about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,015 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Popularity of the first name Nina and the second variable is Air pollution in Jackson.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2014, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the popularity of the name Nina waned, fewer parents were inspired to introduce their kids to the classic cartoon "Nina and the Smoggy Day," leading to a decline in demand for pollution-inducing merchandise. With fewer toy factories churning out plastic trinkets and electronic gizmos, the overall emissions in Jackson took a welcome nosedive. How's that for an unexpected ripple effect of baby name trends?

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that portrays a serene city scene of Jackson with a focus on the streets and surrounding buildings. Show the impact of reduced traffic and improved air quality with clear, blue skies and a tranquil atmosphere. Hint at the absence of carpool karaoke sessions and bustling streets, symbolizing the declining trend of the name Nina. Capture the calm yet vibrant energy of the city, highlighting the positive implications of this transformation. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Popularity of the first name Nina and Air pollution in Jackson. 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: Data cyber art Woodblock painting Cybernetic art Minimalism Realistic
ChatGPT: Realistic

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Popularity of the first name Nina and Air pollution in Jackson, in the following situation: As fewer babies were named Nina, there were less carpool karaoke sessions belting out "99 Red Balloons". This led to a decrease in carbon emissions, ultimately improving air quality in Jackson.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: As fewer babies were named Nina, the once bustling streets of Jackson became quieter, with fewer carpool karaoke sessions belting out "99 Red Balloons". The reduced traffic and car emissions contributed to the improvement in air quality over the city.

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: [ Realistic ] and depicting this scene: As fewer babies were named Nina, the once bustling streets of Jackson became quieter, with fewer carpool karaoke sessions belting out "99 Red Balloons". The reduced traffic and car emissions contributed to the improvement in air quality over the city. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that portrays a serene city scene of Jackson with a focus on the streets and surrounding buildings. Show the impact of reduced traffic and improved air quality with clear, blue skies and a tranquil atmosphere. Hint at the absence of carpool karaoke sessions and bustling streets, symbolizing the declining trend of the name Nina. Capture the calm yet vibrant energy of the city, highlighting the positive implications of this transformation.

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

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in Popularity of the first name Nina caused Air pollution in Jackson to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Nina Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Cloud of Pollution?

Journal of Ecological Quandaries

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Nina and Air pollution in Jackson. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from US Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2014.

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 "Nina" Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Cloud of Pollution?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The "Nina" Effect has long confounded scholars and trendy parents alike. Is the popularity of the name Nina linked to clear skies and fresh air, or is it more likely to result in a haze of pollution? Our research team delved into this conundrum, utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to unravel the mystery.

Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2014. The statistical analysis provides compelling evidence of a connection between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution in Jackson. Our results inject a breath of fresh air into the field of societal nomenclature studies and underscore the potential impact of individual names on environmental quality. We hope this research will inspire further exploration into the curious interplay of names and atmospheric conditions.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Nina and Air pollution in Jackson. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The "Nina" Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Cloud of Pollution?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The "Nina" Effect has long confounded scholars and trendy parents alike. Is the popularity of the name Nina linked to clear skies and fresh air, or is it more likely to result in a haze of pollution? Our research team delved into this conundrum, utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to unravel the mystery.

Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2014. The statistical analysis provides compelling evidence of a connection between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution in Jackson. Our results inject a breath of fresh air into the field of societal nomenclature studies and underscore the potential impact of individual names on environmental quality. We hope this research will inspire further exploration into the curious interplay of names and atmospheric conditions.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
Ah, the power of a name! From determining one's destiny to perhaps even influencing the very air we breathe, the role of names in shaping our world is a topic ripe for exploration. In this study, we embark on a whimsical journey to unravel the enigma that is the "Nina" effect. Is the prevalence of the name Nina associated with a breath of fresh air, or does it bring forth a cloud of pollution? Buckle up and don your academic goggles, for we are about to navigate through a landscape of statistical analysis, puns, and unexpected correlations.

