about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,821 · 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 chemists in Alaska and the second variable is US bank failures.  The chart goes from 2003 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The decrease in chemists in Alaska led to a decreased demand for certain chemical elements, causing their prices to drop. This unexpected deflation of element prices somehow stabilized the volatile banking sector, preventing US bank failures from happening. Remember, when it comes to financial stability, it's all about that chemistry!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a high-tech laboratory in a small Alaskan town. The laboratory is filled with chemists conducting experiments and research, with advanced equipment and futuristic gadgets visible. In the background, a local bank exudes stability and success, bustling with customers, portraying economic strength amidst the tranquil setting of the town. 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 chemists in Alaska and US bank failures. 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: Celtic art High-tech Oragami Macabre Surrealism
ChatGPT: High-tech

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 chemists in Alaska and US bank failures together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a small town in Alaska, a group of chemists work diligently in their laboratory, focused on their experiments and research. In the background, a local bank stands strong and bustling with customers, indicating stability and success in the face of economic challenges.

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: [ High-tech ] and depicting this scene: In a small town in Alaska, a group of chemists work diligently in their laboratory, focused on their experiments and research. In the background, a local bank stands strong and bustling with customers, indicating stability and success in the face of economic challenges. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a high-tech laboratory in a small Alaskan town. The laboratory is filled with chemists conducting experiments and research, with advanced equipment and futuristic gadgets visible. In the background, a local bank exudes stability and success, bustling with customers, portraying economic strength amidst the tranquil setting of the town.

*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 a decrease in The number of chemists in Alaska caused US bank failures to decrease. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Reacting to the Situation: The Chemical Composition of Bank Failures

The Journal of Financial Fiascos and Fluctuations

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 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 chemists in Alaska and US bank failures. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title a clever pun.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and FDIC to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 and p < 0.01 for 2003 to 2022.

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]]
Reacting to the Situation: The Chemical Composition of Bank Failures

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we present our analysis of the relationship between the number of chemists in Alaska and the occurrence of bank failures in the United States. Through the utilization of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, we dug into the curious and, dare I say, volatile connection between these two seemingly unrelated variables. Using advanced statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 with a p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the dynamic nature of the banking industry but also challenge conventional wisdom, opening the door to a plethora of puns about "chemical reactions" and "financial instability.” Join us in this intriguing intersection of chemistry and economics, and let's mix things up a bit in the world of academic research.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 chemists in Alaska and US bank failures. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Reacting to the Situation: The Chemical Composition of Bank Failures

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we present our analysis of the relationship between the number of chemists in Alaska and the occurrence of bank failures in the United States. Through the utilization of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, we dug into the curious and, dare I say, volatile connection between these two seemingly unrelated variables. Using advanced statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 with a p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the dynamic nature of the banking industry but also challenge conventional wisdom, opening the door to a plethora of puns about "chemical reactions" and "financial instability.” Join us in this intriguing intersection of chemistry and economics, and let's mix things up a bit in the world of academic research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Chemical reactions and economic transactions may seem worlds apart, like oil and water, but as we delved into our research, we realized that they might have more in common than meets the eye. Our investigation into the correlation between the number of chemists in Alaska and the frequency of bank failures in the United States was sparked by a curious, and some might say "radical," observation. Seemingly disparate fields of chemistry and economics collided, producing a volatile mixture of data that we could not ignore.

As we set out on this journey through the periodic table of bank failures, little did we know the "elements" of surprise that awaited us. Our pursuit of this unlikely connection involved meticulous data collection from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Trawling through spreadsheets and statistical analyses, we realized that in this case, the numbers did not lie. The results that emerged from our analysis were nothing short of, dare I say, "elemental."

With a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 and a p-value of less than 0.01, it became clear that the relationship between the two variables extended beyond mere coincidence. "Bonding" these unexpected partners together, our findings challenged conventional economic wisdom and prompted a "reaction" from the academic community. The synergy between the ebbing and "flow" of chemical expertise and the tides of financial stability opened up new frontiers in interdisciplinary research, creating a veritable "solution" to this enigmatic puzzle. Our fascination with this peculiar connection goes beyond mere academic curiosity; it opens the door to a plethora of puns and quips about "catalysts" of economic downturn or the "volatile compounds" present in the financial industry.

So, join us as we dive into this complex fusion of chemistry and economics. Let's mix things up and see where our "experiment" takes us.

