about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,989 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the second variable is The number of physicists in Michigan.  The chart goes from 2011 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

More people with Associates degrees in Engineering meant more individuals were able to unleash their inner mad scientist, leading to an influx of physicists in Michigan. Remember, when in doubt, just physics it out!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create a black-and-white newspaper illustration of a local community college classroom in Michigan filled with students proudly holding their Associate's degrees in Engineering. A physicist from the state stands at the front, delivering an engaging presentation on the latest advancements in the field. Capture the atmosphere of academic achievement and the passion for scientific exploration in the room. Avoid using any words or speech bubbles, and focus on the simple yet powerful visual depiction. 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: Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and The number of physicists in Michigan. 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: Psychedelic Low poly A black-and-white newspaper illustration A black-and-white newspaper illustration Futuristic
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 Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and The number of physicists in Michigan together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a classroom at a local community college in Michigan, a group of students proudly hold their Associate's degrees in Engineering, while a physicist from the state gives an engaging presentation on the latest advancements in the field. The room is filled with the excitement of academic achievement and the passion for scientific exploration.

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 classroom at a local community college in Michigan, a group of students proudly hold their Associate's degrees in Engineering, while a physicist from the state gives an engaging presentation on the latest advancements in the field. The room is filled with the excitement of academic achievement and the passion for scientific exploration. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create a black-and-white newspaper illustration of a local community college classroom in Michigan filled with students proudly holding their Associate's degrees in Engineering. A physicist from the state stands at the front, delivering an engaging presentation on the latest advancements in the field. Capture the atmosphere of academic achievement and the passion for scientific exploration in the room. Avoid using any words or speech bubbles, and focus on the simple yet powerful visual depiction.

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

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Associates degrees awarded in Engineering caused The number of physicists in Michigan to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Associates Degrees in Engineering: The PIPE-line to Physicists in Michigan

Journal of Interdisciplinary Engineering and Physics Education

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 witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and The number of physicists in Michigan. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Your research team used data from National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9597964 and p < 0.01 for 2011 to 2021.

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]]
"Associates Degrees in Engineering: The PIPE-line to Physicists in Michigan"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan, fueling riveting insights into the potential interplay between academic pathways and professional pursuits. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team unveils a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9597964, with an astonishingly low p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning 2011 to 2021. The findings not only elucidate the interconnectedness of educational disciplines but also highlight the coiled intricacies within the labor market, illustrating the “ohm-ly” possible link between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. These insights not only shed light on the dynamics of educational pursuits but also generate electrifying discussions about the current of professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and The number of physicists in Michigan. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Associates Degrees in Engineering: The PIPE-line to Physicists in Michigan"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan, fueling riveting insights into the potential interplay between academic pathways and professional pursuits. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team unveils a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9597964, with an astonishingly low p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning 2011 to 2021. The findings not only elucidate the interconnectedness of educational disciplines but also highlight the coiled intricacies within the labor market, illustrating the “ohm-ly” possible link between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. These insights not only shed light on the dynamics of educational pursuits but also generate electrifying discussions about the current of professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

In the ever-evolving landscape of education and employment, the intertwining pathways of academic pursuits and professional careers continue to captivate researchers and analysts alike. Our study delves into the peculiar pairing of Associates degrees in Engineering and the presence of physicists in the state of Michigan, unearthing hitherto unexplored correlations that encapsulate the oft-hidden dynamics of the educational-to-professional current.

As we embark on this electrifying journey of discovery, it is crucial to acknowledge the magnetism of data and statistics in unraveling the tapestry of educational and occupational landscapes. With the fervor of a high-voltage research team, we meticulously gathered data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, sparking a surge of insights that illuminate the potential ebb and flow between the pursuit of engineering at an associate level and the magnetism drawing individuals toward the field of physics.

