about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,880 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Popularity of the first name Baby and the second variable is Arson in Nebraska.  The chart goes from 1985 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

Fewer babies named Baby means there are fewer future adults with the last name of Baby. With fewer Babies around, there's less temptation to play with matches and light things on fire, thus leading to a decrease in arson in Nebraska. It's a Baby name miracle!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a crowded town square in Nebraska where people are gathered around a large bonfire, cheering and clapping as the flames soar high into the night sky. In the midst of the crowd, there is a banner with the name "Baby" being passed around, and people are taking turns posing for photos with it. The combination of the enthusiastic crowd and the fiery spectacle creates a surreal and striking image depicting the intersection between popularity and arson in Nebraska. 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: Popularity of the first name Baby and Arson in Nebraska. 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 scene from Skyrim A scene from Skyrim Magic realism Brutalism Data cyber art
ChatGPT: A scene from Skyrim

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 Popularity of the first name Baby and Arson in Nebraska together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a crowded town square in Nebraska, a group of people gather around a large bonfire, cheering and clapping as the flames soar high into the night sky. In the midst of the crowd, a banner with the name "Baby" is being passed around, as people take turns posing for photos with it. The combination of the enthusiastic crowd and the fiery spectacle creates a surreal and striking image of the intersection between popularity and arson in Nebraska.

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 scene from Skyrim ] and depicting this scene: In a crowded town square in Nebraska, a group of people gather around a large bonfire, cheering and clapping as the flames soar high into the night sky. In the midst of the crowd, a banner with the name "Baby" is being passed around, as people take turns posing for photos with it. The combination of the enthusiastic crowd and the fiery spectacle creates a surreal and striking image of the intersection between popularity and arson in Nebraska. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a crowded town square in Nebraska where people are gathered around a large bonfire, cheering and clapping as the flames soar high into the night sky. In the midst of the crowd, there is a banner with the name "Baby" being passed around, and people are taking turns posing for photos with it. The combination of the enthusiastic crowd and the fiery spectacle creates a surreal and striking image depicting the intersection between popularity and arson in Nebraska.

*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 a decrease in Popularity of the first name Baby caused Arson in Nebraska to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Firestarter or Just Trendy: The Correlation Between Baby's Popularity and Arson in Nebraska

The Journal of Quirky Social Trends

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 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 Popularity of the first name Baby and Arson in Nebraska. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from US Social Security Administration and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9107243 and p < 0.01 for 1985 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]]
Firestarter or Just Trendy: The Correlation Between Baby's Popularity and Arson in Nebraska

[[ABSTRACT]]
Gather 'round, fellow researchers, for we have uncovered a seemingly dubious connection between the popularity of the first name Baby and the occurrence of arson in the great state of Nebraska. Using rigorous data analysis from the US Social Security Administration and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we delved into the enigma of whether a name can spark fiery behavior. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9107243 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning 1985 to 2022. As we discuss the implications of this alarming association, we invite readers to ponder if a name as seemingly innocent as "Baby" could ignite more than just adoration. Let us ignite the flames of curiosity and explore the uncharted territory of nominal influence on criminal proclivities.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Popularity of the first name Baby and Arson in Nebraska. 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]]
Firestarter or Just Trendy: The Correlation Between Baby's Popularity and Arson in Nebraska

[[ABSTRACT]]
Gather 'round, fellow researchers, for we have uncovered a seemingly dubious connection between the popularity of the first name Baby and the occurrence of arson in the great state of Nebraska. Using rigorous data analysis from the US Social Security Administration and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we delved into the enigma of whether a name can spark fiery behavior. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9107243 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning 1985 to 2022. As we discuss the implications of this alarming association, we invite readers to ponder if a name as seemingly innocent as "Baby" could ignite more than just adoration. Let us ignite the flames of curiosity and explore the uncharted territory of nominal influence on criminal proclivities.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Welcome, esteemed colleagues, to a rather fiery exploration of the intriguing relationship between the popularity of the first name Baby and the incidence of arson in the cornhusker state, Nebraska. As researchers, we are accustomed to unraveling complex relationships and uncovering hidden patterns, but the correlation we stumbled upon could be described as nothing short of an unexpected blaze of insight.

Before we dive into the scorching details of our study, it is paramount to acknowledge the proliferation of unusual correlations in the vast oceans of data. As we approach this topic, we must tread carefully to avoid getting burned by spurious associations and statistical mirages. However, our initial incendiary findings have ignited a spark of curiosity that we simply cannot extinguish.

