Spurious correlation #1,812 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana and the second variable is Arson in United States. The chart goes from 2003 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 The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana and the second variable is Arson in United States. The chart goes from 2003 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

With fewer cutters and trimmers in Indiana, there were less people to fan the flames of discontent. As a result, the arson rate in the United States decreased because there were simply fewer individuals with a burning desire to cause trouble. This led to a cut in fiery incidents across the country, proving that when it comes to arson, the situation can really be trimmed down to the root of the problem.

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generating Prompt: [ Concept art ] In a serene Indiana countryside, a tranquil field fills the foreground as a group of people meticulously prune a row of lush bushes. In the distance, a small cluster of firefighters races towards a distant forest fire, their urgent movements hinting at the potential danger. The contrast between the calm field and the distant fire creates an intriguing juxtaposition of serenity and emergency. 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 cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana and Arson in United States. 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: Pop art Low poly Symbolism Cute cartoon Concept art
ChatGPT: Concept art

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana and Arson in United States together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a quiet field in Indiana, a few individuals are carefully pruning a row of bushes while a small group of firefighters rushes to extinguish a fire in a distant forest.

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: [ Concept art ] and depicting this scene: In a quiet field in Indiana, a few individuals are carefully pruning a row of bushes while a small group of firefighters rushes to extinguish a fire in a distant forest. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generating Prompt: [ Concept art ] In a serene Indiana countryside, a tranquil field fills the foreground as a group of people meticulously prune a row of lush bushes. In the distance, a small cluster of firefighters races towards a distant forest fire, their urgent movements hinting at the potential danger. The contrast between the calm field and the distant fire creates an intriguing juxtaposition of serenity and emergency.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
^{Show prompt for explanation} Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana caused Arson in United States to decrease. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

The Cutters and Trimmers' Hand in Arson: A Statistical Analysis

Journal of Forensic Pyrotechnics

Jan 2024

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

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

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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading CVS receipts.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Cutters and Trimmers' Hand in Arson: A Statistical Analysis

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our research delves into the peculiar connection between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9024278 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, highlighting a noteworthy relationship between these seemingly disparate phenomena. Our study sheds light on the unanticipated interplay between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the prevalence of deliberate fire-setting nationwide. We invite readers to join us on this unexpected journey through the intricate web of statistical correlations, where the seemingly mundane world of yard work converges with the incendiary realm of criminal behavior.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The study of crime has long been a focus of scholarly inquiry, with researchers striving to uncover the complex web of factors that contribute to criminal behavior. From socioeconomic conditions to psychological predispositions, the landscape of criminology is as multifaceted as it is perplexing. Amidst this intricate tapestry, our research aims to illuminate an unexpected thread – the curious relationship between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States.
One might initially dismiss the world of landscaping and yard work as an unlikely candidate for entanglement with the realm of arson. However, as we delved into the data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, a striking pattern began to emerge. The seemingly innocuous domain of pruning shrubbery and hedging bushes appeared to intertwine with the alarming incidence of deliberate fire-setting.
As we embarked on this statistical odyssey, it became clear that the correlation coefficient of 0.9024278 and the remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01 were not mere statistical quirks, but rather indicative of a substantive connection. It is within this very juxtaposition, where the gentle art of hedging converges with the incendiary act of arson, that our research takes flight.
While the scholarly community may raise an eyebrow – or perhaps a hedge in this case – at the initial premise of our study, it is our hope that the findings presented herein will not only pique curiosity but also open new avenues for exploration. As we navigate through the unforeseen nexus between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the prevalence of deliberate fire-setting nationwide, we invite readers to join us in unraveling the enigma that is the intricate dance of statistical correlations.
In the following sections, we will embark on a methodical examination of the data, scrutinizing the nuances and implications of this unexpected connection. Our aim is to offer a scholarly contribution that is both informative and, dare we say, a tad unconventional. So, buckle up – or should we say, put on your gardening gloves – as we traverse this uncharted terrain where the world of hedges meets the heat of a different kind.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The study of unusual correlations has been a fascinating pursuit in the realm of scholarly inquiry. From the foundational works of Smith, Doe, and Jones delving into socio-economic factors influencing criminal behavior, to more contemporary analyses exploring the psychological underpinnings of arson, the literature on crime and its determinants is vast and varied. However, as we embarked on our investigation into the unexpected relationship between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson nationwide, we found ourselves traversing into uncharted territory – one where hedge clippers meet molotov cocktails.

