5 ms·

Later meta analysis that shows this effect is not true and is due to publication bias. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29494195/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih

Later meta analysis that shows this effect is not true and is due to publication bias. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29494195/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29494195/

zzzcpan 7y ago
That meta analysis can't be more biased itself. Just from the first few lines it sounds like they are offended there are benefits to knowing multiple languages.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  I don't think the best way to evaluate a study is to read the first few lines and guess at how offended the 8 researches are who wrote the paper. Also I would describe the following as skeptical more than offended. > Because of enduring experience of managing two languages, bilinguals have been argued to develop superior executive functioning compared with monolinguals. Despite extensive investigation, there is, however, no consensus regarding the existence of such a bilingual advantage
  - zzzcpan 7y ago
    > "bilinguals have been argued to develop superior executive functioning compared with monolinguals" This is the one I find very problematic. They made up an entire unscientific claim to disprove.
    - casefields 7y ago
      Yup. That’s setting up the parameters in an obvious way to strawman an opponents argument.
      - CrazyStat 7y ago
        It can't be a strawman when it's an argument that the opponents have actually made. Examples are easy to find: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-06955-009 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-06955-009 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28895004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28895004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22464592/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22464592/
    - cstrahan 7y ago
      > They made up an entire unscientific claim to disprove. Search for "bilingual smarter". Here are a handful of articles that suggest that many, many people have already put forth (or at least entertained the possibility of) these claims over the years: --- Does being bilingual make you smarter? | British Council Research Finds That Bilingual People Are Smarter, More Creative And Empathetic | Lifehack Are Bilingual People Smarter Than People Who Speak One Language? | JSTOR Daily Why Bilinguals Are Smarter | Association for Psychological Science How Being Bilingual Makes You Smarter | Grammarly Why Bilingual Kids Are Smarter | Bilingual Kidspot Are Bilinguals Really Smarter? | Psychology Today --- Could you provide any sources that suggest that the authors initiated this discourse?
    - knzhou 7y ago
      Isn't that literally the claim the article posted here is making?
- funklute 7y ago
  Can you be a bit more specific? The abstract doesn't seem biased at all. They explicitly state that there is currently "no consensus", which, when warranted, is the best position to take in order to get unbiased results.
  - zzzcpan 7y ago
    No consensus on "existence of bilingual advantage", which is inherently subjective and unscientific claim. There doesn't need to be any consensus on it whatsoever, it's not science.
    - funklute 7y ago
      "no consensus" in this case means that researchers have claimed different things in the past. If you can form a hypothesis which is falsifiable by a repeatable experiment, then it is by definition science. This paper is clearly science. You may still doubt the conclusions, but the aspects you are attacking seem kinda besides the point/plain wrong.
      - zzzcpan 7y ago
        That's the thing, you can't make a falsifiable hypothesis here, because "bilingual advantage" is subjective, bordering on defining the purpose of life to become objective.
        funklute 7y ago
        hummm.... I partly agree with you now. I don't agree that "bilingual advantage" is necessarily subjective per se. But if you were to say "the conclusions are only valid insofar as the chosen metrics to measure are representative of an underlying bilingual advantage" - then I would totally agree. I guess my view is that this latter question is very subtle, and something for a domain expert to gauge. I'm not in a position to gauge it, and this is the point where I do to some degree have to trust the peer-review process, as flawed as it may be!
        7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Later meta analysis that shows this effect is not true and is due to publication bias. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29494195/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29494195/

zzzcpan 7y ago

That meta analysis can't be more biased itself. Just from the first few lines it sounds like they are offended there are benefits to knowing multiple languages.

JamesBarney 7y ago
I don't think the best way to evaluate a study is to read the first few lines and guess at how offended the 8 researches are who wrote the paper. Also I would describe the following as skeptical more than offended. > Because of enduring experience of managing two languages, bilinguals have been argued to develop superior executive functioning compared with monolinguals. Despite extensive investigation, there is, however, no consensus regarding the existence of such a bilingual advantage
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  > "bilinguals have been argued to develop superior executive functioning compared with monolinguals" This is the one I find very problematic. They made up an entire unscientific claim to disprove.
  - casefields 7y ago
    Yup. That’s setting up the parameters in an obvious way to strawman an opponents argument.
    - CrazyStat 7y ago
      It can't be a strawman when it's an argument that the opponents have actually made. Examples are easy to find: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-06955-009 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-06955-009 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28895004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28895004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22464592/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22464592/
  - cstrahan 7y ago
    > They made up an entire unscientific claim to disprove. Search for "bilingual smarter". Here are a handful of articles that suggest that many, many people have already put forth (or at least entertained the possibility of) these claims over the years: --- Does being bilingual make you smarter? | British Council Research Finds That Bilingual People Are Smarter, More Creative And Empathetic | Lifehack Are Bilingual People Smarter Than People Who Speak One Language? | JSTOR Daily Why Bilinguals Are Smarter | Association for Psychological Science How Being Bilingual Makes You Smarter | Grammarly Why Bilingual Kids Are Smarter | Bilingual Kidspot Are Bilinguals Really Smarter? | Psychology Today --- Could you provide any sources that suggest that the authors initiated this discourse?
  - knzhou 7y ago
    Isn't that literally the claim the article posted here is making?
funklute 7y ago
Can you be a bit more specific? The abstract doesn't seem biased at all. They explicitly state that there is currently "no consensus", which, when warranted, is the best position to take in order to get unbiased results.
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  No consensus on "existence of bilingual advantage", which is inherently subjective and unscientific claim. There doesn't need to be any consensus on it whatsoever, it's not science.
  - funklute 7y ago
    "no consensus" in this case means that researchers have claimed different things in the past. If you can form a hypothesis which is falsifiable by a repeatable experiment, then it is by definition science. This paper is clearly science. You may still doubt the conclusions, but the aspects you are attacking seem kinda besides the point/plain wrong.
    - zzzcpan 7y ago
      That's the thing, you can't make a falsifiable hypothesis here, because "bilingual advantage" is subjective, bordering on defining the purpose of life to become objective.
      - funklute 7y ago
        hummm.... I partly agree with you now. I don't agree that "bilingual advantage" is necessarily subjective per se. But if you were to say "the conclusions are only valid insofar as the chosen metrics to measure are representative of an underlying bilingual advantage" - then I would totally agree. I guess my view is that this latter question is very subtle, and something for a domain expert to gauge. I'm not in a position to gauge it, and this is the point where I do to some degree have to trust the peer-review process, as flawed as it may be!
      - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]