about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,862 · 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 logisticians in District of Columbia and the second variable is Google searches for 'i cant even'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the number of logisticians in District of Columbia increased, so did the ability to organize and manage various events and supplies. This increased efficiency led to a surplus of perfectly timed and impeccably coordinated situations, leaving people in awe and unable to comprehend the sheer logistical mastery. In other words, the logisticians were delivering pun-ishingly well-coordinated events, leaving everyone saying, "I can't even handle how smoothly everything is running!" It's a classic case of too much logistic-ability leading to a logistical-ennui for the rest of us. Who knew that the supply chain of 'I can't even' moments was so directly linked to the professionals behind the scenes orchestrating the perfect storm of bewilderment!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image showing a group of logisticians in a sunny office in the District of Columbia working on planning and organizing supply chains. The scene includes a computer screen in the background displaying a spike in Google searches for "i cant even," symbolizing a moment of frustration for some internet users. The overall image should have the look and feel of a black-and-white newspaper illustration, capturing the busy atmosphere of the office and the juxtaposition of the logistical work and digital frustration. 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 logisticians in District of Columbia and Google searches for 'i cant even'. 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 Whimsical illustration Hyper-realistic Oragami Realistic
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 logisticians in District of Columbia and Google searches for 'i cant even' together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a sunny office in the District of Columbia, a group of logisticians are hard at work planning and organizing supply chains. In the background, a computer screen shows a spike in Google searches for "i cant even," indicating a moment of frustration for some internet users.

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 sunny office in the District of Columbia, a group of logisticians are hard at work planning and organizing supply chains. In the background, a computer screen shows a spike in Google searches for "i cant even," indicating a moment of frustration for some internet users. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image showing a group of logisticians in a sunny office in the District of Columbia working on planning and organizing supply chains. The scene includes a computer screen in the background displaying a spike in Google searches for "i cant even," symbolizing a moment of frustration for some internet users. The overall image should have the look and feel of a black-and-white newspaper illustration, capturing the busy atmosphere of the office and the juxtaposition of the logistical work and digital frustration.

*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 humerus 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 logisticians in District of Columbia caused i cant even (Google searches for 'i cant even') to increase. Include a lot of jokes and puns.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Logistical Lamentations: Exploring the Correlation Between the Number of Logisticians in District of Columbia and Google Searches for 'I Can't Even'

The Journal of Absurdist Logistics

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 logisticians in District of Columbia and Google searches for 'i cant even'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9212195 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2022.

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]]
"Logistical Lamentations: Exploring the Correlation Between the Number of Logisticians in District of Columbia and Google Searches for 'I Can't Even'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unexpectedly intertwined realms of logistics and digital expression by examining the relationship between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the vernacular exclamation 'I can't even'. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends spanning from 2004 to 2022, our research team calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.9212195 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings prompt further pondering about the potential influence of logistical prowess on the collective exasperation expressed through modern digital platforms, warranting closer scrutiny of the whimsical dynamics at play in these seemingly unrelated domains.


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 logisticians in District of Columbia and Google searches for 'i cant even'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Logistical Lamentations: Exploring the Correlation Between the Number of Logisticians in District of Columbia and Google Searches for 'I Can't Even'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unexpectedly intertwined realms of logistics and digital expression by examining the relationship between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the vernacular exclamation 'I can't even'. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends spanning from 2004 to 2022, our research team calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.9212195 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings prompt further pondering about the potential influence of logistical prowess on the collective exasperation expressed through modern digital platforms, warranting closer scrutiny of the whimsical dynamics at play in these seemingly unrelated domains.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The realms of logistics and digital expression may at first appear as disparate as chalk and cheese, providing a curious backdrop to our exploration of the correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and the frequency of Google searches for the ubiquitous phrase 'I can't even'. The intersection of these seemingly incongruous disciplines invites a closer examination of the potential interplay between the organized orchestration of supply chains and the collective exasperation permeating the digital landscape.

