about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,991 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and the second variable is Google searches for 'unicorns'.  The chart goes from 2012 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island decreased, there was a corresponding decline in the availability of sparkly, unicorn-esque veins to draw blood from. This led to a shortage of unicorn-inspired art and products, ultimately dampening people's interest in searching for unicorns on Google. It's a classic case of mystical creature mojo being unwittingly linked to the noble profession of drawing blood!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image depicting a bright and bustling hospital scene in the style of "A scene from Skyrim". In the scene, a group of phlebotomists is seen diligently drawing blood from patients while chatting and laughing. A computer screen nearby shows a spike in Google searches for "unicorns," with colorful images of mythical creatures dancing across the screen. The overall visual should capture the energetic environment of the hospital and the whimsical nature of the Google search results. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. 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: Surrealism A scene from Skyrim A TIME magazine cover image Hyper-realistic An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie
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 The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bright and bustling hospital in Rhode Island, a group of phlebotomists diligently draw blood from patients while chatting and laughing. As they work, a computer screen nearby shows a spike in Google searches for "unicorns," with colorful images of mythical creatures dancing across the screen.

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 bright and bustling hospital in Rhode Island, a group of phlebotomists diligently draw blood from patients while chatting and laughing. As they work, a computer screen nearby shows a spike in Google searches for "unicorns," with colorful images of mythical creatures dancing across the screen. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image depicting a bright and bustling hospital scene in the style of "A scene from Skyrim". In the scene, a group of phlebotomists is seen diligently drawing blood from patients while chatting and laughing. A computer screen nearby shows a spike in Google searches for "unicorns," with colorful images of mythical creatures dancing across the screen. The overall visual should capture the energetic environment of the hospital and the whimsical nature of the Google search results.

*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 The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island caused unicorns (Google searches for 'unicorns') to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Delightful Plight: The Flight of Phlebotomists and Unicorns in Rhode Island

The Journal of Fantastical Phlebotomy and Mythical Creatures Research

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 and p < 0.01 for 2012 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]]
The Delightful Plight: The Flight of Phlebotomists and Unicorns in Rhode Island

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explored the delightful yet perplexing relationship between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' from 2012 to 2022. The research team utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track the employment trends of phlebotomists and Google Trends to measure the public's interest in the mythical creature. A correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 and p < 0.01 was observed, indicating a significant connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

It appears that as the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island increased, so did the frequency of Google searches for 'unicorns'. This peculiar correlation may baffle skeptics, but as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. Nevertheless, our findings bring to mind a classic dad joke: Why did the phlebotomist become an artist? Because they had a lot of blood to draw!

Further studies may explore the underlying factors contributing to this correlation and its potential implications for public interest and the labor market. In the meantime, we urge readers to approach this correlation with a sense of humor and perhaps a sprinkle of unicorn magic.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Delightful Plight: The Flight of Phlebotomists and Unicorns in Rhode Island

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explored the delightful yet perplexing relationship between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' from 2012 to 2022. The research team utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track the employment trends of phlebotomists and Google Trends to measure the public's interest in the mythical creature. A correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 and p < 0.01 was observed, indicating a significant connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

It appears that as the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island increased, so did the frequency of Google searches for 'unicorns'. This peculiar correlation may baffle skeptics, but as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. Nevertheless, our findings bring to mind a classic dad joke: Why did the phlebotomist become an artist? Because they had a lot of blood to draw!

Further studies may explore the underlying factors contributing to this correlation and its potential implications for public interest and the labor market. In the meantime, we urge readers to approach this correlation with a sense of humor and perhaps a sprinkle of unicorn magic.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The peculiar and whimsical correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' has captivated both researchers and casual observers alike. While the two phenomena may seem as unrelated as unicorns and a stable job market, our study aims to shed light on the surprising connection that has emerged. As we embark on this journey of discovery, it is important to remember the classic wit of a dad joke: What did the phlebotomist say to the unicorn? "I'm here for your magical blood draw!"

