Spurious correlation #4,248 · 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 budget analysts in Delaware and the second variable is Asthma prevalence in American children. The chart goes from 2003 to 2019, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is The number of budget analysts in Delaware and the second variable is Asthma prevalence in American children. The chart goes from 2003 to 2019, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

As the number of budget analysts in Delaware decreased, there was a corresponding decrease in paperwork and bureaucracy. With fewer budget analysts around, there were fewer reports and documents being printed, leading to a slight reduction in overall paper dust in the atmosphere. This slight reduction in paper dust had a minuscule but measurable impact on the respiratory health of American children, contributing to a decrease in asthma prevalence.

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Generate an image in a futuristic style depicting a group of budget analysts in Delaware discussing and allocating resources for asthma prevention programs for American children. Show how the number of budget analysts fluctuates, causing ripples of impact on the availability and affordability of inhalers and medications. The image should visually represent the meticulous allocation of resources influencing the fluctuations in asthma prevalence among children. 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 budget analysts in Delaware and Asthma prevalence in American children. 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: Parallax art Celtic art Cutsy art illustration Futuristic Brutalism
ChatGPT: Futuristic

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 budget analysts in Delaware and Asthma prevalence in American children, in the following situation: As the number of budget analysts in Delaware fluctuates, so does the meticulous allocation of resources towards asthma prevention programs for American children. This in turn impacts the accessibility and affordability of inhalers and other necessary medications, leading to fluctuations in asthma prevalence.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Delaware, a group of budget analysts are seen discussing and allocating resources for asthma prevention programs for American children. As they work, the number of budget analysts fluctuates, causing ripples of impact on the availability and affordability of inhalers and medications. This creates a visual representation of how the meticulous allocation of resources influences the fluctuations in asthma prevalence among children.

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: [ Futuristic ] and depicting this scene: In Delaware, a group of budget analysts are seen discussing and allocating resources for asthma prevention programs for American children. As they work, the number of budget analysts fluctuates, causing ripples of impact on the availability and affordability of inhalers and medications. This creates a visual representation of how the meticulous allocation of resources influences the fluctuations in asthma prevalence among children. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Generate an image in a futuristic style depicting a group of budget analysts in Delaware discussing and allocating resources for asthma prevention programs for American children. Show how the number of budget analysts fluctuates, causing ripples of impact on the availability and affordability of inhalers and medications. The image should visually represent the meticulous allocation of resources influencing the fluctuations in asthma prevalence among children.

*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.
^{Show prompt for explanation} 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 budget analysts in Delaware caused Asthma prevalence in American children to decrease.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

Breath and Budgets: A Rhyme Between Analysts and Asthma in American Children

The Journal of Respiratory Economics

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!

^{Show prompt used to generate this paper} Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You 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 budget analysts in Delaware and Asthma prevalence in American children. 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. Perhaps you also got inspiration from some board games that are vaugely related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Breath and Budgets: A Rhyme Between Analysts and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the potential link between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics, we embarked on an exploratory journey to uncover any rhyme or reason behind the correlation. Our analysis revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8830024 with p < 0.01, spanning from the years 2003 to 2019. While the association may seem like a mere jest, our findings suggest a curious connection worthy of further investigation.

The pursuit of balancing budgets and breaths may not seem like an obvious pair, but our results beckon a closer inspection of this seemingly whimsical rhyme. As we delve into the intricate dance between these seemingly unrelated variables, we encourage readers to take a deep breath and open their minds to the possibility of unexpected connections. After all, in the world of research, sometimes the most unlikely rhymes yield the most lyrical discoveries.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
In the vast field of public health and policy analysis, unexpected connections can sometimes surface, leading researchers down uncharted paths of inquiry. One such peculiar pairing comes in the form of the correlation between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children. While this association may initially seem as improbable as a politician's promise during election season, our examination has unearthed a surprisingly robust relationship that demands closer scrutiny.
As the old saying goes, "Follow the data, but don't forget to bring your inhaler." Well, perhaps that's not exactly how the saying goes, but it aptly captures the spirit of our investigation. With one foot planted firmly in the world of economics and the other in the realm of pediatric health, our study ventures into uncharted territory, aiming to shed light on a correlation that, at first blush, feels as incongruous as a budget surplus in a teenager's wallet.
The juxtaposition of bureaucratic number crunching and childhood respiratory ailments may evoke puzzled frowns and raised eyebrows, but as we navigate this curious confluence of variables, we invite our readers to join us in embracing the unexpected. After all, in the midst of the complex mosaic of public health and policy, sometimes the most captivating revelations emerge from the most seemingly implausible sources.
Drawing on a compilation of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics, our study ventures beyond the comfort of conventional research paths, aiming to bring forth findings that may inspire a sense of intellectual whimsy. Though the notion of a connection between budget analysis and asthma prevalence may strike some as improbable, our analysis has uncovered a correlation coefficient that demands attention, like a majestic symphony rising from the unexpected fusing of disparate musical notes.
So, as we set forth on our journey through the intricate maze of numbers and inhalers, we urge our readers to brace themselves for a tale of correlation and causality that may seem as improbable as a unicorn sighting in a cubicle farm. Nevertheless, armed with statistical rigor and a dash of audacity, we boldly step into the realm of "Breath and Budgets," where the numbers breathe life into unexpected revelations and the whimsy of data leads us down unexplored paths of scholarly merriment.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In the pursuit of understanding the curious connection between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children, we direct our gaze toward the existing body of literature. While this correlation may appear as unexpected as finding a needle in a haystack made of spreadsheets, a thorough examination of scholarly works offers valuable insights into this uncharted territory.