While the cynics among us may gleefully dismiss such inquiries as a foray into the frivolous, the data we have compiled and meticulously analyzed presents a compelling case for untangling the enigmatic relationship between these two divergent entities. As we embark on this whimsical journey, it is worth considering the potential impact of logistical pliability on the audacious exclamations that populate the digital sphere. Could it be that the adept maneuvering of goods and resources translates into a heightened verbalized frustration, or are we merely unraveling a comical coincidence? The answers lie in the symbiotic dance of data and deduction that we hope to elucidate in the course of this investigation.

We approach this matter with a scientific rigor that belies the whimsy of our subject matter, for in the world of research, no endeavor is too eccentric if it yields insight, or at the very least, a well-timed jest. Our findings are poised to offer a fresh glimpse into the peculiar concatenation of statistics and semantics, delving into the depths of correlation while navigating the convoluted corridors of causation. Prepare to be both amused and enlightened, for we aim to unclog the tangled mysteries of this logistical enigma, one 'I can't even' at a time.

In the words of the venerable Carl Sagan, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known," and it just might reside in the unexpected convergence of logistics and linguistic exasperation. So, dear readers, as we journey forth into this intriguing terrain, let us indulge in the irreverence of inquiry and the mirth of measurement, for in the unraveling of this logistical lamentation, truth may be stranger than fiction.


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 logisticians in District of Columbia and Google searches for 'i cant even'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Logistical Lamentations: Exploring the Correlation Between the Number of Logisticians in District of Columbia and Google Searches for 'I Can't Even'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unexpectedly intertwined realms of logistics and digital expression by examining the relationship between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the vernacular exclamation 'I can't even'. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends spanning from 2004 to 2022, our research team calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.9212195 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings prompt further pondering about the potential influence of logistical prowess on the collective exasperation expressed through modern digital platforms, warranting closer scrutiny of the whimsical dynamics at play in these seemingly unrelated domains.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The realms of logistics and digital expression may at first appear as disparate as chalk and cheese, providing a curious backdrop to our exploration of the correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and the frequency of Google searches for the ubiquitous phrase 'I can't even'. The intersection of these seemingly incongruous disciplines invites a closer examination of the potential interplay between the organized orchestration of supply chains and the collective exasperation permeating the digital landscape.
While the cynics among us may gleefully dismiss such inquiries as a foray into the frivolous, the data we have compiled and meticulously analyzed presents a compelling case for untangling the enigmatic relationship between these two divergent entities. As we embark on this whimsical journey, it is worth considering the potential impact of logistical pliability on the audacious exclamations that populate the digital sphere. Could it be that the adept maneuvering of goods and resources translates into a heightened verbalized frustration, or are we merely unraveling a comical coincidence? The answers lie in the symbiotic dance of data and deduction that we hope to elucidate in the course of this investigation.
We approach this matter with a scientific rigor that belies the whimsy of our subject matter, for in the world of research, no endeavor is too eccentric if it yields insight, or at the very least, a well-timed jest. Our findings are poised to offer a fresh glimpse into the peculiar concatenation of statistics and semantics, delving into the depths of correlation while navigating the convoluted corridors of causation. Prepare to be both amused and enlightened, for we aim to unclog the tangled mysteries of this logistical enigma, one 'I can't even' at a time.
In the words of the venerable Carl Sagan, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known," and it just might reside in the unexpected convergence of logistics and linguistic exasperation. So, dear readers, as we journey forth into this intriguing terrain, let us indulge in the irreverence of inquiry and the mirth of measurement, for in the unraveling of this logistical lamentation, truth may be stranger than fiction.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The curious correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and the frequency of Google searches for the phrase 'I can't even' may initially seem as improbable as finding a unicorn in a supply chain warehouse. However, our foray into the literary landscape of logistics and digital expression exposes a hitherto unexplored realm of wonder and whimsy.

Smith (2016) describes the intricate dance of logistics in his seminal work "The Logistics Handbook," a sober analysis of supply chain management that, despite its lack of levity, forms the foundation of our understanding of this discipline. As we delve further into the outlandish recesses of our topic, an unexpected trove of insights emerges. Doe and Jones (2018) highlight the indispensable role of logisticians in their groundbreaking study "Principles of Logistics," an erudite exposé that nonchalantly cradles a wealth of knowledge within its unassuming title.

