about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,859 · 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 judges in Indiana and the second variable is Viewership of The Big Bang Theory.  The chart goes from 2008 to 2019, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the number of judges in Indiana increased, so did the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory." This is due to the little-known fact that judges have a penchant for high-brow humor and intellectual puns. With their gavel-wielding expertise, they have inadvertently ruled in favor of promoting the show, leading to a surge in viewers who just can't object to its comedic appeal. Clearly, this correlation proves that when it comes to TV preferences, the judicial system holds all the verdicts!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image in the style of a classic black-and-white newspaper illustration featuring a crowded living room in Indiana. Several judges are seated on one side, engrossed in watching "The Big Bang Theory" on a large TV screen. The judges are depicted with distinguished appearances reflecting their authority, while the TV screen emits a glow illuminating the room. The scene should capture the camaraderie and enjoyment of the popular sitcom, showcasing the significance of the show's viewership within the state. 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 judges in Indiana and Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory". Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: A black-and-white newspaper illustration Scalar art Vaporwave Cybernetic art A TIME magazine cover image
ChatGPT: A black-and-white newspaper illustration

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 judges in Indiana and Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a crowded living room in Indiana, several judges are sitting on one side of the room, watching "The Big Bang Theory" on a large TV screen. The show has high viewership in the state, and the judges are enjoying the popular sitcom together.

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 black-and-white newspaper illustration ] and depicting this scene: In a crowded living room in Indiana, several judges are sitting on one side of the room, watching "The Big Bang Theory" on a large TV screen. The show has high viewership in the state, and the judges are enjoying the popular sitcom together. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image in the style of a classic black-and-white newspaper illustration featuring a crowded living room in Indiana. Several judges are seated on one side, engrossed in watching "The Big Bang Theory" on a large TV screen. The judges are depicted with distinguished appearances reflecting their authority, while the TV screen emits a glow illuminating the room. The scene should capture the camaraderie and enjoyment of the popular sitcom, showcasing the significance of the show's viewership within the state.

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

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in The number of judges in Indiana caused Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" to increase.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Justice Judgement: A Case Study of Indiana Judges and 'The Big Bang Theory' Viewership

The Journal of Law and Pop Culture Research

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
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 silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of judges in Indiana and Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory". Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, just make it sound clever.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Wikipedia to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 and p < 0.01 for 2008 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]]
"The Justice Judgement: A Case Study of Indiana Judges and 'The Big Bang Theory' Viewership"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the correlation between the number of judges in the state of Indiana and the viewership of the popular television show "The Big Bang Theory." Utilizing data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Wikipedia, our research team examined the trends from 2008 to 2019. A statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01) was discovered, prompting a closer examination of this peculiar relationship. The implications of these findings are both intriguing and entertaining, shedding light on the intersection between the legal system and sitcom preferences. Our research aims to provoke further interest in the unexpected connections that may exist within seemingly unrelated domains, highlighting the whimsical ways in which data analysis can reveal unexpected patterns.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of judges in Indiana and Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory". 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]]
"The Justice Judgement: A Case Study of Indiana Judges and 'The Big Bang Theory' Viewership"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the correlation between the number of judges in the state of Indiana and the viewership of the popular television show "The Big Bang Theory." Utilizing data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Wikipedia, our research team examined the trends from 2008 to 2019. A statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01) was discovered, prompting a closer examination of this peculiar relationship. The implications of these findings are both intriguing and entertaining, shedding light on the intersection between the legal system and sitcom preferences. Our research aims to provoke further interest in the unexpected connections that may exist within seemingly unrelated domains, highlighting the whimsical ways in which data analysis can reveal unexpected patterns.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The intersection of law and entertainment is not a commonly explored area in academic research. While legal studies and television ratings seem like unlikely bedfellows, our study has revealed a surprising and, dare we say, "Big Bang" correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of the popular sitcom "The Big Bang Theory." The serendipitous discovery of this connection prompted further investigation, leading to the formulation of the present study.

As the realm of data analysis expands, more peculiar and unprecedented patterns in human behavior come to light. For this research, we decided to focus on the state of Indiana, known for its football, basketball, Larry Legend, and apparently an affinity for legal professionals as well as geeky physicists. With a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01), the relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors has captured our attention and, hopefully, will capture yours as well.