In exploring this delightful yet perplexing relationship, we turn to the field of labor statistics to examine the employment trends of phlebotomists in Rhode Island. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has provided valuable data, allowing us to track the fluctuations in the number of individuals practicing the art of venipuncture. Meanwhile, Google Trends has allowed us to measure the ebb and flow of public interest in the ethereal and elusive creature known as the unicorn. This unique combination of data sources has allowed us to uncover a correlation coefficient of 0.8640915, with a p-value less than 0.01, signifying a statistically significant relationship.

The juxtaposition of phlebotomists and unicorns may initially appear as incongruous as a unicorn in a laboratory, but our findings indicate otherwise. It is important to approach this correlation with both a critical eye and a sense of humor. It is essential to remember that while correlation does not imply causation, the connection between these seemingly disparate elements cannot be easily dismissed. This brings to mind a fitting dad joke: What's a phlebotomist's favorite mythical creature? A vein-eating unicorn!

As we venture into this realm of enchanting correlations, it is crucial to maintain a balance of scientific rigor and open-minded curiosity. While our findings may delight and confound in equal measure, further exploration of the underlying factors and potential implications of this correlation will be essential. Let us approach this study with the inquisitiveness of a researcher and the whimsy of a storyteller, for in the delightful plight of phlebotomists and unicorns, there may be more to uncover than meets the eye.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 some movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Delightful Plight: The Flight of Phlebotomists and Unicorns in Rhode Island

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explored the delightful yet perplexing relationship between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' from 2012 to 2022. The research team utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track the employment trends of phlebotomists and Google Trends to measure the public's interest in the mythical creature. A correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 and p < 0.01 was observed, indicating a significant connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

It appears that as the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island increased, so did the frequency of Google searches for 'unicorns'. This peculiar correlation may baffle skeptics, but as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. Nevertheless, our findings bring to mind a classic dad joke: Why did the phlebotomist become an artist? Because they had a lot of blood to draw!

Further studies may explore the underlying factors contributing to this correlation and its potential implications for public interest and the labor market. In the meantime, we urge readers to approach this correlation with a sense of humor and perhaps a sprinkle of unicorn magic.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The peculiar and whimsical correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' has captivated both researchers and casual observers alike. While the two phenomena may seem as unrelated as unicorns and a stable job market, our study aims to shed light on the surprising connection that has emerged. As we embark on this journey of discovery, it is important to remember the classic wit of a dad joke: What did the phlebotomist say to the unicorn? "I'm here for your magical blood draw!"
In exploring this delightful yet perplexing relationship, we turn to the field of labor statistics to examine the employment trends of phlebotomists in Rhode Island. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has provided valuable data, allowing us to track the fluctuations in the number of individuals practicing the art of venipuncture. Meanwhile, Google Trends has allowed us to measure the ebb and flow of public interest in the ethereal and elusive creature known as the unicorn. This unique combination of data sources has allowed us to uncover a correlation coefficient of 0.8640915, with a p-value less than 0.01, signifying a statistically significant relationship.
The juxtaposition of phlebotomists and unicorns may initially appear as incongruous as a unicorn in a laboratory, but our findings indicate otherwise. It is important to approach this correlation with both a critical eye and a sense of humor. It is essential to remember that while correlation does not imply causation, the connection between these seemingly disparate elements cannot be easily dismissed. This brings to mind a fitting dad joke: What's a phlebotomist's favorite mythical creature? A vein-eating unicorn!
As we venture into this realm of enchanting correlations, it is crucial to maintain a balance of scientific rigor and open-minded curiosity. While our findings may delight and confound in equal measure, further exploration of the underlying factors and potential implications of this correlation will be essential. Let us approach this study with the inquisitiveness of a researcher and the whimsy of a storyteller, for in the delightful plight of phlebotomists and unicorns, there may be more to uncover than meets the eye.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In Smith's study, the researchers found a strong positive correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. The findings were consistent with previous research by Doe, who also observed a noteworthy association between these two variables. Jones similarly reported a correlation between phlebotomist employment and public interest in mythical creatures.

In "Blood, Sweat, and Unicorns: A Comparative Analysis," Lorem and Ipsum delve into the historical and cultural significance of both phlebotomy and unicorns, tracing the evolution of these seemingly disparate elements in popular consciousness.

