about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,088 · 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 private detectives in Delaware and the second variable is Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions.  The chart goes from 2006 to 2016, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image

AI explanation

As the number of private detectives in Delaware increased, so did the rate of wily raccoons pilfering packages from porches. These masked bandits were conducting their own heists, prompting Amazon to invest more in outbound shipping to compensate for the stolen goods. After all, when it comes to outsmarting sneaky critters, Amazon wasn't about to let the raccoons run away with their profits!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that showcases a comical scene of wily raccoons sneaking off with packages from porches as the number of private detectives in Delaware increases. In the foreground, depict a group of raccoons with mischievous and sly expressions as they stealthily swipe packages from a porch, using their agile paws to snatch the boxes. In the background, show an Amazon delivery van speeding away, symbolizing the increased outbound shipping investment to prevent losses. Focus on the expressions and actions of the raccoons, as well as the dynamic movement of the delivery van, to convey the playful yet chaotic nature of the scenario. The visual scene should capture the mischievous antics of the raccoons and the hurried response of the shipping company, emphasizing the interplay of an increase in private detectives and the corresponding surge in raccoon-related package theft. 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 private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions. 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: Voxel art Parallax art 3D Pixar Style Psychedelic Cute cartoon
ChatGPT: Parallax art

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 private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions, in the following situation: As the number of private detectives in Delaware increased, so did the rate of wily raccoons pilfering packages from porches. These masked bandits were conducting their own heists, prompting Amazon to invest more in outbound shipping to compensate for the stolen goods. After all, when it comes to outsmarting sneaky critters, Amazon wasn't about to let the raccoons run away with their profits!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: The number of private detectives in Delaware increased, leading to a surge in wily raccoons sneaking off with packages from porches. Meanwhile, Amazon responded by investing more in outbound shipping to prevent losses. In the visual scene, a group of raccoons with sly expressions are seen swiping packages from a porch, while an Amazon delivery van is shown speeding away, symbolizing the increased shipping expenditure.

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: [ Parallax art ] and depicting this scene: The number of private detectives in Delaware increased, leading to a surge in wily raccoons sneaking off with packages from porches. Meanwhile, Amazon responded by investing more in outbound shipping to prevent losses. In the visual scene, a group of raccoons with sly expressions are seen swiping packages from a porch, while an Amazon delivery van is shown speeding away, symbolizing the increased shipping expenditure. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that showcases a comical scene of wily raccoons sneaking off with packages from porches as the number of private detectives in Delaware increases. In the foreground, depict a group of raccoons with mischievous and sly expressions as they stealthily swipe packages from a porch, using their agile paws to snatch the boxes. In the background, show an Amazon delivery van speeding away, symbolizing the increased outbound shipping investment to prevent losses. Focus on the expressions and actions of the raccoons, as well as the dynamic movement of the delivery van, to convey the playful yet chaotic nature of the scenario. The visual scene should capture the mischievous antics of the raccoons and the hurried response of the shipping company, emphasizing the interplay of an increase in private detectives and the corresponding surge in raccoon-related package theft.

*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 an increase in The number of private detectives in Delaware caused Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions to increase.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Detective Density, Deliveries, and Delight: The Rhyme and Reason behind Delaware's Sleuths and Amazon's Bucks

The Journal of Quirky Investigations

Jan 2024
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 private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Statista to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 and p < 0.01 for 2006 to 2016.

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]]
"Detective Density, Deliveries, and Delight: The Rhyme and Reason behind Delaware's Sleuths and Amazon's Bucks"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of private detectives in the great state of Delaware and the astounding annual outbound shipping expenditure of the ecommerce giant, Amazon. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2006 to 2016. Our findings shed light on the seemingly implausible connection between the detective density in the First State and the greenbacks flowing out of Amazon's coffers. Our paper transcends the dryness of traditional academia, unraveling the mystery behind what ties these unlikely bedfellows – whether it's a case of the detectives sniffing out Amazon's delivery secrets or Amazon hiring them to investigate the whereabouts of lost parcels. Join us as we embark on a journey that elucidates the curious nexus between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments.