Venturing beyond the staid confines of academic discourse, we serendipitously encounter non-fiction works that ominously hint at the peculiar symbiosis we seek to unravel. "The Art of Procrastination" by John Perry (2012) embodies the exasperated spirit we encounter in our digital odyssey, where the utterance of 'I can't even' may well be a battle cry against the relentless march of impending deadlines.

In a surreal twist, fiction collides with our research as we stumble upon "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams (1979), a classic that whimsically explores the cosmic absurdity of existence, perhaps shedding a glimmer of light on the enigmatic relationship between logistics and linguistic exasperation. To further infuse our investigation with the mirthful tone it deserves, we turn to Terry Pratchett's "Going Postal" (2004), a satirical tale that wryly hints at the comedic potential nestled within the logistical domain.

Moreover, our rigorous pursuit of knowledge extends beyond the written word, as we immerse ourselves in the televisual realm. "Parks and Recreation," a sitcom chronicling the bureaucratic escapades in the fictional town of Pawnee, offers a tongue-in-cheek portrayal of governmental logistics that, albeit farcical, sheds light on the idiosyncrasies embedded within administrative operations.

As we straddle the divide between the erudite and the absurd, our investigation takes on a quintessentially whimsical hue. In our pursuit of elucidating the correlation between logisticians' stronghold and exasperating exclamations, we find ourselves traversing a labyrinth of literature, both factual and fanciful. The unearthing of such unexpected connections embodies the very essence of scholarly inquiry, where the pursuit of knowledge intertwines with the indulgence of curiosity, for in the unraveling of this logistical lamentation, truth may indeed be found in the most unlikely of places.


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 logisticians in District of Columbia and Google searches for 'i cant even'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 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]]
"Logistical Lamentations: Exploring the Correlation Between the Number of Logisticians in District of Columbia and Google Searches for 'I Can't Even'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unexpectedly intertwined realms of logistics and digital expression by examining the relationship between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the vernacular exclamation 'I can't even'. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends spanning from 2004 to 2022, our research team calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.9212195 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings prompt further pondering about the potential influence of logistical prowess on the collective exasperation expressed through modern digital platforms, warranting closer scrutiny of the whimsical dynamics at play in these seemingly unrelated domains.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The realms of logistics and digital expression may at first appear as disparate as chalk and cheese, providing a curious backdrop to our exploration of the correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and the frequency of Google searches for the ubiquitous phrase 'I can't even'. The intersection of these seemingly incongruous disciplines invites a closer examination of the potential interplay between the organized orchestration of supply chains and the collective exasperation permeating the digital landscape.
While the cynics among us may gleefully dismiss such inquiries as a foray into the frivolous, the data we have compiled and meticulously analyzed presents a compelling case for untangling the enigmatic relationship between these two divergent entities. As we embark on this whimsical journey, it is worth considering the potential impact of logistical pliability on the audacious exclamations that populate the digital sphere. Could it be that the adept maneuvering of goods and resources translates into a heightened verbalized frustration, or are we merely unraveling a comical coincidence? The answers lie in the symbiotic dance of data and deduction that we hope to elucidate in the course of this investigation.
We approach this matter with a scientific rigor that belies the whimsy of our subject matter, for in the world of research, no endeavor is too eccentric if it yields insight, or at the very least, a well-timed jest. Our findings are poised to offer a fresh glimpse into the peculiar concatenation of statistics and semantics, delving into the depths of correlation while navigating the convoluted corridors of causation. Prepare to be both amused and enlightened, for we aim to unclog the tangled mysteries of this logistical enigma, one 'I can't even' at a time.
In the words of the venerable Carl Sagan, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known," and it just might reside in the unexpected convergence of logistics and linguistic exasperation. So, dear readers, as we journey forth into this intriguing terrain, let us indulge in the irreverence of inquiry and the mirth of measurement, for in the unraveling of this logistical lamentation, truth may be stranger than fiction.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To untangle the enigmatic relationship between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and the prevalence of 'I can't even' exclamations in the digital domain, our research team embarked on a whimsical yet methodologically robust journey. Leveraging a combination of data sources and analytical techniques, we meticulously crafted a framework for our investigation.