In the pursuit of shedding light on this flaming anomaly, our investigation begins with the mundane task of collecting data from the US Social Security Administration. Our meticulous extraction of the historical baby name records has provided us with a comprehensive view of the ebb and flow of Baby's popularity over the years. Meanwhile, our comrades at the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services have furnished us with detailed reports on arson incidents, enabling us to juxtapose these data with the trends in the naming landscape.

As we collectively sift through the embers of these datasets, a glaring statistic emerges with compelling force. The correlation coefficient of 0.9107243, accompanied by a p-value that could hardly fuel any skepticism (less than 0.01), demands attention and reflection. It seems that this seemingly innocent name may not be entirely innocent after all.

While our findings have undoubtedly fanned the flames of intrigue, we should approach them with an abundance of caution, fully aware of the dire consequences of leaping to fiery conclusions. As we venture further into this burning inquiry, we invite you to join us in the journey of unraveling this curious connection while keeping a cool head and a discerning eye for any smokescreen in the data. Let us not ignite unnecessary panic, but rather fan the flames of curiosity and rigorously examine this unexpected nexus between nomenclature and nefarious behavior. After all, in the realm of research, sometimes the most improbable sparks lead to the most illuminating conflagrations of knowledge.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Popularity of the first name Baby and Arson in Nebraska. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Firestarter or Just Trendy: The Correlation Between Baby's Popularity and Arson in Nebraska

[[ABSTRACT]]
Gather 'round, fellow researchers, for we have uncovered a seemingly dubious connection between the popularity of the first name Baby and the occurrence of arson in the great state of Nebraska. Using rigorous data analysis from the US Social Security Administration and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we delved into the enigma of whether a name can spark fiery behavior. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9107243 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning 1985 to 2022. As we discuss the implications of this alarming association, we invite readers to ponder if a name as seemingly innocent as "Baby" could ignite more than just adoration. Let us ignite the flames of curiosity and explore the uncharted territory of nominal influence on criminal proclivities.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Welcome, esteemed colleagues, to a rather fiery exploration of the intriguing relationship between the popularity of the first name Baby and the incidence of arson in the cornhusker state, Nebraska. As researchers, we are accustomed to unraveling complex relationships and uncovering hidden patterns, but the correlation we stumbled upon could be described as nothing short of an unexpected blaze of insight.
Before we dive into the scorching details of our study, it is paramount to acknowledge the proliferation of unusual correlations in the vast oceans of data. As we approach this topic, we must tread carefully to avoid getting burned by spurious associations and statistical mirages. However, our initial incendiary findings have ignited a spark of curiosity that we simply cannot extinguish.
In the pursuit of shedding light on this flaming anomaly, our investigation begins with the mundane task of collecting data from the US Social Security Administration. Our meticulous extraction of the historical baby name records has provided us with a comprehensive view of the ebb and flow of Baby's popularity over the years. Meanwhile, our comrades at the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services have furnished us with detailed reports on arson incidents, enabling us to juxtapose these data with the trends in the naming landscape.
As we collectively sift through the embers of these datasets, a glaring statistic emerges with compelling force. The correlation coefficient of 0.9107243, accompanied by a p-value that could hardly fuel any skepticism (less than 0.01), demands attention and reflection. It seems that this seemingly innocent name may not be entirely innocent after all.
While our findings have undoubtedly fanned the flames of intrigue, we should approach them with an abundance of caution, fully aware of the dire consequences of leaping to fiery conclusions. As we venture further into this burning inquiry, we invite you to join us in the journey of unraveling this curious connection while keeping a cool head and a discerning eye for any smokescreen in the data. Let us not ignite unnecessary panic, but rather fan the flames of curiosity and rigorously examine this unexpected nexus between nomenclature and nefarious behavior. After all, in the realm of research, sometimes the most improbable sparks lead to the most illuminating conflagrations of knowledge.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The investigation into the potential connection between the popularity of the first name Baby and the incidence of arson in Nebraska is an endeavor that has taken researchers through both the serious and the absurd realms of scholarly inquiry. With a slight nod to the unexpected nature of our own study, we embark on this literature review with an acknowledgment of the esteemed works of Smith, Doe, and Jones, whose research has underlined the importance of examining unlikely associations in sociological phenomena. In "The Name Effect," Smith affirms the potential impact of names on individuals' behavior, setting the stage for our inquiry into the possible influence of Baby's prevalence on criminal conduct.

Adding to the discourse, Doe's study "Names and Nefarious Behavior" delves into the mechanisms by which certain names may predispose individuals to deviant actions. Meanwhile, Jones, in "Names and Notoriety," provides further insight into the sociocultural implications intertwined with the significance of names, honing in on the potential ramifications on criminal activity. Together, these publications form the bedrock upon which we stand as we explore the offbeat correlation between a popular name and arson.

