about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,449 · 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 microbiologists in North Carolina and the second variable is New York Times Fiction Best Sellers.  The chart goes from 2003 to 2014, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the number of microbiologists in North Carolina increased, so did their love for microscopic details. This love for details led to more intricate and compelling storylines in the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers, capturing the readers' imaginations at a cellular level.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [An image that looks like a scene from a Disney movie] In a magical laboratory nestled in the forests of North Carolina, a group of earnest and determined microbiologists are seen conducting research and experiments with unwavering focus. The lab is adorned with enchanting glow-in-the-dark vials and shimmering microscopes, adding an otherworldly charm to the setting. As the microbiologists work with dedicated intensity, the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list is projected on the wall, its titles and rankings changing in real-time with an air of enchantment. The room is filled with a warm, radiant glow, echoing the excitement and innovation coursing through the laboratory. The constant fluctuations in the number of scientists directly influence the success and popularity of the fiction best sellers, creating an awe-inspiring and wondrous correlation. 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 microbiologists in North Carolina and New York Times Fiction Best Sellers. 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: Low poly a funny image macro Scalar art An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie Hyper-realistic
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie

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 microbiologists in North Carolina and New York Times Fiction Best Sellers, in the following situation: As the number of microbiologists in North Carolina fluctuates, so does the spread of pun-believable plot lines and novel ideas. It's a real culture medium for cultivating captivating storylines! These scientists are really micro-waving the literary world, stirring up best sellers faster than you can say "cell division." It's like they're conducting experiments in storytelling, constantly agar-ivating the book industry. Who knew that these tiny organisms would have such a macroscopic impact on the best seller list? This correlation is truly a novel discovery!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a laboratory in North Carolina, a group of microbiologists are conducting research and experiments with intense focus. As they work, the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list is projected on the wall, and the titles and rankings change in real-time, correlating with the scientists' activities. The researchers appear enthusiastic and engaged, and the mood in the lab is one of excitement and innovation, with the constant fluctuation in the number of microbiologists directly influencing the success and popularity of the fiction best sellers.

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: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie ] and depicting this scene: In a laboratory in North Carolina, a group of microbiologists are conducting research and experiments with intense focus. As they work, the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list is projected on the wall, and the titles and rankings change in real-time, correlating with the scientists' activities. The researchers appear enthusiastic and engaged, and the mood in the lab is one of excitement and innovation, with the constant fluctuation in the number of microbiologists directly influencing the success and popularity of the fiction best sellers. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [An image that looks like a scene from a Disney movie] In a magical laboratory nestled in the forests of North Carolina, a group of earnest and determined microbiologists are seen conducting research and experiments with unwavering focus. The lab is adorned with enchanting glow-in-the-dark vials and shimmering microscopes, adding an otherworldly charm to the setting. As the microbiologists work with dedicated intensity, the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list is projected on the wall, its titles and rankings changing in real-time with an air of enchantment. The room is filled with a warm, radiant glow, echoing the excitement and innovation coursing through the laboratory. The constant fluctuations in the number of scientists directly influence the success and popularity of the fiction best sellers, creating an awe-inspiring and wondrous correlation.

*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 microbiologists in North Carolina positively influenced New York Times Fiction Best Sellers.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Microbiologists and Best Sellers: The Rhyme and Reason

The Journal of Microbial Musings

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 silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 microbiologists in North Carolina and New York Times Fiction Best Sellers. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Hawes to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8999557 and p < 0.01 for 2003 to 2014.

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]]
Microbiologists and Best Sellers: The Rhyme and Reason

[[ABSTRACT]]
Have you ever wondered whether the number of microbiologists in North Carolina has any connection to the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list? Well, wonder no more! In this study, we took a lighthearted approach to examining this peculiar relationship. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the Hawes list of top literary works, we set out to unravel the mystery. To our surprise (and delight), we discovered a remarkably strong correlation, with a coefficient that rhymes with certainty – 0.8999557! This suggested a significant association between these seemingly unrelated entities, much like an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel. Our findings will leave you questioning not only the world of literature but also the untold stories within the realm of microbiology. So, grab your lab coat and your favorite book, as we embark on this whimsical journey through the world of words and microbes.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 microbiologists in North Carolina and New York Times Fiction Best Sellers. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Microbiologists and Best Sellers: The Rhyme and Reason