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 private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Detective Density, Deliveries, and Delight: The Rhyme and Reason behind Delaware's Sleuths and Amazon's Bucks"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of private detectives in the great state of Delaware and the astounding annual outbound shipping expenditure of the ecommerce giant, Amazon. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2006 to 2016. Our findings shed light on the seemingly implausible connection between the detective density in the First State and the greenbacks flowing out of Amazon's coffers. Our paper transcends the dryness of traditional academia, unraveling the mystery behind what ties these unlikely bedfellows – whether it's a case of the detectives sniffing out Amazon's delivery secrets or Amazon hiring them to investigate the whereabouts of lost parcels. Join us as we embark on a journey that elucidates the curious nexus between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
The enigmatic correlation between the number of private detectives in Delaware and the annual outbound shipping expenditure of Amazon has been a conundrum for researchers and statisticians alike. At first glance, one might be inclined to dismiss this association as a mere statistical fluke or a hilarious prank played by the data. However, as diligent scholars, we are duty-bound to scrutinize these unexpected relationships, no matter how absurd they may seem at first glance. After all, as we all know, statistics don't lie, but they're often hilarious.

The link between detective density and Amazon's bucks may seem like something out of a zany detective novel, but our rigorous analysis, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, has revealed a correlation coefficient that would make even Sherlock Holmes do a double take: a whopping 0.9183841! Coupled with a p-value less than 0.01, our findings have defied all expectations and left us scratching our heads in mind-boggling befuddlement.

This peculiar coupling takes us on a wild escapade through the dizzying world of commerce and clandestine investigations, where we must grapple with the perplexing question of why there is such an uncanny correlation between the number of trench-coat-wearing private eyes in the First State and the moolah flowing out of Amazon's coffers. It's a mystery that begs to be solved, and our research aims to shine a bright, fluorescent light on this hitherto murky and perplexing case.

In this paper, we will not be content with stodgy, traditional academia. Oh no! We are on a quest to uncover the nutty, quirky, and downright preposterous connection between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments. Perhaps these detectives are Sherlock Holmes reincarnate, probing the secrets of Amazon's delivery logistics. Or maybe, just maybe, Jeff Bezos has assembled his own team of gumshoes to track down the elusive whereabouts of missing packages. As we peel back the layers of this peculiarity, prepare to be thoroughly entertained, confounded, and, dare we say it, enlightened.

So, fasten your seatbelts, dear reader, as we embark on this delightfully droll journey to unravel the astonishing nexus between gumshoes and greenbacks. Sit back, relax, and let the ride begin!


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 private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions. 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]]
"Detective Density, Deliveries, and Delight: The Rhyme and Reason behind Delaware's Sleuths and Amazon's Bucks"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of private detectives in the great state of Delaware and the astounding annual outbound shipping expenditure of the ecommerce giant, Amazon. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2006 to 2016. Our findings shed light on the seemingly implausible connection between the detective density in the First State and the greenbacks flowing out of Amazon's coffers. Our paper transcends the dryness of traditional academia, unraveling the mystery behind what ties these unlikely bedfellows – whether it's a case of the detectives sniffing out Amazon's delivery secrets or Amazon hiring them to investigate the whereabouts of lost parcels. Join us as we embark on a journey that elucidates the curious nexus between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The enigmatic correlation between the number of private detectives in Delaware and the annual outbound shipping expenditure of Amazon has been a conundrum for researchers and statisticians alike. At first glance, one might be inclined to dismiss this association as a mere statistical fluke or a hilarious prank played by the data. However, as diligent scholars, we are duty-bound to scrutinize these unexpected relationships, no matter how absurd they may seem at first glance. After all, as we all know, statistics don't lie, but they're often hilarious.
The link between detective density and Amazon's bucks may seem like something out of a zany detective novel, but our rigorous analysis, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, has revealed a correlation coefficient that would make even Sherlock Holmes do a double take: a whopping 0.9183841! Coupled with a p-value less than 0.01, our findings have defied all expectations and left us scratching our heads in mind-boggling befuddlement.
This peculiar coupling takes us on a wild escapade through the dizzying world of commerce and clandestine investigations, where we must grapple with the perplexing question of why there is such an uncanny correlation between the number of trench-coat-wearing private eyes in the First State and the moolah flowing out of Amazon's coffers. It's a mystery that begs to be solved, and our research aims to shine a bright, fluorescent light on this hitherto murky and perplexing case.
In this paper, we will not be content with stodgy, traditional academia. Oh no! We are on a quest to uncover the nutty, quirky, and downright preposterous connection between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments. Perhaps these detectives are Sherlock Holmes reincarnate, probing the secrets of Amazon's delivery logistics. Or maybe, just maybe, Jeff Bezos has assembled his own team of gumshoes to track down the elusive whereabouts of missing packages. As we peel back the layers of this peculiarity, prepare to be thoroughly entertained, confounded, and, dare we say it, enlightened.
So, fasten your seatbelts, dear reader, as we embark on this delightfully droll journey to unravel the astonishing nexus between gumshoes and greenbacks. Sit back, relax, and let the ride begin!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "The Peculiar P.I. Phenomenon: Unveiling the Intriguing Link Between Detective Density and Corporate Capital," Smith and Doe delve into the improbable association between the number of private detectives in Delaware and corporate expenditures. Their study, drawing from an array of statistical analyses, presents compelling evidence of a positive correlation between private detective density and corporate bucks. While their findings are certainly intriguing, it leaves one pondering whether these detectives are merely piecing together clues or embarking on an undercover mission to uncover the mysteries of corporate finances.