Venturing into the wider spectrum of related literature, we encounter an eclectic blend of non-fiction works that, while not explicitly addressing our specific inquiry, offer valuable perspectives on naming trends, criminal behavior, and societal dynamics. In "Freakonomics," Levitt and Dubner tackle unconventional correlations in societal phenomena, paving the way for the acceptance of seemingly improbable ties between disparate variables. Furthermore, "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell prompts a reflection on the potential tipping factors that may influence societal trends, providing a thought-provoking lens through which to view our own findings.

However, the landscape of literature surrounding our subject matter takes a whimsical turn as we veer into the realm of fiction. Works such as "Inferno" by Dan Brown and "The Girl Who Played with Fire" by Stieg Larsson, although purely fictional in nature, unwittingly contribute to the thematic undercurrent of our investigation, offering a parallel universe where the interplay of names and arson becomes a captivating narrative rather than a statistical hypothesis.

In an unexpected twist befitting our peculiar line of inquiry, it is perhaps worth noting the emergence of internet memes that, in a lighthearted manner, touch upon the themes of naming conventions and the capricious nature of human behavior. The "This is Fine" meme, depicting a cartoon dog surrounded by flames, humorously encapsulates the absurdity of unexpected circumstances, mirroring the sentiment of our own incredulous discovery. Likewise, the "Distracted Boyfriend" meme, although seemingly unrelated at first glance, serves as a whimsical reminder of the unpredictability of human preferences, resonating with the notion of peculiar influences on decision-making processes.

As we navigate through this curiously diverse expanse of literature, it becomes apparent that while the subject matter at hand may invite skepticism and mirth, it nevertheless warrants thorough examination and scholarly consideration. With an open mind and a hint of levity, we prepare to dive deeper into the conundrum of Baby's popularity and its enigmatic correlation with arson in the state of Nebraska.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Popularity of the first name Baby and Arson in Nebraska. 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 US Social Security Administration and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services . You used data from 1985 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]]
Firestarter or Just Trendy: The Correlation Between Baby's Popularity and Arson in Nebraska

[[ABSTRACT]]
Gather 'round, fellow researchers, for we have uncovered a seemingly dubious connection between the popularity of the first name Baby and the occurrence of arson in the great state of Nebraska. Using rigorous data analysis from the US Social Security Administration and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we delved into the enigma of whether a name can spark fiery behavior. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9107243 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning 1985 to 2022. As we discuss the implications of this alarming association, we invite readers to ponder if a name as seemingly innocent as "Baby" could ignite more than just adoration. Let us ignite the flames of curiosity and explore the uncharted territory of nominal influence on criminal proclivities.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Welcome, esteemed colleagues, to a rather fiery exploration of the intriguing relationship between the popularity of the first name Baby and the incidence of arson in the cornhusker state, Nebraska. As researchers, we are accustomed to unraveling complex relationships and uncovering hidden patterns, but the correlation we stumbled upon could be described as nothing short of an unexpected blaze of insight.
Before we dive into the scorching details of our study, it is paramount to acknowledge the proliferation of unusual correlations in the vast oceans of data. As we approach this topic, we must tread carefully to avoid getting burned by spurious associations and statistical mirages. However, our initial incendiary findings have ignited a spark of curiosity that we simply cannot extinguish.
In the pursuit of shedding light on this flaming anomaly, our investigation begins with the mundane task of collecting data from the US Social Security Administration. Our meticulous extraction of the historical baby name records has provided us with a comprehensive view of the ebb and flow of Baby's popularity over the years. Meanwhile, our comrades at the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services have furnished us with detailed reports on arson incidents, enabling us to juxtapose these data with the trends in the naming landscape.
As we collectively sift through the embers of these datasets, a glaring statistic emerges with compelling force. The correlation coefficient of 0.9107243, accompanied by a p-value that could hardly fuel any skepticism (less than 0.01), demands attention and reflection. It seems that this seemingly innocent name may not be entirely innocent after all.
While our findings have undoubtedly fanned the flames of intrigue, we should approach them with an abundance of caution, fully aware of the dire consequences of leaping to fiery conclusions. As we venture further into this burning inquiry, we invite you to join us in the journey of unraveling this curious connection while keeping a cool head and a discerning eye for any smokescreen in the data. Let us not ignite unnecessary panic, but rather fan the flames of curiosity and rigorously examine this unexpected nexus between nomenclature and nefarious behavior. After all, in the realm of research, sometimes the most improbable sparks lead to the most illuminating conflagrations of knowledge.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To elucidate the perplexing nexus between the popularity of the first name Baby and the incidence of arson in the great state of Nebraska, we embarked on an arduous data collection journey that would have surely strained the patience of Sisyphus. Our expedition began with a rigorous expedition through the annals of the US Social Security Administration data, as we scrupulously combed through the yearly baby name records between 1985 and 2022. Our dedicated team dutifully cataloged the frequencies of occurrences for the name Baby, setting the stage for our statistical inferno.

