Rabbi and Magister: Overlapping intellectual models of the twelfth-century renaissance

Elka Klein’s writings have illuminated reciprocal and distinctive characteristics of the social and intellectual lives of Jewry in Iberia and by comparison Northern Europe during the High Middle Ages. This article honors her insights, by comparing the development of biblical hermeneutics at the Abbey of St. Victor in Paris and in the writings of Abraham ibn Ezra. Hugh of St. Victor’s introduction to the study of Scripture, Didascalicon, provides a program for the individual student to integrate all branches of human knowledge into the search for Divine Wisdom that may be found only in Scripture. The innovation in Hugh’s program is the emphasis on the “literal” or “historical” sense of Scripture as the solid basis for the development of theological study. Grammar and rhetoric were stepping stones that led the young theologians to higher levels of Divine Wisdom. The introduction to Abraham ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Pentateuch constitutes a parallel point of orientation for twelfth-century Jewish readers. A close reading of ibn Ezra’s prologue maps the hermeneutical approaches that different communities – Christian, rabbinic Jewish, and Karaite – utilized in their expositions of the Pentateuch. After critiquing each community, ibn Ezra offers his own approach that builds an overall framework for correct interpretation on the foundation of grammar and the rabbinic oral tradition. From this perspective, the article demonstrates that during this period Jews and Christians, both in Iberia and Northern Europe, focused on harmonizing reason and revelation. Both communities used grammar as the primary criterion for evaluating the accumulation of traditional sources. Both approaches intended to develop students, who were capable of understanding that “reason is the angel that mediates between God and humanity.”     

Gaining knowledge via other minds: Children's flexible trust in others as sources of information

In five experiments, we examined 3‐ to 6‐year‐olds’ understanding that they could gain knowledge indirectly from someone who had seen something they had not. Consistent with previous research, children judged that an informant, who had seen inside a box, knew its contents. Similarly, when an informant marked a picture to indicate her suggestion as to the content of the box, 3‐ to 4‐year‐olds trusted this more frequently when the informant had seen inside the box than when she had not. Going beyond previous research, 3‐ to 4‐year‐olds were also sensitive to informants’ relevant experience when they had to look over a barrier to see the marked picture, or ask for the barrier to be raised. Yet when children had to elicit the informant's suggestion, rather than just consult a suggestion already present, even 4‐ to 5‐year‐olds were no more likely to do so when the informant had seen the box's content than when she had not, and no more likely to trust the well‐informed suggestion than the uninformed one. We conclude that young children who can ask questions may not yet fully understand the process by which they can gain accurate information from someone who has the experience they lack.     

Syntactic context and lexical access

Recent studies demonstrating that multiple meanings of an ambiguous word are initially accessed even when only one reading is syntactically appropriate with the preceding context can be criticized on at least two grounds. First, many of the syntactic contexts used were not truly restrictive, and, secondly, subjects may not have had time to integrate the context before processing the ambiguous word. In the present study, subjects listened to a sentence ending in an ambiguous word and then made a lexical decision to a target related to either the appropriate or inappropriate reading. Contexts were completely restrictive, and a pause was introduced between the context and the ambiguous word. Multiple access still obtained, providing further support for the claim that lexical access is not guided by syntactic context.     

Attributions of Responsibility for Obesity: Narrative Communication Reduces Reactive Counterarguing Among Liberals

Informed by theory and research on attributions and narrative persuasion, we compared the effectiveness of narrative and nonnarrative messages in changing attributions of responsibility for causes and solutions related to obesity in the United States. We randomly assigned 500 adults to view one of three messages (narrative, evidence, and a hybrid of the two) emphasizing environmental causes of obesity, or a no‐exposure control condition. The narrative condition increased the belief that societal actors (government, employers) are responsible for addressing obesity, but only among liberals. This pattern of results was partially explained by the success of the narrative condition in reducing reactive counterarguing, relative to the evidence condition, among liberals. We conclude with theoretical and practical implications.     

Prevention of nonadherence to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications for newly diagnosed patients with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.

Adherence to medications for chronic pediatric diseases decreases overtime. This randomized controlled trial evaluated a clinic-based, nurse-administered educational and behavioral intervention to prevent the anticipated drop in adherence to nonsteroidal medications among newly diagnosed patients with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Thirty-four participants completed the study (mean age = 8.44 years, SD = 3.96), including 19 in the experimental group and 15 in the standard-treatment (education) control group. There were significant group and Group x Time effects for adherence (assessed with an electronic monitor over a 13-month period) favoring the experimental group. In contrast, the groups did not differ significantly in disease activity or functional limitations. Factors that may have prevented detection of differences in these health parameters are dicussed.