develop the Meta-Reasoning nascent domain. I sit here in my office, surrounded by my colleagues from all around the world. We work a lot as a group and also develop research agenda in small teams. Our group collaborative thinking certainly should not end when our group activity at the IIAS ends. We already have plans for how to continue this group momentum after getting back to our home institutes.

What's your favourite spot in Jerusalem?

The Jerusalem Forest on Mount Herzl.

Do you have any hobbies outside of your research?

I do quite a lot of sports: running, mountain biking, hiking, and yoga.

Lastly, give us a book recommendation:

Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China by Jung Chang. It tells the story of three generations of women living in China and the challenges they face. It spans a hundred years, starting at the end of the 19^th century, when China, and the world in general, went through a dramatic cultural revolution. The story interweaves the personal experiences of these women with the historical events and political changes at the time, such as the Chinese experience of the two world wars, and its interactions with the changing western world.