Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
Several discussions emphasize the significant influence of publication bias, citing the paper’s large number of citations and views as evidence of its impact, while others critique the honesty of prior research, illustrating active engagement with the research's validity and implications. The tone varies from supportive to skeptical, reflecting both interest and concern about the research’s credibility and influence.
Many posts agree that publication bias inflates the perceived benefits of bilingualism, with references to Angela de Bruin’s work and strong support for the idea that the evidence is biased or overstated.
Posts demonstrate high interest by discussing the implications of publication bias, citing influential papers, and mentioning the number of citations and views related to the research.
Users engage actively, referencing specific studies, sharing opinions on research honesty, and debating the validity of claimed benefits, showing thoughtful interaction.
Discussions highlight the importance of recognizing publication bias, which could significantly influence future research directions and perceptions about bilingual advantages.
@sarisataka @TheScotsman There is strong evidence of publication bias, so that negative findings haven't been published. Taking this into account, the evidence for a cognitive advantage is thin. (https://t.co/QEmhLwSAz9
@cmsTweets1 Thanks for info! I assume this is the paper? https://t.co/vYoqkIzuG8
@LewSOS Not to defend Seymour, but the supposed benefits of bilingualism are quite contended in academia https://t.co/tQo4T7ny7q
A bit of history first. Why do I say *famously*? The original paper (https://t.co/61pfvcc428) has been cited 639 times according to @googlescholar_ with more than 11286 views and downloads according to @PsychScience. Those are BIG numbers for our field. 2/7
@angela_debruin @OxfordDeptofEd Evidence here https://t.co/S3OTYttphi
@patbrittenden de Bruin et al., 2015 (Psych Science) — Not a meta-analysis but crucial: shows publication bias (positives get published; nulls don’t), inflating the myth. https://t.co/uLbRirsVvh
Go to httpcuriositystreamcompsych to start streaming The History of English. People used to say being bilingual was bad for your brain. Now we know that's not true, but does it make you smarter?
Exploring whether learning multiple languages confuses children, this video features a discussion between curious layman Ken Fujioka and PhD scientist Altay de Souza. Delve into the science of bilingualism and its…
@patbrittenden de Bruin et al., 2015 (Psych Science) — Not a meta-analysis but crucial: shows publication bias (positives get published; nulls don’t), inflating the myth. https://t.co/uLbRirsVvh
A bit of history first. Why do I say *famously*? The original paper (https://t.co/61pfvcc428) has been cited 639 times according to @googlescholar_ with more than 11286 views and downloads according to @PsychScience. Those are BIG numbers for our field. 2/7
@BlancoElorrieta @Casfetera Dishonest research and publication bias, as Angela de Bruin showed about previous over hyped studies on bilingualism. Guess she is another machirulo rushing to mansplain. https://t.co/Rig3f7aSVm https://t.co/CUl7w3laO0
@angela_debruin @OxfordDeptofEd Evidence here https://t.co/S3OTYttphi
@sarisataka @TheScotsman There is strong evidence of publication bias, so that negative findings haven't been published. Taking this into account, the evidence for a cognitive advantage is thin. (https://t.co/QEmhLwSAz9
@cmsTweets1 Thanks for info! I assume this is the paper? https://t.co/vYoqkIzuG8
@LewSOS Not to defend Seymour, but the supposed benefits of bilingualism are quite contended in academia https://t.co/tQo4T7ny7q
RS
MA
S
PL
HS
TM
E