As researchers, we are accustomed to dealing with weighty topics, but the connection between the popularity of the first name "Nina" and air pollution in Jackson introduces a lighthearted twist to the domain of environmental and health research. Are individuals with this moniker inadvertently fostering a cleaner atmosphere, or does the "Nina" effect lead to a haze of pollution that rivals the fog of ambiguity surrounding its influence?

The curiosity surrounding this peculiar connection has captivated scholars and trendy parents alike. Drawing inspiration from the intrigue of this inquiry, we embark on a quest to shed light on the mysterious interplay between a seemingly innocuous name and atmospheric conditions. By analyzing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we hope to uncover whether the name Nina heralds blue skies or murky air.

Unraveling the "Nina" effect promises to inject a breath of fresh air into the domain of societal nomenclature studies. We stand on the precipice of understanding how individual names may ripple through the fabric of environmental quality, and the implications of our findings extend far beyond the realm of mere curiosity.

So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for an academic rollercoaster adorned with empirical evidence and the occasional pun. The intersection of names and environmental variables awaits our exploration, and the "Nina" effect beckons us to navigate through its quirky corridors of correlation and causation. Let us embark on this whimsical journey, armed with data and a touch of humor, as we unravel the mysterious connection between the name Nina and the air we breathe.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Nina and Air pollution in Jackson. 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 name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The "Nina" Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Cloud of Pollution?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The "Nina" Effect has long confounded scholars and trendy parents alike. Is the popularity of the name Nina linked to clear skies and fresh air, or is it more likely to result in a haze of pollution? Our research team delved into this conundrum, utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to unravel the mystery.

Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2014. The statistical analysis provides compelling evidence of a connection between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution in Jackson. Our results inject a breath of fresh air into the field of societal nomenclature studies and underscore the potential impact of individual names on environmental quality. We hope this research will inspire further exploration into the curious interplay of names and atmospheric conditions.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the power of a name! From determining one's destiny to perhaps even influencing the very air we breathe, the role of names in shaping our world is a topic ripe for exploration. In this study, we embark on a whimsical journey to unravel the enigma that is the "Nina" effect. Is the prevalence of the name Nina associated with a breath of fresh air, or does it bring forth a cloud of pollution? Buckle up and don your academic goggles, for we are about to navigate through a landscape of statistical analysis, puns, and unexpected correlations.
As researchers, we are accustomed to dealing with weighty topics, but the connection between the popularity of the first name "Nina" and air pollution in Jackson introduces a lighthearted twist to the domain of environmental and health research. Are individuals with this moniker inadvertently fostering a cleaner atmosphere, or does the "Nina" effect lead to a haze of pollution that rivals the fog of ambiguity surrounding its influence?
The curiosity surrounding this peculiar connection has captivated scholars and trendy parents alike. Drawing inspiration from the intrigue of this inquiry, we embark on a quest to shed light on the mysterious interplay between a seemingly innocuous name and atmospheric conditions. By analyzing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we hope to uncover whether the name Nina heralds blue skies or murky air.
Unraveling the "Nina" effect promises to inject a breath of fresh air into the domain of societal nomenclature studies. We stand on the precipice of understanding how individual names may ripple through the fabric of environmental quality, and the implications of our findings extend far beyond the realm of mere curiosity.
So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for an academic rollercoaster adorned with empirical evidence and the occasional pun. The intersection of names and environmental variables awaits our exploration, and the "Nina" effect beckons us to navigate through its quirky corridors of correlation and causation. Let us embark on this whimsical journey, armed with data and a touch of humor, as we unravel the mysterious connection between the name Nina and the air we breathe.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

As we delve into the curious confluence of societal nomenclature and atmospheric conditions, it is imperative to first establish the existing body of literature on name-related phenomena and environmental influences. Smith et al. (2010) conducted a comprehensive study on the psychological implications of names, demonstrating how individuals' perceptions and behaviors are influenced by the phonetic qualities and cultural associations of names. While their research focused primarily on the realm of human psychology, the implications of names on broader environmental factors remained unexplored.

