Spurious correlation #1,107 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Google searches for 'how to annex texas' and the second variable is The number of phlebotomists in Georgia. The chart goes from 2012 to 2022, 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 Google searches for 'how to annex texas' and the second variable is The number of phlebotomists in Georgia. The chart goes from 2012 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

As the obsession with annexing Texas grew, so did the need for bloodletting experts in Georgia to prepare for the impending battle for Texan territory. Remember, it's all fun and games until someone tries to annex Texas!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [Inspired by bauhaus], create an image of a chaotic Texas office building filled with workers huddled around computer screens, displaying "how to annex Texas" searches. In the midst of the scene, a line of phlebotomists in lab coats can be seen migrating towards Georgia, their movement capturing the increasing demand for their services. 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: Google searches for 'how to annex texas' and The number of phlebotomists in Georgia. 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: a meme Oragami Voxel art Minimalism inspired by bauhaus
ChatGPT: inspired by bauhaus

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 Google searches for 'how to annex texas' and The number of phlebotomists in Georgia, in the following situation: As more people in Texas searched for ways to join Georgia, the demand for phlebotomists surged as the newcomers realized they needed someone to help them get their blood "georgia" on paper. This prompted a migration of phlebotomists from Texas to Georgia, leading to an increase in the number of phlebotomists in Georgia.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a crowded Texas office building, people huddle around their computers with "how to annex texas" searches on their screens. Meanwhile, a line of phlebotomists can be seen heading towards Georgia, their lab coats fluttering as they migrate to meet the increasing demand for their services.

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: [ inspired by bauhaus ] and depicting this scene: In a crowded Texas office building, people huddle around their computers with "how to annex texas" searches on their screens. Meanwhile, a line of phlebotomists can be seen heading towards Georgia, their lab coats fluttering as they migrate to meet the increasing demand for their services. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [Inspired by bauhaus], create an image of a chaotic Texas office building filled with workers huddled around computer screens, displaying "how to annex Texas" searches. In the midst of the scene, a line of phlebotomists in lab coats can be seen migrating towards Georgia, their movement capturing the increasing demand for their services.

*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 an increase in how to annex texas (Google searches for 'how to annex texas') caused The number of phlebotomists in Georgia to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

Drawing Bloodlines: The Correlation Between Google Searches for 'How to Annex Texas' and the Number of Phlebotomists in Georgia

The Journal of Unconventional Data Analysis

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 Google searches for 'how to annex texas' and The number of phlebotomists in Georgia. 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 name some movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Drawing Bloodlines: The Correlation Between Google Searches for 'How to Annex Texas' and the Number of Phlebotomists in Georgia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dive into the curious world of internet searches and professional healthcare trends. Our research team, armed with data from Google Trends and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, set out to unravel the mystery behind the correlation, if any, between Google users' inquiries about Texas annexation and the abundance of phlebotomists in the state of Georgia. While one may initially view this connection as unlikely as a cat walking on a tightrope, our findings unveiled a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 with p < 0.01 over the period from 2012 to 2022.

Our analysis sheds light on the whimsical and often inexplicable pathways of human curiosity and how they may inadvertently reflect broader societal trends. While we cannot claim causation, the undeniable statistical link between Texan territorial ponderings and the demand for blood-drawing professionals in the Peach State offers an intriguing puzzle for further investigation. Our findings provoke not only thoughtful consideration but also a chuckle at the bizarre connections that emerge when one delves into the enigmatic world of data analysis.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In the ever-expanding realm of data analysis, there are few things more perplexing than the unpredictable whims of human curiosity. Our research aims to shed light on a seemingly unlikely correlation, one that could be considered as improbable as finding a unicorn with a nose for statistics – the connection between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia.
As we embark on this scientific escapade, it is important to point out that this study is not just a game of connecting the dots – although, if we were, we’d surely have a masterpiece worthy of any kindergarten fridge gallery. Instead, we are diving headfirst into the ocean of internet searches and professional healthcare trends, armed with the double-edged swords of Google Trends data and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Our investigation is not merely academic, but also a journey into the uncharted territory of quirky correlations and unexpected revelations. We initially approached this endeavor with the skepticism of a cat eyeing a cucumber, but what we discovered left us as stunned as a scientist realizing they forgot to carry the one in their calculations.
With all due seriousness, though, it is crucial to recognize that correlation does not imply causation – much like how finding a correlation between the abundance of phlebotomists in Georgia and the price of tea in China would not suggest a meaningful connection. Nevertheless, our findings uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 with p < 0.01 over the period from 2012 to 2022, suggesting that there is more to this peculiar connection than meets the eye.
Ultimately, our research seeks to unravel the mysterious and, at times, comically idiosyncratic pathways of human inquiry and pondering. We invite the reader to join us on this humorous and thought-provoking journey through the data-driven domain, where unexpected correlations and statistical curiosities await. Let us indulge not only in the quest for knowledge, but also in a good laugh at the capricious nature of the scientific pursuit.
So, buckle up, dear reader, and prepare to embark on a ride through the whimsical world of numerical curiosities and statistical surprises. With a bit of luck and a dash of scientific rigor, we just might uncover some unexpected connections that will leave us both enlightened and amused.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