Stay tuned for our findings, where we'll decode the intriguing intersection of these two seemingly unrelated fields, and hopefully, uncover the "formula" for a financially stable future.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 chemists in Alaska and US bank failures. 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]]
Reacting to the Situation: The Chemical Composition of Bank Failures

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we present our analysis of the relationship between the number of chemists in Alaska and the occurrence of bank failures in the United States. Through the utilization of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, we dug into the curious and, dare I say, volatile connection between these two seemingly unrelated variables. Using advanced statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 with a p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the dynamic nature of the banking industry but also challenge conventional wisdom, opening the door to a plethora of puns about "chemical reactions" and "financial instability.” Join us in this intriguing intersection of chemistry and economics, and let's mix things up a bit in the world of academic research.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Chemical reactions and economic transactions may seem worlds apart, like oil and water, but as we delved into our research, we realized that they might have more in common than meets the eye. Our investigation into the correlation between the number of chemists in Alaska and the frequency of bank failures in the United States was sparked by a curious, and some might say "radical," observation. Seemingly disparate fields of chemistry and economics collided, producing a volatile mixture of data that we could not ignore.
As we set out on this journey through the periodic table of bank failures, little did we know the "elements" of surprise that awaited us. Our pursuit of this unlikely connection involved meticulous data collection from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Trawling through spreadsheets and statistical analyses, we realized that in this case, the numbers did not lie. The results that emerged from our analysis were nothing short of, dare I say, "elemental."
With a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 and a p-value of less than 0.01, it became clear that the relationship between the two variables extended beyond mere coincidence. "Bonding" these unexpected partners together, our findings challenged conventional economic wisdom and prompted a "reaction" from the academic community. The synergy between the ebbing and "flow" of chemical expertise and the tides of financial stability opened up new frontiers in interdisciplinary research, creating a veritable "solution" to this enigmatic puzzle. Our fascination with this peculiar connection goes beyond mere academic curiosity; it opens the door to a plethora of puns and quips about "catalysts" of economic downturn or the "volatile compounds" present in the financial industry.
So, join us as we dive into this complex fusion of chemistry and economics. Let's mix things up and see where our "experiment" takes us.
Stay tuned for our findings, where we'll decode the intriguing intersection of these two seemingly unrelated fields, and hopefully, uncover the "formula" for a financially stable future.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In the pursuit of understanding the perplexing correlation between the number of chemists in Alaska and the frequency of bank failures in the United States, researchers have delved into a variety of sources to unravel this unusual relationship. Smith, Doe, and Jones (2010) provide an initial exploration of the variables - albeit without reaching any definitive conclusions. Their work laid the groundwork for subsequent studies to build upon, much like the periodic table forms the basis of chemical compounds.

Turning the page to more practical applications, "Chemical Reactions in the Financial Sector: A Catalyst for Change" by White (2015) offers a compelling examination of the potential impacts of chemical innovation on the stability of financial institutions. While the text does not explicitly address the curious case of Alaska's chemists, it presents valuable insights into the larger context of chemical influences on the financial world. Strikingly, through the lens of chemical reactions, White draws attention to the intricate interplay of unseen forces – not unlike the complex forces shaping market dynamics.

Seeking a different angle, "Molecules and Markets: A Symbiotic Relationship" by Brown (2018) takes a macroscopic view of the marriage between the realms of chemistry and economics. While not directly addressing the specific parameters of our study, Brown's work alludes to the potential for unexpected interactions between the two fields, akin to the unexpected volatility witnessed in financial markets.

Venturing further into the realm of literature, we must not overlook the fictional explorations of these themes. From the somber "Bank Failures and the Alchemist's Legacy" by Green (2016) to the whimsical "Elemental Economics: A Periodic Tale" by Blue (2019), fictional narratives provide a parallel universe of interconnectedness between chemistry and economics. Through these imaginative works, we are reminded of the power of storytelling in uncovering hidden connections. This prompts us to consider that perhaps there is more than meets the eye in our own empirical analysis.

In addition to these established sources, our research team conducted an exhaustive examination of eclectic and unconventional sources, including but not limited to grocery store receipts, fortune cookies, and the occasional scribblings on bathroom stalls. While not authoritative in the traditional sense, these “unconventional” sources offered a unique lens through which to view the convergence of chemistry and economics, as well as an unexpected outlet for commentary on financial matters.

(To be continued...)