Doe (2015) offered a contrasting perspective, delving into the socio-linguistic implications of names within urban environments. The study underscored the interconnectedness between names and the fabric of cityscapes, shedding light on the potential for names to be inadvertently associated with environmental phenomena. However, this work did not directly address the specific connection between name popularity and air quality, leaving an intriguing gap in the literature.

Jones's (2018) interdisciplinary exploration of environmental influences on naming trends introduced an innovative lens through which to view the "Nina" effect. By analyzing patterns of baby name choices in relation to regional environmental quality, Jones highlighted the potential for external factors to shape naming preferences. Nonetheless, none of these studies directly investigated the link between the prevalence of the name Nina and atmospheric pollution in Jackson, setting the stage for our groundbreaking inquiry.

Transitioning from the realm of scholarly research to more accessible literature, "The Air We Breathe: A Sociolinguistic Analysis" by Brown (2017) provides an engaging exploration of the intersection between societal language practices and environmental factors. While not directly focused on individual names, the book offers valuable insights into the broader dynamics at play in this domain, setting the stage for our investigation into the "Nina" effect.

In the realm of fiction, the novel "Clouds of Naming" by Green (2005) weaves a whimsical tale of an alternate reality where names hold tangible power over environmental phenomena. The narrative, while purely imaginative, offers a playfully speculative take on the potential influence of names on atmospheric conditions, just as our current study endeavors to do.

Turning to more contemporary cultural phenomena, the internet meme "Namestorm" has garnered attention for its humorous portrayal of names as catalysts for unexpected, often chaotic events. While primarily comedic in nature, this meme playfully touches on the idea that names might indeed have unforeseen consequences, albeit not necessarily in the context of air pollution or environmental quality.

With a diverse array of literature and cultural touchpoints to draw from, we stand poised to navigate the uncharted waters of the "Nina" effect with both academic rigor and a healthy dose of levity. The stage is set for our innovative exploration into the interplay of individual names and atmospheric conditions, promising both empirical insights and a few chuckles along the way.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Nina and Air pollution in Jackson. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from US Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency . You used data from 1980 to 2014

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 "Nina" Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Cloud of Pollution?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The "Nina" Effect has long confounded scholars and trendy parents alike. Is the popularity of the name Nina linked to clear skies and fresh air, or is it more likely to result in a haze of pollution? Our research team delved into this conundrum, utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to unravel the mystery.

Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2014. The statistical analysis provides compelling evidence of a connection between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution in Jackson. Our results inject a breath of fresh air into the field of societal nomenclature studies and underscore the potential impact of individual names on environmental quality. We hope this research will inspire further exploration into the curious interplay of names and atmospheric conditions.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the power of a name! From determining one's destiny to perhaps even influencing the very air we breathe, the role of names in shaping our world is a topic ripe for exploration. In this study, we embark on a whimsical journey to unravel the enigma that is the "Nina" effect. Is the prevalence of the name Nina associated with a breath of fresh air, or does it bring forth a cloud of pollution? Buckle up and don your academic goggles, for we are about to navigate through a landscape of statistical analysis, puns, and unexpected correlations.
As researchers, we are accustomed to dealing with weighty topics, but the connection between the popularity of the first name "Nina" and air pollution in Jackson introduces a lighthearted twist to the domain of environmental and health research. Are individuals with this moniker inadvertently fostering a cleaner atmosphere, or does the "Nina" effect lead to a haze of pollution that rivals the fog of ambiguity surrounding its influence?
The curiosity surrounding this peculiar connection has captivated scholars and trendy parents alike. Drawing inspiration from the intrigue of this inquiry, we embark on a quest to shed light on the mysterious interplay between a seemingly innocuous name and atmospheric conditions. By analyzing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we hope to uncover whether the name Nina heralds blue skies or murky air.
Unraveling the "Nina" effect promises to inject a breath of fresh air into the domain of societal nomenclature studies. We stand on the precipice of understanding how individual names may ripple through the fabric of environmental quality, and the implications of our findings extend far beyond the realm of mere curiosity.
So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for an academic rollercoaster adorned with empirical evidence and the occasional pun. The intersection of names and environmental variables awaits our exploration, and the "Nina" effect beckons us to navigate through its quirky corridors of correlation and causation. Let us embark on this whimsical journey, armed with data and a touch of humor, as we unravel the mysterious connection between the name Nina and the air we breathe.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To tackle the perplexing "Nina" effect, our research team embarked on a whimsical and convoluted journey that involved data wrangling, statistical sorcery, and a dash of quirky creativity. We harnessed the power of the internet, venturing into the digital stratosphere to gather data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. With wits as sharp as Occam's razor, we navigated through a sea of spreadsheets, databases, and official reports, careful not to be lured astray by the sirens of unreliable information.

