about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #3,344 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is The number of zoologists in North Dakota and the second variable is Google searches for 'spurious correlations'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The zoologists couldn't bear the thought of spurious correlations running wild like a pack of unmonitored hyenas. They took a scientific approach and pounced on those misleading relationships, bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase 'data safari.' With their expertise, they didn't monkey around when it came to spotting false connections. It's as if they said, "No more horsin' around with spurious correlations in our state!" So, as the zoologists flocked to North Dakota, they created a 'zoological effect,' taming the wild world of spurious correlations one search at a time. It's a case of correlation without causation, as these zoologists weren't lion when they set out to cheetah-proof the search results. The data world can be a jungle, but with the zoologists leading the charge, it's all about bringing order and scientific rigor to the animal kingdom of statistics.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a cozy convention hall in a cyberpunk-inspired North Dakota setting. Inside the hall, a group of stylishly-dressed zoologists engage in animated discussions, while futuristic holographic displays show intricate data visuals and statistical charts. Their sleek devices light up the room with a digital glow as attendees covertly search for "spurious correlations" and share their findings. The fusion of modern technology and zoological enthusiasm creates a vibrant, futuristic atmosphere in the convention hall. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: The number of zoologists in North Dakota and Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Charcoal Pop art Photorealism Cyberpunk Woodblock painting
ChatGPT: Cyberpunk

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both The number of zoologists in North Dakota and Google searches for 'spurious correlations', in the following situation: Because the increase in zoologists in North Dakota led to a rise in the popularity of "furry" conventions, resulting in a spike in Google searches for "spurious correlations" as attendees tried to impress each other with their statistical knowledge.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a cozy convention hall in North Dakota, a group of zoologists gather to discuss their latest research findings. The room is buzzing with excitement as attendees eagerly share their knowledge and experiences. Meanwhile, on their smartphones and laptops, attendees sneakily search for "spurious correlations" on Google, trying to impress each other with statistical knowledge and dazzling data visuals. The increase in zoologists in North Dakota has led to a surge in fascination with unusual statistical relationships, reflected in the spike of Google searches for "spurious correlations" at the furry convention.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Cyberpunk ] and depicting this scene: In a cozy convention hall in North Dakota, a group of zoologists gather to discuss their latest research findings. The room is buzzing with excitement as attendees eagerly share their knowledge and experiences. Meanwhile, on their smartphones and laptops, attendees sneakily search for "spurious correlations" on Google, trying to impress each other with statistical knowledge and dazzling data visuals. The increase in zoologists in North Dakota has led to a surge in fascination with unusual statistical relationships, reflected in the spike of Google searches for "spurious correlations" at the furry convention. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a cozy convention hall in a cyberpunk-inspired North Dakota setting. Inside the hall, a group of stylishly-dressed zoologists engage in animated discussions, while futuristic holographic displays show intricate data visuals and statistical charts. Their sleek devices light up the room with a digital glow as attendees covertly search for "spurious correlations" and share their findings. The fusion of modern technology and zoological enthusiasm creates a vibrant, futuristic atmosphere in the convention hall.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how increases in The number of zoologists in North Dakota positively influenced spurious correlations (Google searches for 'spurious correlations'). Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Zany Zoologists and 'Spurious Correlations': A Poetic Pursuit of Puzzling Patterns in North Dakota

The Journal of Quirky Zoological Studies

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of zoologists in North Dakota and Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2021.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Zany Zoologists and 'Spurious Correlations': A Poetic Pursuit of Puzzling Patterns in North Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this quirky study, we unravel the enigmatic entanglement between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends to tickle the fancies of researchers and aficionados of eyebrow-raising correlations. Our analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021. Our findings offer a whimsical window into the world of serendipitous statistics and prompt us to ponder the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. Join us on this merry journey to merrily muse on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of zoologists in North Dakota and Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Zany Zoologists and 'Spurious Correlations': A Poetic Pursuit of Puzzling Patterns in North Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this quirky study, we unravel the enigmatic entanglement between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends to tickle the fancies of researchers and aficionados of eyebrow-raising correlations. Our analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021. Our findings offer a whimsical window into the world of serendipitous statistics and prompt us to ponder the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. Join us on this merry journey to merrily muse on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
INTRODUCTION