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 chemists in Alaska and US bank failures. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 FDIC . You used data from 2003 to 2022

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]]
Reacting to the Situation: The Chemical Composition of Bank Failures

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we present our analysis of the relationship between the number of chemists in Alaska and the occurrence of bank failures in the United States. Through the utilization of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, we dug into the curious and, dare I say, volatile connection between these two seemingly unrelated variables. Using advanced statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 with a p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the dynamic nature of the banking industry but also challenge conventional wisdom, opening the door to a plethora of puns about "chemical reactions" and "financial instability.” Join us in this intriguing intersection of chemistry and economics, and let's mix things up a bit in the world of academic research.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Chemical reactions and economic transactions may seem worlds apart, like oil and water, but as we delved into our research, we realized that they might have more in common than meets the eye. Our investigation into the correlation between the number of chemists in Alaska and the frequency of bank failures in the United States was sparked by a curious, and some might say "radical," observation. Seemingly disparate fields of chemistry and economics collided, producing a volatile mixture of data that we could not ignore.
As we set out on this journey through the periodic table of bank failures, little did we know the "elements" of surprise that awaited us. Our pursuit of this unlikely connection involved meticulous data collection from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Trawling through spreadsheets and statistical analyses, we realized that in this case, the numbers did not lie. The results that emerged from our analysis were nothing short of, dare I say, "elemental."
With a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 and a p-value of less than 0.01, it became clear that the relationship between the two variables extended beyond mere coincidence. "Bonding" these unexpected partners together, our findings challenged conventional economic wisdom and prompted a "reaction" from the academic community. The synergy between the ebbing and "flow" of chemical expertise and the tides of financial stability opened up new frontiers in interdisciplinary research, creating a veritable "solution" to this enigmatic puzzle. Our fascination with this peculiar connection goes beyond mere academic curiosity; it opens the door to a plethora of puns and quips about "catalysts" of economic downturn or the "volatile compounds" present in the financial industry.
So, join us as we dive into this complex fusion of chemistry and economics. Let's mix things up and see where our "experiment" takes us.
Stay tuned for our findings, where we'll decode the intriguing intersection of these two seemingly unrelated fields, and hopefully, uncover the "formula" for a financially stable future.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

In our quest to unravel the mysterious connection between the number of chemists in Alaska and US bank failures, we employed a variety of research methods that, quite frankly, would make even the most avid data enthusiast raise an eyebrow. Our data collection process resembled a treasure hunt through the digital jungle, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation serving as both our guides and guardians of the statistical realm.

To begin, we donned our metaphorical lab coats and delved into the Bureau of Labor Statistics database, navigating through employment figures with the same dexterity as a chemist measuring precise volumes of reagents. We meticulously extracted data on the number of chemists employed in the vast and frosty land of Alaska, a task requiring the patience of a chemist waiting for a reaction to reach completion. With each dataset we encountered, we were met with a cascade of values, each holding the potential for profound insight or, dare I say, explosive revelations.

Simultaneously, our foray into the realm of finance led us to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's repository of information on bank failures. Like discerning chemists carefully selecting reactants for a synthesis, we identified and scrutinized every instance of a bank succumbing to its financial burdens. The intricacies of each case were examined with a level of detail that would make a chemist proud, searching for patterns and relationships that might defy conventional economic wisdom and, hopefully, deliver a resounding "aha!" moment.

Once the data from these disparate sources were secured, we ventured to the laboratory of statistical analysis. Armed with a potent concoction of regression modeling, time series analysis, and cross-correlation techniques, we set out to untangle the intricate web of relationships between these seemingly disparate variables. With statistical software serving as our trusty Bunsen burners, we carefully heated, stirred, and prodded the data until it revealed its hidden secrets, much like a chemist coaxing a complex compound to divulge its chemical structure.

After countless hours of manipulation, calculation, and iteration, our efforts unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 and a p-value of less than 0.01, signaling a statistically significant relationship between the number of chemists in Alaska and the prevalence of bank failures in the United States. The revelation of this unexpected cohesion between chemistry and economics left us as bewildered as a chemist accidentally creating a potent odor in the laboratory.

In summary, our methodology involved traversing the treacherous terrain of data collection, wielding the tools of statistics with the precision of a seasoned chemist, and mining for nuggets of insight within the ore of information. With our findings in hand, we emerged from this labyrinthine journey with a newfound appreciation for the unexpected, eager to share our discoveries with the academic community and, perhaps, ignite a few "sparks" of inspiration.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 chemists in Alaska and US bank failures. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 FDIC .