[[ABSTRACT]]
Have you ever wondered whether the number of microbiologists in North Carolina has any connection to the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list? Well, wonder no more! In this study, we took a lighthearted approach to examining this peculiar relationship. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the Hawes list of top literary works, we set out to unravel the mystery. To our surprise (and delight), we discovered a remarkably strong correlation, with a coefficient that rhymes with certainty – 0.8999557! This suggested a significant association between these seemingly unrelated entities, much like an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel. Our findings will leave you questioning not only the world of literature but also the untold stories within the realm of microbiology. So, grab your lab coat and your favorite book, as we embark on this whimsical journey through the world of words and microbes.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
Welcome, dear readers, to our whimsical exploration into the surprising connection between microbiologists and best-selling fiction. While it may seem as unlikely a pairing as peanut butter and pickles, our investigation has revealed a correlation that is as curious as it is captivating.

The idea for this research sprouted from a lighthearted conversation over coffee, where we found ourselves musing about the intersection of microbial mysteries and literary masterpieces. We pondered whether the bustling world of microbiology in North Carolina could hold any sway over the captivating tales that grace the illustrious New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list. And just like a serendipitous discovery in a microbiology lab, our curiosity couldn't be contained.

With zeal and a dash of quirkiness, we delved into this improbable relationship, leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Hawes list of top literary works in a quest for enlightenment. Little did we anticipate the saga that unfolded before us. Lo and behold, the statistical analyses revealed a coefficient that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double take – a staggering 0.8999557! The resonance of our findings evokes a tune that harmonizes with the certainty of an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel.

As we journey through the pages of our research, we invite you to suspend disbelief and embrace the delightful fusion of science and storytelling. Just as a novel's protagonist uncovers hidden truths, our findings beckon you to question the conventions of literary success and the unseen narratives that flourish in the world of microbiology.

So, prepare to be tickled by the peculiar, as we unravel this enigmatic thread that connects microbiologists and best sellers, and emerge with a newfound appreciation for the inimitable symphony of words and microbes. Let us embark on this intellectual escapade, where the microscope meets the manuscript, and where the tales of tiny organisms intertwine with the literary elite in an unexpected dance of correlation and causation.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 microbiologists in North Carolina and New York Times Fiction Best Sellers. Make lots of 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 the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Microbiologists and Best Sellers: The Rhyme and Reason

[[ABSTRACT]]
Have you ever wondered whether the number of microbiologists in North Carolina has any connection to the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list? Well, wonder no more! In this study, we took a lighthearted approach to examining this peculiar relationship. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the Hawes list of top literary works, we set out to unravel the mystery. To our surprise (and delight), we discovered a remarkably strong correlation, with a coefficient that rhymes with certainty – 0.8999557! This suggested a significant association between these seemingly unrelated entities, much like an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel. Our findings will leave you questioning not only the world of literature but also the untold stories within the realm of microbiology. So, grab your lab coat and your favorite book, as we embark on this whimsical journey through the world of words and microbes.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Welcome, dear readers, to our whimsical exploration into the surprising connection between microbiologists and best-selling fiction. While it may seem as unlikely a pairing as peanut butter and pickles, our investigation has revealed a correlation that is as curious as it is captivating.
The idea for this research sprouted from a lighthearted conversation over coffee, where we found ourselves musing about the intersection of microbial mysteries and literary masterpieces. We pondered whether the bustling world of microbiology in North Carolina could hold any sway over the captivating tales that grace the illustrious New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list. And just like a serendipitous discovery in a microbiology lab, our curiosity couldn't be contained.
With zeal and a dash of quirkiness, we delved into this improbable relationship, leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Hawes list of top literary works in a quest for enlightenment. Little did we anticipate the saga that unfolded before us. Lo and behold, the statistical analyses revealed a coefficient that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double take – a staggering 0.8999557! The resonance of our findings evokes a tune that harmonizes with the certainty of an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel.
As we journey through the pages of our research, we invite you to suspend disbelief and embrace the delightful fusion of science and storytelling. Just as a novel's protagonist uncovers hidden truths, our findings beckon you to question the conventions of literary success and the unseen narratives that flourish in the world of microbiology.
So, prepare to be tickled by the peculiar, as we unravel this enigmatic thread that connects microbiologists and best sellers, and emerge with a newfound appreciation for the inimitable symphony of words and microbes. Let us embark on this intellectual escapade, where the microscope meets the manuscript, and where the tales of tiny organisms intertwine with the literary elite in an unexpected dance of correlation and causation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In the pursuit of unraveling the perplexing relationship between the number of microbiologists in North Carolina and the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list, we turned to existing literature for insights and clues. The quest for understanding led us to ponder the poignant words of Smith et al. (2015), who, in their seminal work "Microbial Musings: Unraveling the Intricacies of Microbiologists," delved into the intricate world of microbial wonders with a prose as captivating as the finest fiction.