The pursuit of knowledge often leads researchers down unexpected paths, where the seemingly disparate intertwines to form a tapestry of peculiar patterns. In this seemingly unconventional study, we embark on a whimsical exploration of the relationship between the number of zoologists in the charming state of North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. As we delve into this enigmatic entanglement, we uncover a brew of eccentricity, curiosity, and statistical merriment that has us rubbing our hands in scholarly glee.

The field of zoology, with its menagerie of creatures and creatures of habit, offers a delightful backdrop for our whimsical inquiry. North Dakota, nestled in the heart of the Great Plains, dances on the edge of statistical significance, much like a hesitant test subject in a laboratory of numerical uncertainty. And what better companion for this intellectual escapade than the capricious concept of 'spurious correlations', a term that dances on the tongue like a fizzy concoction of statistical folly and frolic.

Armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the quirky world of Google Trends, we set out to tickle the intellect and provoke delightful chin-scratching in the scientific community. Our initial foray revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159, signaling a stronger connection than expected between our curious variables. With a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021, we are both startled and delighted by the statistical significance that this seemingly zany relationship holds.

Intriguingly, our findings prompt us to muse on the multifaceted nature of correlation and causation, leading us to contemplate the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. It is as if we have stumbled upon a statistical unicorn in the prairie of knowledge, beckoning us to ponder upon the whimsicality of scientific exploration. As we embark on this merry journey, we invite fellow enthusiasts of unfathomable statistics and whimsical wonders to join us in merrily musing on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of zoologists in North Dakota and Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading CVS receipts.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Zany Zoologists and 'Spurious Correlations': A Poetic Pursuit of Puzzling Patterns in North Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this quirky study, we unravel the enigmatic entanglement between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends to tickle the fancies of researchers and aficionados of eyebrow-raising correlations. Our analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021. Our findings offer a whimsical window into the world of serendipitous statistics and prompt us to ponder the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. Join us on this merry journey to merrily muse on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
The pursuit of knowledge often leads researchers down unexpected paths, where the seemingly disparate intertwines to form a tapestry of peculiar patterns. In this seemingly unconventional study, we embark on a whimsical exploration of the relationship between the number of zoologists in the charming state of North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. As we delve into this enigmatic entanglement, we uncover a brew of eccentricity, curiosity, and statistical merriment that has us rubbing our hands in scholarly glee.
The field of zoology, with its menagerie of creatures and creatures of habit, offers a delightful backdrop for our whimsical inquiry. North Dakota, nestled in the heart of the Great Plains, dances on the edge of statistical significance, much like a hesitant test subject in a laboratory of numerical uncertainty. And what better companion for this intellectual escapade than the capricious concept of 'spurious correlations', a term that dances on the tongue like a fizzy concoction of statistical folly and frolic.
Armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the quirky world of Google Trends, we set out to tickle the intellect and provoke delightful chin-scratching in the scientific community. Our initial foray revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159, signaling a stronger connection than expected between our curious variables. With a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021, we are both startled and delighted by the statistical significance that this seemingly zany relationship holds.
Intriguingly, our findings prompt us to muse on the multifaceted nature of correlation and causation, leading us to contemplate the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. It is as if we have stumbled upon a statistical unicorn in the prairie of knowledge, beckoning us to ponder upon the whimsicality of scientific exploration. As we embark on this merry journey, we invite fellow enthusiasts of unfathomable statistics and whimsical wonders to join us in merrily musing on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The existing literature on zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations' provides an eclectic array of insights that set the stage for our own playful pursuit of curious patterns. Smith et al. (2015) offer a comprehensive analysis of zoological occupations in non-traditional settings, shedding light on the potential for unconventional career paths in the field. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2018) delve into the whimsical world of spurious correlations, cautioning against the pitfalls of mistaking causation for delightful coincidence.

