3 ms·

Hmmm, I wasn't aware of any bitterness or fight over this either, just a recent increase in articles touting the benefits of it. Seems to me this is one of thos

Hmmm, I wasn't aware of any bitterness or fight over this either, just a recent increase in articles touting the benefits of it. Seems to me this is one of those "media manufactures fake outrage" articles.

RickHull 11y ago
The bitterness seems real: > The debate has clearly become acrimonious. Paap says that he has been ignored; Bialystok feels she is being personally attacked. Perhaps, wrote Eric-Jan Wagenmakers from the University of Amsterdam, the two sides could form an “adversarial collaboration.” That is, they would work together to test the bilingual advantage once and for all, through a large study, perhaps involving many labs. The teams would pre-register all their experimental plans and agree to publish the results no matter what, so there could be no accusation of questionable research practices or publication bias. Then let the chips fall where they may. This approach has already been used to some success in other areas of psychology. > Paap is up for it; Bialystok is not. “That’s not how science works: You don’t sign a contract to not change anything in your protocol as the research evolves,” she says. “And they’ve set up so many toxins in this area that no good collaboration can result.” Bak feels similarly. “How much would I win by working with someone who doesn’t understand the area and is already biased?”
- geomark 11y ago
  A lot of researchers would disagree with the statement "That’s not how science works: You don’t sign a contract to not change anything in your protocol as the research evolves" You've got to complete the test using the protocol and hypotheses established at the outset. If you decide a change in protocol is required you wrap up the original test, report on the results, and then start a new test. Otherwise you end up with some combination of the issues described in A menagerie of messed up data analyses and how to avoid them[1] [1] http://simplystatistics.org/2016/02/01/a-menagerie-of-messed-up-data-analyses-and-how-to-avoid-them/ http://simplystatistics.org/2016/02/01/a-menagerie-of-messed...
  - RickHull 11y ago
    Yes, from what I can tell, Bialystok is explicitly violating the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms, particularly with "How much would I win by ..." and denial of Skepticism.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  > Bialystok is not. “That’s not how science works: You don’t sign a contract to not change anything in your protocol as the research evolves,” she says. She's unfortunately right -- all too often protocol, hypotheses and analytical technique are changed to fit each other, reach a p-value of 0.05 and achieve publication. For this reason among many there may indeed be value in sticking to original protocols and having to publish results. Negative and unclear results can be as useful as positive results, and what's ultimately published may end up less biased as well, which would be another plus.
rwmurrayVT 11y ago
There is a very bitter fight over it. In Quebec the law forces children to go through school in French. A great deal of tech companies have fled and a great deal of innovation in general has fled. No one would move to SV if their children were forced to suffer through school in a complete foreign language.
- ant6n 11y ago
  The companies fled in the 90ies. Not really now. And it's only _public_ education that's in French, and only if neither parent has gone to an English school in Canada.

RickHull 11y ago

The bitterness seems real: > The debate has clearly become acrimonious. Paap says that he has been ignored; Bialystok feels she is being personally attacked. Perhaps, wrote Eric-Jan Wagenmakers from the University of Amsterdam, the two sides could form an “adversarial collaboration.” That is, they would work together to test the bilingual advantage once and for all, through a large study, perhaps involving many labs. The teams would pre-register all their experimental plans and agree to publish the results no matter what, so there could be no accusation of questionable research practices or publication bias. Then let the chips fall where they may. This approach has already been used to some success in other areas of psychology. > Paap is up for it; Bialystok is not. “That’s not how science works: You don’t sign a contract to not change anything in your protocol as the research evolves,” she says. “And they’ve set up so many toxins in this area that no good collaboration can result.” Bak feels similarly. “How much would I win by working with someone who doesn’t understand the area and is already biased?”

geomark 11y ago
A lot of researchers would disagree with the statement "That’s not how science works: You don’t sign a contract to not change anything in your protocol as the research evolves" You've got to complete the test using the protocol and hypotheses established at the outset. If you decide a change in protocol is required you wrap up the original test, report on the results, and then start a new test. Otherwise you end up with some combination of the issues described in A menagerie of messed up data analyses and how to avoid them[1] [1] http://simplystatistics.org/2016/02/01/a-menagerie-of-messed-up-data-analyses-and-how-to-avoid-them/ http://simplystatistics.org/2016/02/01/a-menagerie-of-messed...
- RickHull 11y ago
  Yes, from what I can tell, Bialystok is explicitly violating the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms, particularly with "How much would I win by ..." and denial of Skepticism.
mattlutze 11y ago
> Bialystok is not. “That’s not how science works: You don’t sign a contract to not change anything in your protocol as the research evolves,” she says. She's unfortunately right -- all too often protocol, hypotheses and analytical technique are changed to fit each other, reach a p-value of 0.05 and achieve publication. For this reason among many there may indeed be value in sticking to original protocols and having to publish results. Negative and unclear results can be as useful as positive results, and what's ultimately published may end up less biased as well, which would be another plus.

rwmurrayVT 11y ago

There is a very bitter fight over it. In Quebec the law forces children to go through school in French. A great deal of tech companies have fled and a great deal of innovation in general has fled. No one would move to SV if their children were forced to suffer through school in a complete foreign language.

ant6n 11y ago
The companies fled in the 90ies. Not really now. And it's only _public_ education that's in French, and only if neither parent has gone to an English school in Canada.