First and foremost, our team enthusiastically delved into the treasure trove of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to identify the annual count of logisticians within the District of Columbia from 2004 to 2022. This laborious process involved sifting through bureaucratic hieroglyphics and cryptic codes, akin to exploring an ancient scientific manuscript, with occasional exclamations of 'I can't even' echoing through the office as we navigated the labyrinthine corridors of statistical data.

Simultaneously, our intrepid researchers turned to the digital oracle known as Google Trends to unearth the temporal ebbs and flows of online searches for the infamous exclamation 'I can't even'. Harnessing the power of algorithms and palindromic search strings, we combed through the digital haystack to pinpoint the moments when exasperation permeated the online ether in conjunction with the logistical landscape of the District of Columbia.

Having amassed these disparate yet tantalizing datasets, we engaged in an intricate dance of statistical analysis, gallivanting through the pastures of correlation coefficients, p-values, and regression models. With our trusty abacus in hand and a fervent plea to the goddess of algorithms, we illuminated the path towards uncovering the hidden nuances of this unlikely association.

It is worth noting that we navigated this scientific odyssey with an analytical rigor that would make Sherlock Holmes proud, all while savoring the comical juxtaposition of logistics and linguistic exasperation. As we made our way through this academic labyrinth, we encountered some statistical hobgoblins and unforeseen data pitfalls, but, armed with a healthy dose of statistical ingenuity and a pinch of cosmic optimism, we traversed the tumultuous terrain of quantitative inquiry with fervent determination.

In closing, our methodology exudes a delightful blend of empirical rigor and whimsical curiosity, underscoring the profound allure of scientific inquiry while embracing the mirthful eccentricities that make research endeavors a delightful adventure. There are no catacombs too convoluted, no correlations too cryptic, for a dedicated band of researchers armed with data, dedication, and the occasional well-timed pun.


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 logisticians in District of Columbia and Google searches for 'i cant even'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends .

For the time period 2004 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9212195, r-squared of 0.8486454, 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]]
"Logistical Lamentations: Exploring the Correlation Between the Number of Logisticians in District of Columbia and Google Searches for 'I Can't Even'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unexpectedly intertwined realms of logistics and digital expression by examining the relationship between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the vernacular exclamation 'I can't even'. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends spanning from 2004 to 2022, our research team calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.9212195 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings prompt further pondering about the potential influence of logistical prowess on the collective exasperation expressed through modern digital platforms, warranting closer scrutiny of the whimsical dynamics at play in these seemingly unrelated domains.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The realms of logistics and digital expression may at first appear as disparate as chalk and cheese, providing a curious backdrop to our exploration of the correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and the frequency of Google searches for the ubiquitous phrase 'I can't even'. The intersection of these seemingly incongruous disciplines invites a closer examination of the potential interplay between the organized orchestration of supply chains and the collective exasperation permeating the digital landscape.
While the cynics among us may gleefully dismiss such inquiries as a foray into the frivolous, the data we have compiled and meticulously analyzed presents a compelling case for untangling the enigmatic relationship between these two divergent entities. As we embark on this whimsical journey, it is worth considering the potential impact of logistical pliability on the audacious exclamations that populate the digital sphere. Could it be that the adept maneuvering of goods and resources translates into a heightened verbalized frustration, or are we merely unraveling a comical coincidence? The answers lie in the symbiotic dance of data and deduction that we hope to elucidate in the course of this investigation.
We approach this matter with a scientific rigor that belies the whimsy of our subject matter, for in the world of research, no endeavor is too eccentric if it yields insight, or at the very least, a well-timed jest. Our findings are poised to offer a fresh glimpse into the peculiar concatenation of statistics and semantics, delving into the depths of correlation while navigating the convoluted corridors of causation. Prepare to be both amused and enlightened, for we aim to unclog the tangled mysteries of this logistical enigma, one 'I can't even' at a time.
In the words of the venerable Carl Sagan, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known," and it just might reside in the unexpected convergence of logistics and linguistic exasperation. So, dear readers, as we journey forth into this intriguing terrain, let us indulge in the irreverence of inquiry and the mirth of measurement, for in the unraveling of this logistical lamentation, truth may be stranger than fiction.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our investigation into the correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the colloquial expression "I can't even" has yielded intriguing results. The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9212195, denoting a compelling relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding highlights the potential interconnectedness of the logistical and linguistic domains, raising eyebrows and prompting more than a few puzzled expressions among our research team.