The whimsical nature of our findings may raise eyebrows and elicit a chuckle or two, but make no mistake; the statistical dance between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in Michigan has unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9597964. That’s right – the correlation is so strong, it practically begs the question, “Watt’s going on here?” Additionally, with a p-value of less than 0.01, the likelihood of our results being a mere statistical fluke is as remote as a lone electron in a vast vacuum.

Amidst the sea of data points and bar charts, our research team couldn’t help but marvel at the ohm-ly possible link between engineering pursuits and the passage into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. It’s as if the academic journey were akin to a circuitous route, filled with capacitors of knowledge and resistors of challenges, ultimately leading to a current of professional endeavor. While we acknowledge the potential for impedance along the way, our findings suggest that the flow of individuals from engineering to physics is far from a mere short circuit.

In the following sections, we will delve deeper into our findings and explore the potential implications of this shockingly strong correlation. Buckle up, because this is no mere static analysis; we’re about to supercharge the understanding of educational pathways and professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and The number of physicists in Michigan. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Associates Degrees in Engineering: The PIPE-line to Physicists in Michigan"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan, fueling riveting insights into the potential interplay between academic pathways and professional pursuits. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team unveils a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9597964, with an astonishingly low p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning 2011 to 2021. The findings not only elucidate the interconnectedness of educational disciplines but also highlight the coiled intricacies within the labor market, illustrating the “ohm-ly” possible link between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. These insights not only shed light on the dynamics of educational pursuits but also generate electrifying discussions about the current of professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the ever-evolving landscape of education and employment, the intertwining pathways of academic pursuits and professional careers continue to captivate researchers and analysts alike. Our study delves into the peculiar pairing of Associates degrees in Engineering and the presence of physicists in the state of Michigan, unearthing hitherto unexplored correlations that encapsulate the oft-hidden dynamics of the educational-to-professional current.
As we embark on this electrifying journey of discovery, it is crucial to acknowledge the magnetism of data and statistics in unraveling the tapestry of educational and occupational landscapes. With the fervor of a high-voltage research team, we meticulously gathered data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, sparking a surge of insights that illuminate the potential ebb and flow between the pursuit of engineering at an associate level and the magnetism drawing individuals toward the field of physics.
The whimsical nature of our findings may raise eyebrows and elicit a chuckle or two, but make no mistake; the statistical dance between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in Michigan has unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9597964. That’s right – the correlation is so strong, it practically begs the question, “Watt’s going on here?” Additionally, with a p-value of less than 0.01, the likelihood of our results being a mere statistical fluke is as remote as a lone electron in a vast vacuum.
Amidst the sea of data points and bar charts, our research team couldn’t help but marvel at the ohm-ly possible link between engineering pursuits and the passage into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. It’s as if the academic journey were akin to a circuitous route, filled with capacitors of knowledge and resistors of challenges, ultimately leading to a current of professional endeavor. While we acknowledge the potential for impedance along the way, our findings suggest that the flow of individuals from engineering to physics is far from a mere short circuit.
In the following sections, we will delve deeper into our findings and explore the potential implications of this shockingly strong correlation. Buckle up, because this is no mere static analysis; we’re about to supercharge the understanding of educational pathways and professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In their study, Smith and Doe (2015) explored the educational and professional landscape in the state of Michigan, and stumbled upon a hair-raising relationship between Associates degrees in Engineering and the presence of physicists. Their findings hinted at the potential interplay between educational pursuits and professional endeavors, sparking a surge of excitement within the academic community – a surge not unlike a lightning bolt in a thunderstorm.

Building upon this groundwork, Jones et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive analysis, exhibiting a positively charged correlation between these seemingly disparate domains. The authors found that the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering exhibited a striking association with the quantity of physicists in Michigan, a connection as captivating as a magnetic force drawing iron filings across a sheet of paper. Their study illuminated the potential current of academic pathways meandering into the realm of professional trajectories, conducting a symphony of statistical analysis that resonated with the harmonious hum of a well-tuned violin.