In parallel to our gallant efforts in name-tallying, our steadfast comrades at the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services bestowed upon us a trove of reports detailing the number of arson incidents within the borders of Nebraska. This scorching dataset was a treasure trove of fiery information, allowing us to scrutinize the temporal patterns of arson occurrences, which we would eventually juxtapose with the boisterous popularity of the name Baby.

Post procurement of the data, we set forth to conduct our infernal analyses. We employed the formidable tools of statistical analysis, summoning the esoteric incantations of correlation coefficients and p-values to unravel the enigmatic relationship between a seemingly innocuous name and the fiery deeds of arson. We cautiously utilized a Pearson correlation coefficient to measure the strength and direction of the linear relationship between the temporal occurrences of the first name Baby and the incidences of arson in Nebraska. Our data wranglers also concocted a p-value through the summoning of t-tests, which imbued our findings with the much-coveted sheen of statistical significance.

It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of our methodology, much like acknowledging the hazards of handling combustible materials. While we have endeavored to mitigate extraneous influences and confounding variables, it is always wise to approach such scorching findings with a judicious sprinkling of skepticism. Nonetheless, armed with our statistical arsenal and robust datasets, we gestated a provocative correlation coefficient of 0.9107243, wearing the mantle of statistical significance with a p-value less than 0.01.

As we traverse this scorching terrain of inquiry, we hope to foster a spirit of prudent curiosity and resolute skepticism. The fiery juxtaposition of Baby's popularity and the incidence of arson has ignited not only the flames of research but also a conflagration of philosophical contemplation. Let the flames of knowledge burn brightly as we delve deeper into this unlikely alliance between nomenclature and nefarious behavior.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Popularity of the first name Baby and Arson in Nebraska. 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 US Social Security Administration and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services .

For the time period 1985 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9107243, r-squared of 0.8294188, 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]]
Firestarter or Just Trendy: The Correlation Between Baby's Popularity and Arson in Nebraska

[[ABSTRACT]]
Gather 'round, fellow researchers, for we have uncovered a seemingly dubious connection between the popularity of the first name Baby and the occurrence of arson in the great state of Nebraska. Using rigorous data analysis from the US Social Security Administration and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we delved into the enigma of whether a name can spark fiery behavior. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9107243 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning 1985 to 2022. As we discuss the implications of this alarming association, we invite readers to ponder if a name as seemingly innocent as "Baby" could ignite more than just adoration. Let us ignite the flames of curiosity and explore the uncharted territory of nominal influence on criminal proclivities.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Welcome, esteemed colleagues, to a rather fiery exploration of the intriguing relationship between the popularity of the first name Baby and the incidence of arson in the cornhusker state, Nebraska. As researchers, we are accustomed to unraveling complex relationships and uncovering hidden patterns, but the correlation we stumbled upon could be described as nothing short of an unexpected blaze of insight.
Before we dive into the scorching details of our study, it is paramount to acknowledge the proliferation of unusual correlations in the vast oceans of data. As we approach this topic, we must tread carefully to avoid getting burned by spurious associations and statistical mirages. However, our initial incendiary findings have ignited a spark of curiosity that we simply cannot extinguish.
In the pursuit of shedding light on this flaming anomaly, our investigation begins with the mundane task of collecting data from the US Social Security Administration. Our meticulous extraction of the historical baby name records has provided us with a comprehensive view of the ebb and flow of Baby's popularity over the years. Meanwhile, our comrades at the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services have furnished us with detailed reports on arson incidents, enabling us to juxtapose these data with the trends in the naming landscape.
As we collectively sift through the embers of these datasets, a glaring statistic emerges with compelling force. The correlation coefficient of 0.9107243, accompanied by a p-value that could hardly fuel any skepticism (less than 0.01), demands attention and reflection. It seems that this seemingly innocent name may not be entirely innocent after all.
While our findings have undoubtedly fanned the flames of intrigue, we should approach them with an abundance of caution, fully aware of the dire consequences of leaping to fiery conclusions. As we venture further into this burning inquiry, we invite you to join us in the journey of unraveling this curious connection while keeping a cool head and a discerning eye for any smokescreen in the data. Let us not ignite unnecessary panic, but rather fan the flames of curiosity and rigorously examine this unexpected nexus between nomenclature and nefarious behavior. After all, in the realm of research, sometimes the most improbable sparks lead to the most illuminating conflagrations of knowledge.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our scorching investigation into the correlation between the popularity of the first name Baby and the incidence of arson in Nebraska has yielded some truly hot-off-the-press findings. Upon running the numbers for the years 1985 to 2022, we found a blistering correlation coefficient of 0.9107243, with an R-squared value of 0.8294188 and a p-value that would raise the temperature in any statistical discussion (p < 0.01).

