Download png, svg
AI explanation
As the population realized there were fewer actuaries around to calculate the risks, they naturally became more cautious about getting Botox injections, leading to a decrease in the number of injections administered to women. This ultimately resulted in a statewide shift towards embracing laughter lines as a new form of currency, devaluing the pursuit of a perpetually smooth and furrow-free facade. The unforeseen consequence? South Carolina's new state motto: "Smiles are priceless, unlike Botox."Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create a photo-realistic image of a bright, modern clinic in South Carolina. Show a group of actuaries gathered in the waiting room, engaged in earnest discussions about risk assessment and statistics. Capture the ambiance of professionalism and intellect in their interaction. Meanwhile, in the treatment rooms, depict skilled technicians administering Botox injections to women, enhancing their confidence and vitality. Ensure that the setting exudes a sense of vitality and health, with a modern and sleek aesthetic that complements the scene. 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 actuaries in South Carolina and Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women. 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: Magic realism Cybernetic art A photo-realistic image Cubism Low poly
ChatGPT: A photo-realistic image
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 actuaries in South Carolina and Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bright, modern clinic in South Carolina, a group of actuaries gather in the waiting room, discussing risk assessment and statistics. Nearby, in the treatment rooms, a team of skilled technicians administers Botox injections to women, adding a touch of confidence and vitality to their already-healthy lives.
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: [ A photo-realistic image ] and depicting this scene: In a bright, modern clinic in South Carolina, a group of actuaries gather in the waiting room, discussing risk assessment and statistics. Nearby, in the treatment rooms, a team of skilled technicians administers Botox injections to women, adding a touch of confidence and vitality to their already-healthy lives. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create a photo-realistic image of a bright, modern clinic in South Carolina. Show a group of actuaries gathered in the waiting room, engaged in earnest discussions about risk assessment and statistics. Capture the ambiance of professionalism and intellect in their interaction. Meanwhile, in the treatment rooms, depict skilled technicians administering Botox injections to women, enhancing their confidence and vitality. Ensure that the setting exudes a sense of vitality and health, with a modern and sleek aesthetic that complements the scene.
*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.
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 actuaries in South Carolina caused Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women to decrease.
AI academic paper
Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina Journal of Southern Sociological Studies Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of actuaries in South Carolina and Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title seem clever.
Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.7168986 and p < 0.01 for 2006 to 2019.
Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)
[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper scrutinizes the surprising and, dare I say, eyebrow-raising correlation between the presence of actuaries in the picturesque state of South Carolina and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, our research team embarked on a statistical journey that unravelled an unexpected nexus. Remarkably, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7168986, accompanied by a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a robust association from the years 2006 to 2019. While our findings may appear as a mere wrinkle in the field of statistical research, they beckon further investigation into the socio-economic and, dare I say, follicle-fascinating underpinnings of this peculiar relationship. Our study not only sheds light on the interplay between numbers and neurotoxins but also invites a more reflexive contemplation of the age-old adage that correlation does not imply causation.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of actuaries in South Carolina and Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper scrutinizes the surprising and, dare I say, eyebrow-raising correlation between the presence of actuaries in the picturesque state of South Carolina and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, our research team embarked on a statistical journey that unravelled an unexpected nexus. Remarkably, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7168986, accompanied by a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a robust association from the years 2006 to 2019. While our findings may appear as a mere wrinkle in the field of statistical research, they beckon further investigation into the socio-economic and, dare I say, follicle-fascinating underpinnings of this peculiar relationship. Our study not only sheds light on the interplay between numbers and neurotoxins but also invites a more reflexive contemplation of the age-old adage that correlation does not imply causation.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The bustling world of statistical analysis often unearths unexpected connections and peculiar patterns, leading researchers to raise an inquisitive eyebrow, metaphorically speaking. In this vein, we delve into the curious intertwining of actuarial density and the administration of Botox injections to women in the charming state of South Carolina. While the intersection of risk assessment and facial aesthetics may at first appear to be an unlikely pairing, our investigation reveals a surprising correlation that is more than skin-deep.
As esteemed scholars and purveyors of quantitative inquiry, we are no strangers to the occasional raised eyebrow in response to our research pursuits. However, armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, we embarked on a pursuit to unravel this enigmatic relationship. Much like a meticulously drawn line on a graph, our findings unraveled a narrative that might just furrow the brows of skeptics and statisticians alike.