Adding a playful twist, the fictional work "The Blood-Draw Chronicles: A Unicorn's Quest" explores an alternate reality where phlebotomists and unicorns work together to maintain the delicate balance of blood magic in the land of Rhode Island.

The cinematic portrayal of fantastical creatures in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Phlebotomists" and "The Lord of the Venipuncture" offers a whimsical lens through which to consider the intersection of phlebotomist employment and public fascination with unicorns. While these movies may not directly address the specific relationship under investigation, they provide a delightful backdrop for exploring the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated phenomena.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends . You used data from 2012 to 2022

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Delightful Plight: The Flight of Phlebotomists and Unicorns in Rhode Island

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explored the delightful yet perplexing relationship between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' from 2012 to 2022. The research team utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track the employment trends of phlebotomists and Google Trends to measure the public's interest in the mythical creature. A correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 and p < 0.01 was observed, indicating a significant connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

It appears that as the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island increased, so did the frequency of Google searches for 'unicorns'. This peculiar correlation may baffle skeptics, but as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. Nevertheless, our findings bring to mind a classic dad joke: Why did the phlebotomist become an artist? Because they had a lot of blood to draw!

Further studies may explore the underlying factors contributing to this correlation and its potential implications for public interest and the labor market. In the meantime, we urge readers to approach this correlation with a sense of humor and perhaps a sprinkle of unicorn magic.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The peculiar and whimsical correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' has captivated both researchers and casual observers alike. While the two phenomena may seem as unrelated as unicorns and a stable job market, our study aims to shed light on the surprising connection that has emerged. As we embark on this journey of discovery, it is important to remember the classic wit of a dad joke: What did the phlebotomist say to the unicorn? "I'm here for your magical blood draw!"
In exploring this delightful yet perplexing relationship, we turn to the field of labor statistics to examine the employment trends of phlebotomists in Rhode Island. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has provided valuable data, allowing us to track the fluctuations in the number of individuals practicing the art of venipuncture. Meanwhile, Google Trends has allowed us to measure the ebb and flow of public interest in the ethereal and elusive creature known as the unicorn. This unique combination of data sources has allowed us to uncover a correlation coefficient of 0.8640915, with a p-value less than 0.01, signifying a statistically significant relationship.
The juxtaposition of phlebotomists and unicorns may initially appear as incongruous as a unicorn in a laboratory, but our findings indicate otherwise. It is important to approach this correlation with both a critical eye and a sense of humor. It is essential to remember that while correlation does not imply causation, the connection between these seemingly disparate elements cannot be easily dismissed. This brings to mind a fitting dad joke: What's a phlebotomist's favorite mythical creature? A vein-eating unicorn!
As we venture into this realm of enchanting correlations, it is crucial to maintain a balance of scientific rigor and open-minded curiosity. While our findings may delight and confound in equal measure, further exploration of the underlying factors and potential implications of this correlation will be essential. Let us approach this study with the inquisitiveness of a researcher and the whimsy of a storyteller, for in the delightful plight of phlebotomists and unicorns, there may be more to uncover than meets the eye.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Data Collection:
The research team scoured the digital landscape for relevant information, embarking on a quest reminiscent of a unicorn search. The employment data of phlebotomists in Rhode Island was gleaned from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, providing a robust foundation for tracking the workforce trends in the noble art of venipuncture. Additionally, Google Trends served as a mystical oracle, unveiling the search interest for 'unicorns' over the years 2012 to 2022. This fusion of statistical data and mythical intrigue laid the groundwork for an adventure as whimsical as a fairy tale – or a dad joke. How does a phlebotomist keep a unicorn from flying away? They use a magical blood draw line!

Data Analysis:
To unveil the mysterious link between phlebotomists and unicorns, the correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' was assessed. A correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 emerged from the depths of the data, echoing the enchanting harmony of a mythical creature in a fairy glen. The p-value was less than 0.01, displaying a statistically significant connection as surprising as a unicorn joining a blood drive. Our statistical analysis was as thorough as a unicorn's mane and as mystical as a phlebotomist's needle.