To comprehend the inexplicable nexus between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the prevalence of phlebotomists in Georgia, it is crucial to survey the existing body of literature on seemingly unrelated correlations. Smith et al. (2016) delved into the enigmatic world of internet searches and societal trends, although their focus was more on the association between online shopping for gardening tools and the consumption of kale smoothies. However, their methodological approach and analytical frameworks may offer valuable insights for our investigation. On the other hand, Doe and Jones (2019) explored the correlation between state-level discussions on time travel and the abundance of chiropractors, paving the way for a deeper understanding of peculiar societal interests and their impact on healthcare professions.

Transitioning to a more complex dimension of our inquiry, "The Art of Annexation" by Lorem Ipsum (2015) presents historical narratives of territorial expansions, albeit without direct relevance to phlebotomy trends in Georgia. Nevertheless, the parallels drawn between the strategic maneuvers of nation-states and the delicate nature of drawing blood for medical purposes invite a whimsical juxtaposition. In a slightly different vein, "Annexation Anecdotes" by Ipsum Lorem (2018) explores fictional accounts of boundary disputes and power grabs, providing a creative backdrop for contemplating the intersection between geopolitical musings and the demand for phlebotomists in the American South.

Shifting gears to a more visual medium, the classic film "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974) might seem tangentially related at first glance, but its portrayal of unexpected encounters and swift, decisive actions resonates with the unpredictable nature of statistical correlations. Furthermore, "The Nutty Professor" (1996) offers a comedic take on scientific exploration and its unintended consequences, serving as a lighthearted reminder of the multifaceted nature of empirical inquiry.

As we wade through this eclectic array of sources, it becomes apparent that while our investigation may initially appear as unconventional as a platypus at a penguin convention, it is essential to embrace the peculiarities of human curiosity and statistical surprises. With a touch of whimsy and a healthy dose of rigorous analysis, our quest for understanding will undoubtedly lead to both insightful revelations and a few chuckles along the way.

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 Google searches for 'how to annex texas' and The number of phlebotomists in Georgia. 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 Google Trends and Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2012 to 2022

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Drawing Bloodlines: The Correlation Between Google Searches for 'How to Annex Texas' and the Number of Phlebotomists in Georgia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dive into the curious world of internet searches and professional healthcare trends. Our research team, armed with data from Google Trends and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, set out to unravel the mystery behind the correlation, if any, between Google users' inquiries about Texas annexation and the abundance of phlebotomists in the state of Georgia. While one may initially view this connection as unlikely as a cat walking on a tightrope, our findings unveiled a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 with p < 0.01 over the period from 2012 to 2022.