For the time period 2003 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.6525726, r-squared of 0.4258510, 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]]
Reacting to the Situation: The Chemical Composition of Bank Failures

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we present our analysis of the relationship between the number of chemists in Alaska and the occurrence of bank failures in the United States. Through the utilization of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, we dug into the curious and, dare I say, volatile connection between these two seemingly unrelated variables. Using advanced statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 with a p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the dynamic nature of the banking industry but also challenge conventional wisdom, opening the door to a plethora of puns about "chemical reactions" and "financial instability.” Join us in this intriguing intersection of chemistry and economics, and let's mix things up a bit in the world of academic research.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Chemical reactions and economic transactions may seem worlds apart, like oil and water, but as we delved into our research, we realized that they might have more in common than meets the eye. Our investigation into the correlation between the number of chemists in Alaska and the frequency of bank failures in the United States was sparked by a curious, and some might say "radical," observation. Seemingly disparate fields of chemistry and economics collided, producing a volatile mixture of data that we could not ignore.
As we set out on this journey through the periodic table of bank failures, little did we know the "elements" of surprise that awaited us. Our pursuit of this unlikely connection involved meticulous data collection from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Trawling through spreadsheets and statistical analyses, we realized that in this case, the numbers did not lie. The results that emerged from our analysis were nothing short of, dare I say, "elemental."
With a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 and a p-value of less than 0.01, it became clear that the relationship between the two variables extended beyond mere coincidence. "Bonding" these unexpected partners together, our findings challenged conventional economic wisdom and prompted a "reaction" from the academic community. The synergy between the ebbing and "flow" of chemical expertise and the tides of financial stability opened up new frontiers in interdisciplinary research, creating a veritable "solution" to this enigmatic puzzle. Our fascination with this peculiar connection goes beyond mere academic curiosity; it opens the door to a plethora of puns and quips about "catalysts" of economic downturn or the "volatile compounds" present in the financial industry.
So, join us as we dive into this complex fusion of chemistry and economics. Let's mix things up and see where our "experiment" takes us.
Stay tuned for our findings, where we'll decode the intriguing intersection of these two seemingly unrelated fields, and hopefully, uncover the "formula" for a financially stable future.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our investigation into the connection between the number of chemists in Alaska and US bank failures were nothing short of enlightening, akin to witnessing a chemical reaction unfold. Our analysis revealed a strong positive correlation with a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 and an r-squared value of 0.4258510 over the period from 2003 to 2022. Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 further solidified the significance of this unexpected relationship. This finding was akin to stumbling upon a rare chemical compound or discovering a new element in the periodic table; it left us simultaneously perplexed and exhilarated.

Figure 1 illustrates the correlation between the number of chemists in Alaska and US bank failures, portraying a clear and unmistakable trend. The scatterplot showcased a striking upward trajectory, which not only substantiates our statistical findings but also serves as a visual testament to the intriguing interplay between these two distinct fields. It's almost as if the atoms of finance and the molecules of chemistry decided to engage in an unexpected dance, producing a mesmerizing pattern that caught our attention and demanded further scrutiny.

These results not only challenge traditional notions but also beckon us to delve deeper into the mechanisms underlying this curious association. At the intersection of chemistry and economics, where chemical bonds meet financial transactions, there lies a world of untapped potential and unexplored avenues for research. The implications of this discovery reach far beyond the confines of this study, opening doors to a wealth of puns and jokes about "chemical reactions" triggering financial downturns and "catalysts" for economic growth.

In conclusion, our findings suggest that the number of chemists in Alaska could play an unforeseen role in the stability of the US banking system. The synthesis of these unexpected factors has sparked a fusion of excitement and curiosity, and we eagerly anticipate the broader conversation and further exploration that this revelation will undoubtedly incite.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 chemists in Alaska and US bank failures. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Reacting to the Situation: The Chemical Composition of Bank Failures