Expanding our search for connection, we encountered the scholarly works of Doe and Jones (2017), whose research in "Microbiologists and the Art of Influence" uncovered compelling parallels between the enigmatic world of microbiology and the alluring realm of literary masterpieces. Their findings hinted at a symbiotic relationship reminiscent of the elegant intertwining of plotlines in a best-selling novel.

Venturing further into the literary labyrinth, we stumbled upon non-fiction treasures such as "The Microbe Hunters" by Paul de Kruif and "I Contain Multitudes" by Ed Yong, which offered captivating narratives of microbial marvels that rival the most thrilling works of fiction. These accounts painted a vivid tapestry of microscopic dramas that lurk beneath the surface, akin to the concealed nuances within bestselling narratives.

Bringing the focus to fiction, we delved into the compelling realms of novels that seemed to echo the whispers of microbiological intrigue. Works such as "The Andromeda Strain" by Michael Crichton and "The Hot Zone" by Richard Preston transported us into the heart of infectious suspense, mirroring the captivating complexities that microbiologists navigate in their pursuit of understanding microscopic mysteries.

However, as we embraced the whimsical spirit of our inquiry, we embarked on a peculiar tangent into uncharted territory. In a farcical turn of events, we found ourselves engrossed in deciphering the cryptic tales adorning the backs of shampoo bottles, seeking an uncanny parallel to the unfolding saga of microbes and best sellers. While the fragrance of correlation eluded us in this unconventional pursuit, the endeavor left us with a comical anecdote to punctuate our scholarly pursuits.

The amalgamation of these academic musings and lighthearted diversions invites us to contemplate the remarkable symmetry between the narratives woven by microbiologists and best-selling authors. As we prepare to unveil our empirical findings, we encourage you to embrace the whimsy of this unconventional exploration, where the scientific and the literary converge in unexpected harmony.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 microbiologists in North Carolina and New York Times Fiction Best Sellers. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Hawes . You used data from 2003 to 2014

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]]
Microbiologists and Best Sellers: The Rhyme and Reason

[[ABSTRACT]]
Have you ever wondered whether the number of microbiologists in North Carolina has any connection to the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list? Well, wonder no more! In this study, we took a lighthearted approach to examining this peculiar relationship. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the Hawes list of top literary works, we set out to unravel the mystery. To our surprise (and delight), we discovered a remarkably strong correlation, with a coefficient that rhymes with certainty – 0.8999557! This suggested a significant association between these seemingly unrelated entities, much like an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel. Our findings will leave you questioning not only the world of literature but also the untold stories within the realm of microbiology. So, grab your lab coat and your favorite book, as we embark on this whimsical journey through the world of words and microbes.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Welcome, dear readers, to our whimsical exploration into the surprising connection between microbiologists and best-selling fiction. While it may seem as unlikely a pairing as peanut butter and pickles, our investigation has revealed a correlation that is as curious as it is captivating.
The idea for this research sprouted from a lighthearted conversation over coffee, where we found ourselves musing about the intersection of microbial mysteries and literary masterpieces. We pondered whether the bustling world of microbiology in North Carolina could hold any sway over the captivating tales that grace the illustrious New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list. And just like a serendipitous discovery in a microbiology lab, our curiosity couldn't be contained.
With zeal and a dash of quirkiness, we delved into this improbable relationship, leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Hawes list of top literary works in a quest for enlightenment. Little did we anticipate the saga that unfolded before us. Lo and behold, the statistical analyses revealed a coefficient that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double take – a staggering 0.8999557! The resonance of our findings evokes a tune that harmonizes with the certainty of an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel.
As we journey through the pages of our research, we invite you to suspend disbelief and embrace the delightful fusion of science and storytelling. Just as a novel's protagonist uncovers hidden truths, our findings beckon you to question the conventions of literary success and the unseen narratives that flourish in the world of microbiology.
So, prepare to be tickled by the peculiar, as we unravel this enigmatic thread that connects microbiologists and best sellers, and emerge with a newfound appreciation for the inimitable symphony of words and microbes. Let us embark on this intellectual escapade, where the microscope meets the manuscript, and where the tales of tiny organisms intertwine with the literary elite in an unexpected dance of correlation and causation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