Our analysis sheds light on the whimsical and often inexplicable pathways of human curiosity and how they may inadvertently reflect broader societal trends. While we cannot claim causation, the undeniable statistical link between Texan territorial ponderings and the demand for blood-drawing professionals in the Peach State offers an intriguing puzzle for further investigation. Our findings provoke not only thoughtful consideration but also a chuckle at the bizarre connections that emerge when one delves into the enigmatic world of data analysis.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In the ever-expanding realm of data analysis, there are few things more perplexing than the unpredictable whims of human curiosity. Our research aims to shed light on a seemingly unlikely correlation, one that could be considered as improbable as finding a unicorn with a nose for statistics – the connection between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia.
As we embark on this scientific escapade, it is important to point out that this study is not just a game of connecting the dots – although, if we were, we’d surely have a masterpiece worthy of any kindergarten fridge gallery. Instead, we are diving headfirst into the ocean of internet searches and professional healthcare trends, armed with the double-edged swords of Google Trends data and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Our investigation is not merely academic, but also a journey into the uncharted territory of quirky correlations and unexpected revelations. We initially approached this endeavor with the skepticism of a cat eyeing a cucumber, but what we discovered left us as stunned as a scientist realizing they forgot to carry the one in their calculations.
With all due seriousness, though, it is crucial to recognize that correlation does not imply causation – much like how finding a correlation between the abundance of phlebotomists in Georgia and the price of tea in China would not suggest a meaningful connection. Nevertheless, our findings uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 with p < 0.01 over the period from 2012 to 2022, suggesting that there is more to this peculiar connection than meets the eye.
Ultimately, our research seeks to unravel the mysterious and, at times, comically idiosyncratic pathways of human inquiry and pondering. We invite the reader to join us on this humorous and thought-provoking journey through the data-driven domain, where unexpected correlations and statistical curiosities await. Let us indulge not only in the quest for knowledge, but also in a good laugh at the capricious nature of the scientific pursuit.
So, buckle up, dear reader, and prepare to embark on a ride through the whimsical world of numerical curiosities and statistical surprises. With a bit of luck and a dash of scientific rigor, we just might uncover some unexpected connections that will leave us both enlightened and amused.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

To unravel the enigmatic connection between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia, our research team embarked on a data collection odyssey worthy of an Indiana Jones adventure. We scoured the digital realm, navigating the treacherous terrain of Google Trends and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in search of the elusive numerical artifacts that would shed light on this peculiar correlation.

The Google Trends platform served as our compass through the wilderness of online inquiries, allowing us to chart the ebb and flow of searches related to the annexation of Texas. We cast our net wide, spanning the years from 2012 to 2022, capturing the zeitgeist of territorial contemplations that ebbed and flowed like a statistical symphony.

On the other hand, the Bureau of Labor Statistics provided us with the essential ammunition in our quest – data on the number of phlebotomists in the state of Georgia. Like intrepid explorers in the realm of healthcare statistics, we navigated the sea of numbers, seeking correlations that would rival the legendary tales of yore.

Data Analysis

With our troves of data in hand, we initiated the alchemical process of data analysis, blending the potent ingredients of Google search trends and phlebotomist employment figures. Our statistical cauldron bubbled and simmered, concocting a brew of correlation coefficients and p-values with a dash of scientific flair.

The correlation analysis, akin to a mystical divination of numerical tea leaves, revealed a surprising connection between the two seemingly disparate variables. Like dueling magicians, we wielded the statistical wand and uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9522486, bearing the mark of significance with p < 0.01. The significance of this finding shimmered like a statistical gem, defying expectations and eliciting both awe and amusement from our research cohort.

Limitations and Other Perils

As with any voyage into the uncharted territory of quirky correlations, our expedition encountered its fair share of challenges. The ever-looming specter of confounding variables and spurious correlations shadowed our every step, much like the ghostly apparitions haunting a statistical manor.

Furthermore, we remained vigilant against the siren song of causation, recognizing the perilous precipice upon which correlation teeters. Like gallant knights of scientific prudence, we brandished the shield of caution and restrained our enthusiasm for attributing causality to this quirky correlation.

Ultimately, our methodology, while not without its whimsical quirks, upheld the standards of rigorous scientific inquiry, albeit with a generous sprinkle of humor and mirth. As we ventured through the labyrinth of data collection and analysis, we confronted the unexpected with open minds and a healthy dose of levity, embracing the peculiarities of our pursuit with the zeal of scientific adventurers charting new territories of knowledge.

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 Google searches for 'how to annex texas' and The number of phlebotomists in Georgia. 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 Google Trends and Bureau of Larbor Statistics .

For the time period 2012 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9522486, r-squared of 0.9067774, 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]]
"Drawing Bloodlines: The Correlation Between Google Searches for 'How to Annex Texas' and the Number of Phlebotomists in Georgia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dive into the curious world of internet searches and professional healthcare trends. Our research team, armed with data from Google Trends and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, set out to unravel the mystery behind the correlation, if any, between Google users' inquiries about Texas annexation and the abundance of phlebotomists in the state of Georgia. While one may initially view this connection as unlikely as a cat walking on a tightrope, our findings unveiled a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 with p < 0.01 over the period from 2012 to 2022.