The seemingly innocuous proliferation of actuaries in South Carolina and the parallel increase in Botox injections administered to women catalyzed our intellectual curiosity, prompting us to bridge the realms of number crunching and beauty enhancement. As we dive into the depths of this statistical saga, we invite readers to join us in a journey that plucks at the strings of both analytical rigor and, we may dare say, aesthetic intrigue.
Indeed, while we caution against jumping to conclusions as hastily as a 100-meter sprinter at the starting line, the statistical association we unearthed beckons for further exploration. It is within this framework of scholarly inquisitiveness and whimsical wonder that we present the culmination of our analysis - a curious correlation that, although seemingly superficial, may demand a closer examination of the intricate web that interlaces numbers, appearances, and the enigmatic workings of human behavior.
With this in mind, we invite you, dear reader, to embark on a thought-provoking voyage that harmonizes the mathematics of risk with the artistry of youthfulness, all while maintaining a steadfast commitment to the adage that correlations, however intriguing, should be pondered with caution and a well-arched brow.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 actuaries in South Carolina and Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.
Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.
Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper scrutinizes the surprising and, dare I say, eyebrow-raising correlation between the presence of actuaries in the picturesque state of South Carolina and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, our research team embarked on a statistical journey that unravelled an unexpected nexus. Remarkably, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7168986, accompanied by a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a robust association from the years 2006 to 2019. While our findings may appear as a mere wrinkle in the field of statistical research, they beckon further investigation into the socio-economic and, dare I say, follicle-fascinating underpinnings of this peculiar relationship. Our study not only sheds light on the interplay between numbers and neurotoxins but also invites a more reflexive contemplation of the age-old adage that correlation does not imply causation.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The bustling world of statistical analysis often unearths unexpected connections and peculiar patterns, leading researchers to raise an inquisitive eyebrow, metaphorically speaking. In this vein, we delve into the curious intertwining of actuarial density and the administration of Botox injections to women in the charming state of South Carolina. While the intersection of risk assessment and facial aesthetics may at first appear to be an unlikely pairing, our investigation reveals a surprising correlation that is more than skin-deep.
As esteemed scholars and purveyors of quantitative inquiry, we are no strangers to the occasional raised eyebrow in response to our research pursuits. However, armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, we embarked on a pursuit to unravel this enigmatic relationship. Much like a meticulously drawn line on a graph, our findings unraveled a narrative that might just furrow the brows of skeptics and statisticians alike.
The seemingly innocuous proliferation of actuaries in South Carolina and the parallel increase in Botox injections administered to women catalyzed our intellectual curiosity, prompting us to bridge the realms of number crunching and beauty enhancement. As we dive into the depths of this statistical saga, we invite readers to join us in a journey that plucks at the strings of both analytical rigor and, we may dare say, aesthetic intrigue.
Indeed, while we caution against jumping to conclusions as hastily as a 100-meter sprinter at the starting line, the statistical association we unearthed beckons for further exploration. It is within this framework of scholarly inquisitiveness and whimsical wonder that we present the culmination of our analysis - a curious correlation that, although seemingly superficial, may demand a closer examination of the intricate web that interlaces numbers, appearances, and the enigmatic workings of human behavior.
With this in mind, we invite you, dear reader, to embark on a thought-provoking voyage that harmonizes the mathematics of risk with the artistry of youthfulness, all while maintaining a steadfast commitment to the adage that correlations, however intriguing, should be pondered with caution and a well-arched brow.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
An examination of the curious interplay between actuarial density and Botox injections administered to women in South Carolina uncovers a blend of surprising correlation and quirky anecdotal evidence. Smith (2017) delves into the professional landscape of South Carolina, shedding light on the proliferation of actuaries in the state and its potential link to various socio-economic factors. Meanwhile, Doe (2018) investigates the rise in cosmetic procedures among women in the southeastern United States, hinting at intriguing regional patterns that may intertwine with the presence of number crunchers in the Palmetto State.
It is worth noting that the realms of risk assessment and aesthetic enhancement have rarely intersected, making this peculiar correlation akin to a statistical unicorn - rare, mystical, and certainly not a regular feature of the quantitative landscape.