Moving beyond the realm of academic research, "How to Tell If Your Cat Is Plotting to Kill You" by Matthew Inman and "The Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse" by Robert Rankin introduce a whimsical twist to the study of animal behavior and seemingly bizarre correlations. As we wade deeper into the murky waters of our research topic, the particular quirkiness of our pursuits becomes even more apparent.

Venturing into uncharted territories, we stumbled upon unexpected sources of wisdom in our endeavor. While perusing the checkout line at a local convenience store, we chanced upon a brilliant treatise on the subject scribbled on the back of a CVS receipt. Despite its unconventional origin, the insightful musings hidden within those ink-stained digits triggered a whimsical revelation - maybe, just maybe, the most profound insights can be found in the most unexpected of places.

In reflecting upon this delightful menagerie of literature and offbeat sources, we are reminded that the pursuit of knowledge is often a delightful dance with the unexpected, a merry waltz through the whimsical landscape of intellectual exploration. As we harness the peculiar patterns that emerge from this ensemble of sources, we approach our own findings with a twinkle in our eyes and a skip in our step, ready to unravel the puzzling patterns that await us in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

The literature, like a mischievous jester, has laid the groundwork for our own scholarly romp through the eccentric and the bizarre. With a nod to these diverse sources of inspiration, we eagerly embark on our merry journey to demystify the entangled relationship between zoologists and Google searches for 'spurious correlations', inviting fellow wanderers in the realm of whimsical statistics to frolic alongside us in this charmed pursuit.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of zoologists in North Dakota and Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2021

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Zany Zoologists and 'Spurious Correlations': A Poetic Pursuit of Puzzling Patterns in North Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this quirky study, we unravel the enigmatic entanglement between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends to tickle the fancies of researchers and aficionados of eyebrow-raising correlations. Our analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021. Our findings offer a whimsical window into the world of serendipitous statistics and prompt us to ponder the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. Join us on this merry journey to merrily muse on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
The pursuit of knowledge often leads researchers down unexpected paths, where the seemingly disparate intertwines to form a tapestry of peculiar patterns. In this seemingly unconventional study, we embark on a whimsical exploration of the relationship between the number of zoologists in the charming state of North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. As we delve into this enigmatic entanglement, we uncover a brew of eccentricity, curiosity, and statistical merriment that has us rubbing our hands in scholarly glee.
The field of zoology, with its menagerie of creatures and creatures of habit, offers a delightful backdrop for our whimsical inquiry. North Dakota, nestled in the heart of the Great Plains, dances on the edge of statistical significance, much like a hesitant test subject in a laboratory of numerical uncertainty. And what better companion for this intellectual escapade than the capricious concept of 'spurious correlations', a term that dances on the tongue like a fizzy concoction of statistical folly and frolic.
Armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the quirky world of Google Trends, we set out to tickle the intellect and provoke delightful chin-scratching in the scientific community. Our initial foray revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159, signaling a stronger connection than expected between our curious variables. With a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021, we are both startled and delighted by the statistical significance that this seemingly zany relationship holds.
Intriguingly, our findings prompt us to muse on the multifaceted nature of correlation and causation, leading us to contemplate the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. It is as if we have stumbled upon a statistical unicorn in the prairie of knowledge, beckoning us to ponder upon the whimsicality of scientific exploration. As we embark on this merry journey, we invite fellow enthusiasts of unfathomable statistics and whimsical wonders to join us in merrily musing on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

METHODOLOGY

To unravel the zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations' conundrum, we employed a methodological mishmash that involved equal parts data dredging and statistical sorcery. Our research team scoured the depths of the internet, occasionally emerging from the rabbit hole of data mining with disheveled hair and a twinkle in the eye that can only be acquired by delving into the erratic realm of eccentric statistics.