Our analysis sheds light on the whimsical and often inexplicable pathways of human curiosity and how they may inadvertently reflect broader societal trends. While we cannot claim causation, the undeniable statistical link between Texan territorial ponderings and the demand for blood-drawing professionals in the Peach State offers an intriguing puzzle for further investigation. Our findings provoke not only thoughtful consideration but also a chuckle at the bizarre connections that emerge when one delves into the enigmatic world of data analysis.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
In the ever-expanding realm of data analysis, there are few things more perplexing than the unpredictable whims of human curiosity. Our research aims to shed light on a seemingly unlikely correlation, one that could be considered as improbable as finding a unicorn with a nose for statistics – the connection between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia.
As we embark on this scientific escapade, it is important to point out that this study is not just a game of connecting the dots – although, if we were, we’d surely have a masterpiece worthy of any kindergarten fridge gallery. Instead, we are diving headfirst into the ocean of internet searches and professional healthcare trends, armed with the double-edged swords of Google Trends data and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Our investigation is not merely academic, but also a journey into the uncharted territory of quirky correlations and unexpected revelations. We initially approached this endeavor with the skepticism of a cat eyeing a cucumber, but what we discovered left us as stunned as a scientist realizing they forgot to carry the one in their calculations.
With all due seriousness, though, it is crucial to recognize that correlation does not imply causation – much like how finding a correlation between the abundance of phlebotomists in Georgia and the price of tea in China would not suggest a meaningful connection. Nevertheless, our findings uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 with p < 0.01 over the period from 2012 to 2022, suggesting that there is more to this peculiar connection than meets the eye.
Ultimately, our research seeks to unravel the mysterious and, at times, comically idiosyncratic pathways of human inquiry and pondering. We invite the reader to join us on this humorous and thought-provoking journey through the data-driven domain, where unexpected correlations and statistical curiosities await. Let us indulge not only in the quest for knowledge, but also in a good laugh at the capricious nature of the scientific pursuit.
So, buckle up, dear reader, and prepare to embark on a ride through the whimsical world of numerical curiosities and statistical surprises. With a bit of luck and a dash of scientific rigor, we just might uncover some unexpected connections that will leave us both enlightened and amused.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]

ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our statistical analysis revealed a strong and eyebrow-raising correlation between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia over the period from 2012 to 2022. The correlation coefficient was calculated at a surprising 0.9522486, with an r-squared value of 0.9067774 and a p-value less than 0.01.

As shown in Figure 1, the scatterplot depicts the remarkable relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables. It's as though the data points are holding hands and skipping down a path that leads straight to the nexus of Texan annexation musings and the demand for phlebotomy expertise in the peachy state of Georgia.

The strength of this correlation would make even the most skeptical scientist raise an eyebrow higher than a statistical outlier. It's like discovering a hidden treasure chest of numerical synchronicity in a sea of unpredictable data. If this correlation were a contestant in a talent show, it would undoubtedly dazzle the judges with its unexpected charm.

While the nature of this correlation may elicit a chuckle or two, it also reminds us of the wondrous and often inexplicable facets of human curiosity. How the ponderings of Texan annexation could be intertwined with the need for blood-drawing specialists in Georgia remains a delightful enigma that beckons further exploration.

However, it's important to don the hat of statistical caution and remember that correlation does not equate to causation. Just as finding a correlation between the price of ice cream and the number of drownings does not imply a frozen treat-induced aquatic peril, we cannot leap to conclusions about the causal link between Texas-related searches and the phlebotomy landscape in Georgia.

Nonetheless, this unexpected correlation piques our scientific curiosity, adding a touch of whimsy to the often serious world of research and analysis. It's as if the data itself is nudging us with a mischievous smile, whispering, "Not everything is as it seems in the realm of statistical patterns." And we gladly accept the invitation to unpack this peculiar puzzle and perhaps uncover more surprising connections in the intricate tapestry of data.