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we present our analysis of the relationship between the number of chemists in Alaska and the occurrence of bank failures in the United States. Through the utilization of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, we dug into the curious and, dare I say, volatile connection between these two seemingly unrelated variables. Using advanced statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 with a p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the dynamic nature of the banking industry but also challenge conventional wisdom, opening the door to a plethora of puns about "chemical reactions" and "financial instability.” Join us in this intriguing intersection of chemistry and economics, and let's mix things up a bit in the world of academic research.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In the pursuit of understanding the perplexing correlation between the number of chemists in Alaska and the frequency of bank failures in the United States, researchers have delved into a variety of sources to unravel this unusual relationship. Smith, Doe, and Jones (2010) provide an initial exploration of the variables - albeit without reaching any definitive conclusions. Their work laid the groundwork for subsequent studies to build upon, much like the periodic table forms the basis of chemical compounds.
Turning the page to more practical applications, "Chemical Reactions in the Financial Sector: A Catalyst for Change" by White (2015) offers a compelling examination of the potential impacts of chemical innovation on the stability of financial institutions. While the text does not explicitly address the curious case of Alaska's chemists, it presents valuable insights into the larger context of chemical influences on the financial world. Strikingly, through the lens of chemical reactions, White draws attention to the intricate interplay of unseen forces – not unlike the complex forces shaping market dynamics.
Seeking a different angle, "Molecules and Markets: A Symbiotic Relationship" by Brown (2018) takes a macroscopic view of the marriage between the realms of chemistry and economics. While not directly addressing the specific parameters of our study, Brown's work alludes to the potential for unexpected interactions between the two fields, akin to the unexpected volatility witnessed in financial markets.
Venturing further into the realm of literature, we must not overlook the fictional explorations of these themes. From the somber "Bank Failures and the Alchemist's Legacy" by Green (2016) to the whimsical "Elemental Economics: A Periodic Tale" by Blue (2019), fictional narratives provide a parallel universe of interconnectedness between chemistry and economics. Through these imaginative works, we are reminded of the power of storytelling in uncovering hidden connections. This prompts us to consider that perhaps there is more than meets the eye in our own empirical analysis.
In addition to these established sources, our research team conducted an exhaustive examination of eclectic and unconventional sources, including but not limited to grocery store receipts, fortune cookies, and the occasional scribblings on bathroom stalls. While not authoritative in the traditional sense, these “unconventional” sources offered a unique lens through which to view the convergence of chemistry and economics, as well as an unexpected outlet for commentary on financial matters.
(To be continued...)

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation into the connection between the number of chemists in Alaska and US bank failures were nothing short of enlightening, akin to witnessing a chemical reaction unfold. Our analysis revealed a strong positive correlation with a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 and an r-squared value of 0.4258510 over the period from 2003 to 2022. Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 further solidified the significance of this unexpected relationship. This finding was akin to stumbling upon a rare chemical compound or discovering a new element in the periodic table; it left us simultaneously perplexed and exhilarated.
Figure 1 illustrates the correlation between the number of chemists in Alaska and US bank failures, portraying a clear and unmistakable trend. The scatterplot showcased a striking upward trajectory, which not only substantiates our statistical findings but also serves as a visual testament to the intriguing interplay between these two distinct fields. It's almost as if the atoms of finance and the molecules of chemistry decided to engage in an unexpected dance, producing a mesmerizing pattern that caught our attention and demanded further scrutiny.
These results not only challenge traditional notions but also beckon us to delve deeper into the mechanisms underlying this curious association. At the intersection of chemistry and economics, where chemical bonds meet financial transactions, there lies a world of untapped potential and unexplored avenues for research. The implications of this discovery reach far beyond the confines of this study, opening doors to a wealth of puns and jokes about "chemical reactions" triggering financial downturns and "catalysts" for economic growth.
In conclusion, our findings suggest that the number of chemists in Alaska could play an unforeseen role in the stability of the US banking system. The synthesis of these unexpected factors has sparked a fusion of excitement and curiosity, and we eagerly anticipate the broader conversation and further exploration that this revelation will undoubtedly incite.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings not only reaffirm but also elevate the curious connections suggested by previous research. Smith, Doe, and Jones' (2010) initial exploration paved the way for our own investigation, much like how basic chemical elements form the foundation for more complex compounds. It's as if we've taken their dry ice and turned it into a flaming Bunsen burner of revelation. White's (2015) work on chemical innovation and financial stability becomes even more impactful when viewed alongside our results, highlighting the potential for chemical catalysts to influence economic dynamics. The complex forces shaping market dynamics that White referred to seem to have a more tangible manifestation in our observed correlation. Brown's (2018) macroscopic view of chemistry and economics gains new resonance as we witness the unexpected interplay of these realms, not unlike the volatile world of financial markets itself. It's as if we've added a few drops of potent chemical solution to the mix, creating a fizzing and foaming eruption of new insights.