Qualitative Analysis:
While numbers can illuminate enchanting patterns, it is the whispers of qualitative analysis that truly bring the magic to life. Through cloaking ourselves in the captivating narratives of phlebotomists and the allure of unicorns, we aimed to capture the essence of this ethereal connection. This approach allowed us to appreciate the complexities of these seemingly disparate entities and to uncover the hidden truths that defy the conventions of statistical norms. It's as though we were hunting for the pot of gold at the end of a unicorn's rainbow.

Limitations:
As with any enigmatic pursuit, the study encountered limitations that stymied our quest for absolute clarity. The dataset's boundaries constrained our exploration, akin to an invisible barrier around an enchanted forest. Furthermore, the multidimensionality of human interest and labor dynamics eluded complete capture within our analytical framework, much like trying to grasp the elusive horn of a unicorn. Thus, our findings, while intriguing, should be seen through the lens of both scientific inquiry and whimsical wonder. Just as one cannot force a unicorn into a stable, one must appreciate both the bounds and the freedoms of our study.

In summary, our methodology combined the rigor of statistical analysis with the marvel of fantastical storytelling. This charming blend has allowed us to paint a picture of the correlation between the flight of phlebotomists and the unicorns of Google searches, a picture as delightful as a rainbow-maned unicorn prancing through a field of venipuncture needles.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

For the time period 2012 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.8640915, r-squared of 0.7466541, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Delightful Plight: The Flight of Phlebotomists and Unicorns in Rhode Island

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explored the delightful yet perplexing relationship between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' from 2012 to 2022. The research team utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track the employment trends of phlebotomists and Google Trends to measure the public's interest in the mythical creature. A correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 and p < 0.01 was observed, indicating a significant connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

It appears that as the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island increased, so did the frequency of Google searches for 'unicorns'. This peculiar correlation may baffle skeptics, but as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. Nevertheless, our findings bring to mind a classic dad joke: Why did the phlebotomist become an artist? Because they had a lot of blood to draw!

Further studies may explore the underlying factors contributing to this correlation and its potential implications for public interest and the labor market. In the meantime, we urge readers to approach this correlation with a sense of humor and perhaps a sprinkle of unicorn magic.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The peculiar and whimsical correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' has captivated both researchers and casual observers alike. While the two phenomena may seem as unrelated as unicorns and a stable job market, our study aims to shed light on the surprising connection that has emerged. As we embark on this journey of discovery, it is important to remember the classic wit of a dad joke: What did the phlebotomist say to the unicorn? "I'm here for your magical blood draw!"
In exploring this delightful yet perplexing relationship, we turn to the field of labor statistics to examine the employment trends of phlebotomists in Rhode Island. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has provided valuable data, allowing us to track the fluctuations in the number of individuals practicing the art of venipuncture. Meanwhile, Google Trends has allowed us to measure the ebb and flow of public interest in the ethereal and elusive creature known as the unicorn. This unique combination of data sources has allowed us to uncover a correlation coefficient of 0.8640915, with a p-value less than 0.01, signifying a statistically significant relationship.
The juxtaposition of phlebotomists and unicorns may initially appear as incongruous as a unicorn in a laboratory, but our findings indicate otherwise. It is important to approach this correlation with both a critical eye and a sense of humor. It is essential to remember that while correlation does not imply causation, the connection between these seemingly disparate elements cannot be easily dismissed. This brings to mind a fitting dad joke: What's a phlebotomist's favorite mythical creature? A vein-eating unicorn!
As we venture into this realm of enchanting correlations, it is crucial to maintain a balance of scientific rigor and open-minded curiosity. While our findings may delight and confound in equal measure, further exploration of the underlying factors and potential implications of this correlation will be essential. Let us approach this study with the inquisitiveness of a researcher and the whimsy of a storyteller, for in the delightful plight of phlebotomists and unicorns, there may be more to uncover than meets the eye.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our analysis reveal a notably strong and positive correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' from 2012 to 2022. The correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 suggests a robust linear relationship between these seemingly unrelated subjects. This finding may prompt one to ponder: What did the unicorn say to the phlebotomist? "I hope you find my veins magical!"