Similarly, Jones (2018) explores the fascinating intersection between corporate logistics and investigative prowess in "Following the Money: A Detective's Guide to Corporate Economics." Jones presents a case for the often-overlooked role of private investigators in untangling the complex web of corporate operations and financial movements. The narrative unfolds as a thrilling exposé, unraveling the unorthodox connections between magnates and magnifying glasses. As we wade through this tangled web of data and anecdotes, one cannot help but wonder: are these detectives tracking down rogue shipments or tailing elusive CEO suspects?

Shifting to the realm of non-fiction, "The Economics of Shipping: A Comprehensive Guide," provides an in-depth examination of the intricate web of global shipping networks and their financial implications. While this tome may not overtly address the antics of detectives in Delaware, one cannot help but ponder the potential clandestine shenanigans occurring amidst the stacks of shipping containers. Are the detectives clandestinely monitoring the movements of these colossal cargo consignments, or are they, in fact, the masterminds behind the grand orchestration of logistics?

On the other end of the literary spectrum, fictional works such as "The Shipping Sleuths: A Tale of Intrigue on the High Seas," further ignite the imagination with whimsical narratives of detectives embroiled in the obscure world of maritime mysteries. While these tales may seem far removed from the dry corridors of academic literature, their fanciful exploration of detective escapades on the high seas draws curious parallels to our own investigation. Could it be that Delaware's private eyes have set their sights beyond dry land and onto the high seas of Amazon's shipping domain?

As we delve deeper into our quest for understanding, it is imperative to recognize the unlikeliest of sources of insight. Perhaps, as unconventional as it may seem, the answers to our enigma lie in the unlikeliest of places – the labels of shampoo bottles, the anecdotes of wistful travelers, or the wisps of conversation overheard at the neighborhood coffee shop. Who knows, maybe the key to unlocking this perplexing enigma has been staring us in the face all along, hiding in plain sight amidst the mundane and the absurd.

In the next section, we pivot to our own investigation into this bewildering nexus, where we untangle the web of detective density and Amazon's annual outbound shipping expenditure, drawing from the rich tapestry of data and speculation to illuminate the mysterious connection between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments.


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 private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Statista . You used data from 2006 to 2016

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]]
"Detective Density, Deliveries, and Delight: The Rhyme and Reason behind Delaware's Sleuths and Amazon's Bucks"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of private detectives in the great state of Delaware and the astounding annual outbound shipping expenditure of the ecommerce giant, Amazon. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2006 to 2016. Our findings shed light on the seemingly implausible connection between the detective density in the First State and the greenbacks flowing out of Amazon's coffers. Our paper transcends the dryness of traditional academia, unraveling the mystery behind what ties these unlikely bedfellows – whether it's a case of the detectives sniffing out Amazon's delivery secrets or Amazon hiring them to investigate the whereabouts of lost parcels. Join us as we embark on a journey that elucidates the curious nexus between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The enigmatic correlation between the number of private detectives in Delaware and the annual outbound shipping expenditure of Amazon has been a conundrum for researchers and statisticians alike. At first glance, one might be inclined to dismiss this association as a mere statistical fluke or a hilarious prank played by the data. However, as diligent scholars, we are duty-bound to scrutinize these unexpected relationships, no matter how absurd they may seem at first glance. After all, as we all know, statistics don't lie, but they're often hilarious.
The link between detective density and Amazon's bucks may seem like something out of a zany detective novel, but our rigorous analysis, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, has revealed a correlation coefficient that would make even Sherlock Holmes do a double take: a whopping 0.9183841! Coupled with a p-value less than 0.01, our findings have defied all expectations and left us scratching our heads in mind-boggling befuddlement.
This peculiar coupling takes us on a wild escapade through the dizzying world of commerce and clandestine investigations, where we must grapple with the perplexing question of why there is such an uncanny correlation between the number of trench-coat-wearing private eyes in the First State and the moolah flowing out of Amazon's coffers. It's a mystery that begs to be solved, and our research aims to shine a bright, fluorescent light on this hitherto murky and perplexing case.
In this paper, we will not be content with stodgy, traditional academia. Oh no! We are on a quest to uncover the nutty, quirky, and downright preposterous connection between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments. Perhaps these detectives are Sherlock Holmes reincarnate, probing the secrets of Amazon's delivery logistics. Or maybe, just maybe, Jeff Bezos has assembled his own team of gumshoes to track down the elusive whereabouts of missing packages. As we peel back the layers of this peculiarity, prepare to be thoroughly entertained, confounded, and, dare we say it, enlightened.
So, fasten your seatbelts, dear reader, as we embark on this delightfully droll journey to unravel the astonishing nexus between gumshoes and greenbacks. Sit back, relax, and let the ride begin!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the confounding correlation between the number of private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's annual outbound shipping expenditure, our research team embarked on a quest that would make even the most intrepid sleuth tip their deerstalker hat in admiration. Our data collection journey began with a thorough scouring of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista databases, where we sifted through years of information like gold-panning prospectors seeking the elusive nugget of truth.