Turning to non-fiction literature, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman peeks into the cognitive processes that underpin decision-making, offering an ironic parallel to the seemingly instantaneous connection between actuarial presence and cosmetic interventions. Furthermore, "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner adds a touch of pragmatism to the analysis, inviting readers to ponder the oddball scenarios that might underpin statistical associations, much like the eyebrow-raising correlation we unearthed in our study.
Taking a whimsical turn, "The Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde and "The Age of Innocence" by Edith Wharton, while not directly related to statistical pursuits, prompt us to contemplate the intricate dance between appearance and societal expectations. Indeed, much like Dorian Gray's mysterious portrait, our statistical findings beckon us to consider the hidden layers of meaning behind seemingly unrelated variables - a portrait of correlation, if you will, that reveals more than meets the eye.
In the realm of popular internet culture, the "Distracted Boyfriend" meme provides a lighthearted analogy to the unexpected connections we explore. Just as the disapproving girlfriend gazes quizzically at her distracted companion, statisticians and casual observers alike may raise an eyebrow at the unanticipated nexus between number-crunching professionals and wrinkle-smoothing treatments.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 actuaries in South Carolina and Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women. 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 American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery . You used data from 2006 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]]
"Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper scrutinizes the surprising and, dare I say, eyebrow-raising correlation between the presence of actuaries in the picturesque state of South Carolina and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, our research team embarked on a statistical journey that unravelled an unexpected nexus. Remarkably, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7168986, accompanied by a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a robust association from the years 2006 to 2019. While our findings may appear as a mere wrinkle in the field of statistical research, they beckon further investigation into the socio-economic and, dare I say, follicle-fascinating underpinnings of this peculiar relationship. Our study not only sheds light on the interplay between numbers and neurotoxins but also invites a more reflexive contemplation of the age-old adage that correlation does not imply causation.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The bustling world of statistical analysis often unearths unexpected connections and peculiar patterns, leading researchers to raise an inquisitive eyebrow, metaphorically speaking. In this vein, we delve into the curious intertwining of actuarial density and the administration of Botox injections to women in the charming state of South Carolina. While the intersection of risk assessment and facial aesthetics may at first appear to be an unlikely pairing, our investigation reveals a surprising correlation that is more than skin-deep.
As esteemed scholars and purveyors of quantitative inquiry, we are no strangers to the occasional raised eyebrow in response to our research pursuits. However, armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, we embarked on a pursuit to unravel this enigmatic relationship. Much like a meticulously drawn line on a graph, our findings unraveled a narrative that might just furrow the brows of skeptics and statisticians alike.
The seemingly innocuous proliferation of actuaries in South Carolina and the parallel increase in Botox injections administered to women catalyzed our intellectual curiosity, prompting us to bridge the realms of number crunching and beauty enhancement. As we dive into the depths of this statistical saga, we invite readers to join us in a journey that plucks at the strings of both analytical rigor and, we may dare say, aesthetic intrigue.
Indeed, while we caution against jumping to conclusions as hastily as a 100-meter sprinter at the starting line, the statistical association we unearthed beckons for further exploration. It is within this framework of scholarly inquisitiveness and whimsical wonder that we present the culmination of our analysis - a curious correlation that, although seemingly superficial, may demand a closer examination of the intricate web that interlaces numbers, appearances, and the enigmatic workings of human behavior.
With this in mind, we invite you, dear reader, to embark on a thought-provoking voyage that harmonizes the mathematics of risk with the artistry of youthfulness, all while maintaining a steadfast commitment to the adage that correlations, however intriguing, should be pondered with caution and a well-arched brow.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To untangle the web of correlations and uncover the intriguing relationship between actuarial density and the administration of Botox injections to women in South Carolina, our research team adopted a methodological approach teeming with statistical exuberance and meticulous data wrangling. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS), we meticulously collected and harmonized information spanning the timeline from 2006 to 2019, capturing a rich tapestry of numerical insights and aesthetic inclinations.
Drawing upon the BLS data, we identified and cataloged the number of actuaries residing in South Carolina across each year of the study period. This information, much like the enigmatic forces that underpin actuarial calculations, provided a foundational pillar for our pursuit into the synergies between risk assessment professionals and the pursuit of facial rejuvenation. Fervently navigating through the statistical terrain, we meticulously curated data on the number of Botox injections administered to women in South Carolina from the ASAPS, encapsulating the variegated fluctuations in this cosmetic proclivity over the years.