The r-squared value of 0.7466541 indicates that approximately 74.7% of the variance in Google searches for 'unicorns' can be explained by the variance in the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island. Such a high r-squared value implies a strong association, comparable to the bond between a unicorn and its rider.

In addition to the high correlation coefficient and r-squared value, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides further evidence of the statistical significance of this relationship. This demonstrates that the likelihood of observing such a strong correlation between phlebotomists and unicorns by random chance is less than 1%. As we delve into the realm of this unusual juxtaposition, it brings to mind a fitting dad joke: How does a unicorn make its money? By maresting in the stock market!

Furthermore, the scatterplot shown in Figure 1 visually depicts the striking positive correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. This enticing image captures the essence of our findings and underscores the whimsicality of this unexpectedly delightful relationship.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
The Delightful Plight: The Flight of Phlebotomists and Unicorns in Rhode Island

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explored the delightful yet perplexing relationship between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' from 2012 to 2022. The research team utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track the employment trends of phlebotomists and Google Trends to measure the public's interest in the mythical creature. A correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 and p < 0.01 was observed, indicating a significant connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

It appears that as the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island increased, so did the frequency of Google searches for 'unicorns'. This peculiar correlation may baffle skeptics, but as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. Nevertheless, our findings bring to mind a classic dad joke: Why did the phlebotomist become an artist? Because they had a lot of blood to draw!

Further studies may explore the underlying factors contributing to this correlation and its potential implications for public interest and the labor market. In the meantime, we urge readers to approach this correlation with a sense of humor and perhaps a sprinkle of unicorn magic.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In Smith's study, the researchers found a strong positive correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. The findings were consistent with previous research by Doe, who also observed a noteworthy association between these two variables. Jones similarly reported a correlation between phlebotomist employment and public interest in mythical creatures.
In "Blood, Sweat, and Unicorns: A Comparative Analysis," Lorem and Ipsum delve into the historical and cultural significance of both phlebotomy and unicorns, tracing the evolution of these seemingly disparate elements in popular consciousness.
Adding a playful twist, the fictional work "The Blood-Draw Chronicles: A Unicorn's Quest" explores an alternate reality where phlebotomists and unicorns work together to maintain the delicate balance of blood magic in the land of Rhode Island.
The cinematic portrayal of fantastical creatures in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Phlebotomists" and "The Lord of the Venipuncture" offers a whimsical lens through which to consider the intersection of phlebotomist employment and public fascination with unicorns. While these movies may not directly address the specific relationship under investigation, they provide a delightful backdrop for exploring the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated phenomena.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis reveal a notably strong and positive correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' from 2012 to 2022. The correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 suggests a robust linear relationship between these seemingly unrelated subjects. This finding may prompt one to ponder: What did the unicorn say to the phlebotomist? "I hope you find my veins magical!"
The r-squared value of 0.7466541 indicates that approximately 74.7% of the variance in Google searches for 'unicorns' can be explained by the variance in the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island. Such a high r-squared value implies a strong association, comparable to the bond between a unicorn and its rider.
In addition to the high correlation coefficient and r-squared value, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides further evidence of the statistical significance of this relationship. This demonstrates that the likelihood of observing such a strong correlation between phlebotomists and unicorns by random chance is less than 1%. As we delve into the realm of this unusual juxtaposition, it brings to mind a fitting dad joke: How does a unicorn make its money? By maresting in the stock market!
Furthermore, the scatterplot shown in Figure 1 visually depicts the striking positive correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. This enticing image captures the essence of our findings and underscores the whimsicality of this unexpectedly delightful relationship.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study offer compelling support for the previously established linkage between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and the public's curiosity about unicorns. Our results align with the work of Smith, Doe, and Jones, who all unearthed a notable association between phlebotomist employment and interest in mythical creatures. It appears that the increase in phlebotomist numbers indeed coincides with heightened Google searches for 'unicorns'. These findings may leave one feeling as perplexed as a unicorn in a petting zoo - a rare sight, indeed!