Armed with the data spanning the years 2006 to 2016, we employed an array of statistical analysis techniques that would make even the most ardent math enthusiast break out in a cold sweat. First, we conducted a rigorous correlation analysis to uncover the mystical bond between the number of undercover Sherlock-types and the financial outpouring from the patron saint of online shopping, Amazon. Our tools of choice included Pearson's r and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, which we wielded with all the finesse of a detective brandishing a magnifying glass.

Not content with a mere correlation, we also delved into the depths of regression analysis, throwing in independent variables such as the number of licensed private investigators and the annual outbound shipping expenditure. We then squinted at the resulting scatterplots and fitted lines, hoping to unravel a tale that was as clear as an Agatha Christie novel and as captivating as the best episode of "Columbo."

As we traversed the labyrinthine paths of statistical analysis, we also engaged in robust sensitivity analysis to ensure that our findings remained as sturdy as a seasoned detective's alibi. Through this method, we probed the impact of various outliers and influential data points, like the detective who thought he had cracked the case, only to find a surprising twist in the final chapter.

To further bolster our findings, we immersed ourselves in time series analysis, seeking to discern any temporal patterns that might shed light on this seemingly whimsical connection between trench-coat-clad gumshoes and Amazon's financial meanderings. This involved deploying Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models, as we combed through the data akin to a detective parsing through a web of clues in a locked-room mystery novel.

In a bid for robustness, we also employed cross-validation techniques, splitting the data into training and testing sets as if we were crafting an elaborate maze to confound even the most astute sleuth. This allowed us to verify the reliability of our models and ensured that our conclusions stood strong in the face of the most ardent cross-examination, like a suspect under the relentless interrogation of a seasoned interrogator.

Having braved the stormy seas of data analysis, we emerged with a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between detective density and Amazon's financial exploits, leaving no stone unturned and no lead unexplored. Our findings offer a gripping narrative that bridges the seemingly unfathomable chasm between the secretive world of sleuths and the relentless march of commerce. So, join us as we embark on this exhilarating journey to decipher the cryptic coalescence of detectives, deliveries, and downright delight.


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 private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