Furthermore, as depicted in Fig. 1, our scatterplot graphically illustrates the sizzling relationship between the two variables. The data points form an unmistakable pattern akin to a trail of breadcrumbs leading straight to the arsonist's doorstep - or, perhaps in this case, the nursery. It seems that the popularity of the moniker "Baby" is not just a flash in the pan, but rather a smoldering indicator of potential fiery behavior.

The strength of this correlation cannot be dismissed as a statistical brushfire; it is a roaring bonfire demanding further examination and deliberation. This seems to suggest that there may be more to this seemingly innocent name than meets the eye, and one cannot help but wonder if, in the case of arson, naming truly is the culprit.

While our discovery is undeniably incendiary, we must exercise caution in setting the academic world ablaze with sensationalized interpretations. The existence of such an intense relationship between a name and a criminal act has ignited a conflagration of curiosity within our research team, prompting us to scorch the earth for potential explanations while avoiding getting singed by hasty conclusions.

It is imperative for the academic community to heat up discussions surrounding the influence of nomenclature on human behavior while also being mindful of avoiding drawing premature fiery conclusions. As we delve deeper into the inferno of nominal impact on criminal tendencies, we must endeavor to stoke the flames of reasoned debate without igniting unnecessary alarm. After all, in the dazzling dance of data, it's often the most unexpected sparks that ignite the most illuminating discoveries.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Popularity of the first name Baby and Arson in Nebraska. 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]]
Firestarter or Just Trendy: The Correlation Between Baby's Popularity and Arson in Nebraska

[[ABSTRACT]]
Gather 'round, fellow researchers, for we have uncovered a seemingly dubious connection between the popularity of the first name Baby and the occurrence of arson in the great state of Nebraska. Using rigorous data analysis from the US Social Security Administration and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we delved into the enigma of whether a name can spark fiery behavior. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9107243 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning 1985 to 2022. As we discuss the implications of this alarming association, we invite readers to ponder if a name as seemingly innocent as "Baby" could ignite more than just adoration. Let us ignite the flames of curiosity and explore the uncharted territory of nominal influence on criminal proclivities.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The investigation into the potential connection between the popularity of the first name Baby and the incidence of arson in Nebraska is an endeavor that has taken researchers through both the serious and the absurd realms of scholarly inquiry. With a slight nod to the unexpected nature of our own study, we embark on this literature review with an acknowledgment of the esteemed works of Smith, Doe, and Jones, whose research has underlined the importance of examining unlikely associations in sociological phenomena. In "The Name Effect," Smith affirms the potential impact of names on individuals' behavior, setting the stage for our inquiry into the possible influence of Baby's prevalence on criminal conduct.
Adding to the discourse, Doe's study "Names and Nefarious Behavior" delves into the mechanisms by which certain names may predispose individuals to deviant actions. Meanwhile, Jones, in "Names and Notoriety," provides further insight into the sociocultural implications intertwined with the significance of names, honing in on the potential ramifications on criminal activity. Together, these publications form the bedrock upon which we stand as we explore the offbeat correlation between a popular name and arson.
Venturing into the wider spectrum of related literature, we encounter an eclectic blend of non-fiction works that, while not explicitly addressing our specific inquiry, offer valuable perspectives on naming trends, criminal behavior, and societal dynamics. In "Freakonomics," Levitt and Dubner tackle unconventional correlations in societal phenomena, paving the way for the acceptance of seemingly improbable ties between disparate variables. Furthermore, "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell prompts a reflection on the potential tipping factors that may influence societal trends, providing a thought-provoking lens through which to view our own findings.
However, the landscape of literature surrounding our subject matter takes a whimsical turn as we veer into the realm of fiction. Works such as "Inferno" by Dan Brown and "The Girl Who Played with Fire" by Stieg Larsson, although purely fictional in nature, unwittingly contribute to the thematic undercurrent of our investigation, offering a parallel universe where the interplay of names and arson becomes a captivating narrative rather than a statistical hypothesis.
In an unexpected twist befitting our peculiar line of inquiry, it is perhaps worth noting the emergence of internet memes that, in a lighthearted manner, touch upon the themes of naming conventions and the capricious nature of human behavior. The "This is Fine" meme, depicting a cartoon dog surrounded by flames, humorously encapsulates the absurdity of unexpected circumstances, mirroring the sentiment of our own incredulous discovery. Likewise, the "Distracted Boyfriend" meme, although seemingly unrelated at first glance, serves as a whimsical reminder of the unpredictability of human preferences, resonating with the notion of peculiar influences on decision-making processes.
As we navigate through this curiously diverse expanse of literature, it becomes apparent that while the subject matter at hand may invite skepticism and mirth, it nevertheless warrants thorough examination and scholarly consideration. With an open mind and a hint of levity, we prepare to dive deeper into the conundrum of Baby's popularity and its enigmatic correlation with arson in the state of Nebraska.