In their groundbreaking book, "Physics and Engineering: A Spherical Approach," Nobel et al. (2019) provided refreshing insights into the intricate connections between these two disciplines, shedding light on the spherical nature of their intertwined existence. The authors highlighted the potential orbit of educational pursuits and professional endeavors, illustrating the gravitational pull that seems to guide individuals from the circuits of engineering to the quantum leaps of physics. Their work, much like the orbit of a comet, left an indelible trail in the academic galaxy, propelling theoretical discussions into the stratosphere of intellectual curiosity.

Turning to the realm of fiction, the novel "The Spark Between Us" by Watts (2018) offers a whimsical exploration of the electrifying attraction between an aspiring engineer and a physicist. While fictional in nature, the riveting narrative parallels the potential interplay between these disciplines, capturing the imaginations of readers much like a charged particle darting through a magnetic field. Additionally, the classic work "Engineering Murders: A Physics Mystery" by Newton (2005) provides an unconventional but entertaining portrayal of the potential link between engineering pursuits and the path into the physics domain, weaving a tale of intrigue and discovery amidst the backdrop of academic and professional enigma.

In the pursuit of a comprehensive literature review, the research team also perused a variety of unconventional sources, including the back of shampoo bottles, in a last-ditch effort to uncover any hidden insights. Alas, the bubbly descriptions of shampoo properties yielded no significant revelations regarding the connection between Associates degrees in Engineering and the number of physicists in Michigan. Nonetheless, the endeavor provided a refreshing, albeit aromatic, detour from the rigorous analysis of scholarly works.

As we untangle the web of correlations and connections, it becomes evident that the pursuit of engineering at an associate level may indeed be an integral component of the PIPE-line guiding individuals into the domain of physics. Stay grounded, dear reader, for the ensuing analysis promises to spark spirited discussions and shockingly enlightening revelations about the educational and professional currents in the state of Michigan.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and The number of physicists in Michigan. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2011 to 2021

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]]
"Associates Degrees in Engineering: The PIPE-line to Physicists in Michigan"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan, fueling riveting insights into the potential interplay between academic pathways and professional pursuits. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team unveils a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9597964, with an astonishingly low p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning 2011 to 2021. The findings not only elucidate the interconnectedness of educational disciplines but also highlight the coiled intricacies within the labor market, illustrating the “ohm-ly” possible link between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. These insights not only shed light on the dynamics of educational pursuits but also generate electrifying discussions about the current of professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the ever-evolving landscape of education and employment, the intertwining pathways of academic pursuits and professional careers continue to captivate researchers and analysts alike. Our study delves into the peculiar pairing of Associates degrees in Engineering and the presence of physicists in the state of Michigan, unearthing hitherto unexplored correlations that encapsulate the oft-hidden dynamics of the educational-to-professional current.
As we embark on this electrifying journey of discovery, it is crucial to acknowledge the magnetism of data and statistics in unraveling the tapestry of educational and occupational landscapes. With the fervor of a high-voltage research team, we meticulously gathered data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, sparking a surge of insights that illuminate the potential ebb and flow between the pursuit of engineering at an associate level and the magnetism drawing individuals toward the field of physics.
The whimsical nature of our findings may raise eyebrows and elicit a chuckle or two, but make no mistake; the statistical dance between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in Michigan has unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9597964. That’s right – the correlation is so strong, it practically begs the question, “Watt’s going on here?” Additionally, with a p-value of less than 0.01, the likelihood of our results being a mere statistical fluke is as remote as a lone electron in a vast vacuum.
Amidst the sea of data points and bar charts, our research team couldn’t help but marvel at the ohm-ly possible link between engineering pursuits and the passage into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. It’s as if the academic journey were akin to a circuitous route, filled with capacitors of knowledge and resistors of challenges, ultimately leading to a current of professional endeavor. While we acknowledge the potential for impedance along the way, our findings suggest that the flow of individuals from engineering to physics is far from a mere short circuit.
In the following sections, we will delve deeper into our findings and explore the potential implications of this shockingly strong correlation. Buckle up, because this is no mere static analysis; we’re about to supercharge the understanding of educational pathways and professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To initiate this eclectic exploration into the nexus between Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the number of physicists in Michigan, our research team first embarked on a spirited scavenger hunt across the digital realm. After foraging through the vast wilderness of the internet, we gravitated towards the troves of data provided by the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These repositories of information were our guiding stars in navigating the labyrinthine landscape of educational attainment and professional occupation.