This paper aims to delve into the distinctive dynamics and unexpected correlations uncovered in the idiosyncratic relationship between the legal system and a beloved sitcom. Our analysis intends to provide a lighthearted but thought-provoking examination of this intriguing phenomenon, bridging the gap between the judicial arena and television screens. So, buckle up, settle in, and prepare for a journey through the quirks and curiosities of human preferences - where "order in the court" meets "bazinga"!


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of judges in Indiana and Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory". 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 the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"The Justice Judgement: A Case Study of Indiana Judges and 'The Big Bang Theory' Viewership"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the correlation between the number of judges in the state of Indiana and the viewership of the popular television show "The Big Bang Theory." Utilizing data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Wikipedia, our research team examined the trends from 2008 to 2019. A statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01) was discovered, prompting a closer examination of this peculiar relationship. The implications of these findings are both intriguing and entertaining, shedding light on the intersection between the legal system and sitcom preferences. Our research aims to provoke further interest in the unexpected connections that may exist within seemingly unrelated domains, highlighting the whimsical ways in which data analysis can reveal unexpected patterns.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of law and entertainment is not a commonly explored area in academic research. While legal studies and television ratings seem like unlikely bedfellows, our study has revealed a surprising and, dare we say, "Big Bang" correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of the popular sitcom "The Big Bang Theory." The serendipitous discovery of this connection prompted further investigation, leading to the formulation of the present study.
As the realm of data analysis expands, more peculiar and unprecedented patterns in human behavior come to light. For this research, we decided to focus on the state of Indiana, known for its football, basketball, Larry Legend, and apparently an affinity for legal professionals as well as geeky physicists. With a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01), the relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors has captured our attention and, hopefully, will capture yours as well.
This paper aims to delve into the distinctive dynamics and unexpected correlations uncovered in the idiosyncratic relationship between the legal system and a beloved sitcom. Our analysis intends to provide a lighthearted but thought-provoking examination of this intriguing phenomenon, bridging the gap between the judicial arena and television screens. So, buckle up, settle in, and prepare for a journey through the quirks and curiosities of human preferences - where "order in the court" meets "bazinga"!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The connection between the number of judges in a state and television viewership may seem unconventional, but as our research has revealed, it is indeed a subject worthy of exploration. Smith (2015) delves into the societal impact of legal professionals, while Doe (2016) examines the intricacies of sitcom viewership patterns. Jones (2017) provides insights into the regional dynamics of television preferences, shedding light on the potential influence of legal landscapes on popular culture.

Moving beyond the academic realm, books such as "Law and Order: Criminal Intent" by John Smith and "The Theory of Sitcoms" by Jane Doe offer valuable perspectives on the intersection of law and entertainment. Meanwhile, fictional works like "Legal Eagles in Space" by Jack Jones and "The Big Big Theory" by Jenny Smith present imaginative scenarios that blur the lines between reality and whimsy.

Going even further, our research team conducted an exhaustive analysis of various sources, including but not limited to fortune cookies, the fine print on cereal boxes, and the backs of shampoo bottles, all in pursuit of a deeper understanding of this peculiar correlation.

As we plunge into the world of academic literature, it becomes evident that the relationship between judges and "The Big Bang Theory" viewership is a topic of both scholarly and comedic value, ripe for further investigation and, dare we say, entertainment.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of judges in Indiana and Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory". 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 Wikipedia . You used data from 2008 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]]
"The Justice Judgement: A Case Study of Indiana Judges and 'The Big Bang Theory' Viewership"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the correlation between the number of judges in the state of Indiana and the viewership of the popular television show "The Big Bang Theory." Utilizing data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Wikipedia, our research team examined the trends from 2008 to 2019. A statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01) was discovered, prompting a closer examination of this peculiar relationship. The implications of these findings are both intriguing and entertaining, shedding light on the intersection between the legal system and sitcom preferences. Our research aims to provoke further interest in the unexpected connections that may exist within seemingly unrelated domains, highlighting the whimsical ways in which data analysis can reveal unexpected patterns.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of law and entertainment is not a commonly explored area in academic research. While legal studies and television ratings seem like unlikely bedfellows, our study has revealed a surprising and, dare we say, "Big Bang" correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of the popular sitcom "The Big Bang Theory." The serendipitous discovery of this connection prompted further investigation, leading to the formulation of the present study.
As the realm of data analysis expands, more peculiar and unprecedented patterns in human behavior come to light. For this research, we decided to focus on the state of Indiana, known for its football, basketball, Larry Legend, and apparently an affinity for legal professionals as well as geeky physicists. With a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01), the relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors has captured our attention and, hopefully, will capture yours as well.
This paper aims to delve into the distinctive dynamics and unexpected correlations uncovered in the idiosyncratic relationship between the legal system and a beloved sitcom. Our analysis intends to provide a lighthearted but thought-provoking examination of this intriguing phenomenon, bridging the gap between the judicial arena and television screens. So, buckle up, settle in, and prepare for a journey through the quirks and curiosities of human preferences - where "order in the court" meets "bazinga"!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Sample Selection:
The sample for this study consisted of all 92 counties in the state of Indiana. In each county, the number of judges serving at the municipal, superior, appellate, and supreme court levels was recorded. To ensure accuracy, our research team cross-referenced data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Indiana Judicial Branch, and, for good measure, the Indiana State Bar Association's annual picnic attendance list.

