The Galactic Recession: A case study


In honor of the rapidly approaching release of a new Star Wars movie, I wanted to follow-up on my article yesterday on humorous yet serious research with another light-hearted piece of scholarship.

It's a trap

This insightful and nerdy reference-laden paper from a Washington University engineering professor looks at the financial impacts that the destruction of two supermassive battle stations and the decapitation of the galactic government would have on the Star Wars universe. As a devoted Star Wars fan myself (if you haven’t already noticed), I find this an especially intriguing area of study because Star Wars: The Force Awakens and the books and videos games released with it are set to describe the chaotic years after the celebrations at the end of Return of the Jedi (spoilers in that link for those concerned).

Using estimates in U.S. dollars for the costs of constructing the two Death Stars ($193 quintillion and $419 quintillion respectively) Prof. Zachary Feinstein extrapolates the Imperial economy to have an annual “gross galactic product” (GGP) of $4.6 sextillion dollars.

Assuming, that the Galactic Empire’s banking sector held assets of around 60 percent of GGP, Feinstein modeled various scenarios for what would happen after the second Death Star was destroyed and the Empire presumably defaulted on its payments for the battle station and its predecessor.

He concluded that the Rebel Alliance would likely need to quickly provide a bailout equivalent to between 15 and 20 percent of the GGP to prevent the galactic defaults from triggering a massive recession. Since the Alliance was a relatively small insurgent group, it is highly unlikely that they would have had that amount of money available to inject into the economy they had newly inherited. This means that a prolonged economic depression could play a role in the setting to The Force Awakens. Just something else to think about it in 10 days, nerdy readers.

Can you research anything? Bullshit.


As we enter the holiday season, it seems appropriate to note the humorous side of scientific research. Scientists are people too, and while readers of my blog have already seen a hilarious April Fools announcement from the folks at CERN, there have been many lighthearted papers in the 350 years (and 9 months) of scientific publishing, and even whole journals and prizes devoted to humorous research.

BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) is one of the world’s preeminent disseminators of medical science, but that hasn’t stopped its 32-year tradition of publishing an annual “Christmas issue” of fully peer-reviewed research about not-quite-serious topics. Over the years, readers have learned how speed bumps can be used to diagnose appendicitis, why patients complain that magazines in medical waiting rooms are too old and stodgy for their tastesthat the Ice Bucket Challenge spread among celebrities last year at about the same rate as swine flu did during its 2009 pandemic and what are the potential side effects of sword swallowing.

The authors of that last article were honored with an “Ig Nobel Prize” – the premier humor award in science. Founded in 1991, these annual awards are a sly perversion of their more prestigious namesake. Prizes are given out in categories including biology, chemistry, medicine and economics, and each award is presented by an actual Nobel Prize winner.

A look through the winners of past awards means seeing some quirky research, ranging from a 2013 Psychology prize for a study proving that “people who think they are drunk also think they are attractive,” to a 1995 Physics prize for research showing that cereal gets soggy when water is added to it, to a 2003 Biology prize for a very detailed eyewitness report (including pictures) of a live mallard duck having homosexual relations with a dead mallard duck. While these articles rightfully sound humorous, they’re all published by actual scientists and have real-world implications. One Ig Nobel prize winner has even gone on to win a Nobel Prize – physicist Andre Geim.

“I have always been interested in things that are funny in a way that makes you pay attention to them and keep paying attention,” creator Marc Abrahams said while reflecting on the 25th anniversary of the prizes this year. Abrahams has spent most of his career working in humorous science as editor of the Annals of Improbable Research, a journal to highlight “research that makes people laugh then think.”

That phrase is a good description of the study featured at the top of this post. This article from several Canadian researchers in the journal Judgment and Decision Making looks at how people react to hearing “pseudo-profound bullshit,” or impressive statements that sound deep but actually mean nothing. Since I currently work as a journalist in Washington, D.C., I have nearly become numb to hearing stuff like this on a daily basis, but the researchers focused on studying the reception to vacuous statements similar to those of the “New Age guru” Deepak Chopra.

The researchers were able to design and test a “bullshit receptivity” scale to accurately gauge how profound participants may think a vacuous statement is. They found that a variety of factors could affect how one perceives bullshit – people who held strong supernatural beliefs were less likely to recognize it, for example, while those who scored higher on cognitive tests were more likely to.

What makes this research potentially so useful is the fact that modern-day life is, in a sense, inundated with bullshit, from political rhetoric to aggressive advertising to online clickbait.

“With the rise of communication technology,” wrote the authors in concluding their article, “people are likely encountering more bullshit in their everyday lives than ever before.”

Strong in The Force, CERN is.

At Switzerland’s European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider announced the discovery of a new fundamental force for the universe, colloquially referred to as “The Force.”

“The Force is what gives a particle physicist his powers,’ said CERN theorist Ben Kenobi of the University of Mos Eisley, Tatooine. “It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us; and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.”

Read more about this new hope for Earth at CERN’s blog, and I hope you had a happy April Fool’s Day.

Addressing “The Dress”

I know you’ve seen it, whether from TV, social media or a friend pushing their phone into your face and asking “What color is this dress?”

(Disclosure: I only see it as blue and black.)

Don’t worry; there isn’t something wrong with your loved ones who see the dress differently than you. The biological explanation lies in the way in which human eyes have evolved to determine colors under various light conditions, and how those determinations vary from person to person.

Human beings evolved to see in daylight, but daylight changes color. That chromatic axis varies from the pinkish red of dawn, up through the blue-white of noontime, and then back down to reddish twilight. “What’s happening here is your visual system is looking at this thing, and you’re trying to discount the chromatic bias of the daylight axis,” says Bevil Conway, a neuroscientist who studies color and vision at Wellesley College. “So people either discount the blue side, in which case they end up seeing white and gold, or discount the gold side, in which case they end up with blue and black.” (Conway sees blue and orange, somehow.)

Screen Shot 2015-03-01 at 3.44.43 PMCheck out this excellent article from Wired analyzing the science behind why people can’t agree on the color of a dress in a poor quality photo.