Our examination of unconventional sources, including grocery store receipts and bathroom stall musings, while not conventional, seemed to have uncannily captured the essence of this unexpected intersection. Like a mad scientist concocting a revolutionary potion, we stirred the unconventional into our traditional methods, yielding a concoction that surprised even us with its potency. The unforeseen avenues opened by these sources now seem prescient in light of our groundbreaking findings. It's as if we've drawn inspiration from a fortune cookie and concocted a financial alchemy of our own.

The visual representation of our results in Figure 1 echoes the striking unpredictability and the magnetism between the number of chemists in Alaska and US bank failures. It's as if the atoms of finance and the molecules of chemistry came together in an unforeseen partnership, their union sparking a brilliant display of data that demanded our attention. This unexpected dance of data should serve as inspiration for future researchers to waltz into the uncharted territory of interdisciplinary studies. It's as if we've stumbled upon a magic spell that links chemical composition to financial turmoil – a true concoction of revelation and mystery.

In conclusion, our findings not only challenge traditional wisdom but also beckon researchers to delve into the fascinating mechanisms underlying this unusual association. The synthesis of chemistry and economics has produced an unexpected combination, sparking interest and curiosity that would make even the most experienced alchemist envious. The implications of our discovery cast a wide net, inspiring a wealth of puns and jokes that only fuel the fire of excitement in this unexplored yet undeniably compelling intersection.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 chemists in Alaska and US bank failures. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Reacting to the Situation: The Chemical Composition of Bank Failures

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we present our analysis of the relationship between the number of chemists in Alaska and the occurrence of bank failures in the United States. Through the utilization of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, we dug into the curious and, dare I say, volatile connection between these two seemingly unrelated variables. Using advanced statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 with a p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the dynamic nature of the banking industry but also challenge conventional wisdom, opening the door to a plethora of puns about "chemical reactions" and "financial instability.” Join us in this intriguing intersection of chemistry and economics, and let's mix things up a bit in the world of academic research.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Chemical reactions and economic transactions may seem worlds apart, like oil and water, but as we delved into our research, we realized that they might have more in common than meets the eye. Our investigation into the correlation between the number of chemists in Alaska and the frequency of bank failures in the United States was sparked by a curious, and some might say "radical," observation. Seemingly disparate fields of chemistry and economics collided, producing a volatile mixture of data that we could not ignore.
As we set out on this journey through the periodic table of bank failures, little did we know the "elements" of surprise that awaited us. Our pursuit of this unlikely connection involved meticulous data collection from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Trawling through spreadsheets and statistical analyses, we realized that in this case, the numbers did not lie. The results that emerged from our analysis were nothing short of, dare I say, "elemental."
With a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 and a p-value of less than 0.01, it became clear that the relationship between the two variables extended beyond mere coincidence. "Bonding" these unexpected partners together, our findings challenged conventional economic wisdom and prompted a "reaction" from the academic community. The synergy between the ebbing and "flow" of chemical expertise and the tides of financial stability opened up new frontiers in interdisciplinary research, creating a veritable "solution" to this enigmatic puzzle. Our fascination with this peculiar connection goes beyond mere academic curiosity; it opens the door to a plethora of puns and quips about "catalysts" of economic downturn or the "volatile compounds" present in the financial industry.
So, join us as we dive into this complex fusion of chemistry and economics. Let's mix things up and see where our "experiment" takes us.
Stay tuned for our findings, where we'll decode the intriguing intersection of these two seemingly unrelated fields, and hopefully, uncover the "formula" for a financially stable future.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation into the connection between the number of chemists in Alaska and US bank failures were nothing short of enlightening, akin to witnessing a chemical reaction unfold. Our analysis revealed a strong positive correlation with a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 and an r-squared value of 0.4258510 over the period from 2003 to 2022. Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 further solidified the significance of this unexpected relationship. This finding was akin to stumbling upon a rare chemical compound or discovering a new element in the periodic table; it left us simultaneously perplexed and exhilarated.
Figure 1 illustrates the correlation between the number of chemists in Alaska and US bank failures, portraying a clear and unmistakable trend. The scatterplot showcased a striking upward trajectory, which not only substantiates our statistical findings but also serves as a visual testament to the intriguing interplay between these two distinct fields. It's almost as if the atoms of finance and the molecules of chemistry decided to engage in an unexpected dance, producing a mesmerizing pattern that caught our attention and demanded further scrutiny.
These results not only challenge traditional notions but also beckon us to delve deeper into the mechanisms underlying this curious association. At the intersection of chemistry and economics, where chemical bonds meet financial transactions, there lies a world of untapped potential and unexplored avenues for research. The implications of this discovery reach far beyond the confines of this study, opening doors to a wealth of puns and jokes about "chemical reactions" triggering financial downturns and "catalysts" for economic growth.
In conclusion, our findings suggest that the number of chemists in Alaska could play an unforeseen role in the stability of the US banking system. The synthesis of these unexpected factors has sparked a fusion of excitement and curiosity, and we eagerly anticipate the broader conversation and further exploration that this revelation will undoubtedly incite.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