Smith et al. (2015) examine the impact of budget analysis on public health outcomes, shedding light on the intersection of fiscal policy and respiratory well-being. Meanwhile, Doe (2017) delves into the epidemiological aspects of childhood asthma, offering a comprehensive overview of the multifaceted factors contributing to its prevalence in the United States. These foundational studies underscore the significance of investigating the potential rhyme between analysts and asthma, guiding our exploration through the labyrinthine landscape of scholarly inquiry.

Venturing beyond the realm of traditional academic discourse, notable non-fiction works such as "Breathing Easy: The Economics of Asthma" (Jones, 2018) and "Budgets and Breaths: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis" (Thompson, 2019) pique our interest with their interdisciplinary perspectives. These engaging works serve as beacons, illuminating the unexplored corridors where the worlds of budgetary analysis and pediatric respiratory health converge.

At this juncture, we dare to meander into the realm of fiction, where the lines between imagination and reality blur with a delightful whimsy. As we leaf through the figurative pages of literary works, titles such as "Asthma and Accountants: A Tale of Two Cities" and "The Budget Analyst's Guide to Breathing" beckon with their enigmatic allure, tempting us to ponder the possibility of such fantastical narratives mirroring the subtle rhythms of our empirical discoveries.

Drawing inspiration from unexpected sources, we extend our exploration to the world of board games, where strategy and chance coalesce in intriguing ways. Games such as "Budget Battles: The Asthma Epidemic Expansion" and "Asthma Alchemy: Budgetary Balancing Act" prompt lighthearted musings on the symbiotic dance between numerical precision and respiratory well-being, inviting us to consider the kaleidoscopic facets of our research question from a playfully unconventional standpoint.

As we navigate the confluence of academic literature, non-fiction narratives, and whimsical imaginings, we adopt a spirit of intellectual curiosity, embracing the unexpected and allowing our scholarly journey to unfold with a touch of levity.

In the words of a famous philosopher (or perhaps an obscure comic strip character), "In the midst of correlations and equations, a dash of humor may just be the unexpected variable that leads to the most profound discoveries." With this sentiment in mind, we embark on our literature review, guided by the light-hearted allure of unraveling a connection as unlikely as finding a budget analyst discussing inhaler economics with a wheezing walrus.

=*/- THE END -\*=

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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of budget analysts in Delaware and Asthma prevalence in American children. 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 National Center for Health Statistics . You used data from 2003 to 2019

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]]
Breath and Budgets: A Rhyme Between Analysts and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the potential link between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics, we embarked on an exploratory journey to uncover any rhyme or reason behind the correlation. Our analysis revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8830024 with p < 0.01, spanning from the years 2003 to 2019. While the association may seem like a mere jest, our findings suggest a curious connection worthy of further investigation.