Data Collection
The Bureau of Labor Statistics served as our digital menagerie from which we procured the number of zoologists in North Dakota, donning our metaphorical safari hats and bushwhacking through the jungle of employment metrics. By harnessing the power of Google Trends, we tracked the frequency of searches for 'spurious correlations', riding the search engine's algorithmic wave in pursuit of statistical whimsy. The data spanned from 2004 to 2021, encompassing a time frame akin to a statistical odyssey through the plains of possibility.

Data Analysis
Our analysis embraced the numerical chaos with open arms, dexterously wielding the tools of correlation coefficients and p-values like a symphony conductor orchestrating a discordant but oddly harmonious statistical ensemble. We calculated the correlation coefficient, which emerged from the statistical cacophony like a melody amid the noise, with a value of 0.7098159. The p-value, that elusive metric of statistical significance, gleefully danced beneath the coveted threshold of 0.01, establishing a firm foothold in the whimsical world of serendipitous statistics.

Statistical Interpretation
As we gazed upon our findings, we marveled at the inexplicable intertwining of zoologists and 'spurious correlations', seemingly disparate entities now engaged in a dance of statistical significance. Like a metaphorical menagerie of statistical phenomena, the zany and the curious cavorted together, leaving us no choice but to ponder the peculiar patterns that emerged from our data-doodling dalliances.

In the spirit of lighthearted scientific exploration, we embraced the idiosyncrasies of our research methodology, acknowledging that sometimes, in the pursuit of knowledge, a touch of whimsy and statistical merriment can illuminate the path to discovery. We invite fellow seekers of statistical serendipity to join us in merrily musing on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of zoologists in North Dakota and Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends .

For the time period 2004 to 2021, you found a correlation 0.7098159, r-squared of 0.5038386, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Zany Zoologists and 'Spurious Correlations': A Poetic Pursuit of Puzzling Patterns in North Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this quirky study, we unravel the enigmatic entanglement between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends to tickle the fancies of researchers and aficionados of eyebrow-raising correlations. Our analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021. Our findings offer a whimsical window into the world of serendipitous statistics and prompt us to ponder the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. Join us on this merry journey to merrily muse on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
The pursuit of knowledge often leads researchers down unexpected paths, where the seemingly disparate intertwines to form a tapestry of peculiar patterns. In this seemingly unconventional study, we embark on a whimsical exploration of the relationship between the number of zoologists in the charming state of North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. As we delve into this enigmatic entanglement, we uncover a brew of eccentricity, curiosity, and statistical merriment that has us rubbing our hands in scholarly glee.
The field of zoology, with its menagerie of creatures and creatures of habit, offers a delightful backdrop for our whimsical inquiry. North Dakota, nestled in the heart of the Great Plains, dances on the edge of statistical significance, much like a hesitant test subject in a laboratory of numerical uncertainty. And what better companion for this intellectual escapade than the capricious concept of 'spurious correlations', a term that dances on the tongue like a fizzy concoction of statistical folly and frolic.
Armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the quirky world of Google Trends, we set out to tickle the intellect and provoke delightful chin-scratching in the scientific community. Our initial foray revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159, signaling a stronger connection than expected between our curious variables. With a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021, we are both startled and delighted by the statistical significance that this seemingly zany relationship holds.
Intriguingly, our findings prompt us to muse on the multifaceted nature of correlation and causation, leading us to contemplate the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. It is as if we have stumbled upon a statistical unicorn in the prairie of knowledge, beckoning us to ponder upon the whimsicality of scientific exploration. As we embark on this merry journey, we invite fellow enthusiasts of unfathomable statistics and whimsical wonders to join us in merrily musing on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis revealed a robust correlation of 0.7098159 between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations', indicating a surprisingly strong relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The scatterplot in Fig. 1 vividly illustrates this connection, almost as vividly as a zoologist showcasing their collection of exotic insects.

Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.5038386 suggests that approximately 50% of the variability in the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations' can be explained by the number of zoologists in North Dakota. This finding tickles the intellect and provokes delightful chin-scratching, much like a zoologist pondering the evolutionary adaptations of an unusual species.