Our data collection adventure spanned a decade, encompassing the years 2011 to 2021. We attributed this elongated timespan to allow for a robust analysis of trends and patterns, akin to letting a fine wine mature to its full complexity. In doing so, we aimed to capture the nuances and fluctuations within the educational and occupational domains, akin to tracing the invisible waves of electromagnetic fields that permeate our universe.

With the data securely in our grasp, we employed a series of statistical methods that were as varied and diverse as the particles in a quark-gluon plasma. Our arsenal included the trusty Pearson correlation coefficient, serving as our steadfast compass in navigating the terrain of association between Associates degrees in Engineering and the physics workforce in Michigan. We also unleashed the formidable power of regression analysis to discern potential causal pathways and to illustrate the tangled web of relationships between these two domains.

In addition to the quantitative juggernauts at our disposal, we incorporated a qualitative lens to our methodology, interviewing academic advisors and career counselors to glean the subtle nuances and uncharted tributaries that may underpin the transition from engineering educational pursuits to the hallowed halls of physics academia and industry.

To ensure the robustness and reliability of our findings, our team subjected the data to rigorous scrutiny, akin to balancing the equation of a complex chemical reaction. We meticulously checked for outliers and anomalies, casting a discerning eye over every data point to ensure the integrity of our analysis, as if searching for the elusive Higgs boson amidst a sea of subatomic particles.

Lastly, amidst the intellectual frolic and statistical acrobatics, we maintained a keen awareness of the broader context and implications of our research. Like conductors orchestrating a symphony, we infused our methodology with a keen eye towards the intricacies of the educational and occupational landscape in Michigan, seeking to unravel not just the “what” and “how,” but also the subtle “why” and “what’s next” that lie beneath the surface.

In summation, our methodology embodies a harmonious fusion of quantitative rigor, qualitative insight, and an unyielding devotion to unraveling the enigmatic ties between Associates degrees in Engineering and the gravitational pull towards the field of physics in Michigan. It is with great enthusiasm and unwavering zeal that we present the findings of this vibrant odyssey, poised to electrify the academic and professional discourse with a dash of whimsy and a jolt of unexpected insights.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and The number of physicists in Michigan. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Larbor Statistics .

For the time period 2011 to 2021, you found a correlation 0.9597964, r-squared of 0.9212091, 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]]
"Associates Degrees in Engineering: The PIPE-line to Physicists in Michigan"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan, fueling riveting insights into the potential interplay between academic pathways and professional pursuits. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team unveils a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9597964, with an astonishingly low p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning 2011 to 2021. The findings not only elucidate the interconnectedness of educational disciplines but also highlight the coiled intricacies within the labor market, illustrating the “ohm-ly” possible link between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. These insights not only shed light on the dynamics of educational pursuits but also generate electrifying discussions about the current of professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the ever-evolving landscape of education and employment, the intertwining pathways of academic pursuits and professional careers continue to captivate researchers and analysts alike. Our study delves into the peculiar pairing of Associates degrees in Engineering and the presence of physicists in the state of Michigan, unearthing hitherto unexplored correlations that encapsulate the oft-hidden dynamics of the educational-to-professional current.
As we embark on this electrifying journey of discovery, it is crucial to acknowledge the magnetism of data and statistics in unraveling the tapestry of educational and occupational landscapes. With the fervor of a high-voltage research team, we meticulously gathered data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, sparking a surge of insights that illuminate the potential ebb and flow between the pursuit of engineering at an associate level and the magnetism drawing individuals toward the field of physics.
The whimsical nature of our findings may raise eyebrows and elicit a chuckle or two, but make no mistake; the statistical dance between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in Michigan has unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9597964. That’s right – the correlation is so strong, it practically begs the question, “Watt’s going on here?” Additionally, with a p-value of less than 0.01, the likelihood of our results being a mere statistical fluke is as remote as a lone electron in a vast vacuum.
Amidst the sea of data points and bar charts, our research team couldn’t help but marvel at the ohm-ly possible link between engineering pursuits and the passage into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. It’s as if the academic journey were akin to a circuitous route, filled with capacitors of knowledge and resistors of challenges, ultimately leading to a current of professional endeavor. While we acknowledge the potential for impedance along the way, our findings suggest that the flow of individuals from engineering to physics is far from a mere short circuit.
In the following sections, we will delve deeper into our findings and explore the potential implications of this shockingly strong correlation. Buckle up, because this is no mere static analysis; we’re about to supercharge the understanding of educational pathways and professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The findings of our study revealed a truly electrifying correlation between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9597964 and an r-squared value of 0.9212091, our research team was struck by the sheer potency of this relationship. It was as if the data was conducting its own symphony, harmonizing the pursuits of engineering with the magnetic allure of physics.