Akin to a seasoned detective piecing together disparate clues, our research team employed advanced statistical tools, including but not limited to correlation analysis, time series modeling, and multivariate regression, in order to extract and unveil the hitherto overlooked relationship between actuarial presence and Botox injections. Through these methodological lenses, we sought to not only quantify the association but also substantiate its significance, steadfastly mindful of the cautionary admonition that correlation does not necessarily imply causation – a statistical labyrinth that we ventured forth to navigate with dexterity and scholarly discernment.
Furthermore, to ensure the robustness of our findings and guard against the allure of spurious associations, we meticulously considered various demographic and economic covariates that may impinge on the observed association between actuarial density and Botox injections. In a nod to the multifaceted nature of statistical inquiry, we endeavored to encompass an exhaustive array of contextual influences, from GDP per capita to demographic shifts, with the aim to distill the true essence of the interplay between number-crunching professionals and the pursuit of facial serenity in the palmetto state.
Through our methodological symphony, we endeavored to invigorate the statistical discourse with a dash of whimsy and intellectual rigor, embodying the notion that even the most unlikely relationships can, when approached with statistical acumen, unravel into a tapestry of nuanced insight and unanticipated findings.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 actuaries in South Carolina and Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women. 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 American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery .
For the time period 2006 to 2019, you found a correlation 0.7168986, r-squared of 0.5139436, 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]]
"Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper scrutinizes the surprising and, dare I say, eyebrow-raising correlation between the presence of actuaries in the picturesque state of South Carolina and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, our research team embarked on a statistical journey that unravelled an unexpected nexus. Remarkably, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7168986, accompanied by a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a robust association from the years 2006 to 2019. While our findings may appear as a mere wrinkle in the field of statistical research, they beckon further investigation into the socio-economic and, dare I say, follicle-fascinating underpinnings of this peculiar relationship. Our study not only sheds light on the interplay between numbers and neurotoxins but also invites a more reflexive contemplation of the age-old adage that correlation does not imply causation.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The bustling world of statistical analysis often unearths unexpected connections and peculiar patterns, leading researchers to raise an inquisitive eyebrow, metaphorically speaking. In this vein, we delve into the curious intertwining of actuarial density and the administration of Botox injections to women in the charming state of South Carolina. While the intersection of risk assessment and facial aesthetics may at first appear to be an unlikely pairing, our investigation reveals a surprising correlation that is more than skin-deep.
As esteemed scholars and purveyors of quantitative inquiry, we are no strangers to the occasional raised eyebrow in response to our research pursuits. However, armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, we embarked on a pursuit to unravel this enigmatic relationship. Much like a meticulously drawn line on a graph, our findings unraveled a narrative that might just furrow the brows of skeptics and statisticians alike.
The seemingly innocuous proliferation of actuaries in South Carolina and the parallel increase in Botox injections administered to women catalyzed our intellectual curiosity, prompting us to bridge the realms of number crunching and beauty enhancement. As we dive into the depths of this statistical saga, we invite readers to join us in a journey that plucks at the strings of both analytical rigor and, we may dare say, aesthetic intrigue.
Indeed, while we caution against jumping to conclusions as hastily as a 100-meter sprinter at the starting line, the statistical association we unearthed beckons for further exploration. It is within this framework of scholarly inquisitiveness and whimsical wonder that we present the culmination of our analysis - a curious correlation that, although seemingly superficial, may demand a closer examination of the intricate web that interlaces numbers, appearances, and the enigmatic workings of human behavior.
With this in mind, we invite you, dear reader, to embark on a thought-provoking voyage that harmonizes the mathematics of risk with the artistry of youthfulness, all while maintaining a steadfast commitment to the adage that correlations, however intriguing, should be pondered with caution and a well-arched brow.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the connection between the number of actuaries in South Carolina and the number of Botox injections administered to women yielded some rather intriguing findings. Over the time period of 2006 to 2019, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.7168986, reflecting a moderately strong positive correlation between these two variables. The squared value of this correlation, r-squared, stood at 0.5139436, affirming that a substantial portion of the variation in Botox injections administered to women can be explained by the variation in the number of actuaries in South Carolina.
Of particular note is the p-value of less than 0.01, indicative of a highly significant relationship between the presence of actuaries and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women. This suggests that the likelihood of such a robust association occurring by chance alone is exceedingly slim, lending further credence to the eyebrow-raising nature of our findings.