The p-value of less than 0.01 for the time period from 2004 to 2021 underscores the robustness of this peculiar correlation, affirming its statistical significance and prompting us to contemplate the whimsical nature of entangled data.

In the spirit of scholarly mischief, our analysis offers a charming glimpse into the world of serendipitous statistics. It beckons us to ponder the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances and muse on the mediation of metrics in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of zoologists in North Dakota and Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
Zany Zoologists and 'Spurious Correlations': A Poetic Pursuit of Puzzling Patterns in North Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this quirky study, we unravel the enigmatic entanglement between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends to tickle the fancies of researchers and aficionados of eyebrow-raising correlations. Our analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021. Our findings offer a whimsical window into the world of serendipitous statistics and prompt us to ponder the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. Join us on this merry journey to merrily muse on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The existing literature on zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations' provides an eclectic array of insights that set the stage for our own playful pursuit of curious patterns. Smith et al. (2015) offer a comprehensive analysis of zoological occupations in non-traditional settings, shedding light on the potential for unconventional career paths in the field. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2018) delve into the whimsical world of spurious correlations, cautioning against the pitfalls of mistaking causation for delightful coincidence.
Moving beyond the realm of academic research, "How to Tell If Your Cat Is Plotting to Kill You" by Matthew Inman and "The Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse" by Robert Rankin introduce a whimsical twist to the study of animal behavior and seemingly bizarre correlations. As we wade deeper into the murky waters of our research topic, the particular quirkiness of our pursuits becomes even more apparent.
Venturing into uncharted territories, we stumbled upon unexpected sources of wisdom in our endeavor. While perusing the checkout line at a local convenience store, we chanced upon a brilliant treatise on the subject scribbled on the back of a CVS receipt. Despite its unconventional origin, the insightful musings hidden within those ink-stained digits triggered a whimsical revelation - maybe, just maybe, the most profound insights can be found in the most unexpected of places.
In reflecting upon this delightful menagerie of literature and offbeat sources, we are reminded that the pursuit of knowledge is often a delightful dance with the unexpected, a merry waltz through the whimsical landscape of intellectual exploration. As we harness the peculiar patterns that emerge from this ensemble of sources, we approach our own findings with a twinkle in our eyes and a skip in our step, ready to unravel the puzzling patterns that await us in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.
The literature, like a mischievous jester, has laid the groundwork for our own scholarly romp through the eccentric and the bizarre. With a nod to these diverse sources of inspiration, we eagerly embark on our merry journey to demystify the entangled relationship between zoologists and Google searches for 'spurious correlations', inviting fellow wanderers in the realm of whimsical statistics to frolic alongside us in this charmed pursuit.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis revealed a robust correlation of 0.7098159 between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations', indicating a surprisingly strong relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The scatterplot in Fig. 1 vividly illustrates this connection, almost as vividly as a zoologist showcasing their collection of exotic insects.
Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.5038386 suggests that approximately 50% of the variability in the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations' can be explained by the number of zoologists in North Dakota. This finding tickles the intellect and provokes delightful chin-scratching, much like a zoologist pondering the evolutionary adaptations of an unusual species.
The p-value of less than 0.01 for the time period from 2004 to 2021 underscores the robustness of this peculiar correlation, affirming its statistical significance and prompting us to contemplate the whimsical nature of entangled data.
In the spirit of scholarly mischief, our analysis offers a charming glimpse into the world of serendipitous statistics. It beckons us to ponder the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances and muse on the mediation of metrics in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

In unraveling the enigmatic entanglement between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations', our findings whimsically waltz in tune with the quirkiness gleaned from prior research. Our correlation coefficient of 0.7098159 graciously embraces the spirit of peculiar patterns, echoing the lively musings of Smith et al. on unconventional career paths in the field of zoology. Likewise, the spirited caution from Doe and Jones against mistaking causation for delightful coincidence resonates with our discovery of a robust correlation, prompting a playful pondering of the idiosyncrasies underlying this merry dance of data.