First, we called upon the spirit of Sherlock Holmes and the expertise of Indiana Jones to excavate historical records of the popularity of the name Nina from 1980 to 2014. Armed with our trusty keyboards and a steaming pot of caffeinated elixir, we combed through birth registries, census data, and – dare I say – baby name books to unravel the intricate web of Nina enthusiasts. Our quest unearthed a treasure trove of numerical data, showcasing the ebbs and flows of Nina’s reign in the domain of nomenclature.

Next, donning our metaphorical lab coats, we summoned the power of statistical incantations to analyze the correlation between the name Nina and air pollution in Jackson. We invoked the ancient spirits of regression analysis, conjuring R-squared values, standard errors, and p-values to discern the mystical connection between the popularity of Nina and the ethereal dance of airborne particles. Armed with a flick of the wand and a sprinkle of p < 0.01, we uncovered a surprising correlation coefficient that would make even the most stoic of scholars do a double take.

Let’s not forget the eclectic dance we engaged in with the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality data. With a flair for the dramatic, we pirouetted through records of particulate matter, ozone levels, and sulfur dioxide emissions, all the while keeping a watchful eye for any signs of the "Nina" effect. The numerical symphony of air quality metrics harmonized with the cadence of atmospheric patterns, guiding us through the celestial waltz of data interpretation.

In the spirit of seamless integration, we bravely merged these disparate sets of data, forging an unlikely alliance between baby names and air quality measurements. The result? A rich tapestry of numerical revelations that illuminated the interplay between the eponymous "Nina" and the atmospheric ambiance of Jackson.

As a coda to our methodology, we confessed that our approach was not without its whimsical quirks and unexpected twists. A pinch of humor here, a sprinkle of wit there – because sometimes, unraveling enigmas calls for a touch of levity amidst the labyrinthine corridors of academia.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Nina and Air pollution in Jackson. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from US Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency .

For the time period 1980 to 2014, you found a correlation 0.7858344, r-squared of 0.6175356, 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 "Nina" Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Cloud of Pollution?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The "Nina" Effect has long confounded scholars and trendy parents alike. Is the popularity of the name Nina linked to clear skies and fresh air, or is it more likely to result in a haze of pollution? Our research team delved into this conundrum, utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to unravel the mystery.

Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2014. The statistical analysis provides compelling evidence of a connection between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution in Jackson. Our results inject a breath of fresh air into the field of societal nomenclature studies and underscore the potential impact of individual names on environmental quality. We hope this research will inspire further exploration into the curious interplay of names and atmospheric conditions.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Ah, the power of a name! From determining one's destiny to perhaps even influencing the very air we breathe, the role of names in shaping our world is a topic ripe for exploration. In this study, we embark on a whimsical journey to unravel the enigma that is the "Nina" effect. Is the prevalence of the name Nina associated with a breath of fresh air, or does it bring forth a cloud of pollution? Buckle up and don your academic goggles, for we are about to navigate through a landscape of statistical analysis, puns, and unexpected correlations.
As researchers, we are accustomed to dealing with weighty topics, but the connection between the popularity of the first name "Nina" and air pollution in Jackson introduces a lighthearted twist to the domain of environmental and health research. Are individuals with this moniker inadvertently fostering a cleaner atmosphere, or does the "Nina" effect lead to a haze of pollution that rivals the fog of ambiguity surrounding its influence?
The curiosity surrounding this peculiar connection has captivated scholars and trendy parents alike. Drawing inspiration from the intrigue of this inquiry, we embark on a quest to shed light on the mysterious interplay between a seemingly innocuous name and atmospheric conditions. By analyzing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we hope to uncover whether the name Nina heralds blue skies or murky air.
Unraveling the "Nina" effect promises to inject a breath of fresh air into the domain of societal nomenclature studies. We stand on the precipice of understanding how individual names may ripple through the fabric of environmental quality, and the implications of our findings extend far beyond the realm of mere curiosity.
So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for an academic rollercoaster adorned with empirical evidence and the occasional pun. The intersection of names and environmental variables awaits our exploration, and the "Nina" effect beckons us to navigate through its quirky corridors of correlation and causation. Let us embark on this whimsical journey, armed with data and a touch of humor, as we unravel the mysterious connection between the name Nina and the air we breathe.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and an r-squared value of 0.6175356, indicating a robust association between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution levels in Jackson. The p-value of less than 0.01 provides unequivocal evidence of this surprising relationship. It seems that the "Nina" effect extends beyond mere popularity and leaves a palpable impact on the atmospheric conditions of the locale under scrutiny.

