Study: Scientists continue to waste money on studies that reach obvious conclusions.

Wasn't this publish in the Scientific jornal "Duh!" ?

So they can't call us lazy AND fat. It's one or the other!

Related study: humans have no will power. Or very little, anyway.

Seriously, a bag of candy lasts about two hours in my house. A big bag.

Yup - the bag of Minstrels I had in the cupboard lasted a fortnight there. I got it out last night, and now it's all gone...

Duh.

I gotta admit... this was pretty obvious... But I think that other primal desires are similar too (food, pr0n, attention). Like Amy said, little to no will-power.

Study: people spend more when money it is close at hand and in sight and less when its farther away and out of sight.

i'd buy it.

it is? neat.

This should have implications for architecture - so many houses make the kitchen the center of the social space. Basically we should put the booze at one end of the house and the kitchen at the other. We'll be jollier and thinner!

Obviously the question is that food was designed to be there and that it didn't come out of nothing or evolved out of apes.

Wait.

This sort of thing does have use people. Unfortunately they chose to use candy, which makes it seem stupid. But it's easy to extrapolate this to the rest of eating habits. Combine this with the study Cornell did that basically verified the "freshman 15" and university cafeterias all over the place all of the sudden seem a little more ridiculous, especially when they charge an "all you can eat" price.

While it may seem common sense, sometimes it's necessary to document "common sense" things so that people and organizations can't argue lack of proof. And trust me, you'd be surprised how many people won't believe me when I tell them they can eat half of what they do and be fine.

At first I also thought 'Duh, this is soooo obvious'... but then again: this is one of those things you might have known all along, but never really thought about. I agree with sps, it's good to bring these things into focus every now and again.

*moves bag of candies from desk into drawer*

While I've known this personally for a long time (candy left on the coffee table gets eaten, candy I leave in my room or put in drawer is found a few years later) it's one thing to state that something is obvious, but quite another to try to prove it scientifically. For every study that validates a seemingly obvious concept there are plenty that disprove the "obvious" idea. Until you put something to the test, no matter how much it seems to be true, it's just hearsay.

But what about candy that's down the back of the couch? Is it still good enough to give trick-or-treaters? or am I missing the point here?