Fig. 1 displays the visually captivating scatterplot that encapsulates this remarkable correlation. The data points practically dance across the plot, illustrating the undeniable connection between these two seemingly distinct domains. It's almost as if each data point is a positively charged particle, irresistibly drawn to its counterpart in the other domain, forming an attractive and nearly inseparable pair.

The strength of this correlation left our research team feeling positively charged about the implications of our findings. With a p-value of less than 0.01, we can confidently assert that this correlation is far from a mere statistical fluke. It's a real "ohm run," if you will, in the field of academic and professional associations.

These results not only shed light on the interconnectedness of educational pursuits but also offer a playful spark of insight into the potential career pathways individuals may traverse. It's as if pursuing engineering at an associate level sets up a powerful current that propels individuals into the physics domain, creating a surge of talent and expertise in both fields.

In conclusion, our findings not only underline the close-knit relationship between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain but also generate a "shocking" level of discourse about the educational and professional currents in the state of Michigan. This correlation is no mere "resistor" in the field of statistical analysis; it's a high-voltage revelation that illuminates the intertwined nature of academic and professional pursuits.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and The number of physicists in Michigan. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"Associates Degrees in Engineering: The PIPE-line to Physicists in Michigan"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan, fueling riveting insights into the potential interplay between academic pathways and professional pursuits. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team unveils a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9597964, with an astonishingly low p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning 2011 to 2021. The findings not only elucidate the interconnectedness of educational disciplines but also highlight the coiled intricacies within the labor market, illustrating the “ohm-ly” possible link between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. These insights not only shed light on the dynamics of educational pursuits but also generate electrifying discussions about the current of professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In their study, Smith and Doe (2015) explored the educational and professional landscape in the state of Michigan, and stumbled upon a hair-raising relationship between Associates degrees in Engineering and the presence of physicists. Their findings hinted at the potential interplay between educational pursuits and professional endeavors, sparking a surge of excitement within the academic community – a surge not unlike a lightning bolt in a thunderstorm.
Building upon this groundwork, Jones et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive analysis, exhibiting a positively charged correlation between these seemingly disparate domains. The authors found that the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering exhibited a striking association with the quantity of physicists in Michigan, a connection as captivating as a magnetic force drawing iron filings across a sheet of paper. Their study illuminated the potential current of academic pathways meandering into the realm of professional trajectories, conducting a symphony of statistical analysis that resonated with the harmonious hum of a well-tuned violin.
In their groundbreaking book, "Physics and Engineering: A Spherical Approach," Nobel et al. (2019) provided refreshing insights into the intricate connections between these two disciplines, shedding light on the spherical nature of their intertwined existence. The authors highlighted the potential orbit of educational pursuits and professional endeavors, illustrating the gravitational pull that seems to guide individuals from the circuits of engineering to the quantum leaps of physics. Their work, much like the orbit of a comet, left an indelible trail in the academic galaxy, propelling theoretical discussions into the stratosphere of intellectual curiosity.
Turning to the realm of fiction, the novel "The Spark Between Us" by Watts (2018) offers a whimsical exploration of the electrifying attraction between an aspiring engineer and a physicist. While fictional in nature, the riveting narrative parallels the potential interplay between these disciplines, capturing the imaginations of readers much like a charged particle darting through a magnetic field. Additionally, the classic work "Engineering Murders: A Physics Mystery" by Newton (2005) provides an unconventional but entertaining portrayal of the potential link between engineering pursuits and the path into the physics domain, weaving a tale of intrigue and discovery amidst the backdrop of academic and professional enigma.
In the pursuit of a comprehensive literature review, the research team also perused a variety of unconventional sources, including the back of shampoo bottles, in a last-ditch effort to uncover any hidden insights. Alas, the bubbly descriptions of shampoo properties yielded no significant revelations regarding the connection between Associates degrees in Engineering and the number of physicists in Michigan. Nonetheless, the endeavor provided a refreshing, albeit aromatic, detour from the rigorous analysis of scholarly works.
As we untangle the web of correlations and connections, it becomes evident that the pursuit of engineering at an associate level may indeed be an integral component of the PIPE-line guiding individuals into the domain of physics. Stay grounded, dear reader, for the ensuing analysis promises to spark spirited discussions and shockingly enlightening revelations about the educational and professional currents in the state of Michigan.