In "The Art of Landscaping," authors Green and Brown shed light on the often overlooked occupational hazards of the landscaping industry, but little did they know they were also inadvertently paving the way for our exploration into the intersection of hand injuries and criminal mischief. Meanwhile, "Statistics and Crime" by Grey and White offers a comprehensive analysis of crime trends, although we suspect they never anticipated a chapter devoted to the potential influence of pruning shears on the national arson rate.

Venturing beyond the confines of non-fiction, we draw inspiration from literary works that offer tangential connections to our peculiar research focus. "The Firestarter's Garden" by Red Flame and "The Secret Life of Hedge Trimmers" by Green Thumb provide fictional narratives that, while not directly addressing our central thesis, certainly add a touch of intrigue to our scholarly journey. It's as if Stephen King decided to merge his thriller genre with a how-to gardening manual – an unexpected combination, much like our research topic.

In our pursuit of comprehensiveness, we also delved into unconventional sources to capture the full spectrum of perspectives on our chosen topic. This led us to peruse the mysterious world of obscure almanacs, perplexing pamphlets, and even the enigmatic realm of CVS receipts. While the latter may seem far-fetched, it's surprising how much insight can be gleaned from the purchase patterns of gardening gloves and lighter fluid.

Indeed, as we survey the landscape of existing literature, we find ourselves in a position akin to a gardener navigating a labyrinthine hedge maze – unexpected twists and turns at every corner, with the occasional hidden treasure waiting to be unearthed. Our literary voyage, while unconventional, has armed us with a nuanced perspective as we set out to unravel the knotty relationship between hand injuries in the greenery industry and the fiery escapades that ignite across the nation.

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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services . You used data from 2003 to 2022

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Cutters and Trimmers' Hand in Arson: A Statistical Analysis

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our research delves into the peculiar connection between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9024278 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, highlighting a noteworthy relationship between these seemingly disparate phenomena. Our study sheds light on the unanticipated interplay between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the prevalence of deliberate fire-setting nationwide. We invite readers to join us on this unexpected journey through the intricate web of statistical correlations, where the seemingly mundane world of yard work converges with the incendiary realm of criminal behavior.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The study of crime has long been a focus of scholarly inquiry, with researchers striving to uncover the complex web of factors that contribute to criminal behavior. From socioeconomic conditions to psychological predispositions, the landscape of criminology is as multifaceted as it is perplexing. Amidst this intricate tapestry, our research aims to illuminate an unexpected thread – the curious relationship between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States.
One might initially dismiss the world of landscaping and yard work as an unlikely candidate for entanglement with the realm of arson. However, as we delved into the data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, a striking pattern began to emerge. The seemingly innocuous domain of pruning shrubbery and hedging bushes appeared to intertwine with the alarming incidence of deliberate fire-setting.
As we embarked on this statistical odyssey, it became clear that the correlation coefficient of 0.9024278 and the remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01 were not mere statistical quirks, but rather indicative of a substantive connection. It is within this very juxtaposition, where the gentle art of hedging converges with the incendiary act of arson, that our research takes flight.
While the scholarly community may raise an eyebrow – or perhaps a hedge in this case – at the initial premise of our study, it is our hope that the findings presented herein will not only pique curiosity but also open new avenues for exploration. As we navigate through the unforeseen nexus between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the prevalence of deliberate fire-setting nationwide, we invite readers to join us in unraveling the enigma that is the intricate dance of statistical correlations.
In the following sections, we will embark on a methodical examination of the data, scrutinizing the nuances and implications of this unexpected connection. Our aim is to offer a scholarly contribution that is both informative and, dare we say, a tad unconventional. So, buckle up – or should we say, put on your gardening gloves – as we traverse this uncharted terrain where the world of hedges meets the heat of a different kind.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To untangle the curious correlation between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson in the United States, our research employed a multi-faceted approach encompassing data collection, statistical analysis, and a touch of whimsy. While the gravity of our subject matter necessitated a rigorous methodology, we also embraced the unexpected and the unconventional, much like stumbling upon an overgrown bush in a meticulously manicured garden.

Data Collection:
We gathered information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, casting a wide net across the digital landscape like a gardener meticulously tending to the hedges. Our dataset spanned from 2003 to 2022, capturing a rich tapestry of hand injuries and intentional fire incidents. It's safe to say that we combed through the data with the fervor of a meticulous gardener pruning a topiary, seeking to reveal the underlying structure beneath the seemingly tangled foliage of statistics.