The high correlation coefficient and r-squared value in our study underscore the robustness of the relationship between phlebotomists and unicorns. It seems that the two are as intertwined as a unicorn's luscious mane. The p-value further buttresses the statistical significance of this connection, minimizing the possibility of this correlation being a mere fluke. Like a unicorn navigating a forest, the association between phlebotomists and Google searches for 'unicorns' seems to be firmly rooted.

Our results, in conjunction with the previous literature, invite further teasing apart of the factors underlying this curious relationship. Perhaps there are societal or cultural forces at play, tugging at the threads of public interest in both the enigmatic creatures and the noble phlebotomists. One might say that delving into the origins of this correlation is akin to unraveling the mysteries of a unicorn's horn - intriguing, but not without its challenges.

The scatterplot vividly portrays the positive correlation between phlebotomists and unicorns, serving as a reminder that even the most unexpected relationships can be visually captivating. Much like a unicorn trotting through a meadow, the linkage between phlebotomists and Google searches for 'unicorns' beckons further exploration and, perhaps, a sprinkle of whimsy. After all, who wouldn't want to dive into a world where phlebotomists and unicorns roam side by side, spreading joy and wonder?


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
The Delightful Plight: The Flight of Phlebotomists and Unicorns in Rhode Island

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study explored the delightful yet perplexing relationship between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' from 2012 to 2022. The research team utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track the employment trends of phlebotomists and Google Trends to measure the public's interest in the mythical creature. A correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 and p < 0.01 was observed, indicating a significant connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

It appears that as the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island increased, so did the frequency of Google searches for 'unicorns'. This peculiar correlation may baffle skeptics, but as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. Nevertheless, our findings bring to mind a classic dad joke: Why did the phlebotomist become an artist? Because they had a lot of blood to draw!

Further studies may explore the underlying factors contributing to this correlation and its potential implications for public interest and the labor market. In the meantime, we urge readers to approach this correlation with a sense of humor and perhaps a sprinkle of unicorn magic.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The peculiar and whimsical correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' has captivated both researchers and casual observers alike. While the two phenomena may seem as unrelated as unicorns and a stable job market, our study aims to shed light on the surprising connection that has emerged. As we embark on this journey of discovery, it is important to remember the classic wit of a dad joke: What did the phlebotomist say to the unicorn? "I'm here for your magical blood draw!"
In exploring this delightful yet perplexing relationship, we turn to the field of labor statistics to examine the employment trends of phlebotomists in Rhode Island. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has provided valuable data, allowing us to track the fluctuations in the number of individuals practicing the art of venipuncture. Meanwhile, Google Trends has allowed us to measure the ebb and flow of public interest in the ethereal and elusive creature known as the unicorn. This unique combination of data sources has allowed us to uncover a correlation coefficient of 0.8640915, with a p-value less than 0.01, signifying a statistically significant relationship.
The juxtaposition of phlebotomists and unicorns may initially appear as incongruous as a unicorn in a laboratory, but our findings indicate otherwise. It is important to approach this correlation with both a critical eye and a sense of humor. It is essential to remember that while correlation does not imply causation, the connection between these seemingly disparate elements cannot be easily dismissed. This brings to mind a fitting dad joke: What's a phlebotomist's favorite mythical creature? A vein-eating unicorn!
As we venture into this realm of enchanting correlations, it is crucial to maintain a balance of scientific rigor and open-minded curiosity. While our findings may delight and confound in equal measure, further exploration of the underlying factors and potential implications of this correlation will be essential. Let us approach this study with the inquisitiveness of a researcher and the whimsy of a storyteller, for in the delightful plight of phlebotomists and unicorns, there may be more to uncover than meets the eye.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis reveal a notably strong and positive correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' from 2012 to 2022. The correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 suggests a robust linear relationship between these seemingly unrelated subjects. This finding may prompt one to ponder: What did the unicorn say to the phlebotomist? "I hope you find my veins magical!"
The r-squared value of 0.7466541 indicates that approximately 74.7% of the variance in Google searches for 'unicorns' can be explained by the variance in the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island. Such a high r-squared value implies a strong association, comparable to the bond between a unicorn and its rider.
In addition to the high correlation coefficient and r-squared value, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides further evidence of the statistical significance of this relationship. This demonstrates that the likelihood of observing such a strong correlation between phlebotomists and unicorns by random chance is less than 1%. As we delve into the realm of this unusual juxtaposition, it brings to mind a fitting dad joke: How does a unicorn make its money? By maresting in the stock market!
Furthermore, the scatterplot shown in Figure 1 visually depicts the striking positive correlation between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. This enticing image captures the essence of our findings and underscores the whimsicality of this unexpectedly delightful relationship.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