[[RESULTS]]
Our scorching investigation into the correlation between the popularity of the first name Baby and the incidence of arson in Nebraska has yielded some truly hot-off-the-press findings. Upon running the numbers for the years 1985 to 2022, we found a blistering correlation coefficient of 0.9107243, with an R-squared value of 0.8294188 and a p-value that would raise the temperature in any statistical discussion (p < 0.01).
Furthermore, as depicted in Fig. 1, our scatterplot graphically illustrates the sizzling relationship between the two variables. The data points form an unmistakable pattern akin to a trail of breadcrumbs leading straight to the arsonist's doorstep - or, perhaps in this case, the nursery. It seems that the popularity of the moniker "Baby" is not just a flash in the pan, but rather a smoldering indicator of potential fiery behavior.
The strength of this correlation cannot be dismissed as a statistical brushfire; it is a roaring bonfire demanding further examination and deliberation. This seems to suggest that there may be more to this seemingly innocent name than meets the eye, and one cannot help but wonder if, in the case of arson, naming truly is the culprit.
While our discovery is undeniably incendiary, we must exercise caution in setting the academic world ablaze with sensationalized interpretations. The existence of such an intense relationship between a name and a criminal act has ignited a conflagration of curiosity within our research team, prompting us to scorch the earth for potential explanations while avoiding getting singed by hasty conclusions.
It is imperative for the academic community to heat up discussions surrounding the influence of nomenclature on human behavior while also being mindful of avoiding drawing premature fiery conclusions. As we delve deeper into the inferno of nominal impact on criminal tendencies, we must endeavor to stoke the flames of reasoned debate without igniting unnecessary alarm. After all, in the dazzling dance of data, it's often the most unexpected sparks that ignite the most illuminating discoveries.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

As we bask in the warm glow of our scorching findings, it is paramount to acknowledge the flickering light that previous research has shed on this fiery subject. The literature, much like a well-stocked tinderbox, provided ample fuel for our investigation. The noteworthy works of Smith, Doe, and Jones illuminated the potential influence of names on human behavior, lending credibility to our own inferno of a study. It's as if our research has set ablaze the hunches and suspicions of these esteemed scholars, fanning the flames of curiosity in a much wider arena.

Upon further reflection, our results seem to corroborate the offbeat explorations in the literature review, reinforcing the notion that names can indeed kindle unexpected phenomena. This echoes Levitt and Dubner's unconventional correlations in "Freakonomics," as if our findings are the unexpected love child of their intellectual union. Moreover, the strangely alluring confluence of Baby and arson invites a comparison to the magnetic tipping factors that Gladwell so eloquently elucidates in "The Tipping Point." One cannot help but wonder if our findings represent a pivotal spark in the realm of criminal nomenclature.

The surreal tangential nods to fictional works resonate more profoundly in light of our own findings. Just as Dan Brown and Stieg Larsson craft fictional universes that enmesh names and arson, our study has unearthed a surreptitious union between the two, as if we've stumbled into the pages of an unlikely bestseller. The subtle undercurrent of whimsy within our literature review mirrors the unexpected twists and turns of our own academic journey, underscoring the peculiar allure of offbeat correlations.

In light of our results, it becomes apparent that the trail of breadcrumbs, or in this case, perhaps charred remains, leads straight to the nursery. The firmness of the correlation coefficient and the unmistakable pattern in the scatterplot illustrate that the influence of a name can indeed be alarmingly incendiary. One is reminded of the age-old dictum, "What's in a name?" In our case, it seems the answer might just be "arson."

Our discovery offers a tantalizing glimpse into the capricious nature of human behavior. Just as the "This is Fine" meme humorously encapsulates the absurdity of unexpected circumstances, our findings serve as a testament to the bewilderingly unpredictable influence of nomenclature on criminal proclivities. The "Distracted Boyfriend" meme, meanwhile, aptly reflects the surprising turn of events in our research - a delightful reminder that academic inquiry can occasionally acquire a whimsical twist.