For the time period 2006 to 2016, you found a correlation 0.9183841, r-squared of 0.8434293, 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]]
"Detective Density, Deliveries, and Delight: The Rhyme and Reason behind Delaware's Sleuths and Amazon's Bucks"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of private detectives in the great state of Delaware and the astounding annual outbound shipping expenditure of the ecommerce giant, Amazon. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2006 to 2016. Our findings shed light on the seemingly implausible connection between the detective density in the First State and the greenbacks flowing out of Amazon's coffers. Our paper transcends the dryness of traditional academia, unraveling the mystery behind what ties these unlikely bedfellows – whether it's a case of the detectives sniffing out Amazon's delivery secrets or Amazon hiring them to investigate the whereabouts of lost parcels. Join us as we embark on a journey that elucidates the curious nexus between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The enigmatic correlation between the number of private detectives in Delaware and the annual outbound shipping expenditure of Amazon has been a conundrum for researchers and statisticians alike. At first glance, one might be inclined to dismiss this association as a mere statistical fluke or a hilarious prank played by the data. However, as diligent scholars, we are duty-bound to scrutinize these unexpected relationships, no matter how absurd they may seem at first glance. After all, as we all know, statistics don't lie, but they're often hilarious.
The link between detective density and Amazon's bucks may seem like something out of a zany detective novel, but our rigorous analysis, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, has revealed a correlation coefficient that would make even Sherlock Holmes do a double take: a whopping 0.9183841! Coupled with a p-value less than 0.01, our findings have defied all expectations and left us scratching our heads in mind-boggling befuddlement.
This peculiar coupling takes us on a wild escapade through the dizzying world of commerce and clandestine investigations, where we must grapple with the perplexing question of why there is such an uncanny correlation between the number of trench-coat-wearing private eyes in the First State and the moolah flowing out of Amazon's coffers. It's a mystery that begs to be solved, and our research aims to shine a bright, fluorescent light on this hitherto murky and perplexing case.
In this paper, we will not be content with stodgy, traditional academia. Oh no! We are on a quest to uncover the nutty, quirky, and downright preposterous connection between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments. Perhaps these detectives are Sherlock Holmes reincarnate, probing the secrets of Amazon's delivery logistics. Or maybe, just maybe, Jeff Bezos has assembled his own team of gumshoes to track down the elusive whereabouts of missing packages. As we peel back the layers of this peculiarity, prepare to be thoroughly entertained, confounded, and, dare we say it, enlightened.
So, fasten your seatbelts, dear reader, as we embark on this delightfully droll journey to unravel the astonishing nexus between gumshoes and greenbacks. Sit back, relax, and let the ride begin!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The highly-anticipated results of our investigation into the bewildering relationship between the number of private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's annual outbound shipping expenditure have left us equal parts flabbergasted and entertained. The correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 that we uncovered dances dangerously close to 1, implying a jaw-dropping connection between the sleuths of the First State and the mighty moolah that Amazon spends on outbound shipping. With an r-squared value of 0.8434293, we can be quite confident that this isn't just a whimsical statistical flirtation – no, this is a serious, long-lasting statistical relationship that's ready to put a ring on it.

But oh, it gets better! Our p-value, astoundingly less than 0.01, tells us that the likelihood of this connection being a sheer coincidence is about as likely as finding a four-leaf clover in a patch of statistics textbooks. We're talking about a relationship so robust, even the most cynical of statisticians would have to admit that there's some serious detective work at play here – and not just the kind that involves magnifying glasses and oversized tweed coats.

To truly bring the magnitude of this correlation to life, we present our esteemed readers with Fig. 1, a scatterplot that tells a story more compelling than any mystery novel. This plot paints a picture of a relationship so strong, it could very well be the plot of the next big detective blockbuster. We can almost see the detective duo, Delaware Dick and Amazon Amy, solving the enigma of the vanishing shipping costs – a storyline that would keep audiences on the edge of their seats.

In conclusion, our findings highlight a connection so unexpected and bizarre that it wouldn't be out of place in a whimsical Rube Goldberg contraption. Once again, we are reminded that the world of statistics is full of surprises, and that even the most outlandish relationships can be uncovered with a keen eye and a statistical magnifying glass. So, to the skeptics and naysayers, we say this: when it comes to statistical surprises, the only thing we can predict with certainty is that there's always another surprise waiting just around the corner.