Fittingly, the scatterplot (Fig. 1) depicts a visually striking alignment of data points, akin to the synchronized movement of a well-coordinated supply chain. The robust relationship between the two variables, as evidenced by the scatterplot, beckons one to ponder the underlying mechanisms at play. Could it be that as the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia increases, so does the collective exasperation expressed through 'I can't even' searches? Or are we merely witnessing a whimsical dance of statistical coincidence, a serendipitous waltz in the realm of research?

The r-squared value of 0.8486454 further attests to the strength of this association, underscoring the substantial proportion of variance in 'I can't even' searches that can be explained by the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia. Our findings, while undeniably captivating, also leave us with a host of lingering questions, each more quizzical than the last.

The p-value of less than 0.01 reinforces the robustness of this correlation, lending statistical significance to our exploratory endeavor. Indeed, this p-value invites a wry smile or two, as it signifies a level of confidence in our findings that is as rare and delightful as stumbling upon an impeccably organized inventory.

In light of these compelling results, it becomes increasingly clear that the enigmatic interplay between logistical expertise and vocalized exasperation merits further investigation. As we traverse this curious landscape of statistics and semantics, we are reminded of the whimsical charm of research and the inexhaustible reservoir of insight nestled within its most unexpected corners. Indeed, in the words of the great Albert Einstein, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." And so, armed with a sense of wonder and a penchant for the peculiar, we venture forth, for the truth, it seems, is often stranger than fiction.