Data Collection:
Television viewership data for "The Big Bang Theory" was obtained from various reputable sources, including Nielsen ratings, streaming platforms, and fan club polls. We complemented this data with information gathered from dedicated fan forums, Reddit threads, and the whispered confessions of unapologetic "Big Bang Theory" enthusiasts in various Starbucks locations across the state.

Statistical Analysis:
Utilizing an arsenal of statistical tools, including regression analysis, correlation tests, and a magic 8-ball for good measure, we rigorously examined the relationship between the number of judges and "The Big Bang Theory" viewership. Bayesian analysis was considered, but given the whimsical nature of the study, we opted for a more dramatic flair with scatter plots and Simpson's paradox. Finally, we rolled some dice and consulted a fortune cookie message for additional validation.

Ethical Considerations:
In adherence to the principles of academic integrity, all data collection and analysis were conducted in a manner consistent with the highest ethical standards. Our research team refrained from influencing judges to binge-watch sitcoms or coercing sitcom aficionados into donning judicial robes. In the spirit of transparency and a dash of mischief, however, we must confess to sending a few anonymous geek-themed care packages to courtroom staff.

Limitations:
This study is not without limitations. While the data provided valuable insights into the correlation between the number of judges and "The Big Bang Theory" viewership in Indiana, the specific reasons behind this relationship remain a delightful mystery. Furthermore, the potential influence of external variables such as the introduction of specialty coffee shops and the prevalence of "Geek Chic" fashion trends was not fully explored, as our focus was primarily on the legal and entertainment spheres.

Despite these limitations, our findings offer a compelling glimpse into the unexpected convergence of jurisprudence and popular culture, shedding light on the colorful and intriguing connections that may transcend conventional boundaries. After all, who would have thought that Sheldon Cooper and a courtroom could have more in common than meets the eye?


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of judges in Indiana and Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory". 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 Wikipedia .

For the time period 2008 to 2019, you found a correlation 0.9176346, r-squared of 0.8420533, 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 Justice Judgement: A Case Study of Indiana Judges and 'The Big Bang Theory' Viewership"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the correlation between the number of judges in the state of Indiana and the viewership of the popular television show "The Big Bang Theory." Utilizing data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Wikipedia, our research team examined the trends from 2008 to 2019. A statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01) was discovered, prompting a closer examination of this peculiar relationship. The implications of these findings are both intriguing and entertaining, shedding light on the intersection between the legal system and sitcom preferences. Our research aims to provoke further interest in the unexpected connections that may exist within seemingly unrelated domains, highlighting the whimsical ways in which data analysis can reveal unexpected patterns.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of law and entertainment is not a commonly explored area in academic research. While legal studies and television ratings seem like unlikely bedfellows, our study has revealed a surprising and, dare we say, "Big Bang" correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of the popular sitcom "The Big Bang Theory." The serendipitous discovery of this connection prompted further investigation, leading to the formulation of the present study.
As the realm of data analysis expands, more peculiar and unprecedented patterns in human behavior come to light. For this research, we decided to focus on the state of Indiana, known for its football, basketball, Larry Legend, and apparently an affinity for legal professionals as well as geeky physicists. With a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01), the relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors has captured our attention and, hopefully, will capture yours as well.
This paper aims to delve into the distinctive dynamics and unexpected correlations uncovered in the idiosyncratic relationship between the legal system and a beloved sitcom. Our analysis intends to provide a lighthearted but thought-provoking examination of this intriguing phenomenon, bridging the gap between the judicial arena and television screens. So, buckle up, settle in, and prepare for a journey through the quirks and curiosities of human preferences - where "order in the court" meets "bazinga"!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our analysis reveal a striking and statistically significant correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory." The correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 highlights a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The r-squared value of 0.8420533 suggests that a substantial proportion of the variability in the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" can be explained by the number of judges in Indiana. Our findings indicate that the presence of judges in Indiana is a remarkably strong predictor of the popularity of this popular sitcom.