To visually encapsulate the strength of this relationship, we present the compelling scatterplot (Fig. 1), which graphically illustrates the pronounced positive correlation between the number of actuaries in South Carolina and the number of Botox injections administered to women. This visually striking representation not only adds weight to our statistical observations but may also prompt some raised eyebrows among those who gaze upon it.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 actuaries in South Carolina and Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women. 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]]
"Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper scrutinizes the surprising and, dare I say, eyebrow-raising correlation between the presence of actuaries in the picturesque state of South Carolina and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, our research team embarked on a statistical journey that unravelled an unexpected nexus. Remarkably, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7168986, accompanied by a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a robust association from the years 2006 to 2019. While our findings may appear as a mere wrinkle in the field of statistical research, they beckon further investigation into the socio-economic and, dare I say, follicle-fascinating underpinnings of this peculiar relationship. Our study not only sheds light on the interplay between numbers and neurotoxins but also invites a more reflexive contemplation of the age-old adage that correlation does not imply causation.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
An examination of the curious interplay between actuarial density and Botox injections administered to women in South Carolina uncovers a blend of surprising correlation and quirky anecdotal evidence. Smith (2017) delves into the professional landscape of South Carolina, shedding light on the proliferation of actuaries in the state and its potential link to various socio-economic factors. Meanwhile, Doe (2018) investigates the rise in cosmetic procedures among women in the southeastern United States, hinting at intriguing regional patterns that may intertwine with the presence of number crunchers in the Palmetto State.
It is worth noting that the realms of risk assessment and aesthetic enhancement have rarely intersected, making this peculiar correlation akin to a statistical unicorn - rare, mystical, and certainly not a regular feature of the quantitative landscape.
Turning to non-fiction literature, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman peeks into the cognitive processes that underpin decision-making, offering an ironic parallel to the seemingly instantaneous connection between actuarial presence and cosmetic interventions. Furthermore, "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner adds a touch of pragmatism to the analysis, inviting readers to ponder the oddball scenarios that might underpin statistical associations, much like the eyebrow-raising correlation we unearthed in our study.
Taking a whimsical turn, "The Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde and "The Age of Innocence" by Edith Wharton, while not directly related to statistical pursuits, prompt us to contemplate the intricate dance between appearance and societal expectations. Indeed, much like Dorian Gray's mysterious portrait, our statistical findings beckon us to consider the hidden layers of meaning behind seemingly unrelated variables - a portrait of correlation, if you will, that reveals more than meets the eye.
In the realm of popular internet culture, the "Distracted Boyfriend" meme provides a lighthearted analogy to the unexpected connections we explore. Just as the disapproving girlfriend gazes quizzically at her distracted companion, statisticians and casual observers alike may raise an eyebrow at the unanticipated nexus between number-crunching professionals and wrinkle-smoothing treatments.
[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the connection between the number of actuaries in South Carolina and the number of Botox injections administered to women yielded some rather intriguing findings. Over the time period of 2006 to 2019, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.7168986, reflecting a moderately strong positive correlation between these two variables. The squared value of this correlation, r-squared, stood at 0.5139436, affirming that a substantial portion of the variation in Botox injections administered to women can be explained by the variation in the number of actuaries in South Carolina.
Of particular note is the p-value of less than 0.01, indicative of a highly significant relationship between the presence of actuaries and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women. This suggests that the likelihood of such a robust association occurring by chance alone is exceedingly slim, lending further credence to the eyebrow-raising nature of our findings.
To visually encapsulate the strength of this relationship, we present the compelling scatterplot (Fig. 1), which graphically illustrates the pronounced positive correlation between the number of actuaries in South Carolina and the number of Botox injections administered to women. This visually striking representation not only adds weight to our statistical observations but may also prompt some raised eyebrows among those who gaze upon it.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The remarkable nexus we have uncovered between the number of actuaries in South Carolina and the number of Botox injections administered to women is like finding a statistical needle in a haystack. Our results not only mirror the prior research but also add depth to the wig-raising correlation between these seemingly disparate phenomena.
The substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7168986 we detected aligns with the hinted regional patterns in the literature, providing a quantitative backbone to the anecdotal evidence of the intertwining of actuarial density and cosmetic procedures. This statistic doesn't just raise eyebrows but practically gives them a full workout.