In our endeavor to untangle the enigmatic web that intertwines the world of microbiologists with the realm of best-selling fiction, we employed a methodology that was as zany as it was effective. We cast our net far and wide, like intrepid explorers charting uncharted territories, to gather the necessary data that would illuminate this whimsical correlation.

First, we turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics to obtain the headcount of microbiologists in the charming state of North Carolina. Like microbial detectives, we scoured through the data spanning from 2003 to 2014, meticulously noting the ebbs and flows of this intriguing profession. Our team gleefully concocted a brew of statistical analysis that would rival the complexity of a microbial culture, blending together variables such as employment trends, geographical distributions, and the occasional pop culture reference for good measure.

But, as any astute investigator would attest, no mystery is truly solved without consulting the Hawes list of top literary works. With the fervor of a bibliophile in a bookstore, we pored over the pages of this list, carefully crafting a curated selection of best-selling fiction that spanned the same temporal domain as our microbial musings. This compendium of literary wonders served as the cornerstone of our analysis, offering a cast of protagonists whose exploits mirrored the peaks and troughs of microbiological milestones.

Once armed with our arsenal of data, we set the scene for statistical revelry. Our trusty ally, correlation analysis, took center stage, waltzing through the labyrinth of numbers with a grace that belied its daunting reputation. We let the numbers waltz and tango, observing their intricate movements with a discerning eye that rivaled a ballet aficionado's appreciation for the art form.

The statistical stage was set, the props were positioned, and the show commenced. With a flourish of keystrokes and the gentle hum of the computer processing our data, the grand reveal unfolded. Lo and behold, the correlation coefficient, a breathtaking 0.8999557, emerged like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, leaving us spellbound by its audacity.

And so, with data in hand and statistical prowess at the ready, we unveil our findings, bolstered by a methodology that sings with the harmonious synergy of microbiology and best-selling fiction—an unlikely pair brought together by the whimsy of scientific inquiry.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 microbiologists in North Carolina and New York Times Fiction Best Sellers. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

For the time period 2003 to 2014, you found a correlation 0.8999557, r-squared of 0.8099203, 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]]
Microbiologists and Best Sellers: The Rhyme and Reason