The scatterplot (see Fig. 1) visually demonstrates the robustness of the relationship between these variables, depicting a clear upward trend that underscores the strength of the correlation. As the number of judges in Indiana increases, so does the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory," painting a compelling picture of the influence of the legal profession on television preferences.

These results not only reaffirm the statistically significant association between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" but also pique curiosity about the underlying mechanisms driving this unanticipated correlation. The implications of this investigation extend beyond the confines of traditional research inquiries, inviting further exploration into the whimsical world of unexpected connections. It is evident that the dynamics of comedic television and the judicial system are intertwined in ways that may be more profound than previously imagined.

In summary, our study unearths a remarkable correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory," adding an element of unpredictability and amusement to the intersection of law and popular culture. These findings challenge traditional notions of causation and beckon us to appreciate the myriad of quirky connections that may lurk beneath the surface of empirical data. As we continue to unravel the quirky tapestry of human behavior, may we remain open to the unexpected correlations that contribute a touch of whimsy to the fabric of our scholarly pursuits.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of judges in Indiana and Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory". 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]]
"The Justice Judgement: A Case Study of Indiana Judges and 'The Big Bang Theory' Viewership"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the correlation between the number of judges in the state of Indiana and the viewership of the popular television show "The Big Bang Theory." Utilizing data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Wikipedia, our research team examined the trends from 2008 to 2019. A statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01) was discovered, prompting a closer examination of this peculiar relationship. The implications of these findings are both intriguing and entertaining, shedding light on the intersection between the legal system and sitcom preferences. Our research aims to provoke further interest in the unexpected connections that may exist within seemingly unrelated domains, highlighting the whimsical ways in which data analysis can reveal unexpected patterns.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between the number of judges in a state and television viewership may seem unconventional, but as our research has revealed, it is indeed a subject worthy of exploration. Smith (2015) delves into the societal impact of legal professionals, while Doe (2016) examines the intricacies of sitcom viewership patterns. Jones (2017) provides insights into the regional dynamics of television preferences, shedding light on the potential influence of legal landscapes on popular culture.
Moving beyond the academic realm, books such as "Law and Order: Criminal Intent" by John Smith and "The Theory of Sitcoms" by Jane Doe offer valuable perspectives on the intersection of law and entertainment. Meanwhile, fictional works like "Legal Eagles in Space" by Jack Jones and "The Big Big Theory" by Jenny Smith present imaginative scenarios that blur the lines between reality and whimsy.
Going even further, our research team conducted an exhaustive analysis of various sources, including but not limited to fortune cookies, the fine print on cereal boxes, and the backs of shampoo bottles, all in pursuit of a deeper understanding of this peculiar correlation.
As we plunge into the world of academic literature, it becomes evident that the relationship between judges and "The Big Bang Theory" viewership is a topic of both scholarly and comedic value, ripe for further investigation and, dare we say, entertainment.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis reveal a striking and statistically significant correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory." The correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 highlights a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The r-squared value of 0.8420533 suggests that a substantial proportion of the variability in the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" can be explained by the number of judges in Indiana. Our findings indicate that the presence of judges in Indiana is a remarkably strong predictor of the popularity of this popular sitcom.
The scatterplot (see Fig. 1) visually demonstrates the robustness of the relationship between these variables, depicting a clear upward trend that underscores the strength of the correlation. As the number of judges in Indiana increases, so does the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory," painting a compelling picture of the influence of the legal profession on television preferences.
These results not only reaffirm the statistically significant association between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" but also pique curiosity about the underlying mechanisms driving this unanticipated correlation. The implications of this investigation extend beyond the confines of traditional research inquiries, inviting further exploration into the whimsical world of unexpected connections. It is evident that the dynamics of comedic television and the judicial system are intertwined in ways that may be more profound than previously imagined.
In summary, our study unearths a remarkable correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory," adding an element of unpredictability and amusement to the intersection of law and popular culture. These findings challenge traditional notions of causation and beckon us to appreciate the myriad of quirky connections that may lurk beneath the surface of empirical data. As we continue to unravel the quirky tapestry of human behavior, may we remain open to the unexpected correlations that contribute a touch of whimsy to the fabric of our scholarly pursuits.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our investigation into the correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" has unearthed a fascinating nexus between the legal realm and popular entertainment. The statistically significant relationship we observed between these seemingly disparate variables exemplifies the whimsical ways in which data analysis can reveal unexpected patterns – you might even say it's a 'judgement call' of statistical significance!