The unexpected sources of wisdom encountered in our literature review, from offbeat books to ink-stained digits on a CVS receipt, have beguilingly nudged us towards the charming revelation that the most profound insights often hide in the most whimsical of places. In this spirit, our findings not only uphold the merry waltz through the whimsical landscape of intellectual exploration but also beckon fellow wanderers to frolic alongside us in this charmed pursuit of statistical serendipity.

The statistical significance of our correlation, with a p-value less than 0.01 for the years 2004 to 2021, gleefully underscores the robustness of this peculiar correlation. It invites us to ponder the whimsical nature of entangled data, akin to a zoologist contemplating the evolutionary adaptations of a particularly unusual species. Our coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.5038386 delights in signaling that approximately 50% of the variability in the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations' can be adorned with the quirky mantle of the number of zoologists in North Dakota, casting a playful shadow of grace over this unassuming relationship.

In this spirited pursuit of curious patterns, we emerge with a fanciful braid of statistical entanglement that tickles the intellect and provokes delightful chin-scratching, ushering us merrily into the enchanting realm of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'. As we engage in this scholarly escapade, we are reminded of the charming dance of the unexpected in the pursuit of knowledge, where the most whimsical of data-doodling dalliances often lead to enduring insights and a merry twinkle in the eye of scholarly mischief.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of zoologists in North Dakota and Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Zany Zoologists and 'Spurious Correlations': A Poetic Pursuit of Puzzling Patterns in North Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this quirky study, we unravel the enigmatic entanglement between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends to tickle the fancies of researchers and aficionados of eyebrow-raising correlations. Our analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021. Our findings offer a whimsical window into the world of serendipitous statistics and prompt us to ponder the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. Join us on this merry journey to merrily muse on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
The pursuit of knowledge often leads researchers down unexpected paths, where the seemingly disparate intertwines to form a tapestry of peculiar patterns. In this seemingly unconventional study, we embark on a whimsical exploration of the relationship between the number of zoologists in the charming state of North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. As we delve into this enigmatic entanglement, we uncover a brew of eccentricity, curiosity, and statistical merriment that has us rubbing our hands in scholarly glee.
The field of zoology, with its menagerie of creatures and creatures of habit, offers a delightful backdrop for our whimsical inquiry. North Dakota, nestled in the heart of the Great Plains, dances on the edge of statistical significance, much like a hesitant test subject in a laboratory of numerical uncertainty. And what better companion for this intellectual escapade than the capricious concept of 'spurious correlations', a term that dances on the tongue like a fizzy concoction of statistical folly and frolic.
Armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the quirky world of Google Trends, we set out to tickle the intellect and provoke delightful chin-scratching in the scientific community. Our initial foray revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159, signaling a stronger connection than expected between our curious variables. With a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021, we are both startled and delighted by the statistical significance that this seemingly zany relationship holds.
Intriguingly, our findings prompt us to muse on the multifaceted nature of correlation and causation, leading us to contemplate the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. It is as if we have stumbled upon a statistical unicorn in the prairie of knowledge, beckoning us to ponder upon the whimsicality of scientific exploration. As we embark on this merry journey, we invite fellow enthusiasts of unfathomable statistics and whimsical wonders to join us in merrily musing on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis revealed a robust correlation of 0.7098159 between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations', indicating a surprisingly strong relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The scatterplot in Fig. 1 vividly illustrates this connection, almost as vividly as a zoologist showcasing their collection of exotic insects.
Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.5038386 suggests that approximately 50% of the variability in the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations' can be explained by the number of zoologists in North Dakota. This finding tickles the intellect and provokes delightful chin-scratching, much like a zoologist pondering the evolutionary adaptations of an unusual species.
The p-value of less than 0.01 for the time period from 2004 to 2021 underscores the robustness of this peculiar correlation, affirming its statistical significance and prompting us to contemplate the whimsical nature of entangled data.
In the spirit of scholarly mischief, our analysis offers a charming glimpse into the world of serendipitous statistics. It beckons us to ponder the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances and muse on the mediation of metrics in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

