[air7]

I've come to believe that singular scientific papers should be consider "only slightly above noise". Like ants leaving weak pheromones when they find food: It works well in scale but close to random in the particular case. I feel this is even more true nowadays, when the marginal utility of improved rigorousness is so low.

This article reads to me like a PR piece for the (marketing) professor more than an honest showcasing of scientific findings: The results are very relatable and feel intuitively true so as a reader it's easy to pick it up as "ammunition" for future family dinner discussions and thus are also good for the media to publish. So there's no need for rigorous science. (I mean come on, "participants were asked to imagine eating a certain number of cookies (...) and then asked how much they wanted one more cookie.")