Drawing from the literature review, the peculiar connections between legal landscapes and sitcom preferences become even more intriguing in light of our findings. Smith's exploration of the societal impact of legal professionals takes on a new dimension when we consider the influence of judges on sitcom viewership. Doe's insights into sitcom viewership patterns gain an amusing twist as we delve into the unexpected relationship between the legal profession and the beloved series "The Big Bang Theory." Finally, Jones' examination of regional dynamics of television preferences becomes even more colorful as we uncover the potential role of legal landscapes in shaping popular culture. It's as if our findings add a touch of 'judicial humor' to the scholarly conversation.

The robust correlation we identified not only aligns with prior research but also offers a 'gavel-banging' confirmation of the unexpected associations hinted at in the literature. Our results provide empirical support for the notion that the presence of judges in Indiana is a remarkably strong predictor of the popularity of a beloved sitcom – an observation that may have implications beyond mere statistical significance. Embracing the spirit of whimsy in academic inquiry, we invite further investigation into the 'case' of unexpected correlations and urge fellow researchers to keep their eyes open for delightful surprises in their data. After all, who would have thought that the realm of legal professionals could have such an 'entertaining' impact on our television choices?

In conclusion, our study adds a touch of levity to the intersections of law and popular culture, proving that in the realm of empirical investigations, unexpected correlations can often provide unexpected amusement. As we continue unraveling the enigmatic tapestry of human behavior, may we find joy in the offbeat connections that lend a touch of 'judicial flair' to the fabric of our scholarly pursuits.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of judges in Indiana and Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory". 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]]
"The Justice Judgement: A Case Study of Indiana Judges and 'The Big Bang Theory' Viewership"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the correlation between the number of judges in the state of Indiana and the viewership of the popular television show "The Big Bang Theory." Utilizing data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Wikipedia, our research team examined the trends from 2008 to 2019. A statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01) was discovered, prompting a closer examination of this peculiar relationship. The implications of these findings are both intriguing and entertaining, shedding light on the intersection between the legal system and sitcom preferences. Our research aims to provoke further interest in the unexpected connections that may exist within seemingly unrelated domains, highlighting the whimsical ways in which data analysis can reveal unexpected patterns.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of law and entertainment is not a commonly explored area in academic research. While legal studies and television ratings seem like unlikely bedfellows, our study has revealed a surprising and, dare we say, "Big Bang" correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of the popular sitcom "The Big Bang Theory." The serendipitous discovery of this connection prompted further investigation, leading to the formulation of the present study.
As the realm of data analysis expands, more peculiar and unprecedented patterns in human behavior come to light. For this research, we decided to focus on the state of Indiana, known for its football, basketball, Larry Legend, and apparently an affinity for legal professionals as well as geeky physicists. With a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01), the relationship between the two seemingly disparate factors has captured our attention and, hopefully, will capture yours as well.
This paper aims to delve into the distinctive dynamics and unexpected correlations uncovered in the idiosyncratic relationship between the legal system and a beloved sitcom. Our analysis intends to provide a lighthearted but thought-provoking examination of this intriguing phenomenon, bridging the gap between the judicial arena and television screens. So, buckle up, settle in, and prepare for a journey through the quirks and curiosities of human preferences - where "order in the court" meets "bazinga"!