In summary, the results of our analysis unearth an amusing yet thought-provoking correlation between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia. It serves as a lighthearted reminder that beneath the surface of numbers and trends, there's a touch of whimsy and wonder awaiting those who dare to delve into the depths of data analysis.

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 Google searches for 'how to annex texas' and The number of phlebotomists in Georgia. 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]]
"Drawing Bloodlines: The Correlation Between Google Searches for 'How to Annex Texas' and the Number of Phlebotomists in Georgia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dive into the curious world of internet searches and professional healthcare trends. Our research team, armed with data from Google Trends and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, set out to unravel the mystery behind the correlation, if any, between Google users' inquiries about Texas annexation and the abundance of phlebotomists in the state of Georgia. While one may initially view this connection as unlikely as a cat walking on a tightrope, our findings unveiled a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 with p < 0.01 over the period from 2012 to 2022.

Our analysis sheds light on the whimsical and often inexplicable pathways of human curiosity and how they may inadvertently reflect broader societal trends. While we cannot claim causation, the undeniable statistical link between Texan territorial ponderings and the demand for blood-drawing professionals in the Peach State offers an intriguing puzzle for further investigation. Our findings provoke not only thoughtful consideration but also a chuckle at the bizarre connections that emerge when one delves into the enigmatic world of data analysis.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
To comprehend the inexplicable nexus between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the prevalence of phlebotomists in Georgia, it is crucial to survey the existing body of literature on seemingly unrelated correlations. Smith et al. (2016) delved into the enigmatic world of internet searches and societal trends, although their focus was more on the association between online shopping for gardening tools and the consumption of kale smoothies. However, their methodological approach and analytical frameworks may offer valuable insights for our investigation. On the other hand, Doe and Jones (2019) explored the correlation between state-level discussions on time travel and the abundance of chiropractors, paving the way for a deeper understanding of peculiar societal interests and their impact on healthcare professions.
Transitioning to a more complex dimension of our inquiry, "The Art of Annexation" by Lorem Ipsum (2015) presents historical narratives of territorial expansions, albeit without direct relevance to phlebotomy trends in Georgia. Nevertheless, the parallels drawn between the strategic maneuvers of nation-states and the delicate nature of drawing blood for medical purposes invite a whimsical juxtaposition. In a slightly different vein, "Annexation Anecdotes" by Ipsum Lorem (2018) explores fictional accounts of boundary disputes and power grabs, providing a creative backdrop for contemplating the intersection between geopolitical musings and the demand for phlebotomists in the American South.
Shifting gears to a more visual medium, the classic film "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974) might seem tangentially related at first glance, but its portrayal of unexpected encounters and swift, decisive actions resonates with the unpredictable nature of statistical correlations. Furthermore, "The Nutty Professor" (1996) offers a comedic take on scientific exploration and its unintended consequences, serving as a lighthearted reminder of the multifaceted nature of empirical inquiry.
As we wade through this eclectic array of sources, it becomes apparent that while our investigation may initially appear as unconventional as a platypus at a penguin convention, it is essential to embrace the peculiarities of human curiosity and statistical surprises. With a touch of whimsy and a healthy dose of rigorous analysis, our quest for understanding will undoubtedly lead to both insightful revelations and a few chuckles along the way.