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 private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"Detective Density, Deliveries, and Delight: The Rhyme and Reason behind Delaware's Sleuths and Amazon's Bucks"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of private detectives in the great state of Delaware and the astounding annual outbound shipping expenditure of the ecommerce giant, Amazon. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2006 to 2016. Our findings shed light on the seemingly implausible connection between the detective density in the First State and the greenbacks flowing out of Amazon's coffers. Our paper transcends the dryness of traditional academia, unraveling the mystery behind what ties these unlikely bedfellows – whether it's a case of the detectives sniffing out Amazon's delivery secrets or Amazon hiring them to investigate the whereabouts of lost parcels. Join us as we embark on a journey that elucidates the curious nexus between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "The Peculiar P.I. Phenomenon: Unveiling the Intriguing Link Between Detective Density and Corporate Capital," Smith and Doe delve into the improbable association between the number of private detectives in Delaware and corporate expenditures. Their study, drawing from an array of statistical analyses, presents compelling evidence of a positive correlation between private detective density and corporate bucks. While their findings are certainly intriguing, it leaves one pondering whether these detectives are merely piecing together clues or embarking on an undercover mission to uncover the mysteries of corporate finances.
Similarly, Jones (2018) explores the fascinating intersection between corporate logistics and investigative prowess in "Following the Money: A Detective's Guide to Corporate Economics." Jones presents a case for the often-overlooked role of private investigators in untangling the complex web of corporate operations and financial movements. The narrative unfolds as a thrilling exposé, unraveling the unorthodox connections between magnates and magnifying glasses. As we wade through this tangled web of data and anecdotes, one cannot help but wonder: are these detectives tracking down rogue shipments or tailing elusive CEO suspects?
Shifting to the realm of non-fiction, "The Economics of Shipping: A Comprehensive Guide," provides an in-depth examination of the intricate web of global shipping networks and their financial implications. While this tome may not overtly address the antics of detectives in Delaware, one cannot help but ponder the potential clandestine shenanigans occurring amidst the stacks of shipping containers. Are the detectives clandestinely monitoring the movements of these colossal cargo consignments, or are they, in fact, the masterminds behind the grand orchestration of logistics?
On the other end of the literary spectrum, fictional works such as "The Shipping Sleuths: A Tale of Intrigue on the High Seas," further ignite the imagination with whimsical narratives of detectives embroiled in the obscure world of maritime mysteries. While these tales may seem far removed from the dry corridors of academic literature, their fanciful exploration of detective escapades on the high seas draws curious parallels to our own investigation. Could it be that Delaware's private eyes have set their sights beyond dry land and onto the high seas of Amazon's shipping domain?
As we delve deeper into our quest for understanding, it is imperative to recognize the unlikeliest of sources of insight. Perhaps, as unconventional as it may seem, the answers to our enigma lie in the unlikeliest of places – the labels of shampoo bottles, the anecdotes of wistful travelers, or the wisps of conversation overheard at the neighborhood coffee shop. Who knows, maybe the key to unlocking this perplexing enigma has been staring us in the face all along, hiding in plain sight amidst the mundane and the absurd.
In the next section, we pivot to our own investigation into this bewildering nexus, where we untangle the web of detective density and Amazon's annual outbound shipping expenditure, drawing from the rich tapestry of data and speculation to illuminate the mysterious connection between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments.

[[RESULTS]]
The highly-anticipated results of our investigation into the bewildering relationship between the number of private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's annual outbound shipping expenditure have left us equal parts flabbergasted and entertained. The correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 that we uncovered dances dangerously close to 1, implying a jaw-dropping connection between the sleuths of the First State and the mighty moolah that Amazon spends on outbound shipping. With an r-squared value of 0.8434293, we can be quite confident that this isn't just a whimsical statistical flirtation – no, this is a serious, long-lasting statistical relationship that's ready to put a ring on it.
But oh, it gets better! Our p-value, astoundingly less than 0.01, tells us that the likelihood of this connection being a sheer coincidence is about as likely as finding a four-leaf clover in a patch of statistics textbooks. We're talking about a relationship so robust, even the most cynical of statisticians would have to admit that there's some serious detective work at play here – and not just the kind that involves magnifying glasses and oversized tweed coats.
To truly bring the magnitude of this correlation to life, we present our esteemed readers with Fig. 1, a scatterplot that tells a story more compelling than any mystery novel. This plot paints a picture of a relationship so strong, it could very well be the plot of the next big detective blockbuster. We can almost see the detective duo, Delaware Dick and Amazon Amy, solving the enigma of the vanishing shipping costs – a storyline that would keep audiences on the edge of their seats.
In conclusion, our findings highlight a connection so unexpected and bizarre that it wouldn't be out of place in a whimsical Rube Goldberg contraption. Once again, we are reminded that the world of statistics is full of surprises, and that even the most outlandish relationships can be uncovered with a keen eye and a statistical magnifying glass. So, to the skeptics and naysayers, we say this: when it comes to statistical surprises, the only thing we can predict with certainty is that there's always another surprise waiting just around the corner.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of our study have confirmed the prior research that delved into the enigmatic connection between detective density and corporate expenditures. The correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 that we unveiled aligns with Smith and Doe’s work, echoing the positive correlation between private detective density and corporate bucks. It appears that the gumshoes of Delaware are not just sniffing out crime but also the dollars flowing through the shipping channels.

Jones (2018) also touched on the role of private investigators in the corporate landscape, and our results corroborate the unorthodox connection between magnates and magnifying glasses. It seems that the detectives are indeed acting as more than just passive spectators in the grand orchestration of logistics - perhaps they're the unsung heroes behind the scenes, ensuring the smooth sailing of shipments.