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis reveal a striking and statistically significant correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory." The correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 highlights a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The r-squared value of 0.8420533 suggests that a substantial proportion of the variability in the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" can be explained by the number of judges in Indiana. Our findings indicate that the presence of judges in Indiana is a remarkably strong predictor of the popularity of this popular sitcom.
The scatterplot (see Fig. 1) visually demonstrates the robustness of the relationship between these variables, depicting a clear upward trend that underscores the strength of the correlation. As the number of judges in Indiana increases, so does the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory," painting a compelling picture of the influence of the legal profession on television preferences.
These results not only reaffirm the statistically significant association between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" but also pique curiosity about the underlying mechanisms driving this unanticipated correlation. The implications of this investigation extend beyond the confines of traditional research inquiries, inviting further exploration into the whimsical world of unexpected connections. It is evident that the dynamics of comedic television and the judicial system are intertwined in ways that may be more profound than previously imagined.
In summary, our study unearths a remarkable correlation between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory," adding an element of unpredictability and amusement to the intersection of law and popular culture. These findings challenge traditional notions of causation and beckon us to appreciate the myriad of quirky connections that may lurk beneath the surface of empirical data. As we continue to unravel the quirky tapestry of human behavior, may we remain open to the unexpected correlations that contribute a touch of whimsy to the fabric of our scholarly pursuits.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has elucidated a rather unexpected and entertaining relationship between the number of judges in Indiana and the viewership of "The Big Bang Theory." This study delves into the whimsical intersection of the legal system and popular culture, revealing a correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01) that has us scratching our heads in both amusement and bewilderment. As we reflect on the findings, we cannot help but marvel at the peculiar ways in which human preferences intertwine and influence each other, much like Sheldon Cooper and his beloved string theory.

The robust correlation between the presence of judges and the popularity of the sitcom suggests a potential "judicial effect," leading us to ponder whether the sight of a gavel-wielding authority figure somehow inspires an inclination toward quirky humor and nerdy antics. Perhaps, the courtroom solemnity is offset by the zany escapades of Leonard, Penny, and their geeky cohorts. This unusual synergy encourages us to embrace the quirkiness of human behavior, reminding us that scholarly pursuits can indeed be laced with a dash of lightheartedness.

However, as we bid adieu to this peculiar correlation, we do so with the assurance that no further research into this whimsical intersection of law and laughter is needed. It seems, for now, that the tenure of judges and the triumphs of theoretical physicists provide an odd but delightful harmony that stirs the hearts and tickles the funny bones of Hoosiers.


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 Justice Judgement: A Case Study of Indiana Judges and 'The Big Bang Theory' Viewership. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Law and Pop Culture Research


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 Justice Judgement: A Case Study of Indiana Judges and 'The Big Bang Theory' Viewership. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Judicial Pop Culture Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The Justice Judgement: A Case Study of Indiana Judges and 'The Big Bang Theory' Viewership with an abstract of This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the correlation between the number of judges in the state of Indiana and the viewership of the popular television show "The Big Bang Theory." Utilizing data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Wikipedia, our research team examined the trends from 2008 to 2019. A statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9176346 (p < 0.01) was discovered, prompting a closer examination of this peculiar relationship. The implications of these findings are both intriguing and entertaining, shedding light on the intersection between the legal system and sitcom preferences. Our research aims to provoke further interest in the unexpected connections that may exist within seemingly unrelated domains, highlighting the whimsical ways in which data analysis can reveal unexpected patterns.

ChatGPT:

Indiana judges, "The Big Bang Theory" viewership, correlation analysis, television viewership trends, state demographics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Indiana judicial system, television show preferences, data analysis, unexpected patterns

*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 judges in Indiana
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of judges, magistrate judges, and magistrates in Indiana
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of judges in Indiana

Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory"
Detailed data title: Average viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" by season
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory"

Correlation r = 0.9176346 (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 = 0.8420533 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 84.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory") is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of judges in Indiana) over the 12 years from 2008 through 2019.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.6E-5. 0.0000259658949143783430000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.92 in 0.0026% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 38,512 random variables You don't actually need 38 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. 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.

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 11 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 11 because we have two variables measured over a period of 12 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.

[ 0.73, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019
The number of judges in Indiana (Laborers)650630710730760770770790770750760730
Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory" (Viewers)83100001000000014140000132100001582000018680000199600001905000020360000189900001863000017310000




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. 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. 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. 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([650,630,710,730,760,770,770,790,770,750,760,730,])
array_2 = np.array([8310000,10000000,14140000,13210000,15820000,18680000,19960000,19050000,20360000,18990000,18630000,17310000,])
array_1_name = "The number of judges in Indiana"
array_2_name = "Viewership of "The Big Bang Theory""

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the rating guru we've been waiting for!


Correlation ID: 1859 · Black Variable ID: 7626 · Red Variable ID: 146
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0