Fig. 1 displays a scatterplot that vividly illustrates the strong correlation between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution levels in Jackson. It's a striking sight, akin to witnessing the dance of statistical anomalies and the allure of curvilinear relationships. As the data points coalesce into a discernible pattern on the graph, one cannot help but ponder the whimsical nature of these findings.

Our scientific escapade has unearthed a connection that is as unexpected as stumbling upon a rare gem in a statistical minefield. The "Nina" effect manifests as an intriguing phenomenon that traverses the realms of nomenclature and environmental quality, offering a whimsical detour from traditional research avenues. These results serve as a breath of fresh air in the often-serious domain of academic inquiry, injecting an element of humor and wonder into the discourse on societal naming conventions and their potential impact on atmospheric conditions.

These findings invite further exploration and reflection on the subtle yet tangible influence of personal names on environmental variables. The "Nina" effect, with its blend of statistical resonance and punny allure, beckons researchers to delve deeper into the confluence of human nomenclature and the atmosphere. It seems that there is more to a name than meets the eye, transcending conventional wisdom and paving the way for a breath of fresh air—or perhaps a cloud of whimsical musings—in the realm of research.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Nina and Air pollution in Jackson. 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]]
The "Nina" Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Cloud of Pollution?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The "Nina" Effect has long confounded scholars and trendy parents alike. Is the popularity of the name Nina linked to clear skies and fresh air, or is it more likely to result in a haze of pollution? Our research team delved into this conundrum, utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to unravel the mystery.

Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2014. The statistical analysis provides compelling evidence of a connection between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution in Jackson. Our results inject a breath of fresh air into the field of societal nomenclature studies and underscore the potential impact of individual names on environmental quality. We hope this research will inspire further exploration into the curious interplay of names and atmospheric conditions.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
As we delve into the curious confluence of societal nomenclature and atmospheric conditions, it is imperative to first establish the existing body of literature on name-related phenomena and environmental influences. Smith et al. (2010) conducted a comprehensive study on the psychological implications of names, demonstrating how individuals' perceptions and behaviors are influenced by the phonetic qualities and cultural associations of names. While their research focused primarily on the realm of human psychology, the implications of names on broader environmental factors remained unexplored.
Doe (2015) offered a contrasting perspective, delving into the socio-linguistic implications of names within urban environments. The study underscored the interconnectedness between names and the fabric of cityscapes, shedding light on the potential for names to be inadvertently associated with environmental phenomena. However, this work did not directly address the specific connection between name popularity and air quality, leaving an intriguing gap in the literature.
Jones's (2018) interdisciplinary exploration of environmental influences on naming trends introduced an innovative lens through which to view the "Nina" effect. By analyzing patterns of baby name choices in relation to regional environmental quality, Jones highlighted the potential for external factors to shape naming preferences. Nonetheless, none of these studies directly investigated the link between the prevalence of the name Nina and atmospheric pollution in Jackson, setting the stage for our groundbreaking inquiry.
Transitioning from the realm of scholarly research to more accessible literature, "The Air We Breathe: A Sociolinguistic Analysis" by Brown (2017) provides an engaging exploration of the intersection between societal language practices and environmental factors. While not directly focused on individual names, the book offers valuable insights into the broader dynamics at play in this domain, setting the stage for our investigation into the "Nina" effect.
In the realm of fiction, the novel "Clouds of Naming" by Green (2005) weaves a whimsical tale of an alternate reality where names hold tangible power over environmental phenomena. The narrative, while purely imaginative, offers a playfully speculative take on the potential influence of names on atmospheric conditions, just as our current study endeavors to do.
Turning to more contemporary cultural phenomena, the internet meme "Namestorm" has garnered attention for its humorous portrayal of names as catalysts for unexpected, often chaotic events. While primarily comedic in nature, this meme playfully touches on the idea that names might indeed have unforeseen consequences, albeit not necessarily in the context of air pollution or environmental quality.
With a diverse array of literature and cultural touchpoints to draw from, we stand poised to navigate the uncharted waters of the "Nina" effect with both academic rigor and a healthy dose of levity. The stage is set for our innovative exploration into the interplay of individual names and atmospheric conditions, promising both empirical insights and a few chuckles along the way.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and an r-squared value of 0.6175356, indicating a robust association between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution levels in Jackson. The p-value of less than 0.01 provides unequivocal evidence of this surprising relationship. It seems that the "Nina" effect extends beyond mere popularity and leaves a palpable impact on the atmospheric conditions of the locale under scrutiny.
Fig. 1 displays a scatterplot that vividly illustrates the strong correlation between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution levels in Jackson. It's a striking sight, akin to witnessing the dance of statistical anomalies and the allure of curvilinear relationships. As the data points coalesce into a discernible pattern on the graph, one cannot help but ponder the whimsical nature of these findings.
Our scientific escapade has unearthed a connection that is as unexpected as stumbling upon a rare gem in a statistical minefield. The "Nina" effect manifests as an intriguing phenomenon that traverses the realms of nomenclature and environmental quality, offering a whimsical detour from traditional research avenues. These results serve as a breath of fresh air in the often-serious domain of academic inquiry, injecting an element of humor and wonder into the discourse on societal naming conventions and their potential impact on atmospheric conditions.
These findings invite further exploration and reflection on the subtle yet tangible influence of personal names on environmental variables. The "Nina" effect, with its blend of statistical resonance and punny allure, beckons researchers to delve deeper into the confluence of human nomenclature and the atmosphere. It seems that there is more to a name than meets the eye, transcending conventional wisdom and paving the way for a breath of fresh air—or perhaps a cloud of whimsical musings—in the realm of research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Unveiling the correlation between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution levels in Jackson has brought a breath of fresh air to the field of societal naming conventions. Our results not only provide substantial evidence supporting the existence of the "Nina" effect but also conjure a sense of wonder about the whimsical dance of statistics and the delightful interplay of names and environmental variables.

The "Nina" effect, much like a mysterious mist wafting through the hallowed halls of academia, has captivated our interests much like a captivating novel with an unexpected plot twist. As we harken back to the literature review, it's both amusing and remarkable how our findings align with the humorous musings of the meme "Namestorm" and the speculative fiction of "Clouds of Naming." Who would have thought that a name could have such a tangible impact on atmospheric conditions? It's like stumbling into a troposphere of puns and peculiar phenomena.

Our statistical analysis has not only confirmed the "Nina" effect but has also showcased a robust correlation coefficient, painting a visual spectacle reminiscent of a romantic pas de deux between societal nomenclature and environmental quality. It's almost as though our scatterplot is a canvas, capturing the elegant choreography of data points pirouetting in unison.

In support of prior research, our study validates the pioneering work of Smith et al. (2010) and Jones (2018), who bravely ventured into the labyrinthine landscapes of names and their unsuspected influences. To witness our findings resonate with these prior explorations fills us with a scholarly giddiness akin to discovering a hidden pun in a serious discussion.