Statistical Analysis:
With our dataset in hand, we employed a range of statistical techniques to extract meaningful insights, much like using a pair of sharp shears to sculpt a hedge into a work of art. We calculated correlation coefficients, scrutinized p-values, and performed regression analyses, all with the precision of a skilled gardener trimming a meticulously shaped bush. We aimed to tease out the nuanced relationship between the seemingly disparate realms of landscaping injuries and intentional fire-setting with the keen-eyed attention to detail of a topiary artist.

Quality Control:
In the spirit of ensuring data integrity and accuracy, we implemented stringent quality control measures akin to meticulously raking a zen garden to maintain its pristine aesthetic. We scrutinized outlier detection, assessed the representativeness of our sample, and conducted sensitivity analyses, with the diligence of a gardener ensuring that each blade of grass is in its rightful place. We aimed to cultivate a research landscape free from weeds of uncertainty and biases, much like maintaining a flawlessly manicured garden.

Ethical Considerations:
In accordance with scholarly standards, we upheld the ethical principles governing research and data usage, much like a conscientious gardener nurturing a verdant patch with care and integrity. Our research was conducted with respect for privacy and confidentiality, akin to a gardener tending to delicate blooms with gentle hands. We ensured that our findings were presented with transparency and honesty, much like a gardener laying bare the beauty of a thoughtfully designed landscape.

In conclusion, our methodology encompassed a blend of meticulous data collection, rigorous statistical analysis, and ethical considerations, all infused with a touch of whimsy and unexpected humor. As we present our findings in the subsequent sections, we invite readers to join us in embracing the unconventional and exploring the unexpected juncture where the world of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries intersects with the enigmatic realm of arson.

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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services .

For the time period 2003 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9024278, r-squared of 0.8143759, 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]]
The Cutters and Trimmers' Hand in Arson: A Statistical Analysis

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our research delves into the peculiar connection between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9024278 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, highlighting a noteworthy relationship between these seemingly disparate phenomena. Our study sheds light on the unanticipated interplay between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the prevalence of deliberate fire-setting nationwide. We invite readers to join us on this unexpected journey through the intricate web of statistical correlations, where the seemingly mundane world of yard work converges with the incendiary realm of criminal behavior.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The study of crime has long been a focus of scholarly inquiry, with researchers striving to uncover the complex web of factors that contribute to criminal behavior. From socioeconomic conditions to psychological predispositions, the landscape of criminology is as multifaceted as it is perplexing. Amidst this intricate tapestry, our research aims to illuminate an unexpected thread – the curious relationship between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States.
One might initially dismiss the world of landscaping and yard work as an unlikely candidate for entanglement with the realm of arson. However, as we delved into the data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, a striking pattern began to emerge. The seemingly innocuous domain of pruning shrubbery and hedging bushes appeared to intertwine with the alarming incidence of deliberate fire-setting.
As we embarked on this statistical odyssey, it became clear that the correlation coefficient of 0.9024278 and the remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01 were not mere statistical quirks, but rather indicative of a substantive connection. It is within this very juxtaposition, where the gentle art of hedging converges with the incendiary act of arson, that our research takes flight.
While the scholarly community may raise an eyebrow – or perhaps a hedge in this case – at the initial premise of our study, it is our hope that the findings presented herein will not only pique curiosity but also open new avenues for exploration. As we navigate through the unforeseen nexus between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the prevalence of deliberate fire-setting nationwide, we invite readers to join us in unraveling the enigma that is the intricate dance of statistical correlations.
In the following sections, we will embark on a methodical examination of the data, scrutinizing the nuances and implications of this unexpected connection. Our aim is to offer a scholarly contribution that is both informative and, dare we say, a tad unconventional. So, buckle up – or should we say, put on your gardening gloves – as we traverse this uncharted terrain where the world of hedges meets the heat of a different kind.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]

ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis of the relationship between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States yielded some rather unexpected and, dare I say, fiery results. Our research team uncovered a strikingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9024278, indicating a high degree of association between these seemingly unrelated variables. The r-squared value of 0.8143759 further reinforced the strength of this relationship, emphasizing the significance of our findings.

The p-value of less than 0.01 provides compelling evidence that the observed correlation is not merely a chance occurrence, but rather a substantial and statistically significant connection. This suggests that the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana is indeed related to the incidence of arson on a national scale. It appears that the hands of landscapers and the flames of arsonists are not as disconnected as one might initially assume.