The literature review, whilst seemingly whimsical, laid the groundwork for our findings. The intersection of risk assessment and aesthetic enhancement becomes less enigmatic with each passing study, akin to unraveling the layers of meaning behind enigmatic portraits à la Dorian Gray. It's as if the statistical unicorn we've captured is galloping through the pages of Oscar Wilde's masterpiece.
The presence of a p-value of less than 0.01 further bolsters our conviction in the robustness of this association. It's almost as if the statistical gods themselves are winking at us, saying, "This isn't just a coincidence, folks!"
The scatterplot captured the substantial positive correlation visually, reinforcing the strength of our findings. It's as if the graph itself is arching its brow, challenging any skeptic to deny the veracity of our results.
In conclusion, our study not only confirms the existence of this curious correlation but beckons to the statistics community, "Hey, have you heard the one about actuaries and Botox?" This research offers a tantalizing glimpse into the unexpected intersections of seemingly unrelated fields and invites further exploration into the mesmerizing world of statistical anomalies - a world where numbers and neurotoxins dance a statistical tango that continues to leave us both intrigued and, dare I say, amused.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 actuaries in South Carolina and Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women. 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]]
"Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper scrutinizes the surprising and, dare I say, eyebrow-raising correlation between the presence of actuaries in the picturesque state of South Carolina and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, our research team embarked on a statistical journey that unravelled an unexpected nexus. Remarkably, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7168986, accompanied by a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a robust association from the years 2006 to 2019. While our findings may appear as a mere wrinkle in the field of statistical research, they beckon further investigation into the socio-economic and, dare I say, follicle-fascinating underpinnings of this peculiar relationship. Our study not only sheds light on the interplay between numbers and neurotoxins but also invites a more reflexive contemplation of the age-old adage that correlation does not imply causation.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
The bustling world of statistical analysis often unearths unexpected connections and peculiar patterns, leading researchers to raise an inquisitive eyebrow, metaphorically speaking. In this vein, we delve into the curious intertwining of actuarial density and the administration of Botox injections to women in the charming state of South Carolina. While the intersection of risk assessment and facial aesthetics may at first appear to be an unlikely pairing, our investigation reveals a surprising correlation that is more than skin-deep.
As esteemed scholars and purveyors of quantitative inquiry, we are no strangers to the occasional raised eyebrow in response to our research pursuits. However, armed with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, we embarked on a pursuit to unravel this enigmatic relationship. Much like a meticulously drawn line on a graph, our findings unraveled a narrative that might just furrow the brows of skeptics and statisticians alike.
The seemingly innocuous proliferation of actuaries in South Carolina and the parallel increase in Botox injections administered to women catalyzed our intellectual curiosity, prompting us to bridge the realms of number crunching and beauty enhancement. As we dive into the depths of this statistical saga, we invite readers to join us in a journey that plucks at the strings of both analytical rigor and, we may dare say, aesthetic intrigue.
Indeed, while we caution against jumping to conclusions as hastily as a 100-meter sprinter at the starting line, the statistical association we unearthed beckons for further exploration. It is within this framework of scholarly inquisitiveness and whimsical wonder that we present the culmination of our analysis - a curious correlation that, although seemingly superficial, may demand a closer examination of the intricate web that interlaces numbers, appearances, and the enigmatic workings of human behavior.
With this in mind, we invite you, dear reader, to embark on a thought-provoking voyage that harmonizes the mathematics of risk with the artistry of youthfulness, all while maintaining a steadfast commitment to the adage that correlations, however intriguing, should be pondered with caution and a well-arched brow.
[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the connection between the number of actuaries in South Carolina and the number of Botox injections administered to women yielded some rather intriguing findings. Over the time period of 2006 to 2019, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.7168986, reflecting a moderately strong positive correlation between these two variables. The squared value of this correlation, r-squared, stood at 0.5139436, affirming that a substantial portion of the variation in Botox injections administered to women can be explained by the variation in the number of actuaries in South Carolina.
Of particular note is the p-value of less than 0.01, indicative of a highly significant relationship between the presence of actuaries and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women. This suggests that the likelihood of such a robust association occurring by chance alone is exceedingly slim, lending further credence to the eyebrow-raising nature of our findings.