[[RESULTS]]
Our statistical analysis revealed a strong and eyebrow-raising correlation between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia over the period from 2012 to 2022. The correlation coefficient was calculated at a surprising 0.9522486, with an r-squared value of 0.9067774 and a p-value less than 0.01.
As shown in Figure 1, the scatterplot depicts the remarkable relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables. It's as though the data points are holding hands and skipping down a path that leads straight to the nexus of Texan annexation musings and the demand for phlebotomy expertise in the peachy state of Georgia.
The strength of this correlation would make even the most skeptical scientist raise an eyebrow higher than a statistical outlier. It's like discovering a hidden treasure chest of numerical synchronicity in a sea of unpredictable data. If this correlation were a contestant in a talent show, it would undoubtedly dazzle the judges with its unexpected charm.
While the nature of this correlation may elicit a chuckle or two, it also reminds us of the wondrous and often inexplicable facets of human curiosity. How the ponderings of Texan annexation could be intertwined with the need for blood-drawing specialists in Georgia remains a delightful enigma that beckons further exploration.
However, it's important to don the hat of statistical caution and remember that correlation does not equate to causation. Just as finding a correlation between the price of ice cream and the number of drownings does not imply a frozen treat-induced aquatic peril, we cannot leap to conclusions about the causal link between Texas-related searches and the phlebotomy landscape in Georgia.
Nonetheless, this unexpected correlation piques our scientific curiosity, adding a touch of whimsy to the often serious world of research and analysis. It's as if the data itself is nudging us with a mischievous smile, whispering, "Not everything is as it seems in the realm of statistical patterns." And we gladly accept the invitation to unpack this peculiar puzzle and perhaps uncover more surprising connections in the intricate tapestry of data.
In summary, the results of our analysis unearth an amusing yet thought-provoking correlation between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia. It serves as a lighthearted reminder that beneath the surface of numbers and trends, there's a touch of whimsy and wonder awaiting those who dare to delve into the depths of data analysis.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study have unveiled a correlation that is as unexpected as finding a penguin in the desert – Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia are linked in a manner that defies conventional expectations. This surprising connection begs the question: could the territorial musings of the Lone Star State truly influence the demand for blood-drawing specialists in the peachy expanse of Georgia?

Our findings align with the previous research that dared to venture into the whimsical realm of correlated curiosities. Much like the studies of Smith et al. (2016) and Doe and Jones (2019), which explored seemingly unusual connections between online shopping for gardening tools and kale smoothie consumption, as well as state-level discussions on time travel and the prevalence of chiropractors, our investigation illuminates the enthralling interplay between seemingly disparate societal interests and their influence on professional landscapes. Who knew that pondering the annexation of Texas could be as influential as a finely crafted kale smoothie or discussions about time travel? It's as though the scatterplot of human curiosity is filled with delightful surprises akin to a chocolate-covered statistical strawberry.

The strong correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 with a p-value less than 0.01 sings a tale of statistical synchronicity that would make even the most seasoned researcher raise an eyebrow higher than the p-value itself. The visuals offered by the scatterplot evoke an image of data points gleefully frolicking hand in hand, dancing to a statistical tune that beckons further investigation. It's like witnessing the birth of a mathematical romance novel, with the characters of Texas annexation queries and Georgia-based phlebotomists embarking on an enthralling statistical journey.

Admittedly, the notion of Texan territorial ponderings influencing the professional landscape of Georgia may elicit a chuckle or two. After all, the idea of geopolitical musings leading to an increased demand for blood-drawing expertise could rival the unlikeliness of a platypus at a penguin convention. However, let us not forget the inherent whimsy that lurks in the world of research and analysis. Just as the unexpected plot twists in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" captivate audiences, our statistical revelations remind us of the delightful enigma that is human curiosity and the captivating surprises it holds.

While our findings provoke both thoughtful consideration and a good-natured chuckle, it is important to approach them with due diligence. Correlation does not imply causation, and just as the correlation between the price of ice cream and the number of drownings does not imply frozen treat-induced aquatic peril, we must approach the relationship between Texas-related searches and the phlebotomy landscape in Georgia with statistical caution – albeit with a touch of whimsy.

In conclusion, our study not only unravels a captivating statistical correlation but also emphasizes the light-hearted side of scientific exploration. It's as if the data itself is inviting us to delve deeper into the delightful enigma of statistical patterns and unearth more surprising connections – a whimsical adventure that promises to add a touch of wonder to the often serious world of empirical 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 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 Google searches for 'how to annex texas' and The number of phlebotomists in Georgia. 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]]
"Drawing Bloodlines: The Correlation Between Google Searches for 'How to Annex Texas' and the Number of Phlebotomists in Georgia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dive into the curious world of internet searches and professional healthcare trends. Our research team, armed with data from Google Trends and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, set out to unravel the mystery behind the correlation, if any, between Google users' inquiries about Texas annexation and the abundance of phlebotomists in the state of Georgia. While one may initially view this connection as unlikely as a cat walking on a tightrope, our findings unveiled a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 with p < 0.01 over the period from 2012 to 2022.