Having unraveled the fascinating correlation between the number of chemists in Alaska and US bank failures, it's safe to say that our exploration has yielded some truly electrifying results. The synergy between these distinct domains has certainly added a delightful twist to the world of economic research, much like mixing sodium and chloride to create an explosive reaction. While our findings may seem like a curious anomaly at first glance, they underscore the need for interdisciplinary approaches, reminding us that sometimes the unlikeliest of bedfellows can produce groundbreaking revelations.

The statistical relationship we uncovered cannot be dismissed as mere happenstance; it's as real as the bonds between atoms in a chemical compound. The positive correlation coefficient and significant p-value serve as solid evidence of the link between these seemingly disparate factors, proving that in the realm of economics, the laws of chemistry may hold unexpected sway.

However, as much as we'd love to continue exploring this captivating intersection between chemistry and finance, it seems that our research has reached its, ahem, "boiling point." With our findings in hand, we feel confident proclaiming that further investigation into this peculiar connection may not serve up much more than a different flavor of the same substance.

In wrapping up our quirky foray into the world of chemical compositions and bank failures, we hope our findings have left you with a newfound appreciation for the whimsical quirks of the academic world. After all, who would have thought that the number of chemists in Alaska could hold the key to unlocking the mysteries of US bank failures? As we close the lid on this particular experiment, it's with a wry smile and a twinkle in our eyes that we declare: the results are in, the reaction is clear, and the puns are, well, (sodium) phosphate.


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 Reacting to the Situation: The Chemical Composition of Bank Failures. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Financial Fiascos and Fluctuations


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 Reacting to the Situation: The Chemical Composition of Bank Failures. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Economic Anomaly 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 Reacting to the Situation: The Chemical Composition of Bank Failures with an abstract of In this paper, we present our analysis of the relationship between the number of chemists in Alaska and the occurrence of bank failures in the United States. Through the utilization of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, we dug into the curious and, dare I say, volatile connection between these two seemingly unrelated variables. Using advanced statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.6525726 with a p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the dynamic nature of the banking industry but also challenge conventional wisdom, opening the door to a plethora of puns about "chemical reactions" and "financial instability.” Join us in this intriguing intersection of chemistry and economics, and let's mix things up a bit in the world of academic research.

ChatGPT:

Alaska, chemists, bank failures, United States, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, correlation coefficient, statistical methods, p-value, banking industry, economics, chemistry, academic research

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

US bank failures
Detailed data title: Bank failures in the US
Source: FDIC
See what else correlates with US bank failures

Correlation r = 0.6525726 (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 = 0.4258510 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 42.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., US bank failures) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of chemists in Alaska) over the 20 years from 2003 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0018. 0.0018159331245861303000000000
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 0.65 in 0.18% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 551 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 19 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 19 because we have two variables measured over a period of 20 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.

[ 0.3, 0.85 ] 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.
20032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
The number of chemists in Alaska (Chemists)90706070609016016019060100701701301209070805040
US bank failures (Failed banks)34003251401579251241885804400




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([90,70,60,70,60,90,160,160,190,60,100,70,170,130,120,90,70,80,50,40,])
array_2 = np.array([3,4,0,0,3,25,140,157,92,51,24,18,8,5,8,0,4,4,0,0,])
array_1_name = "The number of chemists in Alaska"
array_2_name = "US bank failures"

# 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?

You're the correlation whisperer we needed!


Correlation ID: 1821 · Black Variable ID: 4713 · Red Variable ID: 899
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0