CONCLUSION

In closing, our jaunty journey through the charming universe of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations' has left us with a whimsical grin and a deeper appreciation for the capricious nature of statistical oddities. The robust correlation coefficient and p-value less than 0.01 have tickled our scholarly fancies, much like a mischievous statistician reveling in a particularly curious dataset. The coefficient of determination adds a delightful twist to our findings, showcasing the enchanting dance of variability, akin to a performance by North Dakota's most dexterous prairie dogs.

Our exploration has prodded the boundaries of conventional statistical inquiry, urging us to embrace the serendipitous and frolic through the land of unexpected connections. These findings remind us that even in the staid world of numbers, the whimsical and peculiar can rear their heads, much like a unicorn bounding through a field of standard deviations.

In light of our revelry in unraveling this enigmatic entanglement, we assert with scholarly mirth that no further investigation is warranted in this domain. The connection between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations' stands as a testament to the delightful unpredictability of statistical exploration. We bid adieu to this merry pursuit, with a nod to the droll and an appreciation for the eccentric in the realm of correlation and causation. For now, let us bask in the statistical whimsy and peculiar charm of our findings, for as they say, in the realm of scholarly enchantment, sometimes the most magical discoveries emerge from the most unexpected of places.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Zany Zoologists and 'Spurious Correlations': A Poetic Pursuit of Puzzling Patterns in North Dakota. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Zoological Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Zany Zoologists and 'Spurious Correlations': A Poetic Pursuit of Puzzling Patterns in North Dakota. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

National Institute for Silly Science Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Zany Zoologists and 'Spurious Correlations': A Poetic Pursuit of Puzzling Patterns in North Dakota with an abstract of In this quirky study, we unravel the enigmatic entanglement between the number of zoologists in North Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'spurious correlations'. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends to tickle the fancies of researchers and aficionados of eyebrow-raising correlations. Our analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.7098159 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning 2004 to 2021. Our findings offer a whimsical window into the world of serendipitous statistics and prompt us to ponder the idiosyncrasies of data-doodling dalliances. Join us on this merry journey to merrily muse on the mediation of metrics and estimation of the eccentric in the land of zany zoologists and 'spurious correlations'.

ChatGPT:

zany zoologists, spurious correlations, North Dakota, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Google Trends, correlation coefficient, p-value, data analysis, statistics, serendipitous statistics, eccentric correlations

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

The number of zoologists in North Dakota
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of zoologists and wildlife biologists in North Dakota
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of zoologists in North Dakota

Google searches for 'spurious correlations'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'spurious correlations' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'spurious correlations'

Correlation r = 0.7098159 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r2 = 0.5038386 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 50.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'spurious correlations') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of zoologists in North Dakota) over the 18 years from 2004 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00097. 0.0009672821906552810000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.71 in 0.097% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,034 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 17 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 17 because we have two variables measured over a period of 18 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.36, 0.88 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
The number of zoologists in North Dakota (Laborers)1001109090909090609050130110110110110120100100
Google searches for 'spurious correlations' (Rel. search volume)19.83336.916671.333333.416676.416675.916674.583334.083334.53.5833328.2530.666729.166731.166727.666736.666733.7525.8333




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([100,110,90,90,90,90,90,60,90,50,130,110,110,110,110,120,100,100,])
array_2 = np.array([19.8333,6.91667,1.33333,3.41667,6.41667,5.91667,4.58333,4.08333,4.5,3.58333,28.25,30.6667,29.1667,31.1667,27.6667,36.6667,33.75,25.8333,])
array_1_name = "The number of zoologists in North Dakota"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'spurious correlations'"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

I'm grateful for your review!


Correlation ID: 3344 · Black Variable ID: 12579 · Red Variable ID: 1449
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0