about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,138 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Electricity generation in Antarctica and the second variable is Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series.  The chart goes from 2005 to 2013, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

Due to the decrease in electricity generation in Antarctica, penguins are now unable to host their annual baseball tournaments, leading to a decline in the overall skill and competitiveness of baseball teams around the world. As a result, there are fewer runs being scored by the winning team in the World Series.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image showing an icy Antarctic landscape with a small, futuristic solar panel array set up on the frozen ground. The panels are capturing the faint sunlight and converting it into electricity to power a simple research station nearby. Meanwhile, on a screen inside the station, the score display shows the winning baseball team in the World Series celebrating as the final run is scored in the championship game. The aesthetic should resemble a cover of TIME magazine, with a clear focus on the juxtaposition of the isolated Antarctic setting and the joyful, action-packed scene on the screen. 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: Electricity generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series. 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: Symbolism Surrealism Oragami A TIME magazine cover image Cutsy graphics
ChatGPT: A TIME magazine cover image

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 Electricity generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In the icy landscape of Antarctica, a small solar panel array is set up on the frozen ground. The solar panels are capturing the faint sunlight and converting it into electricity to power a small research station nearby. Meanwhile, on a screen inside the station, the score display shows the winning baseball team in the World Series celebrating as the final run is scored in the championship game.

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 TIME magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In the icy landscape of Antarctica, a small solar panel array is set up on the frozen ground. The solar panels are capturing the faint sunlight and converting it into electricity to power a small research station nearby. Meanwhile, on a screen inside the station, the score display shows the winning baseball team in the World Series celebrating as the final run is scored in the championship game. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image showing an icy Antarctic landscape with a small, futuristic solar panel array set up on the frozen ground. The panels are capturing the faint sunlight and converting it into electricity to power a simple research station nearby. Meanwhile, on a screen inside the station, the score display shows the winning baseball team in the World Series celebrating as the final run is scored in the championship game. The aesthetic should resemble a cover of TIME magazine, with a clear focus on the juxtaposition of the isolated Antarctic setting and the joyful, action-packed scene on the screen.

*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 Electricity generation in Antarctica caused Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Charging the Batter: A Shocking Connection between Electricity Generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by the Winning Team in the World Series

The Journal of Antarctic Power and Sports Statistics

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Electricity generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Your research team used data from Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and p < 0.05 for 2005 to 2013.

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]]
Charging the Batter: A Shocking Connection between Electricity Generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by the Winning Team in the World Series

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we explore the unexpected link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. Drawing data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, our analysis reveals a statistically significant correlation between the two seemingly disparate variables. Our findings show a correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013, suggesting a potential relationship between these distant phenomena. Despite the chilly reception to this hypothesis, the evidence demonstrates a striking connection that shocks the conventional wisdom about sports and remote energy generation. We invite readers to ponder the potential current flowing between these curious associations and consider the electrifying implications for future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Electricity generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Charging the Batter: A Shocking Connection between Electricity Generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by the Winning Team in the World Series

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we explore the unexpected link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. Drawing data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, our analysis reveals a statistically significant correlation between the two seemingly disparate variables. Our findings show a correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013, suggesting a potential relationship between these distant phenomena. Despite the chilly reception to this hypothesis, the evidence demonstrates a striking connection that shocks the conventional wisdom about sports and remote energy generation. We invite readers to ponder the potential current flowing between these curious associations and consider the electrifying implications for future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
INTRODUCTION

As humans, we are drawn to uncovering hidden connections, much like an electrician constantly searching for the source of a power outage. Curiosity drives us to explore unexpected correlations, and in the realm of academic inquiry, where the stakes are high and the journals are endless, we have the privilege of diving into the most peculiar puzzles. In this study, we venture into uncharted territory to shed light on an unlikely pair: electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series.

The idea of linking the frigid expanses of Antarctica with the heated competition of the World Series may at first glance seem as far-fetched as trying to power a toaster with an iceberg. However, as we delve into the depths of our data, we cannot help but be struck by the spark of correlation between these two seemingly disparate domains. The notion that the icy blast of Antarctica could have any influence on the fervent swings of a baseball bat might seem as outlandish as a penguin playing shortstop, yet here we are, presenting compelling evidence of their unexpected association.

Our foray into this peculiar association has led us to uncover a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013. These findings, much like a bolt of lightning in the polar sky, challenge the traditional boundaries of what is deemed as unrelated in the world of sports and energy economics. The implications of this revelatory connection are as stunning as a high-voltage discharge, shaking the very foundation of conventional thinking and inspiring us to extend our inquiry into uncharted territories.

In the pages that follow, we invite you to join us in unraveling this enigmatic connection, to consider the current flowing between these distant phenomena, and to ponder the electrifying implications that may illuminate our future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics. As we embark on this dizzying journey, let us not forget that the quest for knowledge is much like navigating a circuitous maze – full of unexpected turns, hidden connections, and the occasional shocking revelation.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Electricity generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Charging the Batter: A Shocking Connection between Electricity Generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by the Winning Team in the World Series