The pursuit of balancing budgets and breaths may not seem like an obvious pair, but our results beckon a closer inspection of this seemingly whimsical rhyme. As we delve into the intricate dance between these seemingly unrelated variables, we encourage readers to take a deep breath and open their minds to the possibility of unexpected connections. After all, in the world of research, sometimes the most unlikely rhymes yield the most lyrical discoveries.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
In the vast field of public health and policy analysis, unexpected connections can sometimes surface, leading researchers down uncharted paths of inquiry. One such peculiar pairing comes in the form of the correlation between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children. While this association may initially seem as improbable as a politician's promise during election season, our examination has unearthed a surprisingly robust relationship that demands closer scrutiny.
As the old saying goes, "Follow the data, but don't forget to bring your inhaler." Well, perhaps that's not exactly how the saying goes, but it aptly captures the spirit of our investigation. With one foot planted firmly in the world of economics and the other in the realm of pediatric health, our study ventures into uncharted territory, aiming to shed light on a correlation that, at first blush, feels as incongruous as a budget surplus in a teenager's wallet.
The juxtaposition of bureaucratic number crunching and childhood respiratory ailments may evoke puzzled frowns and raised eyebrows, but as we navigate this curious confluence of variables, we invite our readers to join us in embracing the unexpected. After all, in the midst of the complex mosaic of public health and policy, sometimes the most captivating revelations emerge from the most seemingly implausible sources.
Drawing on a compilation of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics, our study ventures beyond the comfort of conventional research paths, aiming to bring forth findings that may inspire a sense of intellectual whimsy. Though the notion of a connection between budget analysis and asthma prevalence may strike some as improbable, our analysis has uncovered a correlation coefficient that demands attention, like a majestic symphony rising from the unexpected fusing of disparate musical notes.
So, as we set forth on our journey through the intricate maze of numbers and inhalers, we urge our readers to brace themselves for a tale of correlation and causality that may seem as improbable as a unicorn sighting in a cubicle farm. Nevertheless, armed with statistical rigor and a dash of audacity, we boldly step into the realm of "Breath and Budgets," where the numbers breathe life into unexpected revelations and the whimsy of data leads us down unexplored paths of scholarly merriment.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

A. Data Collection
Our data collection process was a bit like participating in a scavenger hunt, albeit without the thrill of finding hidden treasures. We scoured the digital landscapes of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics, traversing the virtual labyrinth of spreadsheets and reports to procure the necessary datasets. The years 2003 to 2019 served as our temporal hunting ground, allowing us to capture a broad swath of statistical snapshots akin to a series of time-lapse photographs chronicling the evolving relationship between budget analysts and asthma prevalence.

B. Budget Analyst Data
The Bureau of Labor Statistics emerged as our primary oracle of budget analyst numbers, offering a glimpse into the world of bean counters and financial fortunetellers. We extracted employment figures for budget analysts specifically from the Delaware region, meticulously documenting the ebb and flow of this peculiar occupational breed. Like modern-day cartographers mapping the contours of a foreign land, we charted the undulating landscape of budget analysis employment, precisely measuring its peaks and valleys over the years.

C. Asthma Prevalence in American Children
Turning our gaze towards the realm of pediatric health, the National Center for Health Statistics provided us with a trove of information on asthma prevalence among American children. These data served as our portal into the realm of respiratory wellness, allowing us to sketch a narrative of wheezes and breaths against the backdrop of budgetary deliberations in Delaware. With fervent keystrokes and the occasional sip of caffeine as sustenance, we meticulously compiled and sifted through these statistics, seeking patterns that might connect the seemingly unrelated domains of pediatric health and economic analysis.

D. Statistical Analysis
In our quest to unravel the connection – or lack thereof – between budget analysts and asthma prevalence, we employed the tried-and-true tools of statistical analysis, albeit with a hint of academic eccentricity. Correlation coefficients and regression analyses became our brushes, with which we painted a portrait of potential association between these seemingly disparate variables. Like intrepid astronauts on a cosmic expedition, we navigated the celestial terrain of statistical significance and probability thresholds, endeavoring to discern whether the apparent rhyme between budget analysts and asthma in American children was a mere quirk of numerical alignment or a substantial inflection in the melody of public health and economic activity.

E. Ethical Considerations
In the spirit of intellectual integrity and scholarly magnanimity, we ensured that our research adhered to the ethical precepts of data utilization. Respect for the provenance and veracity of the data sources remained a guiding principle, as did our commitment to transparency and rigor in data analysis. With the ethical compass firmly in hand, we steered clear of academic misdemeanors and charted a course that honored the principles of scholarly inquiry.

F. Limitations
As with all voyages of intellectual exploration, our research encountered its fair share of limitations. The constraints of observational data precluded asserting causational relationships, leaving us to navigate the tides of correlation with commendable caution. Additionally, the specificity of our focus on Delaware's budget analysts and the general prevalence of asthma among American children constrains the generalizability of our findings to other geographic locales and demographic cohorts. Nevertheless, armed with the torch of academic humility, we journeyed forth, cognizant of the contours of scholarly prudence and the boundaries of empirical inference.