In summary, our research has unveiled a compelling connection between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns'. The significant correlation coefficient and p-value point to a robust relationship that warrants further investigation. One might say this correlation is as enigmatic as a unicorn's whereabouts, but with statistical support!

The unanticipated nature of this correlation raises intriguing questions about the factors at play. Perhaps there is a mystical allure to the act of blood drawing, sparking an increased fascination with mythical creatures. As researchers, we must approach this correlation with the skepticism of a scientist and the wonder of a fantasy enthusiast. This brings to mind a fitting dad joke: What do phlebotomists and unicorns have in common? They both have a penchant for magical thinking!

While our study sheds light on this whimsical correlation, it also underscores the need for future investigations into the underlying mechanisms at work. Understanding the drivers of public interest in unicorns and the implications for the phlebotomy profession could offer valuable insights. Perhaps there's more magic in the lab than we previously imagined.

In closing, we must acknowledge that while our findings are intriguing, they do not establish causation. Correlation is akin to a unicorn – captivating, but not always grounded in reality. Therefore, as we reflect on this unlikely relationship, we believe that no further research is needed in this area. After all, why pursue more research when we've already found the correlation between phlebotomists and unicorns – it's a match made in statistical heaven!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited The Delightful Plight: The Flight of Phlebotomists and Unicorns in Rhode Island. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Fantastical Phlebotomy and Mythical Creatures Research


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited The Delightful Plight: The Flight of Phlebotomists and Unicorns in Rhode Island. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

Society for the Advancement of Mystical Zoology and Venipuncture


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The Delightful Plight: The Flight of Phlebotomists and Unicorns in Rhode Island with an abstract of This study explored the delightful yet perplexing relationship between the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island and Google searches for 'unicorns' from 2012 to 2022. The research team utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track the employment trends of phlebotomists and Google Trends to measure the public's interest in the mythical creature. A correlation coefficient of 0.8640915 and p < 0.01 was observed, indicating a significant connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.
It appears that as the number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island increased, so did the frequency of Google searches for 'unicorns'. This peculiar correlation may baffle skeptics, but as we all know, correlation does not imply causation. Nevertheless, our findings bring to mind a classic dad joke: Why did the phlebotomist become an artist? Because they had a lot of blood to draw!
Further studies may explore the underlying factors contributing to this correlation and its potential implications for public interest and the labor market. In the meantime, we urge readers to approach this correlation with a sense of humor and perhaps a sprinkle of unicorn magic.

ChatGPT:

phlebotomists, Rhode Island, employment trends, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Google Trends, unicorn searches, correlation coefficient, causation, public interest, labor market, unicorn magic

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of phlebotomists in Rhode Island
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island

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

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'unicorns'

Correlation r = 0.8640915 (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 = 0.7466541 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 74.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'unicorns') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island) over the 11 years from 2012 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.000603. 0.0006029743050677101000000000
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 0.86 in 0.0603% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,658 random variables Which I absolutely did.
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.

[ 0.55, 0.96 ] 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.
20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island (Phlebotomists)7308008208209108901000850860610610
Google searches for 'unicorns' (Rel. search volume)38.916743.7550.083359.7553.666765.583374.560.7548.7536.416738.6667




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([730,800,820,820,910,890,1000,850,860,610,610,])
array_2 = np.array([38.9167,43.75,50.0833,59.75,53.6667,65.5833,74.5,60.75,48.75,36.4167,38.6667,])
array_1_name = "The number of phlebotomists in Rhode Island"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'unicorns'"

# 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?

Big thanks for reviewing!


Correlation ID: 1991 · Black Variable ID: 19464 · Red Variable ID: 1481
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0