Our analysis sheds light on the whimsical and often inexplicable pathways of human curiosity and how they may inadvertently reflect broader societal trends. While we cannot claim causation, the undeniable statistical link between Texan territorial ponderings and the demand for blood-drawing professionals in the Peach State offers an intriguing puzzle for further investigation. Our findings provoke not only thoughtful consideration but also a chuckle at the bizarre connections that emerge when one delves into the enigmatic world of data analysis.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In the ever-expanding realm of data analysis, there are few things more perplexing than the unpredictable whims of human curiosity. Our research aims to shed light on a seemingly unlikely correlation, one that could be considered as improbable as finding a unicorn with a nose for statistics – the connection between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia.
As we embark on this scientific escapade, it is important to point out that this study is not just a game of connecting the dots – although, if we were, we’d surely have a masterpiece worthy of any kindergarten fridge gallery. Instead, we are diving headfirst into the ocean of internet searches and professional healthcare trends, armed with the double-edged swords of Google Trends data and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Our investigation is not merely academic, but also a journey into the uncharted territory of quirky correlations and unexpected revelations. We initially approached this endeavor with the skepticism of a cat eyeing a cucumber, but what we discovered left us as stunned as a scientist realizing they forgot to carry the one in their calculations.
With all due seriousness, though, it is crucial to recognize that correlation does not imply causation – much like how finding a correlation between the abundance of phlebotomists in Georgia and the price of tea in China would not suggest a meaningful connection. Nevertheless, our findings uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 with p < 0.01 over the period from 2012 to 2022, suggesting that there is more to this peculiar connection than meets the eye.
Ultimately, our research seeks to unravel the mysterious and, at times, comically idiosyncratic pathways of human inquiry and pondering. We invite the reader to join us on this humorous and thought-provoking journey through the data-driven domain, where unexpected correlations and statistical curiosities await. Let us indulge not only in the quest for knowledge, but also in a good laugh at the capricious nature of the scientific pursuit.
So, buckle up, dear reader, and prepare to embark on a ride through the whimsical world of numerical curiosities and statistical surprises. With a bit of luck and a dash of scientific rigor, we just might uncover some unexpected connections that will leave us both enlightened and amused.

[[RESULTS]]
Our statistical analysis revealed a strong and eyebrow-raising correlation between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia over the period from 2012 to 2022. The correlation coefficient was calculated at a surprising 0.9522486, with an r-squared value of 0.9067774 and a p-value less than 0.01.
As shown in Figure 1, the scatterplot depicts the remarkable relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables. It's as though the data points are holding hands and skipping down a path that leads straight to the nexus of Texan annexation musings and the demand for phlebotomy expertise in the peachy state of Georgia.
The strength of this correlation would make even the most skeptical scientist raise an eyebrow higher than a statistical outlier. It's like discovering a hidden treasure chest of numerical synchronicity in a sea of unpredictable data. If this correlation were a contestant in a talent show, it would undoubtedly dazzle the judges with its unexpected charm.
While the nature of this correlation may elicit a chuckle or two, it also reminds us of the wondrous and often inexplicable facets of human curiosity. How the ponderings of Texan annexation could be intertwined with the need for blood-drawing specialists in Georgia remains a delightful enigma that beckons further exploration.
However, it's important to don the hat of statistical caution and remember that correlation does not equate to causation. Just as finding a correlation between the price of ice cream and the number of drownings does not imply a frozen treat-induced aquatic peril, we cannot leap to conclusions about the causal link between Texas-related searches and the phlebotomy landscape in Georgia.
Nonetheless, this unexpected correlation piques our scientific curiosity, adding a touch of whimsy to the often serious world of research and analysis. It's as if the data itself is nudging us with a mischievous smile, whispering, "Not everything is as it seems in the realm of statistical patterns." And we gladly accept the invitation to unpack this peculiar puzzle and perhaps uncover more surprising connections in the intricate tapestry of data.
In summary, the results of our analysis unearth an amusing yet thought-provoking correlation between Google searches for "How to Annex Texas" and the number of phlebotomists in Georgia. It serves as a lighthearted reminder that beneath the surface of numbers and trends, there's a touch of whimsy and wonder awaiting those who dare to delve into the depths of data analysis.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

CONCLUSION

Well, dear reader, it seems we've stumbled upon a statistical oddity more intriguing than a unicorn playing a game of Dungeons & Dragons. Our findings not only revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 between "How to Annex Texas" searches and the abundance of phlebotomists in Georgia, but they also added a dash of whimsy to the usually staid world of data analysis.