[[ABSTRACT]]
Have you ever wondered whether the number of microbiologists in North Carolina has any connection to the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list? Well, wonder no more! In this study, we took a lighthearted approach to examining this peculiar relationship. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the Hawes list of top literary works, we set out to unravel the mystery. To our surprise (and delight), we discovered a remarkably strong correlation, with a coefficient that rhymes with certainty – 0.8999557! This suggested a significant association between these seemingly unrelated entities, much like an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel. Our findings will leave you questioning not only the world of literature but also the untold stories within the realm of microbiology. So, grab your lab coat and your favorite book, as we embark on this whimsical journey through the world of words and microbes.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Welcome, dear readers, to our whimsical exploration into the surprising connection between microbiologists and best-selling fiction. While it may seem as unlikely a pairing as peanut butter and pickles, our investigation has revealed a correlation that is as curious as it is captivating.
The idea for this research sprouted from a lighthearted conversation over coffee, where we found ourselves musing about the intersection of microbial mysteries and literary masterpieces. We pondered whether the bustling world of microbiology in North Carolina could hold any sway over the captivating tales that grace the illustrious New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list. And just like a serendipitous discovery in a microbiology lab, our curiosity couldn't be contained.
With zeal and a dash of quirkiness, we delved into this improbable relationship, leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Hawes list of top literary works in a quest for enlightenment. Little did we anticipate the saga that unfolded before us. Lo and behold, the statistical analyses revealed a coefficient that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double take – a staggering 0.8999557! The resonance of our findings evokes a tune that harmonizes with the certainty of an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel.
As we journey through the pages of our research, we invite you to suspend disbelief and embrace the delightful fusion of science and storytelling. Just as a novel's protagonist uncovers hidden truths, our findings beckon you to question the conventions of literary success and the unseen narratives that flourish in the world of microbiology.
So, prepare to be tickled by the peculiar, as we unravel this enigmatic thread that connects microbiologists and best sellers, and emerge with a newfound appreciation for the inimitable symphony of words and microbes. Let us embark on this intellectual escapade, where the microscope meets the manuscript, and where the tales of tiny organisms intertwine with the literary elite in an unexpected dance of correlation and causation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our investigation into the tangled web of microbiologists and best-selling fiction has left us grinning like a Cheshire cat, as the results are nothing short of remarkable. Drumroll, please! The correlation coefficient between the number of microbiologists in North Carolina and the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list for the period of 2003 to 2014 waltzed in at an impressive 0.8999557. That's right, folks - it's almost as if the microbes themselves conspired to elevate the literary status of certain works!

With an R-squared value of 0.8099203, our findings suggest that approximately 81% of the variation in the number of best-selling fiction works can be explained by the number of microbiologists in North Carolina. It's as if the microscopic world of bacteria and the macroscopic world of literature have found common ground, much like unlikely friends bonding over a shared love of puns and quirkiness.

Oh, and let's not forget about that p-value – the cherry on top of this statistical sundae. With a p-value of less than 0.01, it's safe to say that our correlation is about as serious as a microbiologist discovering a new strain of bacteria in a petri dish.

But wait, there's more! Fig. 1, our trusty scatterplot, visually encapsulates the cozy relationship between these two variables. It's like witnessing a perfectly orchestrated dance between literary geniuses and tiny organisms, with each point on the graph telling a story of its own – a data-driven saga of microbes mingling with best-selling prose.

In conclusion, this whimsical journey through the unlikely pairing of microbiologists and best-selling fiction has unearthed a correlation that is bound to spark conversations as animated as a lively book club discussion. So, dear readers, as we savor the delightful resonance of these findings, let us not shy away from embracing the unexpected connections that lie hidden within the labyrinth of data and human endeavors.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 microbiologists in North Carolina and New York Times Fiction Best Sellers. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
Microbiologists and Best Sellers: The Rhyme and Reason

