61–70 of 116 posts
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/
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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, howe…
This is the one I find very problematic. They made up an entire unscientific claim to disprove.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
What's the best way to learn a new language?
I 'learned' 2 languages in school and by far the most important part is knowing as many words as possible, and actually speaking it with natives. Other than that, you wont get too much out of written exercises or duolingo or even books. Just stick to those two things.
However, the best way to learn random words is to play a game or read a book, and then google / dictionary search any word you don't know.
It should be easy to find people who can speak the language with you, but if you can't find anyone, well... why learn it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
However, that would be confusing cause and effect
I foresee a lot of comments from monolingual americans and brits trying to dispute this.
Am I really monolingual when I'm fluent in multiple programming languages and endless niche industry jargon? Jokes aside, I'd assume the context switching would be psychologically rather similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, howe…
> "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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"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.