G. Miscellaneous
While our methodology may seem as convoluted as an algebraic equation in a labyrinth, we assure our readers that each step was executed with exactitude and academic ardor. Our statistical compass remained true north, guiding us through the tempestuous seas of data analysis with an unwavering determination to uncover any latent connections between budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children.

In summary, our methodology unfurled like a scholarly tapestry, weaving together threads of data collection, statistical analysis, and ethical probity to fashion a robust framework for our research pursuits. As we turn our attention to the findings that emerged from this methodological odyssey, we invite our readers to accompany us on a journey that may hold unexpected surprises for even the most seasoned navigators of scholarly inquiry.

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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of budget analysts in Delaware and Asthma prevalence in American children. 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 National Center for Health Statistics .

For the time period 2003 to 2019, you found a correlation 0.8830024, r-squared of 0.7796933, 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]]
Breath and Budgets: A Rhyme Between Analysts and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the potential link between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics, we embarked on an exploratory journey to uncover any rhyme or reason behind the correlation. Our analysis revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8830024 with p < 0.01, spanning from the years 2003 to 2019. While the association may seem like a mere jest, our findings suggest a curious connection worthy of further investigation.

The pursuit of balancing budgets and breaths may not seem like an obvious pair, but our results beckon a closer inspection of this seemingly whimsical rhyme. As we delve into the intricate dance between these seemingly unrelated variables, we encourage readers to take a deep breath and open their minds to the possibility of unexpected connections. After all, in the world of research, sometimes the most unlikely rhymes yield the most lyrical discoveries.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Introduction
In the vast field of public health and policy analysis, unexpected connections can sometimes surface, leading researchers down uncharted paths of inquiry. One such peculiar pairing comes in the form of the correlation between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children. While this association may initially seem as improbable as a politician's promise during election season, our examination has unearthed a surprisingly robust relationship that demands closer scrutiny.
As the old saying goes, "Follow the data, but don't forget to bring your inhaler." Well, perhaps that's not exactly how the saying goes, but it aptly captures the spirit of our investigation. With one foot planted firmly in the world of economics and the other in the realm of pediatric health, our study ventures into uncharted territory, aiming to shed light on a correlation that, at first blush, feels as incongruous as a budget surplus in a teenager's wallet.
The juxtaposition of bureaucratic number crunching and childhood respiratory ailments may evoke puzzled frowns and raised eyebrows, but as we navigate this curious confluence of variables, we invite our readers to join us in embracing the unexpected. After all, in the midst of the complex mosaic of public health and policy, sometimes the most captivating revelations emerge from the most seemingly implausible sources.
Drawing on a compilation of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics, our study ventures beyond the comfort of conventional research paths, aiming to bring forth findings that may inspire a sense of intellectual whimsy. Though the notion of a connection between budget analysis and asthma prevalence may strike some as improbable, our analysis has uncovered a correlation coefficient that demands attention, like a majestic symphony rising from the unexpected fusing of disparate musical notes.
So, as we set forth on our journey through the intricate maze of numbers and inhalers, we urge our readers to brace themselves for a tale of correlation and causality that may seem as improbable as a unicorn sighting in a cubicle farm. Nevertheless, armed with statistical rigor and a dash of audacity, we boldly step into the realm of "Breath and Budgets," where the numbers breathe life into unexpected revelations and the whimsy of data leads us down unexplored paths of scholarly merriment.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]

ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8830024 between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children from 2003 to 2019. This finding implies a remarkably strong positive association between these seemingly unrelated variables. The r-squared value of 0.7796933 further emphasizes the robustness of this correlation, indicating that approximately 77.97% of the variation in asthma prevalence can be explained by the number of budget analysts in Delaware. And let's not forget the p-value of less than 0.01, signaling that this relationship is not just a fluke – it's statistically significant!

The scatterplot (Fig. 1) further illustrates the striking correlation, making it clear that this isn't just a case of statistical smoke and mirrors. The plot showcases the dance of data points in a harmonious tango, with the number of budget analysts positively pirouetting alongside the prevalence of asthma in American children. It's a duet of data that may seem surprising at first, but as they say, "Data is where the heart is" – or was it "Data is where the art is"? Well, we'll leave that philosophical conundrum for another paper.

The results of this investigation leave us with an intriguing conundrum – how can the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children be so seamlessly intertwined? It's akin to finding a correlation between umbrellas sold and rainfall in a desert – unexpected and yet undeniably present. But such is the enigmatic allure of research, where every data point is a potential plot twist in the grand narrative of discovery.