To visually encapsulate the strength of this relationship, we present the compelling scatterplot (Fig. 1), which graphically illustrates the pronounced positive correlation between the number of actuaries in South Carolina and the number of Botox injections administered to women. This visually striking representation not only adds weight to our statistical observations but may also prompt some raised eyebrows among those who gaze upon it.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our research has unfurled a tale of connection betwixt the number of actuaries in the delightful state of South Carolina and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women that is both statistically robust and, we dare say, aesthetically intriguing. The substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7168986 and the p-value of less than 0.01 are akin to a well-orchestrated symphony, harmoniously reaffirming the surprising relationship discovered. This nexus, though seemingly skin-deep, beckons further contemplation of the socio-economic and dermatological landscapes that underpin this enigmatic correlation.
While our findings may initially prompt a quizzical arch of the brow, the statistical dance between actuaries and Botox injections invites us to ponder the dynamic interplay between numbers and neurone toxins, a fusion of risk assessment and facial rejuvenation that is, indeed, eyebrow-raising.
Our analysis may serve as a gentle nudge, urging future researchers to consider the intersection of number crunching and beauty enhancement with the same earnestness as one contemplates a well-arched brow. However, in the spirit of academic integrity and scholarly duty, we assert that no further research on this peculiar correlation is needed, for we have ventured into the statistical twilight where numbers meet neurotoxins, leaving behind the quirks of this unlikely companionship for future generations to ponder.
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 Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
Journal of Southern Sociological Studies
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 Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Alliance for Quantitative Dermatological Anthropology
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 Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina with an abstract of This paper scrutinizes the surprising and, dare I say, eyebrow-raising correlation between the presence of actuaries in the picturesque state of South Carolina and the frequency of Botox injections administered to women. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, our research team embarked on a statistical journey that unravelled an unexpected nexus. Remarkably, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7168986, accompanied by a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a robust association from the years 2006 to 2019. While our findings may appear as a mere wrinkle in the field of statistical research, they beckon further investigation into the socio-economic and, dare I say, follicle-fascinating underpinnings of this peculiar relationship. Our study not only sheds light on the interplay between numbers and neurotoxins but also invites a more reflexive contemplation of the age-old adage that correlation does not imply causation.
ChatGPT:
actuarial density, Botox injections, women, South Carolina, correlation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, statistical analysis, correlation coefficient, p-value, socio-economic factors, neurotoxins, causation, statistical research
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
The number of actuaries in South CarolinaDetailed data title: BLS estimate of actuaries in South Carolina
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of actuaries in South Carolina
Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women
Source: American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
See what else correlates with Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women
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 = 0.5139436 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 51.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of actuaries in South Carolina) over the 14 years from 2006 through 2019.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00391. 0.0039087915789594100000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.
But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.
Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.72 in 0.391% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 256 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 13 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 13 because we have two variables measured over a period of 14 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.
[ 0.3, 0.9 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.
This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!
All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.
Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | |
The number of actuaries in South Carolina (Actuaries) | 100 | 70 | 60 | 70 | 50 | 60 | 40 | 70 | 90 | 100 | 90 | 60 | 40 | 40 |
Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women (Injections) | 2881000 | 2446000 | 2239000 | 2299000 | 2212000 | 2355000 | 2916000 | 3381000 | 3174000 | 3828000 | 4144000 | 1387000 | 1638000 | 1541000 |
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
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
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
Try it yourself
You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.
Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"
Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.
Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.
Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.
Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"
If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:
"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."
# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):
# Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)
# Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
r_squared = correlation**2
return correlation, r_squared, p_value
# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([100,70,60,70,50,60,40,70,90,100,90,60,40,40,])
array_2 = np.array([2881000,2446000,2239000,2299000,2212000,2355000,2916000,3381000,3174000,3828000,4144000,1387000,1638000,1541000,])
array_1_name = "The number of actuaries in South Carolina"
array_2_name = "Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women"
# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)
# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)
Reuseable content
You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.
For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."
When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.
Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.
Download images for these variables:
- High resolution line chart
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 actuaries in South Carolina
- Line chart for only Number of Botox Injections Administered to Women
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Furrowed Brows in the Palmetto State: An Examination of the Relationship Between Actuarial Density and Botox Injections Administered to Women in South Carolina
Your correlation rating is out of this world!
Correlation ID: 1771 · Black Variable ID: 17693 · Red Variable ID: 9