Furthermore, our investigation has effectively brought to light this unlikely nexus, which, much like a thrilling detective novel, involves unexpected plot twists and a dash of statistical suspense. The p-value of less than 0.01 indicates that this correlation is no mere sleight of hand; it's a bonafide statistical relationship that defies the odds. It appears that the statistical magnifying glass has revealed a captivating tale, one where sleuths and shipping costs are engaged in a dance so mesmerizing, it could rival even the most intricate of mysteries.

As we continue to peel back the layers of this perplexing alliance between detective density and Amazon's shipping expenditures, it's evident that the tendrils of research stretch far, intertwining with the whimsical narratives of shipping sleuths and the wistful travelers pondering over the whereabouts of their delayed parcels. Indeed, our investigation has shown that even the most outlandish of correlations can be uncovered with a keen statistical eye and an unwavering determination to unravel the enigma.

In essence, our study contributes a compelling chapter to the rich tapestry of detective tales and unravels a statistical relationship so noteworthy that it could very well be an intriguing subplot in the annals of economic literature. The whispers of statistics have once again revealed an unexpected twist, showcasing that in the wondrous world of research, surprises are always lurking just around the corner.


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 private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Detective Density, Deliveries, and Delight: The Rhyme and Reason behind Delaware's Sleuths and Amazon's Bucks"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of private detectives in the great state of Delaware and the astounding annual outbound shipping expenditure of the ecommerce giant, Amazon. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2006 to 2016. Our findings shed light on the seemingly implausible connection between the detective density in the First State and the greenbacks flowing out of Amazon's coffers. Our paper transcends the dryness of traditional academia, unraveling the mystery behind what ties these unlikely bedfellows – whether it's a case of the detectives sniffing out Amazon's delivery secrets or Amazon hiring them to investigate the whereabouts of lost parcels. Join us as we embark on a journey that elucidates the curious nexus between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The enigmatic correlation between the number of private detectives in Delaware and the annual outbound shipping expenditure of Amazon has been a conundrum for researchers and statisticians alike. At first glance, one might be inclined to dismiss this association as a mere statistical fluke or a hilarious prank played by the data. However, as diligent scholars, we are duty-bound to scrutinize these unexpected relationships, no matter how absurd they may seem at first glance. After all, as we all know, statistics don't lie, but they're often hilarious.
The link between detective density and Amazon's bucks may seem like something out of a zany detective novel, but our rigorous analysis, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, has revealed a correlation coefficient that would make even Sherlock Holmes do a double take: a whopping 0.9183841! Coupled with a p-value less than 0.01, our findings have defied all expectations and left us scratching our heads in mind-boggling befuddlement.
This peculiar coupling takes us on a wild escapade through the dizzying world of commerce and clandestine investigations, where we must grapple with the perplexing question of why there is such an uncanny correlation between the number of trench-coat-wearing private eyes in the First State and the moolah flowing out of Amazon's coffers. It's a mystery that begs to be solved, and our research aims to shine a bright, fluorescent light on this hitherto murky and perplexing case.
In this paper, we will not be content with stodgy, traditional academia. Oh no! We are on a quest to uncover the nutty, quirky, and downright preposterous connection between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments. Perhaps these detectives are Sherlock Holmes reincarnate, probing the secrets of Amazon's delivery logistics. Or maybe, just maybe, Jeff Bezos has assembled his own team of gumshoes to track down the elusive whereabouts of missing packages. As we peel back the layers of this peculiarity, prepare to be thoroughly entertained, confounded, and, dare we say it, enlightened.
So, fasten your seatbelts, dear reader, as we embark on this delightfully droll journey to unravel the astonishing nexus between gumshoes and greenbacks. Sit back, relax, and let the ride begin!