In an academic landscape often filled with the solemnity of scholarly pursuits, the unearthing of this correlation reminds us that sometimes, academic explorations can also be whimsical in nature. As we embrace the unexpected connection between the bureaucratic world of budget analysis and the delicate respiratory health of children, we are compelled to recognize that the whimsy of data can lead us down rabbit holes of unexpected merriment.

So, while the connection between budget analysts and asthma prevalence may raise eyebrows and elicit a chuckle or two, our findings pave the way for future investigations into the underlying mechanisms that give rise to this surprising correlation. After all, in the world of research, every unexpected rhyme deserves to be explored, for within its cadence may lie the keys to unlocking new realms of understanding.

In summary, the results of this study highlight an unexpectedly strong correlation between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children, inviting further scrutiny into this quirky and captivating relationship.

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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of budget analysts in Delaware and Asthma prevalence in American children. 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]]
Breath and Budgets: A Rhyme Between Analysts and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the potential link between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics, we embarked on an exploratory journey to uncover any rhyme or reason behind the correlation. Our analysis revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8830024 with p < 0.01, spanning from the years 2003 to 2019. While the association may seem like a mere jest, our findings suggest a curious connection worthy of further investigation.

The pursuit of balancing budgets and breaths may not seem like an obvious pair, but our results beckon a closer inspection of this seemingly whimsical rhyme. As we delve into the intricate dance between these seemingly unrelated variables, we encourage readers to take a deep breath and open their minds to the possibility of unexpected connections. After all, in the world of research, sometimes the most unlikely rhymes yield the most lyrical discoveries.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In the pursuit of understanding the curious connection between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children, we direct our gaze toward the existing body of literature. While this correlation may appear as unexpected as finding a needle in a haystack made of spreadsheets, a thorough examination of scholarly works offers valuable insights into this uncharted territory.
Smith et al. (2015) examine the impact of budget analysis on public health outcomes, shedding light on the intersection of fiscal policy and respiratory well-being. Meanwhile, Doe (2017) delves into the epidemiological aspects of childhood asthma, offering a comprehensive overview of the multifaceted factors contributing to its prevalence in the United States. These foundational studies underscore the significance of investigating the potential rhyme between analysts and asthma, guiding our exploration through the labyrinthine landscape of scholarly inquiry.
Venturing beyond the realm of traditional academic discourse, notable non-fiction works such as "Breathing Easy: The Economics of Asthma" (Jones, 2018) and "Budgets and Breaths: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis" (Thompson, 2019) pique our interest with their interdisciplinary perspectives. These engaging works serve as beacons, illuminating the unexplored corridors where the worlds of budgetary analysis and pediatric respiratory health converge.
At this juncture, we dare to meander into the realm of fiction, where the lines between imagination and reality blur with a delightful whimsy. As we leaf through the figurative pages of literary works, titles such as "Asthma and Accountants: A Tale of Two Cities" and "The Budget Analyst's Guide to Breathing" beckon with their enigmatic allure, tempting us to ponder the possibility of such fantastical narratives mirroring the subtle rhythms of our empirical discoveries.
Drawing inspiration from unexpected sources, we extend our exploration to the world of board games, where strategy and chance coalesce in intriguing ways. Games such as "Budget Battles: The Asthma Epidemic Expansion" and "Asthma Alchemy: Budgetary Balancing Act" prompt lighthearted musings on the symbiotic dance between numerical precision and respiratory well-being, inviting us to consider the kaleidoscopic facets of our research question from a playfully unconventional standpoint.
As we navigate the confluence of academic literature, non-fiction narratives, and whimsical imaginings, we adopt a spirit of intellectual curiosity, embracing the unexpected and allowing our scholarly journey to unfold with a touch of levity.
In the words of a famous philosopher (or perhaps an obscure comic strip character), "In the midst of correlations and equations, a dash of humor may just be the unexpected variable that leads to the most profound discoveries." With this sentiment in mind, we embark on our literature review, guided by the light-hearted allure of unraveling a connection as unlikely as finding a budget analyst discussing inhaler economics with a wheezing walrus.
=*/- THE END -\*=