The "Nina" effect, with its whimsical implications and statistical gravitas, beckons further investigation and ponderings. There's more to this phenomenon than meets the eye, and we eagerly step into this uncharted territory, armed with curiosity and a penchant for name-related puns. Our research journey may have unraveled the mysteries of the "Nina" effect, but it has also ignited further quests into the tantalizing interplay of names and atmospheric conditions. Indeed, the "Nina" effect is no longer just a name—it's a breath of fresh air in the realm of academic inquiry.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Nina and Air pollution in Jackson. 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]]
The "Nina" Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Cloud of Pollution?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The "Nina" Effect has long confounded scholars and trendy parents alike. Is the popularity of the name Nina linked to clear skies and fresh air, or is it more likely to result in a haze of pollution? Our research team delved into this conundrum, utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to unravel the mystery.

Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2014. The statistical analysis provides compelling evidence of a connection between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution in Jackson. Our results inject a breath of fresh air into the field of societal nomenclature studies and underscore the potential impact of individual names on environmental quality. We hope this research will inspire further exploration into the curious interplay of names and atmospheric conditions.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Ah, the power of a name! From determining one's destiny to perhaps even influencing the very air we breathe, the role of names in shaping our world is a topic ripe for exploration. In this study, we embark on a whimsical journey to unravel the enigma that is the "Nina" effect. Is the prevalence of the name Nina associated with a breath of fresh air, or does it bring forth a cloud of pollution? Buckle up and don your academic goggles, for we are about to navigate through a landscape of statistical analysis, puns, and unexpected correlations.
As researchers, we are accustomed to dealing with weighty topics, but the connection between the popularity of the first name "Nina" and air pollution in Jackson introduces a lighthearted twist to the domain of environmental and health research. Are individuals with this moniker inadvertently fostering a cleaner atmosphere, or does the "Nina" effect lead to a haze of pollution that rivals the fog of ambiguity surrounding its influence?
The curiosity surrounding this peculiar connection has captivated scholars and trendy parents alike. Drawing inspiration from the intrigue of this inquiry, we embark on a quest to shed light on the mysterious interplay between a seemingly innocuous name and atmospheric conditions. By analyzing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we hope to uncover whether the name Nina heralds blue skies or murky air.
Unraveling the "Nina" effect promises to inject a breath of fresh air into the domain of societal nomenclature studies. We stand on the precipice of understanding how individual names may ripple through the fabric of environmental quality, and the implications of our findings extend far beyond the realm of mere curiosity.
So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for an academic rollercoaster adorned with empirical evidence and the occasional pun. The intersection of names and environmental variables awaits our exploration, and the "Nina" effect beckons us to navigate through its quirky corridors of correlation and causation. Let us embark on this whimsical journey, armed with data and a touch of humor, as we unravel the mysterious connection between the name Nina and the air we breathe.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and an r-squared value of 0.6175356, indicating a robust association between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution levels in Jackson. The p-value of less than 0.01 provides unequivocal evidence of this surprising relationship. It seems that the "Nina" effect extends beyond mere popularity and leaves a palpable impact on the atmospheric conditions of the locale under scrutiny.
Fig. 1 displays a scatterplot that vividly illustrates the strong correlation between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution levels in Jackson. It's a striking sight, akin to witnessing the dance of statistical anomalies and the allure of curvilinear relationships. As the data points coalesce into a discernible pattern on the graph, one cannot help but ponder the whimsical nature of these findings.
Our scientific escapade has unearthed a connection that is as unexpected as stumbling upon a rare gem in a statistical minefield. The "Nina" effect manifests as an intriguing phenomenon that traverses the realms of nomenclature and environmental quality, offering a whimsical detour from traditional research avenues. These results serve as a breath of fresh air in the often-serious domain of academic inquiry, injecting an element of humor and wonder into the discourse on societal naming conventions and their potential impact on atmospheric conditions.
These findings invite further exploration and reflection on the subtle yet tangible influence of personal names on environmental variables. The "Nina" effect, with its blend of statistical resonance and punny allure, beckons researchers to delve deeper into the confluence of human nomenclature and the atmosphere. It seems that there is more to a name than meets the eye, transcending conventional wisdom and paving the way for a breath of fresh air—or perhaps a cloud of whimsical musings—in the realm of research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has unraveled the "Nin-genious" connection between the popularity of the name Nina and air pollution in Jackson. It seems that there's more to this name game than meets the eye. The statistical analysis certainly paints a clear picture – or maybe a hazy one, depending on your perspective – of the impact of Nina. It's as if the name carries its own atmospheric aura, shaping the skies of Jackson in ways previously unforeseen.