[[RESULTS]]
The highly-anticipated results of our investigation into the bewildering relationship between the number of private detectives in Delaware and Amazon's annual outbound shipping expenditure have left us equal parts flabbergasted and entertained. The correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 that we uncovered dances dangerously close to 1, implying a jaw-dropping connection between the sleuths of the First State and the mighty moolah that Amazon spends on outbound shipping. With an r-squared value of 0.8434293, we can be quite confident that this isn't just a whimsical statistical flirtation – no, this is a serious, long-lasting statistical relationship that's ready to put a ring on it.
But oh, it gets better! Our p-value, astoundingly less than 0.01, tells us that the likelihood of this connection being a sheer coincidence is about as likely as finding a four-leaf clover in a patch of statistics textbooks. We're talking about a relationship so robust, even the most cynical of statisticians would have to admit that there's some serious detective work at play here – and not just the kind that involves magnifying glasses and oversized tweed coats.
To truly bring the magnitude of this correlation to life, we present our esteemed readers with Fig. 1, a scatterplot that tells a story more compelling than any mystery novel. This plot paints a picture of a relationship so strong, it could very well be the plot of the next big detective blockbuster. We can almost see the detective duo, Delaware Dick and Amazon Amy, solving the enigma of the vanishing shipping costs – a storyline that would keep audiences on the edge of their seats.
In conclusion, our findings highlight a connection so unexpected and bizarre that it wouldn't be out of place in a whimsical Rube Goldberg contraption. Once again, we are reminded that the world of statistics is full of surprises, and that even the most outlandish relationships can be uncovered with a keen eye and a statistical magnifying glass. So, to the skeptics and naysayers, we say this: when it comes to statistical surprises, the only thing we can predict with certainty is that there's always another surprise waiting just around the corner.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In the zany world of statistics, where the unexpected becomes the norm, our research has peeled back the layers of perplexity surrounding the surprising alliance between Delaware's detectives and Amazon's shipping moolah. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 that's more robust than a concrete alibi, and a p-value lower than the odds of winning the lottery, we can't help but admire the sheer absurdity of this statistical love affair. It's like witnessing a rom-com between Sherlock Holmes and a package-delivering drone - utterly improbable, yet undeniably captivating.

Our results have taken us on a rollercoaster ride of statistical delight, and we can say with unwavering certainty that no more research is needed in this area. The mystery of detective density and Amazon's bucks has been unmasked, and it turns out that the only crime here is the theft of our conventional expectations. So, as we bid adieu to this comically enigmatic saga, we urge fellow researchers to embrace the whimsy and embrace the unexpected in their statistical endeavors. After all, as we've learned, in the world of data, the most unlikely pairings often hold the key to the most astonishing revelations.


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 Detective Density, Deliveries, and Delight: The Rhyme and Reason behind Delaware's Sleuths and Amazon's Bucks. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Investigations


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 Detective Density, Deliveries, and Delight: The Rhyme and Reason behind Delaware's Sleuths and Amazon's Bucks. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Quirky Research Endeavors


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 Detective Density, Deliveries, and Delight: The Rhyme and Reason behind Delaware's Sleuths and Amazon's Bucks with an abstract of This research delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of private detectives in the great state of Delaware and the astounding annual outbound shipping expenditure of the ecommerce giant, Amazon. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statista, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.9183841 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2006 to 2016. Our findings shed light on the seemingly implausible connection between the detective density in the First State and the greenbacks flowing out of Amazon's coffers. Our paper transcends the dryness of traditional academia, unraveling the mystery behind what ties these unlikely bedfellows – whether it's a case of the detectives sniffing out Amazon's delivery secrets or Amazon hiring them to investigate the whereabouts of lost parcels. Join us as we embark on a journey that elucidates the curious nexus between snooping sleuths and colossal cargo consignments.

ChatGPT:

Detective density, private detectives, Delaware, Amazon, shipping expenditures, correlation coefficient, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Statista, p-value, outbound shipping, ecommerce, annual expenditure, correlation analysis, Delaware economy, private investigation industry, retail delivery, shipping correlation, logistic trends, state detectives, shipping logistics.

*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 private detectives in Delaware
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of private detectives and investigators in Delaware
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of private detectives in Delaware

Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions
Source: Statista
See what else correlates with Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions

Correlation r = 0.9183841 (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 = 0.8434293 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 84.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of private detectives in Delaware) over the 11 years from 2006 through 2016.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.6E-5. 0.0000658964168575739900000000
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 0.92 in 0.0066% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 15,175 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 10 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 10 because we have two variables measured over a period of 11 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.

[ 0.71, 0.98 ] 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.
20062007200820092010201120122013201420152016
The number of private detectives in Delaware (Laborers)30304040303030406090100
Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions (Dollars)884000000117400000014650000001773000000257900000039890000005134000000663500000087090000001153900000016167000000




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([30,30,40,40,30,30,30,40,60,90,100,])
array_2 = np.array([884000000,1174000000,1465000000,1773000000,2579000000,3989000000,5134000000,6635000000,8709000000,11539000000,16167000000,])
array_1_name = "The number of private detectives in Delaware"
array_2_name = "Amazon's Annual Outbound Shipping Expenditure in Millions"

# 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?

Your rating skills are top-notch!


Correlation ID: 4088 · Black Variable ID: 6177 · Red Variable ID: 173
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0