In Figure 1, the scatterplot visually depicts the strong correlation between these variables, offering a compelling graphical representation of the surprising relationship our study has unveiled. The visual evidence serves as a vivid reminder that in the world of statistical analysis, one should always expect the unexpected – even if it involves garden shears and firelighters.

Overall, our results illuminate an intriguing interplay between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the occurrence of deliberate fire-setting across the United States. This unanticipated correlation invites further exploration and prompts a reassessment of the seemingly mundane factors that may contribute to criminal behavior. As we delve deeper into the implications of these findings, it becomes increasingly evident that the hand that trims the hedges may also hold a flickering match, revealing a connection that is as unexpected as it is illuminating.

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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
The Cutters and Trimmers' Hand in Arson: A Statistical Analysis

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our research delves into the peculiar connection between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9024278 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, highlighting a noteworthy relationship between these seemingly disparate phenomena. Our study sheds light on the unanticipated interplay between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the prevalence of deliberate fire-setting nationwide. We invite readers to join us on this unexpected journey through the intricate web of statistical correlations, where the seemingly mundane world of yard work converges with the incendiary realm of criminal behavior.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The study of unusual correlations has been a fascinating pursuit in the realm of scholarly inquiry. From the foundational works of Smith, Doe, and Jones delving into socio-economic factors influencing criminal behavior, to more contemporary analyses exploring the psychological underpinnings of arson, the literature on crime and its determinants is vast and varied. However, as we embarked on our investigation into the unexpected relationship between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson nationwide, we found ourselves traversing into uncharted territory – one where hedge clippers meet molotov cocktails.
In "The Art of Landscaping," authors Green and Brown shed light on the often overlooked occupational hazards of the landscaping industry, but little did they know they were also inadvertently paving the way for our exploration into the intersection of hand injuries and criminal mischief. Meanwhile, "Statistics and Crime" by Grey and White offers a comprehensive analysis of crime trends, although we suspect they never anticipated a chapter devoted to the potential influence of pruning shears on the national arson rate.
Venturing beyond the confines of non-fiction, we draw inspiration from literary works that offer tangential connections to our peculiar research focus. "The Firestarter's Garden" by Red Flame and "The Secret Life of Hedge Trimmers" by Green Thumb provide fictional narratives that, while not directly addressing our central thesis, certainly add a touch of intrigue to our scholarly journey. It's as if Stephen King decided to merge his thriller genre with a how-to gardening manual – an unexpected combination, much like our research topic.
In our pursuit of comprehensiveness, we also delved into unconventional sources to capture the full spectrum of perspectives on our chosen topic. This led us to peruse the mysterious world of obscure almanacs, perplexing pamphlets, and even the enigmatic realm of CVS receipts. While the latter may seem far-fetched, it's surprising how much insight can be gleaned from the purchase patterns of gardening gloves and lighter fluid.
Indeed, as we survey the landscape of existing literature, we find ourselves in a position akin to a gardener navigating a labyrinthine hedge maze – unexpected twists and turns at every corner, with the occasional hidden treasure waiting to be unearthed. Our literary voyage, while unconventional, has armed us with a nuanced perspective as we set out to unravel the knotty relationship between hand injuries in the greenery industry and the fiery escapades that ignite across the nation.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the relationship between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States yielded some rather unexpected and, dare I say, fiery results. Our research team uncovered a strikingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9024278, indicating a high degree of association between these seemingly unrelated variables. The r-squared value of 0.8143759 further reinforced the strength of this relationship, emphasizing the significance of our findings.
The p-value of less than 0.01 provides compelling evidence that the observed correlation is not merely a chance occurrence, but rather a substantial and statistically significant connection. This suggests that the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana is indeed related to the incidence of arson on a national scale. It appears that the hands of landscapers and the flames of arsonists are not as disconnected as one might initially assume.
In Figure 1, the scatterplot visually depicts the strong correlation between these variables, offering a compelling graphical representation of the surprising relationship our study has unveiled. The visual evidence serves as a vivid reminder that in the world of statistical analysis, one should always expect the unexpected – even if it involves garden shears and firelighters.
Overall, our results illuminate an intriguing interplay between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the occurrence of deliberate fire-setting across the United States. This unanticipated correlation invites further exploration and prompts a reassessment of the seemingly mundane factors that may contribute to criminal behavior. As we delve deeper into the implications of these findings, it becomes increasingly evident that the hand that trims the hedges may also hold a flickering match, revealing a connection that is as unexpected as it is illuminating.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The astonishingly robust correlation coefficient and statistically significant p-value derived from our analysis unequivocally corroborate the unanticipated connection between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson nationwide. Our results echo the sentiments of previous researchers who also found themselves entangled in the thorny underbrush of unlikely correlations, albeit in a less inflammatory context.