The connection between Texan territorial ruminations and the demand for blood-drawing aficionados in the Peach State is as unexpected as finding a rogue data point that just can't seem to fit in with the rest of the crowd. It's like witnessing a tango between two variables that, on the surface, seem as different as chalk and cheese.

However, let's not toss caution to the winds like an outlier in a scatterplot. Though our correlation is as real as a lab-grown diamond, we must remember that correlation, no matter how fascinating, does not imply causation. Just as finding a correlation between the number of pirates and global warming doesn't mean swashbuckling leads to rising temperatures, we can't jump to conclusions about the roots of this curious relationship.

So, as we wrap up this delightful dalliance with statistical curiosities, we assert that no further research is needed in this area. We'll leave this confounding connection between Texan annexation thoughts and Georgia's phlebotomy scene as an enigmatic treasure for future generations to ponder. After all, in the ever-evolving canvas of research, sometimes a touch of bemusing mystery keeps the scientific journey as captivating as a magic show.

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 Drawing Bloodlines: The Correlation Between Google Searches for 'How to Annex Texas' and the Number of Phlebotomists in Georgia. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Unconventional Data Analysis

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 Drawing Bloodlines: The Correlation Between Google Searches for 'How to Annex Texas' and the Number of Phlebotomists in Georgia. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Comparative Search Engine Studies

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Drawing Bloodlines: The Correlation Between Google Searches for 'How to Annex Texas' and the Number of Phlebotomists in Georgia with an abstract of In this study, we dive into the curious world of internet searches and professional healthcare trends. Our research team, armed with data from Google Trends and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, set out to unravel the mystery behind the correlation, if any, between Google users' inquiries about Texas annexation and the abundance of phlebotomists in the state of Georgia. While one may initially view this connection as unlikely as a cat walking on a tightrope, our findings unveiled a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9522486 with p < 0.01 over the period from 2012 to 2022.
Our analysis sheds light on the whimsical and often inexplicable pathways of human curiosity and how they may inadvertently reflect broader societal trends. While we cannot claim causation, the undeniable statistical link between Texan territorial ponderings and the demand for blood-drawing professionals in the Peach State offers an intriguing puzzle for further investigation. Our findings provoke not only thoughtful consideration but also a chuckle at the bizarre connections that emerge when one delves into the enigmatic world of data analysis.

ChatGPT:

Google searches, 'How to Annex Texas', phlebotomists, Georgia, correlation, Google Trends, Bureau of Labor Statistics, internet searches, healthcare trends, territorial ponderings, blood-drawing professionals

*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

Google searches for 'how to annex texas'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'how to annex texas' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: ^{See full details} Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to annex texas'

The number of phlebotomists in Georgia
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of phlebotomists in Georgia
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of phlebotomists in Georgia

Correlation r = 0.9522486 (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 = 0.9067774 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 90.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of phlebotomists in Georgia) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Google searches for 'how to annex texas') over the 11 years from 2012 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.21E-6.^Show 0.0000062071187841889380000000
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 0.95 in 0.000621% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 161,105 random variables^Note You don't actually need 161 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 10 degrees of freedom, ^Note 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.

[ 0.82, 0.99 ] 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.

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Google searches for 'how to annex texas' (Rel. search volume)	6.08333	9.25	8.66667	9.58333	8.5	9	10.5	9.66667	11.5833	11	14.6667
The number of phlebotomists in Georgia (Phlebotomists)	2890	3510	3560	3690	3500	3880	4390	4350	4430	4640	5460

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([6.08333,9.25,8.66667,9.58333,8.5,9,10.5,9.66667,11.5833,11,14.6667,])
array_2 = np.array([2890,3510,3560,3690,3500,3880,4390,4350,4430,4640,5460,])
array_1_name = "Google searches for 'how to annex texas'"
array_2_name = "The number of phlebotomists in Georgia"

# 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 Google searches for 'how to annex texas'
Line chart for only The number of phlebotomists in Georgia
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Drawing Bloodlines: The Correlation Between Google Searches for 'How to Annex Texas' and the Number of Phlebotomists in Georgia

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your correlation inspection deserves a standing ovation!

Correlation ID: 1107 · Black Variable ID: 1477 · Red Variable ID: 19008


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