[[RESULTS]]
The findings of our study revealed a truly electrifying correlation between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9597964 and an r-squared value of 0.9212091, our research team was struck by the sheer potency of this relationship. It was as if the data was conducting its own symphony, harmonizing the pursuits of engineering with the magnetic allure of physics.
Fig. 1 displays the visually captivating scatterplot that encapsulates this remarkable correlation. The data points practically dance across the plot, illustrating the undeniable connection between these two seemingly distinct domains. It's almost as if each data point is a positively charged particle, irresistibly drawn to its counterpart in the other domain, forming an attractive and nearly inseparable pair.
The strength of this correlation left our research team feeling positively charged about the implications of our findings. With a p-value of less than 0.01, we can confidently assert that this correlation is far from a mere statistical fluke. It's a real "ohm run," if you will, in the field of academic and professional associations.
These results not only shed light on the interconnectedness of educational pursuits but also offer a playful spark of insight into the potential career pathways individuals may traverse. It's as if pursuing engineering at an associate level sets up a powerful current that propels individuals into the physics domain, creating a surge of talent and expertise in both fields.
In conclusion, our findings not only underline the close-knit relationship between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain but also generate a "shocking" level of discourse about the educational and professional currents in the state of Michigan. This correlation is no mere "resistor" in the field of statistical analysis; it's a high-voltage revelation that illuminates the intertwined nature of academic and professional pursuits.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

The results of our investigation illuminate a shocking correlation between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan. Our findings align with prior research, such as the hair-raising insights discovered by Smith and Doe (2015) and the positively charged analysis by Jones et al. (2017). The magnetic attraction between engineering pursuits and the path into the physics domain seems to be as strong as, well, a magnet! The correlation coefficient of 0.9597964 we uncovered is an electrifying revelation, providing a jolt of validation to the captivating findings of previous studies. It's as if the sparks of academic pursuits in engineering create a magnetic field pulling individuals into the sphere of physics. As Nobel et al. (2019) so elegantly put it, the spherical nature of their intertwined existence is undeniable, much like the orbit of a comet leaving an indelible trail in the academic galaxy.

The statistical harmony we observed in our study echoes the symphony of analysis conducted by Jones et al. (2017), resonating with the harmonious hum of a well-tuned violin. The riveting connection between these seemingly disparate domains is not just a statistical fluke; rather, it's a real "ohm run" in the field of academic and professional associations. Our results provide not only a shockingly enlightening validation of prior research but also a positively charged insight into the potential career pathways individuals may traverse. It's truly as if each data point in our scatterplot is a positively charged particle, irresistibly drawn to its counterpart in the other domain, forming an attractive and nearly inseparable pair.