The scholarly lineage of delving into unconventional associations, from socio-economic factors influencing criminal behavior to exploring occupational hazards in the greenery industry, dovetails neatly with our own unexpected foray into the interface of landscaping mishaps and incendiary crime. While the intersection of hedge maintenance and arson may initially seem like an unexplored cul-de-sac, our statistical findings blaze a trail, shedding light on a correlation that is as sturdy as an oak and as captivating as a well-manicured topiary.

The scatterplot in Figure 1 captures the essence of our revelatory discovery, illustrating the fiery relationship between these variables with an eloquence that transcends the mundane confines of statistical analysis. It is a reminder that the world of research is not unlike a well-tended garden – beneath the surface of apparent normalcy, unexpected blooms of insight may sprout, much like dandelions in the carefully woven tapestry of a meticulously landscaped yard.

This interplay between hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the ignition of deliberate fires across the nation, though initially incongruous, offers a seductive enigma that beckons further exploration. As we pick through the undergrowth of our results, we are compelled to reassess the seemingly innocuous flotsam and jetsam, recognizing that within the everyday foliage of statistical analysis, hidden sparks of correlation may lurk, waiting to be kindled into illuminating discoveries.

In sum, our study stands as a testament to the unexpected connections that underpin the world around us. While the hands of landscapers may be more accustomed to pruning shrubbery than igniting tinder, our findings serve as a reminder that the unexpected may lurk within the mundane, waiting to be unearthed, much like an elusive truffle beneath the soil.

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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
The Cutters and Trimmers' Hand in Arson: A Statistical Analysis

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our research delves into the peculiar connection between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9024278 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, highlighting a noteworthy relationship between these seemingly disparate phenomena. Our study sheds light on the unanticipated interplay between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the prevalence of deliberate fire-setting nationwide. We invite readers to join us on this unexpected journey through the intricate web of statistical correlations, where the seemingly mundane world of yard work converges with the incendiary realm of criminal behavior.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The study of crime has long been a focus of scholarly inquiry, with researchers striving to uncover the complex web of factors that contribute to criminal behavior. From socioeconomic conditions to psychological predispositions, the landscape of criminology is as multifaceted as it is perplexing. Amidst this intricate tapestry, our research aims to illuminate an unexpected thread – the curious relationship between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States.
One might initially dismiss the world of landscaping and yard work as an unlikely candidate for entanglement with the realm of arson. However, as we delved into the data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, a striking pattern began to emerge. The seemingly innocuous domain of pruning shrubbery and hedging bushes appeared to intertwine with the alarming incidence of deliberate fire-setting.
As we embarked on this statistical odyssey, it became clear that the correlation coefficient of 0.9024278 and the remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01 were not mere statistical quirks, but rather indicative of a substantive connection. It is within this very juxtaposition, where the gentle art of hedging converges with the incendiary act of arson, that our research takes flight.
While the scholarly community may raise an eyebrow – or perhaps a hedge in this case – at the initial premise of our study, it is our hope that the findings presented herein will not only pique curiosity but also open new avenues for exploration. As we navigate through the unforeseen nexus between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the prevalence of deliberate fire-setting nationwide, we invite readers to join us in unraveling the enigma that is the intricate dance of statistical correlations.
In the following sections, we will embark on a methodical examination of the data, scrutinizing the nuances and implications of this unexpected connection. Our aim is to offer a scholarly contribution that is both informative and, dare we say, a tad unconventional. So, buckle up – or should we say, put on your gardening gloves – as we traverse this uncharted terrain where the world of hedges meets the heat of a different kind.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the relationship between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States yielded some rather unexpected and, dare I say, fiery results. Our research team uncovered a strikingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9024278, indicating a high degree of association between these seemingly unrelated variables. The r-squared value of 0.8143759 further reinforced the strength of this relationship, emphasizing the significance of our findings.
The p-value of less than 0.01 provides compelling evidence that the observed correlation is not merely a chance occurrence, but rather a substantial and statistically significant connection. This suggests that the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana is indeed related to the incidence of arson on a national scale. It appears that the hands of landscapers and the flames of arsonists are not as disconnected as one might initially assume.
In Figure 1, the scatterplot visually depicts the strong correlation between these variables, offering a compelling graphical representation of the surprising relationship our study has unveiled. The visual evidence serves as a vivid reminder that in the world of statistical analysis, one should always expect the unexpected – even if it involves garden shears and firelighters.
Overall, our results illuminate an intriguing interplay between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the occurrence of deliberate fire-setting across the United States. This unanticipated correlation invites further exploration and prompts a reassessment of the seemingly mundane factors that may contribute to criminal behavior. As we delve deeper into the implications of these findings, it becomes increasingly evident that the hand that trims the hedges may also hold a flickering match, revealing a connection that is as unexpected as it is illuminating.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has emitted a beacon of statistical illumination on the unforeseen connection between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States. While the dance of statistical correlations often waltzes to the beat of conventional wisdom, our findings twirl in the enigmatic embrace of the unexpected.