Ultimately, our findings highlight the palpable influence of nomenclature on criminal tendencies. The enigmatic correlation between the popularity of the first name "Baby" and the occurrence of arson in Nebraska cannot be dismissed as a mere statistical brushfire; it is a bonfire that demands further contemplation. As we cautiously navigate this uncharted territory, it is imperative to stoke the flames of reasoned debate without igniting unnecessary alarm. After all, in the ambiguous realm of human behavior, it's often the most unexpected sparks that lead to the most illuminating discoveries.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Popularity of the first name Baby and Arson in Nebraska. 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]]
Firestarter or Just Trendy: The Correlation Between Baby's Popularity and Arson in Nebraska

[[ABSTRACT]]
Gather 'round, fellow researchers, for we have uncovered a seemingly dubious connection between the popularity of the first name Baby and the occurrence of arson in the great state of Nebraska. Using rigorous data analysis from the US Social Security Administration and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we delved into the enigma of whether a name can spark fiery behavior. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9107243 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning 1985 to 2022. As we discuss the implications of this alarming association, we invite readers to ponder if a name as seemingly innocent as "Baby" could ignite more than just adoration. Let us ignite the flames of curiosity and explore the uncharted territory of nominal influence on criminal proclivities.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Welcome, esteemed colleagues, to a rather fiery exploration of the intriguing relationship between the popularity of the first name Baby and the incidence of arson in the cornhusker state, Nebraska. As researchers, we are accustomed to unraveling complex relationships and uncovering hidden patterns, but the correlation we stumbled upon could be described as nothing short of an unexpected blaze of insight.
Before we dive into the scorching details of our study, it is paramount to acknowledge the proliferation of unusual correlations in the vast oceans of data. As we approach this topic, we must tread carefully to avoid getting burned by spurious associations and statistical mirages. However, our initial incendiary findings have ignited a spark of curiosity that we simply cannot extinguish.
In the pursuit of shedding light on this flaming anomaly, our investigation begins with the mundane task of collecting data from the US Social Security Administration. Our meticulous extraction of the historical baby name records has provided us with a comprehensive view of the ebb and flow of Baby's popularity over the years. Meanwhile, our comrades at the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services have furnished us with detailed reports on arson incidents, enabling us to juxtapose these data with the trends in the naming landscape.
As we collectively sift through the embers of these datasets, a glaring statistic emerges with compelling force. The correlation coefficient of 0.9107243, accompanied by a p-value that could hardly fuel any skepticism (less than 0.01), demands attention and reflection. It seems that this seemingly innocent name may not be entirely innocent after all.
While our findings have undoubtedly fanned the flames of intrigue, we should approach them with an abundance of caution, fully aware of the dire consequences of leaping to fiery conclusions. As we venture further into this burning inquiry, we invite you to join us in the journey of unraveling this curious connection while keeping a cool head and a discerning eye for any smokescreen in the data. Let us not ignite unnecessary panic, but rather fan the flames of curiosity and rigorously examine this unexpected nexus between nomenclature and nefarious behavior. After all, in the realm of research, sometimes the most improbable sparks lead to the most illuminating conflagrations of knowledge.

[[RESULTS]]
Our scorching investigation into the correlation between the popularity of the first name Baby and the incidence of arson in Nebraska has yielded some truly hot-off-the-press findings. Upon running the numbers for the years 1985 to 2022, we found a blistering correlation coefficient of 0.9107243, with an R-squared value of 0.8294188 and a p-value that would raise the temperature in any statistical discussion (p < 0.01).
Furthermore, as depicted in Fig. 1, our scatterplot graphically illustrates the sizzling relationship between the two variables. The data points form an unmistakable pattern akin to a trail of breadcrumbs leading straight to the arsonist's doorstep - or, perhaps in this case, the nursery. It seems that the popularity of the moniker "Baby" is not just a flash in the pan, but rather a smoldering indicator of potential fiery behavior.
The strength of this correlation cannot be dismissed as a statistical brushfire; it is a roaring bonfire demanding further examination and deliberation. This seems to suggest that there may be more to this seemingly innocent name than meets the eye, and one cannot help but wonder if, in the case of arson, naming truly is the culprit.
While our discovery is undeniably incendiary, we must exercise caution in setting the academic world ablaze with sensationalized interpretations. The existence of such an intense relationship between a name and a criminal act has ignited a conflagration of curiosity within our research team, prompting us to scorch the earth for potential explanations while avoiding getting singed by hasty conclusions.
It is imperative for the academic community to heat up discussions surrounding the influence of nomenclature on human behavior while also being mindful of avoiding drawing premature fiery conclusions. As we delve deeper into the inferno of nominal impact on criminal tendencies, we must endeavor to stoke the flames of reasoned debate without igniting unnecessary alarm. After all, in the dazzling dance of data, it's often the most unexpected sparks that ignite the most illuminating discoveries.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our scorching exploration into the nexus between the popularity of the first name Baby and the occurrence of arson in Nebraska has illuminated an unexpected conflagration of statistical significance. The searing correlation coefficient of 0.9107243, coupled with a sizzling p-value (p < 0.01), ignites a fervent debate about the potential influence of nomenclature on incendiary tendencies. However, we must tread carefully to avoid being consumed by premature fiery conclusions and ensure that this hot topic doesn't set the entire field ablaze with hastily drawn inferences.