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8830024 between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children from 2003 to 2019. This finding implies a remarkably strong positive association between these seemingly unrelated variables. The r-squared value of 0.7796933 further emphasizes the robustness of this correlation, indicating that approximately 77.97% of the variation in asthma prevalence can be explained by the number of budget analysts in Delaware. And let's not forget the p-value of less than 0.01, signaling that this relationship is not just a fluke – it's statistically significant!
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) further illustrates the striking correlation, making it clear that this isn't just a case of statistical smoke and mirrors. The plot showcases the dance of data points in a harmonious tango, with the number of budget analysts positively pirouetting alongside the prevalence of asthma in American children. It's a duet of data that may seem surprising at first, but as they say, "Data is where the heart is" – or was it "Data is where the art is"? Well, we'll leave that philosophical conundrum for another paper.
The results of this investigation leave us with an intriguing conundrum – how can the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children be so seamlessly intertwined? It's akin to finding a correlation between umbrellas sold and rainfall in a desert – unexpected and yet undeniably present. But such is the enigmatic allure of research, where every data point is a potential plot twist in the grand narrative of discovery.
In an academic landscape often filled with the solemnity of scholarly pursuits, the unearthing of this correlation reminds us that sometimes, academic explorations can also be whimsical in nature. As we embrace the unexpected connection between the bureaucratic world of budget analysis and the delicate respiratory health of children, we are compelled to recognize that the whimsy of data can lead us down rabbit holes of unexpected merriment.
So, while the connection between budget analysts and asthma prevalence may raise eyebrows and elicit a chuckle or two, our findings pave the way for future investigations into the underlying mechanisms that give rise to this surprising correlation. After all, in the world of research, every unexpected rhyme deserves to be explored, for within its cadence may lie the keys to unlocking new realms of understanding.
In summary, the results of this study highlight an unexpectedly strong correlation between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children, inviting further scrutiny into this quirky and captivating relationship.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study present a compelling case for the surprisingly robust correlation between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children. Our results not only echo the findings of prior research but also lend credence to the uncharted territory of whimsical correlations in the academic landscape.

Our investigation builds upon the foundational works of Smith et al. (2015) and Doe (2017), who uncovered the intricate web of factors influencing public health outcomes and childhood asthma prevalence. By embracing the unexpected connectivity between fiscal policy and pediatric respiratory well-being, our study adds a whimsical twirl to the evolution of scholarly inquiry.

The peculiar rhyme between budget analysts and asthma prevalence, once dismissed as a mere flight of fancy, appears to have found resonance in our empirical findings. While the connection between these variables may initially strike one as reminiscent of a fantastical narrative from the pages of non-fiction works or board games, our results unequivocally demonstrate a statistically significant association, affirming the validity of this whimsical pursuit.

The striking correlation coefficient and r-squared value we unearthed align harmoniously with the notion that the number of budget analysts in Delaware is intricately entwined with the prevalence of asthma in American children. This unexpected duet of data not only supports prior literature but also nudges us to acknowledge the hidden waltz of variables that may lie beneath the surface of seemingly disparate domains.

As we navigate the terrain of interdisciplinary perspectives and unconventional narratives, the findings of our study compel researchers to greet the unexpected correlations with a sense of intellectual curiosity and playfulness. While the connection between budget analysts and asthma prevalence may provoke a quizzical chuckle, our data breathes life into the notion that even the most whimsical of associations may hold scientific merit.

In this colorful tapestry of scholarly exploration, our study emerges as a lighthearted testament to the potential for unexpected rhymes to unravel captivating mysteries. At its core, the publication of these results serves as an invitation to fellow researchers to embrace the whimsy of scholarly pursuits and peel back the layers of seemingly unrelated variables to reveal the enigmatic connections that lie beneath.

In summary, our findings affirm the unexpected correlation between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children, beckoning forth a new era of scholarly examination into this unconventional juxtaposition. It is within these unanticipated tangos of data that the heart of scholarly inquiry may discover the most peculiar and insightful melodies.

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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of budget analysts in Delaware and Asthma prevalence in American children. 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]]
Breath and Budgets: A Rhyme Between Analysts and Asthma in American Children

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the potential link between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics, we embarked on an exploratory journey to uncover any rhyme or reason behind the correlation. Our analysis revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8830024 with p < 0.01, spanning from the years 2003 to 2019. While the association may seem like a mere jest, our findings suggest a curious connection worthy of further investigation.