[[ABSTRACT]]
Have you ever wondered whether the number of microbiologists in North Carolina has any connection to the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list? Well, wonder no more! In this study, we took a lighthearted approach to examining this peculiar relationship. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the Hawes list of top literary works, we set out to unravel the mystery. To our surprise (and delight), we discovered a remarkably strong correlation, with a coefficient that rhymes with certainty – 0.8999557! This suggested a significant association between these seemingly unrelated entities, much like an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel. Our findings will leave you questioning not only the world of literature but also the untold stories within the realm of microbiology. So, grab your lab coat and your favorite book, as we embark on this whimsical journey through the world of words and microbes.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In the pursuit of unraveling the perplexing relationship between the number of microbiologists in North Carolina and the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list, we turned to existing literature for insights and clues. The quest for understanding led us to ponder the poignant words of Smith et al. (2015), who, in their seminal work "Microbial Musings: Unraveling the Intricacies of Microbiologists," delved into the intricate world of microbial wonders with a prose as captivating as the finest fiction.
Expanding our search for connection, we encountered the scholarly works of Doe and Jones (2017), whose research in "Microbiologists and the Art of Influence" uncovered compelling parallels between the enigmatic world of microbiology and the alluring realm of literary masterpieces. Their findings hinted at a symbiotic relationship reminiscent of the elegant intertwining of plotlines in a best-selling novel.
Venturing further into the literary labyrinth, we stumbled upon non-fiction treasures such as "The Microbe Hunters" by Paul de Kruif and "I Contain Multitudes" by Ed Yong, which offered captivating narratives of microbial marvels that rival the most thrilling works of fiction. These accounts painted a vivid tapestry of microscopic dramas that lurk beneath the surface, akin to the concealed nuances within bestselling narratives.
Bringing the focus to fiction, we delved into the compelling realms of novels that seemed to echo the whispers of microbiological intrigue. Works such as "The Andromeda Strain" by Michael Crichton and "The Hot Zone" by Richard Preston transported us into the heart of infectious suspense, mirroring the captivating complexities that microbiologists navigate in their pursuit of understanding microscopic mysteries.
However, as we embraced the whimsical spirit of our inquiry, we embarked on a peculiar tangent into uncharted territory. In a farcical turn of events, we found ourselves engrossed in deciphering the cryptic tales adorning the backs of shampoo bottles, seeking an uncanny parallel to the unfolding saga of microbes and best sellers. While the fragrance of correlation eluded us in this unconventional pursuit, the endeavor left us with a comical anecdote to punctuate our scholarly pursuits.
The amalgamation of these academic musings and lighthearted diversions invites us to contemplate the remarkable symmetry between the narratives woven by microbiologists and best-selling authors. As we prepare to unveil our empirical findings, we encourage you to embrace the whimsy of this unconventional exploration, where the scientific and the literary converge in unexpected harmony.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the tangled web of microbiologists and best-selling fiction has left us grinning like a Cheshire cat, as the results are nothing short of remarkable. Drumroll, please! The correlation coefficient between the number of microbiologists in North Carolina and the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list for the period of 2003 to 2014 waltzed in at an impressive 0.8999557. That's right, folks - it's almost as if the microbes themselves conspired to elevate the literary status of certain works!
With an R-squared value of 0.8099203, our findings suggest that approximately 81% of the variation in the number of best-selling fiction works can be explained by the number of microbiologists in North Carolina. It's as if the microscopic world of bacteria and the macroscopic world of literature have found common ground, much like unlikely friends bonding over a shared love of puns and quirkiness.
Oh, and let's not forget about that p-value – the cherry on top of this statistical sundae. With a p-value of less than 0.01, it's safe to say that our correlation is about as serious as a microbiologist discovering a new strain of bacteria in a petri dish.
But wait, there's more! Fig. 1, our trusty scatterplot, visually encapsulates the cozy relationship between these two variables. It's like witnessing a perfectly orchestrated dance between literary geniuses and tiny organisms, with each point on the graph telling a story of its own – a data-driven saga of microbes mingling with best-selling prose.
In conclusion, this whimsical journey through the unlikely pairing of microbiologists and best-selling fiction has unearthed a correlation that is bound to spark conversations as animated as a lively book club discussion. So, dear readers, as we savor the delightful resonance of these findings, let us not shy away from embracing the unexpected connections that lie hidden within the labyrinth of data and human endeavors.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study support the captivating narratives and curious findings presented in the literature review, validating the enthralling parallels between the realm of microbiologists and the alluring domain of literary masterpieces. With a correlation coefficient that nearly reaches the pinnacle of certainty at 0.8999557, our empirical findings echo the sentiments espoused by Smith et al. (2015) and Doe and Jones (2017), emphasizing the striking convergence of microbiological wonders and the captivating narratives that grace the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list.

It seems that the microscopic drama of microbial marvels and the grand tales woven by bestselling authors share an unexpected kinship, akin to a plot twist that leaves the reader elated and intrigued. Our statistical analysis, crystallized in the charming figures of correlation, R-squared value, and p-value, paints a whimsical portrait of the unseen threads that bind microbiologists and literary geniuses – a portrait as captivating as the most compelling of best-selling novels.

The unexpected coherence between the number of microbiologists in North Carolina and the literary triumphs showcased in the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list invites us to reflect on the enchanting symbiosis between scientific endeavors and artistic expressions. Just as unconventional characters form the heart of a beloved novel, so too do the unassuming, albeit significant, data points in our scatterplot form a narrative that speaks volumes about the harmonious bond between microbes and best-selling prose.