Examining this fiery association has indeed fueled a blaze of curiosity within the research community, prompting us to fan the flames of discussion regarding the enigmatic role of names in sparking criminal behavior. Nevertheless, it's important to avoid turning this into a wildfire of panic and instead approach future investigations with an air of calculated skepticism.

The findings of this study beckon us to sound the alarm on the need for further scrutiny of the incendiary influence of nomenclature on criminal behavior. However, it would be imprudent to stoke unnecessary fear and frenzy without first meticulously tending to the theoretical underbrush of empirical and psychological research.

As we extinguish the flames of this particular investigation, we assert that no further research into the connection between the popularity of the name Baby and arson in Nebraska is needed. After all, it seems that this area of inquiry has already had its fair share of heat and we must make sure not to add fuel to the fire of misconception.


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 Firestarter or Just Trendy: The Correlation Between Baby's Popularity and Arson in Nebraska. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Social Trends


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 Firestarter or Just Trendy: The Correlation Between Baby's Popularity and Arson in Nebraska. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Unconventional Social Science Research (SUSSR)


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 Firestarter or Just Trendy: The Correlation Between Baby's Popularity and Arson in Nebraska with an abstract of Gather 'round, fellow researchers, for we have uncovered a seemingly dubious connection between the popularity of the first name Baby and the occurrence of arson in the great state of Nebraska. Using rigorous data analysis from the US Social Security Administration and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we delved into the enigma of whether a name can spark fiery behavior. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9107243 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years spanning 1985 to 2022. As we discuss the implications of this alarming association, we invite readers to ponder if a name as seemingly innocent as "Baby" could ignite more than just adoration. Let us ignite the flames of curiosity and explore the uncharted territory of nominal influence on criminal proclivities.

ChatGPT:

Baby, popularity, arson, Nebraska, correlation, US Social Security Administration, FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, data analysis, name influence, criminal behavior, correlation coefficient, p-value, nominal influence, criminal proclivities

*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

Popularity of the first name Baby
Detailed data title: Babies of all sexes born in the US named Baby
Source: US Social Security Administration
See what else correlates with Popularity of the first name Baby

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

Correlation r = 0.9107243 (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 = 0.8294188 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 82.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Arson in Nebraska) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Popularity of the first name Baby) over the 38 years from 1985 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.2E-15. 0.0000000000000021568893752036
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 0.91 in 2.2E-13% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 463,630,639,334,762 random variables You don't actually need 463 trillion 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 37 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 37 because we have two variables measured over a period of 38 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.

[ 0.83, 0.95 ] 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.
19851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
Popularity of the first name Baby (Babies born)1911842483324924985776276276726424844754595075445194654904363135546474241333236284139636660475226
Arson in Nebraska (Arson rate)18.9181719.623.724.524.819.424.331.933.129.125.52626.923.824.725.621.517.715.47.27.87.514.713.512.411.3118.714.410.87.15.56.88.19.410.5




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([191,184,248,332,492,498,577,627,627,672,642,484,475,459,507,544,519,465,490,436,313,55,46,47,42,41,33,32,36,28,41,39,63,66,60,47,52,26,])
array_2 = np.array([18.9,18,17,19.6,23.7,24.5,24.8,19.4,24.3,31.9,33.1,29.1,25.5,26,26.9,23.8,24.7,25.6,21.5,17.7,15.4,7.2,7.8,7.5,14.7,13.5,12.4,11.3,11,8.7,14.4,10.8,7.1,5.5,6.8,8.1,9.4,10.5,])
array_1_name = "Popularity of the first name Baby"
array_2_name = "Arson in Nebraska"

# 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 rating is stellar!


Correlation ID: 1880 · Black Variable ID: 2911 · Red Variable ID: 20054
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0