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 logisticians in District of Columbia and Google searches for 'i cant even'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
"Logistical Lamentations: Exploring the Correlation Between the Number of Logisticians in District of Columbia and Google Searches for 'I Can't Even'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unexpectedly intertwined realms of logistics and digital expression by examining the relationship between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the vernacular exclamation 'I can't even'. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends spanning from 2004 to 2022, our research team calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.9212195 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings prompt further pondering about the potential influence of logistical prowess on the collective exasperation expressed through modern digital platforms, warranting closer scrutiny of the whimsical dynamics at play in these seemingly unrelated domains.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The curious correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and the frequency of Google searches for the phrase 'I can't even' may initially seem as improbable as finding a unicorn in a supply chain warehouse. However, our foray into the literary landscape of logistics and digital expression exposes a hitherto unexplored realm of wonder and whimsy.
Smith (2016) describes the intricate dance of logistics in his seminal work "The Logistics Handbook," a sober analysis of supply chain management that, despite its lack of levity, forms the foundation of our understanding of this discipline. As we delve further into the outlandish recesses of our topic, an unexpected trove of insights emerges. Doe and Jones (2018) highlight the indispensable role of logisticians in their groundbreaking study "Principles of Logistics," an erudite exposé that nonchalantly cradles a wealth of knowledge within its unassuming title.
Venturing beyond the staid confines of academic discourse, we serendipitously encounter non-fiction works that ominously hint at the peculiar symbiosis we seek to unravel. "The Art of Procrastination" by John Perry (2012) embodies the exasperated spirit we encounter in our digital odyssey, where the utterance of 'I can't even' may well be a battle cry against the relentless march of impending deadlines.
In a surreal twist, fiction collides with our research as we stumble upon "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams (1979), a classic that whimsically explores the cosmic absurdity of existence, perhaps shedding a glimmer of light on the enigmatic relationship between logistics and linguistic exasperation. To further infuse our investigation with the mirthful tone it deserves, we turn to Terry Pratchett's "Going Postal" (2004), a satirical tale that wryly hints at the comedic potential nestled within the logistical domain.
Moreover, our rigorous pursuit of knowledge extends beyond the written word, as we immerse ourselves in the televisual realm. "Parks and Recreation," a sitcom chronicling the bureaucratic escapades in the fictional town of Pawnee, offers a tongue-in-cheek portrayal of governmental logistics that, albeit farcical, sheds light on the idiosyncrasies embedded within administrative operations.
As we straddle the divide between the erudite and the absurd, our investigation takes on a quintessentially whimsical hue. In our pursuit of elucidating the correlation between logisticians' stronghold and exasperating exclamations, we find ourselves traversing a labyrinth of literature, both factual and fanciful. The unearthing of such unexpected connections embodies the very essence of scholarly inquiry, where the pursuit of knowledge intertwines with the indulgence of curiosity, for in the unraveling of this logistical lamentation, truth may indeed be found in the most unlikely of places.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the colloquial expression "I can't even" has yielded intriguing results. The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9212195, denoting a compelling relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding highlights the potential interconnectedness of the logistical and linguistic domains, raising eyebrows and prompting more than a few puzzled expressions among our research team.
Fittingly, the scatterplot (Fig. 1) depicts a visually striking alignment of data points, akin to the synchronized movement of a well-coordinated supply chain. The robust relationship between the two variables, as evidenced by the scatterplot, beckons one to ponder the underlying mechanisms at play. Could it be that as the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia increases, so does the collective exasperation expressed through 'I can't even' searches? Or are we merely witnessing a whimsical dance of statistical coincidence, a serendipitous waltz in the realm of research?
The r-squared value of 0.8486454 further attests to the strength of this association, underscoring the substantial proportion of variance in 'I can't even' searches that can be explained by the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia. Our findings, while undeniably captivating, also leave us with a host of lingering questions, each more quizzical than the last.
The p-value of less than 0.01 reinforces the robustness of this correlation, lending statistical significance to our exploratory endeavor. Indeed, this p-value invites a wry smile or two, as it signifies a level of confidence in our findings that is as rare and delightful as stumbling upon an impeccably organized inventory.
In light of these compelling results, it becomes increasingly clear that the enigmatic interplay between logistical expertise and vocalized exasperation merits further investigation. As we traverse this curious landscape of statistics and semantics, we are reminded of the whimsical charm of research and the inexhaustible reservoir of insight nestled within its most unexpected corners. Indeed, in the words of the great Albert Einstein, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." And so, armed with a sense of wonder and a penchant for the peculiar, we venture forth, for the truth, it seems, is often stranger than fiction.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The robust correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and the frequency of Google searches for the phrase 'I can't even' has undoubtedly sparked a myriad of ponderings and perplexities in the academic sphere. It's like the perfect synergy of supply chain management and digital expression. The statistically significant results in this study not only validate previous research but also beckon the scholarly community to pause, scratch their heads, and indulge in a moment of collective bemusement.

Our findings resonate with the whimsical insights proffered by Smith (2016) and Doe and Jones (2018). It seems that the staid world of logistics and the exasperated digital utterances associated with 'I can't even' are more entwined than one might initially assume, not unlike a tangled web of data waiting to be deciphered.

The scatterplot, akin to an impeccably orchestrated supply chain, visually encapsulates the harmonious dance of these seemingly incongruous variables. It's as if the data points themselves are playfully whispering, "Look at us! We're an example of statistical choreography at its finest."

Moreover, the r-squared value further solidifies the strength of this association, pointing to the substantial proportion of variance in 'I can't even' searches that can be explained by the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia. This rapport between logistics and linguistic exasperation invites speculation as to the nuanced interplay at work. Could it be a logistical embrace of exasperations or a statistical pas de deux with a touch of whimsy?

The p-value, less than 0.01, stands as a beacon of statistical significance that is as rare and delightful as finding a well-organized inventory. It's a statistical high-five, a nod from the data that says, "Hey, this is not just a fluke!"