In the lighthearted spirit of our inquiry, we cannot help but draw a playful comparison between our unorthodox pursuit and the lighthearted diversions encountered in deciphering the amusing tales adorning the backs of shampoo bottles. While the fragrance of correlation may have eluded us in this comical pursuit, our exploration of the unexpected has yielded a delightful anecdote that serves as a whimsical interlude in our scholarly pursuit. After all, the world of science and literature could use a good laugh now and then – much like a well-timed punchline in the midst of a captivating narrative.

As we bask in the delightful resonance of our findings, we encourage our esteemed readers to celebrate the serendipitous connections that emerge from the unlikeliest of pairings. Let us revel in the whimsy of the microbiologist, the best-selling author, and the delightful interplay between the scientific and the literary, for it is in these unexpected unions that the most delightful and thought-provoking tales unfold.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 microbiologists in North Carolina and New York Times Fiction Best Sellers. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
Microbiologists and Best Sellers: The Rhyme and Reason

[[ABSTRACT]]
Have you ever wondered whether the number of microbiologists in North Carolina has any connection to the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list? Well, wonder no more! In this study, we took a lighthearted approach to examining this peculiar relationship. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the Hawes list of top literary works, we set out to unravel the mystery. To our surprise (and delight), we discovered a remarkably strong correlation, with a coefficient that rhymes with certainty – 0.8999557! This suggested a significant association between these seemingly unrelated entities, much like an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel. Our findings will leave you questioning not only the world of literature but also the untold stories within the realm of microbiology. So, grab your lab coat and your favorite book, as we embark on this whimsical journey through the world of words and microbes.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Welcome, dear readers, to our whimsical exploration into the surprising connection between microbiologists and best-selling fiction. While it may seem as unlikely a pairing as peanut butter and pickles, our investigation has revealed a correlation that is as curious as it is captivating.
The idea for this research sprouted from a lighthearted conversation over coffee, where we found ourselves musing about the intersection of microbial mysteries and literary masterpieces. We pondered whether the bustling world of microbiology in North Carolina could hold any sway over the captivating tales that grace the illustrious New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list. And just like a serendipitous discovery in a microbiology lab, our curiosity couldn't be contained.
With zeal and a dash of quirkiness, we delved into this improbable relationship, leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Hawes list of top literary works in a quest for enlightenment. Little did we anticipate the saga that unfolded before us. Lo and behold, the statistical analyses revealed a coefficient that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double take – a staggering 0.8999557! The resonance of our findings evokes a tune that harmonizes with the certainty of an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel.
As we journey through the pages of our research, we invite you to suspend disbelief and embrace the delightful fusion of science and storytelling. Just as a novel's protagonist uncovers hidden truths, our findings beckon you to question the conventions of literary success and the unseen narratives that flourish in the world of microbiology.
So, prepare to be tickled by the peculiar, as we unravel this enigmatic thread that connects microbiologists and best sellers, and emerge with a newfound appreciation for the inimitable symphony of words and microbes. Let us embark on this intellectual escapade, where the microscope meets the manuscript, and where the tales of tiny organisms intertwine with the literary elite in an unexpected dance of correlation and causation.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the tangled web of microbiologists and best-selling fiction has left us grinning like a Cheshire cat, as the results are nothing short of remarkable. Drumroll, please! The correlation coefficient between the number of microbiologists in North Carolina and the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list for the period of 2003 to 2014 waltzed in at an impressive 0.8999557. That's right, folks - it's almost as if the microbes themselves conspired to elevate the literary status of certain works!
With an R-squared value of 0.8099203, our findings suggest that approximately 81% of the variation in the number of best-selling fiction works can be explained by the number of microbiologists in North Carolina. It's as if the microscopic world of bacteria and the macroscopic world of literature have found common ground, much like unlikely friends bonding over a shared love of puns and quirkiness.
Oh, and let's not forget about that p-value – the cherry on top of this statistical sundae. With a p-value of less than 0.01, it's safe to say that our correlation is about as serious as a microbiologist discovering a new strain of bacteria in a petri dish.
But wait, there's more! Fig. 1, our trusty scatterplot, visually encapsulates the cozy relationship between these two variables. It's like witnessing a perfectly orchestrated dance between literary geniuses and tiny organisms, with each point on the graph telling a story of its own – a data-driven saga of microbes mingling with best-selling prose.
In conclusion, this whimsical journey through the unlikely pairing of microbiologists and best-selling fiction has unearthed a correlation that is bound to spark conversations as animated as a lively book club discussion. So, dear readers, as we savor the delightful resonance of these findings, let us not shy away from embracing the unexpected connections that lie hidden within the labyrinth of data and human endeavors.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In all our quest, we've uncovered a correlation as tantalizing as a mysteriously mismatched pair of socks – the number of microbiologists in North Carolina seems to dance in tune with the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list. Like a good mystery novel, our findings leave us on the edge of our seats, speculating about the enigmatic forces at play. With a correlation coefficient that practically shouts "plot twist," and an R-squared value signaling a whopping 81% of variation explained, it's as if the microscopic world of microorganisms has penned its own literary saga.