The robust correlation coefficient and the compellingly low p-value have demonstrated that the hands that mold shrubbery and the hands that wield the fiery torch of arson are entwined in a statistical pas de deux that left us genuinely "bush"-whacked. Our results serve as a fervent reminder that in the realm of statistical research, one should always expect the unexpected, even if it involves a seemingly innocuous pair of garden shears and the haunting glow of flames.

As we extinguish this research endeavor, we extend an invitation to the scholarly community to contemplate the unanticipated marriage of turf care and fire dance. And while we find ourselves emboldened by the insights gained from this study, we dare say that no further research is warranted in this peculiar area. After all, we've already shed enough light on this fiery foliage fandango.

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 The Cutters and Trimmers' Hand in Arson: A Statistical Analysis. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Forensic Pyrotechnics

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 The Cutters and Trimmers' Hand in Arson: A Statistical Analysis. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Forensic Horticultural Science

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 The Cutters and Trimmers' Hand in Arson: A Statistical Analysis with an abstract of Our research delves into the peculiar connection between the number of cutters and trimmers' hand injuries in Indiana and the incidence of arson across the United States. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning from 2003 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9024278 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, highlighting a noteworthy relationship between these seemingly disparate phenomena. Our study sheds light on the unanticipated interplay between workplace hand injuries in the landscaping industry and the prevalence of deliberate fire-setting nationwide. We invite readers to join us on this unexpected journey through the intricate web of statistical correlations, where the seemingly mundane world of yard work converges with the incendiary realm of criminal behavior.

ChatGPT:

cutter injuries, trimmer hand injuries, arson statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, FBI criminal justice information services, statistical analysis, landscaping industry injuries, deliberate fire-setting, correlation coefficient, p-value, workplace injuries

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.

Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error

Data details

The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana

Arson in United States
Detailed data title: The arson rate per 100,000 residents in United States
Source: FBI Criminal Justice Information Services
See what else correlates with Arson in United States

Correlation r = 0.9024278 (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 = 0.8143759 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 81.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Arson in United States) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana) over the 20 years from 2003 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 5.3E-8.^Show 0.0000000531792524416690300000
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 0.9 in 5.3E-6% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 18,804,326 random variables^Note You don't actually need 18 million 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 19 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 19 because we have two variables measured over a period of 20 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.77, 0.96 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!

All values for the years included above: ^Note If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana (Laborers)	1090	1100	1330	1530	1140	1010	660	540	520	510	550	490	500	390	340	220	150	80	280	530
Arson in United States (Arson rate)	25	23.6	23.1	24.4	22.6	21.6	19.5	18.1	17.5	17.6	14.9	14.5	13.7	14.1	13.2	12	11	13.9	8.9	11.6

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.
Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. ^Note Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.

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([1090,1100,1330,1530,1140,1010,660,540,520,510,550,490,500,390,340,220,150,80,280,530,])
array_2 = np.array([25,23.6,23.1,24.4,22.6,21.6,19.5,18.1,17.5,17.6,14.9,14.5,13.7,14.1,13.2,12,11,13.9,8.9,11.6,])
array_1_name = "The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana"
array_2_name = "Arson in United States"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)

Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. ^Note Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:

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

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

Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
Alternative high resolution line chart
Scatterplot
Portable line chart (png)
Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
Line chart for only The number of cutters and trimmers, hand in Indiana
Line chart for only Arson in United States
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: The Cutters and Trimmers' Hand in Arson: A Statistical Analysis

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating is much appreciated!

Correlation ID: 1812 · Black Variable ID: 7838 · Red Variable ID: 20038


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