Our findings provide a breath of fresh air to the field of societal nomenclature studies, as we navigate through the whimsical corridors of correlation and causation. It's like discovering a treasure trove of statistical gems amidst the serious business of academic inquiry. The "Nina" effect injects a delightful twist into our understanding of the interplay between names and environmental quality. Who knew that a name could wield such influence over the air we breathe?

While the correlation coefficient and p-value speak volumes, the true significance lies in the intriguing narrative that unfolds within the data. It's a tale of statistical waltzes and curvilinear relationships, painting a whimsical canvas of the "Nina" effect.

In light of these compelling findings, we assert that no further research is needed in the domain of the "Nina" effect and air pollution in Jackson – unless, of course, someone has empirical evidence that "Nina" might be the secret to clearing up hazy skies!


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 Nina Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Cloud of Pollution?. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Ecological Quandaries


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 Nina Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Cloud of Pollution?. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Atmospheric Harmony and Dissonance


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 Nina Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Cloud of Pollution? with an abstract of The "Nina" Effect has long confounded scholars and trendy parents alike. Is the popularity of the name Nina linked to clear skies and fresh air, or is it more likely to result in a haze of pollution? Our research team delved into this conundrum, utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to unravel the mystery.
Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7858344 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2014. The statistical analysis provides compelling evidence of a connection between the prevalence of the name Nina and air pollution in Jackson. Our results inject a breath of fresh air into the field of societal nomenclature studies and underscore the potential impact of individual names on environmental quality. We hope this research will inspire further exploration into the curious interplay of names and atmospheric conditions.

ChatGPT:

"The Nina Effect", environmental impact of names, societal nomenclature studies, air pollution correlation with name prevalence, US Social Security Administration data, Environmental Protection Agency data, atmospheric conditions and names.

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Air pollution in Jackson
Detailed data title: Percentage of days 'unhealthy' or worse air quality in Jackson, MS
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Jackson

Correlation r = 0.7858344 (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 = 0.6175356 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 61.8% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Air pollution in Jackson) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Popularity of the first name Nina) over the 35 years from 1980 through 2014.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.2E-8. 0.0000000223575516198092400000
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 0.79 in 2.2E-6% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 44,727,617 random variables You don't actually need 44 million variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 34 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 34 because we have two variables measured over a period of 35 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.

[ 0.61, 0.89 ] 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.
19801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014
Popularity of the first name Nina (Babies born)1896170614341342135312051083127212351181111011001051101510629941157128313481437142813061320135613261287121212701228114910021051109011141108
Air pollution in Jackson (Bad air quality days)1.912571.652890.8241760.5494510.273224000.2739730.8196720.2754820.27397300000001.369860.5479450.27322400.547945000.2739730000000.27322400.273973




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([1896,1706,1434,1342,1353,1205,1083,1272,1235,1181,1110,1100,1051,1015,1062,994,1157,1283,1348,1437,1428,1306,1320,1356,1326,1287,1212,1270,1228,1149,1002,1051,1090,1114,1108,])
array_2 = np.array([1.91257,1.65289,0.824176,0.549451,0.273224,0,0,0.273973,0.819672,0.275482,0.273973,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1.36986,0.547945,0.273224,0,0.547945,0,0,0.273973,0,0,0,0,0,0,0.273224,0,0.273973,])
array_1_name = "Popularity of the first name Nina"
array_2_name = "Air pollution in Jackson"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the correlation whisperer we needed!


Correlation ID: 2015 · Black Variable ID: 2472 · Red Variable ID: 20744
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0