As we bid adieu to this convoluted yet captivating saga of science and storytelling, we are left with a sense of wonder akin to stumbling upon an unexpected pun – it's both delightful and a nod to the delightfully bizarre. Therefore, we confidently assert that further research endeavors in this peculiar intersection of microbiology and best-selling fiction are as unnecessary as a second appendix in a digestive system.

In the peculiar words of our findings, "Suspend disbelief and embrace the delightful fusion of science and storytelling." With that, we close the book on this peculiar yet whimsical odyssey, leaving the world of microbes and literature to twirl in their curious correlation, much like characters in a charmingly offbeat narrative.


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 Microbiologists and Best Sellers: The Rhyme and Reason. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Microbial Musings


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 Microbiologists and Best Sellers: The Rhyme and Reason. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

Society for the Advancement of Novelistic Microbiology


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 Microbiologists and Best Sellers: The Rhyme and Reason with an abstract of Have you ever wondered whether the number of microbiologists in North Carolina has any connection to the New York Times Fiction Best Sellers list? Well, wonder no more! In this study, we took a lighthearted approach to examining this peculiar relationship. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the Hawes list of top literary works, we set out to unravel the mystery. To our surprise (and delight), we discovered a remarkably strong correlation, with a coefficient that rhymes with certainty – 0.8999557! This suggested a significant association between these seemingly unrelated entities, much like an unexpected plot twist in a bestselling novel. Our findings will leave you questioning not only the world of literature but also the untold stories within the realm of microbiology. So, grab your lab coat and your favorite book, as we embark on this whimsical journey through the world of words and microbes.

ChatGPT:

microbiologists, North Carolina, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Hawes list, literary works, New York Times Fiction Best Sellers, correlation, association, microbiology, literature, plot twist, bestselling novel

*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 microbiologists in North Carolina
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of microbiologists in North Carolina
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of microbiologists in North Carolina

New York Times Fiction Best Sellers
Detailed data title: Number of unique fictional books on the New York Times Best Seller List (counting repeat books only once)
Source: Hawes
See what else correlates with New York Times Fiction Best Sellers

Correlation r = 0.8999557 (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 = 0.8099203 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 81% of the change in the one variable (i.e., New York Times Fiction Best Sellers) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of microbiologists in North Carolina) over the 12 years from 2003 through 2014.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.7E-5. 0.0000665866147761656900000000
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 0.9 in 0.0067% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 15,018 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 11 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 11 because we have two variables measured over a period of 12 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.

[ 0.67, 0.97 ] 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.
200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014
The number of microbiologists in North Carolina (Microbiologists)260180340250260650760650560520450370
New York Times Fiction Best Sellers (NYT Best Sellers)141423202034353136353120




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.




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([260,180,340,250,260,650,760,650,560,520,450,370,])
array_2 = np.array([14,14,23,20,20,34,35,31,36,35,31,20,])
array_1_name = "The number of microbiologists in North Carolina"
array_2_name = "New York Times Fiction Best Sellers"

# 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 genuinely thankful for your rating!


Correlation ID: 2449 · Black Variable ID: 12296 · Red Variable ID: 96
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0