The pursuit of balancing budgets and breaths may not seem like an obvious pair, but our results beckon a closer inspection of this seemingly whimsical rhyme. As we delve into the intricate dance between these seemingly unrelated variables, we encourage readers to take a deep breath and open their minds to the possibility of unexpected connections. After all, in the world of research, sometimes the most unlikely rhymes yield the most lyrical discoveries.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Introduction
In the vast field of public health and policy analysis, unexpected connections can sometimes surface, leading researchers down uncharted paths of inquiry. One such peculiar pairing comes in the form of the correlation between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children. While this association may initially seem as improbable as a politician's promise during election season, our examination has unearthed a surprisingly robust relationship that demands closer scrutiny.
As the old saying goes, "Follow the data, but don't forget to bring your inhaler." Well, perhaps that's not exactly how the saying goes, but it aptly captures the spirit of our investigation. With one foot planted firmly in the world of economics and the other in the realm of pediatric health, our study ventures into uncharted territory, aiming to shed light on a correlation that, at first blush, feels as incongruous as a budget surplus in a teenager's wallet.
The juxtaposition of bureaucratic number crunching and childhood respiratory ailments may evoke puzzled frowns and raised eyebrows, but as we navigate this curious confluence of variables, we invite our readers to join us in embracing the unexpected. After all, in the midst of the complex mosaic of public health and policy, sometimes the most captivating revelations emerge from the most seemingly implausible sources.
Drawing on a compilation of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics, our study ventures beyond the comfort of conventional research paths, aiming to bring forth findings that may inspire a sense of intellectual whimsy. Though the notion of a connection between budget analysis and asthma prevalence may strike some as improbable, our analysis has uncovered a correlation coefficient that demands attention, like a majestic symphony rising from the unexpected fusing of disparate musical notes.
So, as we set forth on our journey through the intricate maze of numbers and inhalers, we urge our readers to brace themselves for a tale of correlation and causality that may seem as improbable as a unicorn sighting in a cubicle farm. Nevertheless, armed with statistical rigor and a dash of audacity, we boldly step into the realm of "Breath and Budgets," where the numbers breathe life into unexpected revelations and the whimsy of data leads us down unexplored paths of scholarly merriment.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8830024 between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children from 2003 to 2019. This finding implies a remarkably strong positive association between these seemingly unrelated variables. The r-squared value of 0.7796933 further emphasizes the robustness of this correlation, indicating that approximately 77.97% of the variation in asthma prevalence can be explained by the number of budget analysts in Delaware. And let's not forget the p-value of less than 0.01, signaling that this relationship is not just a fluke – it's statistically significant!
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) further illustrates the striking correlation, making it clear that this isn't just a case of statistical smoke and mirrors. The plot showcases the dance of data points in a harmonious tango, with the number of budget analysts positively pirouetting alongside the prevalence of asthma in American children. It's a duet of data that may seem surprising at first, but as they say, "Data is where the heart is" – or was it "Data is where the art is"? Well, we'll leave that philosophical conundrum for another paper.
The results of this investigation leave us with an intriguing conundrum – how can the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children be so seamlessly intertwined? It's akin to finding a correlation between umbrellas sold and rainfall in a desert – unexpected and yet undeniably present. But such is the enigmatic allure of research, where every data point is a potential plot twist in the grand narrative of discovery.
In an academic landscape often filled with the solemnity of scholarly pursuits, the unearthing of this correlation reminds us that sometimes, academic explorations can also be whimsical in nature. As we embrace the unexpected connection between the bureaucratic world of budget analysis and the delicate respiratory health of children, we are compelled to recognize that the whimsy of data can lead us down rabbit holes of unexpected merriment.
So, while the connection between budget analysts and asthma prevalence may raise eyebrows and elicit a chuckle or two, our findings pave the way for future investigations into the underlying mechanisms that give rise to this surprising correlation. After all, in the world of research, every unexpected rhyme deserves to be explored, for within its cadence may lie the keys to unlocking new realms of understanding.
In summary, the results of this study highlight an unexpectedly strong correlation between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children, inviting further scrutiny into this quirky and captivating relationship.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, the interplay between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children has left us pondering a correlation as perplexing as discovering a yeti in a spreadsheet. Our findings reveal a robust and statistically significant association that raises eyebrows as much as it raises questions. It's like stumbling upon a treasure map in a tax code – unexpected and intriguing.

The implications of this correlation are as subtle as a bull in a china shop, yet as thought-provoking as a riddle whispered by an economist. It prompts us to consider the unseen threads that weave bureaucratic number crunching and pediatric respiratory health into an unexpected tapestry of interconnectedness.

While the prospect of deeper dives into the whimsical realm of budget analysts and childhood asthma may seem as daunting as a tax audit, our study beckons future explorations with the promise of uncovering the hidden melodies in this duet of data. Yet, like a joke that doesn't need explaining, it is clear that the correlation we've uncovered is as real as a dollar bill – or a puff of albuterol.