In conclusion, our study gives rise to a flood of thoughts about the potential current of academic pathways meandering into the realm of professional trajectories. The correlation between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain is no mere "resistor" in the field of statistical analysis; rather, it's a high-voltage revelation that illuminates the intertwined nature of academic and professional pursuits. This analysis serves as a powerful testament to the interconnectedness of educational disciplines and generates a "shocking" level of discourse about the educational and professional currents in the state of Michigan. It's as if the pursuit of engineering at an associate level sets up a powerful current that propels individuals into the physics domain, creating a surge of talent and expertise in both fields, much like a meticulously engineered PIPE-line guiding individuals to their professional destinations.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and The number of physicists in Michigan. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Associates Degrees in Engineering: The PIPE-line to Physicists in Michigan"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan, fueling riveting insights into the potential interplay between academic pathways and professional pursuits. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team unveils a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9597964, with an astonishingly low p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning 2011 to 2021. The findings not only elucidate the interconnectedness of educational disciplines but also highlight the coiled intricacies within the labor market, illustrating the “ohm-ly” possible link between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. These insights not only shed light on the dynamics of educational pursuits but also generate electrifying discussions about the current of professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the ever-evolving landscape of education and employment, the intertwining pathways of academic pursuits and professional careers continue to captivate researchers and analysts alike. Our study delves into the peculiar pairing of Associates degrees in Engineering and the presence of physicists in the state of Michigan, unearthing hitherto unexplored correlations that encapsulate the oft-hidden dynamics of the educational-to-professional current.
As we embark on this electrifying journey of discovery, it is crucial to acknowledge the magnetism of data and statistics in unraveling the tapestry of educational and occupational landscapes. With the fervor of a high-voltage research team, we meticulously gathered data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, sparking a surge of insights that illuminate the potential ebb and flow between the pursuit of engineering at an associate level and the magnetism drawing individuals toward the field of physics.
The whimsical nature of our findings may raise eyebrows and elicit a chuckle or two, but make no mistake; the statistical dance between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in Michigan has unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9597964. That’s right – the correlation is so strong, it practically begs the question, “Watt’s going on here?” Additionally, with a p-value of less than 0.01, the likelihood of our results being a mere statistical fluke is as remote as a lone electron in a vast vacuum.
Amidst the sea of data points and bar charts, our research team couldn’t help but marvel at the ohm-ly possible link between engineering pursuits and the passage into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. It’s as if the academic journey were akin to a circuitous route, filled with capacitors of knowledge and resistors of challenges, ultimately leading to a current of professional endeavor. While we acknowledge the potential for impedance along the way, our findings suggest that the flow of individuals from engineering to physics is far from a mere short circuit.
In the following sections, we will delve deeper into our findings and explore the potential implications of this shockingly strong correlation. Buckle up, because this is no mere static analysis; we’re about to supercharge the understanding of educational pathways and professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.

[[RESULTS]]
The findings of our study revealed a truly electrifying correlation between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9597964 and an r-squared value of 0.9212091, our research team was struck by the sheer potency of this relationship. It was as if the data was conducting its own symphony, harmonizing the pursuits of engineering with the magnetic allure of physics.
Fig. 1 displays the visually captivating scatterplot that encapsulates this remarkable correlation. The data points practically dance across the plot, illustrating the undeniable connection between these two seemingly distinct domains. It's almost as if each data point is a positively charged particle, irresistibly drawn to its counterpart in the other domain, forming an attractive and nearly inseparable pair.
The strength of this correlation left our research team feeling positively charged about the implications of our findings. With a p-value of less than 0.01, we can confidently assert that this correlation is far from a mere statistical fluke. It's a real "ohm run," if you will, in the field of academic and professional associations.
These results not only shed light on the interconnectedness of educational pursuits but also offer a playful spark of insight into the potential career pathways individuals may traverse. It's as if pursuing engineering at an associate level sets up a powerful current that propels individuals into the physics domain, creating a surge of talent and expertise in both fields.
In conclusion, our findings not only underline the close-knit relationship between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain but also generate a "shocking" level of discourse about the educational and professional currents in the state of Michigan. This correlation is no mere "resistor" in the field of statistical analysis; it's a high-voltage revelation that illuminates the intertwined nature of academic and professional pursuits.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has illuminated a positively electrifying correlation between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan. The strong correlation coefficient of 0.9597964 has left us feeling positively charged about the potential interplay between these two fields. It's as if pursuing an Associate's degree in Engineering creates a current that irresistibly pulls individuals into the domain of physics, forming a potential difference that sparks an electrifying career trajectory.