The curious collision of logistics and whimsical linguistic expressions, as evidenced by our research, exemplifies the delightful unpredictability that often characterizes scholarly endeavors. As we continue to unpack the enigmatic interplay between logistical expertise and vocalized exasperation, we are reminded of the whimsical charm of research and the unfathomable depths of insight nestled within its most improbable avenues. After all, as Herman Melville once mused, "It is not down in any map; true places never are." And perhaps, in the thrilling pursuit of knowledge, these are the places where true discoveries lie.


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 logisticians in District of Columbia and Google searches for 'i cant even'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Logistical Lamentations: Exploring the Correlation Between the Number of Logisticians in District of Columbia and Google Searches for 'I Can't Even'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unexpectedly intertwined realms of logistics and digital expression by examining the relationship between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the vernacular exclamation 'I can't even'. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends spanning from 2004 to 2022, our research team calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.9212195 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings prompt further pondering about the potential influence of logistical prowess on the collective exasperation expressed through modern digital platforms, warranting closer scrutiny of the whimsical dynamics at play in these seemingly unrelated domains.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The realms of logistics and digital expression may at first appear as disparate as chalk and cheese, providing a curious backdrop to our exploration of the correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and the frequency of Google searches for the ubiquitous phrase 'I can't even'. The intersection of these seemingly incongruous disciplines invites a closer examination of the potential interplay between the organized orchestration of supply chains and the collective exasperation permeating the digital landscape.
While the cynics among us may gleefully dismiss such inquiries as a foray into the frivolous, the data we have compiled and meticulously analyzed presents a compelling case for untangling the enigmatic relationship between these two divergent entities. As we embark on this whimsical journey, it is worth considering the potential impact of logistical pliability on the audacious exclamations that populate the digital sphere. Could it be that the adept maneuvering of goods and resources translates into a heightened verbalized frustration, or are we merely unraveling a comical coincidence? The answers lie in the symbiotic dance of data and deduction that we hope to elucidate in the course of this investigation.
We approach this matter with a scientific rigor that belies the whimsy of our subject matter, for in the world of research, no endeavor is too eccentric if it yields insight, or at the very least, a well-timed jest. Our findings are poised to offer a fresh glimpse into the peculiar concatenation of statistics and semantics, delving into the depths of correlation while navigating the convoluted corridors of causation. Prepare to be both amused and enlightened, for we aim to unclog the tangled mysteries of this logistical enigma, one 'I can't even' at a time.
In the words of the venerable Carl Sagan, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known," and it just might reside in the unexpected convergence of logistics and linguistic exasperation. So, dear readers, as we journey forth into this intriguing terrain, let us indulge in the irreverence of inquiry and the mirth of measurement, for in the unraveling of this logistical lamentation, truth may be stranger than fiction.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the colloquial expression "I can't even" has yielded intriguing results. The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9212195, denoting a compelling relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding highlights the potential interconnectedness of the logistical and linguistic domains, raising eyebrows and prompting more than a few puzzled expressions among our research team.
Fittingly, the scatterplot (Fig. 1) depicts a visually striking alignment of data points, akin to the synchronized movement of a well-coordinated supply chain. The robust relationship between the two variables, as evidenced by the scatterplot, beckons one to ponder the underlying mechanisms at play. Could it be that as the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia increases, so does the collective exasperation expressed through 'I can't even' searches? Or are we merely witnessing a whimsical dance of statistical coincidence, a serendipitous waltz in the realm of research?
The r-squared value of 0.8486454 further attests to the strength of this association, underscoring the substantial proportion of variance in 'I can't even' searches that can be explained by the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia. Our findings, while undeniably captivating, also leave us with a host of lingering questions, each more quizzical than the last.
The p-value of less than 0.01 reinforces the robustness of this correlation, lending statistical significance to our exploratory endeavor. Indeed, this p-value invites a wry smile or two, as it signifies a level of confidence in our findings that is as rare and delightful as stumbling upon an impeccably organized inventory.
In light of these compelling results, it becomes increasingly clear that the enigmatic interplay between logistical expertise and vocalized exasperation merits further investigation. As we traverse this curious landscape of statistics and semantics, we are reminded of the whimsical charm of research and the inexhaustible reservoir of insight nestled within its most unexpected corners. Indeed, in the words of the great Albert Einstein, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." And so, armed with a sense of wonder and a penchant for the peculiar, we venture forth, for the truth, it seems, is often stranger than fiction.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our peculiar yet riveting exploration into the correlation between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the colloquial expression "I can't even" has uncovered a delightfully robust relationship. The statistical analysis has yielded results as intriguing as stumbling upon a statistically significant p-value in the unlikeliest of places. The visual representation in our scatterplot, reminiscent of a meticulously choreographed ballet of data points, has certainly elicited more than a few astounded chuckles.

The remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9212195 serves as a testament to the unexpected interconnectedness of logistical prowess and digital linguistic exasperation. It appears that as the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia increases, so does the collective exasperation expressed through 'I can't even' searches, prompting us to ponder whether it is the intricately coordinated supply chains that fuel this digital frustration. The r-squared value of 0.8486454 further emphasizes the strength of this association, leaving us with a lingering sense of awe and amusement at the confluence of logistics and laments.

As we have straddled the worlds of statistics and semantics in our pursuit of truth, we have been reminded of the inexplicable beauty woven into the tapestry of research - the same beauty that prompted Albert Einstein to extol the virtues of the mysterious. Yet, as we reflect on our findings, it becomes clear that no further research is needed in this area, as we have unequivocally unraveled the whimsical mysteries of this logistical enigma, leaving us with a sense of awe and a lingering smile at the delightful dance of statistical coincidence.


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 Logistical Lamentations: Exploring the Correlation Between the Number of Logisticians in District of Columbia and Google Searches for 'I Can't Even'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Absurdist Logistics


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 Logistical Lamentations: Exploring the Correlation Between the Number of Logisticians in District of Columbia and Google Searches for 'I Can't Even'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Strategic Supply Chain 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 Logistical Lamentations: Exploring the Correlation Between the Number of Logisticians in District of Columbia and Google Searches for 'I Can't Even' with an abstract of This study delves into the unexpectedly intertwined realms of logistics and digital expression by examining the relationship between the number of logisticians in the District of Columbia and Google searches for the vernacular exclamation 'I can't even'. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends spanning from 2004 to 2022, our research team calculated a correlation coefficient of 0.9212195 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings prompt further pondering about the potential influence of logistical prowess on the collective exasperation expressed through modern digital platforms, warranting closer scrutiny of the whimsical dynamics at play in these seemingly unrelated domains.

ChatGPT:

district of columbia logisticians, google searches, correlation, logistical prowess, digital expression, vernacular exclamation, 'I can't even', Bureau of Labor Statistics, Google Trends, correlation coefficient, statistical significance

*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 logisticians in District of Columbia
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of logisticians in District of Columbia
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of logisticians in District of Columbia

Google searches for 'i cant even'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'i cant even' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'i cant even'

Correlation r = 0.9212195 (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 = 0.8486454 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 84.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'i cant even') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of logisticians in District of Columbia) over the 19 years from 2004 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.2E-8. 0.0000000219754707958049550000
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 2.2E-6% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 45,505,282 random variables You don't actually need 45 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 18 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 18 because we have two variables measured over a period of 19 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.

[ 0.8, 0.97 ] 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.
2004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
The number of logisticians in District of Columbia (Logisticians)1401306907008106708308609601070116013701330130012101150113010501180
Google searches for 'i cant even' (Rel. search volume)11.83332433.58333234.7537.560.2563.333354.333363.2570.833374.7571.166772.41676355.916764.08336572.0833




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.




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([140,130,690,700,810,670,830,860,960,1070,1160,1370,1330,1300,1210,1150,1130,1050,1180,])
array_2 = np.array([11.8333,24,33.5833,32,34.75,37.5,60.25,63.3333,54.3333,63.25,70.8333,74.75,71.1667,72.4167,63,55.9167,64.0833,65,72.0833,])
array_1_name = "The number of logisticians in District of Columbia"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'i cant even'"

# 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?

Your correlation rating is out of this world!


Correlation ID: 1862 · Black Variable ID: 16952 · Red Variable ID: 1525
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0