We have unearthed a peculiar pairing that not only challenges preconceptions but also elicits a sense of academic mirth. As we close the book on this chapter of research, it becomes increasingly apparent that the melody of data holds a symphony of surprises, where even the most unexpected correlations can harmonize into a chorus of intellectual revelation.

As for the future, we declare with boldness and a hint of whimsy that the investigation of this correlation shall rest here. The connection between budget analysts and asthma prevalence has been dissected, scrutinized, and laid bare, akin to a jigsaw puzzle completed with finesse. So, let us bid adieu to this curious rhyme, for in the realm of correlations, this particular liaison has been thoroughly serenaded and no encore is needed.

In the words of the great statisticians of yore, "Correlation does not imply causation, but it certainly can imply fascination." And with that, we close the ledger on this capricious journey, content in the knowledge that even in the most unlikely pairings, the waltz of data can lead to revelations as delightful as a surprise limerick at an economic summit.

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 Breath and Budgets: A Rhyme Between Analysts and Asthma in American Children. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Respiratory Economics

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 Breath and Budgets: A Rhyme Between Analysts and Asthma in American Children. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Respiratory Health and Economic Policy

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 Breath and Budgets: A Rhyme Between Analysts and Asthma in American Children with an abstract of This study investigates the potential link between the number of budget analysts in Delaware and the prevalence of asthma in American children. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Center for Health Statistics, we embarked on an exploratory journey to uncover any rhyme or reason behind the correlation. Our analysis revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8830024 with p < 0.01, spanning from the years 2003 to 2019. While the association may seem like a mere jest, our findings suggest a curious connection worthy of further investigation.
The pursuit of balancing budgets and breaths may not seem like an obvious pair, but our results beckon a closer inspection of this seemingly whimsical rhyme. As we delve into the intricate dance between these seemingly unrelated variables, we encourage readers to take a deep breath and open their minds to the possibility of unexpected connections. After all, in the world of research, sometimes the most unlikely rhymes yield the most lyrical discoveries.

ChatGPT:

budget analysts, Delaware, asthma prevalence, American children, correlation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, correlation coefficient, exploratory study, unexpected connections, research, data analysis, public health, occupational health, asthma 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 budget analysts in Delaware
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of budget analysts in Delaware
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of budget analysts in Delaware

Asthma prevalence in American children
Detailed data title: Percent of girls under 18 in the US who have asthma
Source: National Center for Health Statistics
See what else correlates with Asthma prevalence in American children

Correlation r = 0.8830024 (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 = 0.7796933 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 78% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Asthma prevalence in American children) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of budget analysts in Delaware) over the 17 years from 2003 through 2019.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.7E-6.^Show 0.0000026695362951277370000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note 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 0.88 in 0.00027% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 374,597 random variables^Note You don't actually need 374 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 16 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 16 because we have two variables measured over a period of 17 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.

[ 0.7, 0.96 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} 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: ^Note 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.

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
The number of budget analysts in Delaware (Budget Analysts)	140	130	140	140	150	140	140	140	150	160	140	130	120	140	130	130	120
Asthma prevalence in American children (Percent of children)	7.5	6.7	7.8	7.5	8.5	7.4	7.9	8.2	8.8	8.6	7.3	7	6.9	7.4	7.3	6.7	5.5

Why this works

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.
Lack of causal connection: There is probably^Note 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.
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^Note 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. ^{Show the steps to do this.} 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([140,130,140,140,150,140,140,140,150,160,140,130,120,140,130,130,120,])
array_2 = np.array([7.5,6.7,7.8,7.5,8.5,7.4,7.9,8.2,8.8,8.6,7.3,7,6.9,7.4,7.3,6.7,5.5,])
array_1_name = "The number of budget analysts in Delaware"
array_2_name = "Asthma prevalence in American children"

# 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. ^Note 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:

High resolution line chart ^Note The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.

If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.

Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
Alternative high resolution line chart
Scatterplot
Portable line chart (png)
Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
Line chart for only The number of budget analysts in Delaware
Line chart for only Asthma prevalence in American children
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Breath and Budgets: A Rhyme Between Analysts and Asthma in American Children

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your correlation rating is out of this world!

Correlation ID: 4248 · Black Variable ID: 6117 · Red Variable ID: 1139


Problem variable:
Issue:
Additional details: Optional
Confirm you are a human: