You can say and do and give your own credence to whatever you want, but the evidence you are providing repeatedly is that you don’t understand what the economic concept of revealed preference actually is.

If you did understand what revealed preference theory is trying to do, and how, then you’d understand why your “simple English” rhetorical question isn’t asking a useful or economically valid question.

I mean you are the one that needs a “study” to show what’s really common sense. Believe what people do and not what people say.

Who said anything about a study? No study is needed to see that you obviously don’t understand what revealed preference means, you are contradicting the definition of the economic term.

Take your question. The reason someone might do something different from what they said could be due to anything, such as constraints like cost, time, or availability. It could be due to changing circumstances, or someone else’s preferences. Any given answer to your question cannot be used to infer anything about preference, and assuming it does means you’re not thinking scientifically.

Revealed preference theory is trying to demonstrate what can be proven about preference, which is why it requires a situation where someone spends money on a mutually exclusive choice between two things that are close enough to be an apples to apples comparison. If you don’t do that, then you’re fooling yourself about what the data means.