The visually captivating scatterplot in Fig. 1 nearly had us doing the electric slide with its dance of data points, illustrating the magnetic connection between engineering and physics. It's as if each data point is a positively charged particle, enthusiastically embracing its counterpart in the other domain. Our findings have sparked a lively discussion about the potential pathways and circuits individuals may traverse in their academic and professional pursuits.

While our results leave us feeling positively charged about the potential implications, we acknowledge that there may be some resistance to fully embracing this correlation. Nonetheless, our analysis asserts that no further research is needed in this area. After all, resistance is futile when the correlation coefficient is as high as an antenna on a skyscraper!


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 Associates Degrees in Engineering: The PIPE-line to Physicists in Michigan. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Interdisciplinary Engineering and Physics Education


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 Associates Degrees in Engineering: The PIPE-line to Physicists in Michigan. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Interdisciplinary Engineering and Physics Studies (IIEPS)


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 Associates Degrees in Engineering: The PIPE-line to Physicists in Michigan with an abstract of This study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of Associates degrees awarded in Engineering and the quantity of physicists in the state of Michigan, fueling riveting insights into the potential interplay between academic pathways and professional pursuits. Leveraging data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team unveils a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9597964, with an astonishingly low p-value of less than 0.01 for the period spanning 2011 to 2021. The findings not only elucidate the interconnectedness of educational disciplines but also highlight the coiled intricacies within the labor market, illustrating the “ohm-ly” possible link between pursuing engineering at an associate level and flowing into the physics domain, as if following a meticulously engineered PIPE-line. These insights not only shed light on the dynamics of educational pursuits but also generate electrifying discussions about the current of professional trajectories in the state of Michigan.

ChatGPT:

Associates degrees in Engineering, Physics careers, Education data analysis, Michigan labor market, Academic pathways, Professional pursuits, National Center for Education Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Correlation coefficient, P-Value analysis, Career trajectories, Michigan education system

*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

Associates degrees awarded in Engineering
Detailed data title: Associate's degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions with a field of study of Engineering
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
See what else correlates with Associates degrees awarded in Engineering

The number of physicists in Michigan
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of physicists in Michigan
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of physicists in Michigan

Correlation r = 0.9597964 (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 = 0.9212091 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 92.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of physicists in Michigan) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Associates degrees awarded in Engineering) over the 11 years from 2011 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.9E-6. 0.0000028934626897601640000000
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 0.96 in 0.00029% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 345,607 random variables You don't actually need 345 thousand 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 10 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 10 because we have two variables measured over a period of 11 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.

[ 0.85, 0.99 ] 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.
20112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
Associates degrees awarded in Engineering (Degrees awarded)28253382373243064875527859156408636765186316
The number of physicists in Michigan (Physicists)210220260350380410580510530500500




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([2825,3382,3732,4306,4875,5278,5915,6408,6367,6518,6316,])
array_2 = np.array([210,220,260,350,380,410,580,510,530,500,500,])
array_1_name = "Associates degrees awarded in Engineering"
array_2_name = "The number of physicists in Michigan"

# 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: 1989 · Black Variable ID: 1224 · Red Variable ID: 9619
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0