[link] Prepared to wait? New research challenges the idea that we favour small rewards now over bigger later

Do you have examples in mind? I'd very much like them - those would be highly valuable places to double-check assumptions.

It would be really nice if studies had a sort of thoroughness check list at the top of the paper next to the abstract clearly stating sample size, sampling process, number of peer reviewers, study methodology(double-blind, panel etc), and any other relevant information to the papers validity. If some sort of crude standardization could even occur within specific fields it would make cross-study comparison much easier. Or what if papers could be published online in a format inviting public criticism and community concerns would be forced to be answered to by authors.

The best way to deal with that is to read the original papers and make sure the studies were adequately performed

And even just reading the abstracts is already a huge step forward for epistemic hygiene because science reporting and journalism can be so damn shoddy (besides, I regularly find that the abstracts are easier to read and understand than their popularizations).

The Economist recently had an article about how sitting in wobbly furniture makes people crave "emotional stability." They also mention a study finding that people sitting in chairs that lean to the left reported more liberal opinions.

http://www.economist.com/node/21558553

The difference is not huge, but it is statistically significant. Even a small amount of environmental wobbliness seems to promote a desire for an emotional rock to cling to.

As far as I can tell they are completely serious.

The opening paragraph is a poor choice, it gives no more information than the title. Here's a suggested summary:

Two studies by Daniel Read at Warwick Business School found no evidence of hyperbolic discounting. Both studies offered participants a choice of two rewards some weeks later with the greater reward one week later than the lesser, then offered the choice of the same rewards at the same time points after a few weeks. For greater realism, subjects in first study (Nstudent = 128) believed they had a chance of getting the reward, and subjects in the second study (N = 201) believed they had either a chance or a certainty of getting it. In both studies, patience was equally likely to increase or decrease over time, whereas hyperbolic discounting predicts a decrease.