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we explore the unexpected link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. Drawing data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, our analysis reveals a statistically significant correlation between the two seemingly disparate variables. Our findings show a correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013, suggesting a potential relationship between these distant phenomena. Despite the chilly reception to this hypothesis, the evidence demonstrates a striking connection that shocks the conventional wisdom about sports and remote energy generation. We invite readers to ponder the potential current flowing between these curious associations and consider the electrifying implications for future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
As humans, we are drawn to uncovering hidden connections, much like an electrician constantly searching for the source of a power outage. Curiosity drives us to explore unexpected correlations, and in the realm of academic inquiry, where the stakes are high and the journals are endless, we have the privilege of diving into the most peculiar puzzles. In this study, we venture into uncharted territory to shed light on an unlikely pair: electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series.
The idea of linking the frigid expanses of Antarctica with the heated competition of the World Series may at first glance seem as far-fetched as trying to power a toaster with an iceberg. However, as we delve into the depths of our data, we cannot help but be struck by the spark of correlation between these two seemingly disparate domains. The notion that the icy blast of Antarctica could have any influence on the fervent swings of a baseball bat might seem as outlandish as a penguin playing shortstop, yet here we are, presenting compelling evidence of their unexpected association.
Our foray into this peculiar association has led us to uncover a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013. These findings, much like a bolt of lightning in the polar sky, challenge the traditional boundaries of what is deemed as unrelated in the world of sports and energy economics. The implications of this revelatory connection are as stunning as a high-voltage discharge, shaking the very foundation of conventional thinking and inspiring us to extend our inquiry into uncharted territories.
In the pages that follow, we invite you to join us in unraveling this enigmatic connection, to consider the current flowing between these distant phenomena, and to ponder the electrifying implications that may illuminate our future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics. As we embark on this dizzying journey, let us not forget that the quest for knowledge is much like navigating a circuitous maze – full of unexpected turns, hidden connections, and the occasional shocking revelation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The intriguing correlation between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series has prompted a comprehensive review of existing literature to contextualize our findings within the broader scholarly discourse. While this topic may initially appear as incongruous as a yeti playing baseball, our investigation brings to light a range of perspectives that shed light on the unexpected relationship between these two seemingly distinct domains.

Smith, in his seminal work "Currents and Currents: A Comparative Study of Electricity Generation in Polar Regions," delves into the unique challenges and opportunities associated with harnessing electricity in extreme cold climates. This work provides valuable insights into the technical and logistical aspects of powering remote locations, reminding us that the paths to generating electricity and hitting home runs are often fraught with unforeseen obstacles and formidable opposition.

Doe's analysis in "Power Play: Energy Economics and Professional Sports" presents an insightful examination of the complex interplay between energy consumption and athletic performance. While the focus is primarily on conventional energy sources and their impact on sports, the framework laid out in this work serves as a thought-provoking backdrop against which to consider the seemingly inexplicable connection between Antarctic electricity generation and World Series triumphs.

Jones, in "On Thin Ice: Exploring the Economic and Environmental Implications of Polar Energy Projects," offers a nuanced exploration of the economic and environmental considerations surrounding energy initiatives in polar regions. This work underscores the intricate balance between sustainable energy practices and the broader implications for global ecosystems, serving as a potent reminder that even the most remote energy projects are not isolated from the complex web of interconnected systems.

Shifting our gaze beyond the confines of traditional academic literature, we encounter a host of non-fiction books that offer intriguing parallels to our investigation. "Ice Capades: A History of Antarctic Exploration" by Cherry describes the harrowing adventures of early explorers, akin to the trials faced by both baseball players and those seeking to generate electricity in the harshest of environments. Similarly, "The Baseball Encyclopedia" by Neft and Cohen serves as a treasure trove of statistical analyses and player profiles, perhaps offering a more straightforward key to the connection than one might have thought.

In the realm of fiction, the works of Jules Verne, particularly "The Adventures of Captain Hatteras," hint at the untold potential hidden within the polar expanse, much like the untapped energies waiting to be harnessed beneath the icy surface. Similarly, Hermann Melville's "Moby-Dick" offers a metaphor for the quest to uncover the elusive interactions between electricity generation in Antarctica and World Series victories, a journey as tumultuous and enigmatic as chasing the great white whale.

As we embrace a more whimsical approach, we cannot ignore the influence of popular culture on our perceptions of the unexpected. The timeless antics of the Looney Tunes crew, particularly in "Chilly Willy" cartoons, evoke visions of the Antarctic landscape and the playful antics of penguins, serving as a charming reminder of the seemingly limitless connections that our minds can conjure. Furthermore, the zany world of "SpongeBob SquarePants" playfully navigates the underwater realm, prompting us to consider the implausible amidst the absurd.

In sum, our foray into the existing literature reveals a rich tapestry of insights that, much like an intricate circuit, illuminates the unanticipated intersections between electricity generation in Antarctica and the outcomes of the World Series. As we continue to unravel the mysteries underlying this unorthodox correlation, we remain mindful of the fact that the pursuit of knowledge often takes us through unexpected and delightful realms, where the figurative home run may be just a shock away.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Electricity generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia . You used data from 2005 to 2013

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]]
Charging the Batter: A Shocking Connection between Electricity Generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by the Winning Team in the World Series

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we explore the unexpected link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. Drawing data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, our analysis reveals a statistically significant correlation between the two seemingly disparate variables. Our findings show a correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013, suggesting a potential relationship between these distant phenomena. Despite the chilly reception to this hypothesis, the evidence demonstrates a striking connection that shocks the conventional wisdom about sports and remote energy generation. We invite readers to ponder the potential current flowing between these curious associations and consider the electrifying implications for future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
As humans, we are drawn to uncovering hidden connections, much like an electrician constantly searching for the source of a power outage. Curiosity drives us to explore unexpected correlations, and in the realm of academic inquiry, where the stakes are high and the journals are endless, we have the privilege of diving into the most peculiar puzzles. In this study, we venture into uncharted territory to shed light on an unlikely pair: electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series.
The idea of linking the frigid expanses of Antarctica with the heated competition of the World Series may at first glance seem as far-fetched as trying to power a toaster with an iceberg. However, as we delve into the depths of our data, we cannot help but be struck by the spark of correlation between these two seemingly disparate domains. The notion that the icy blast of Antarctica could have any influence on the fervent swings of a baseball bat might seem as outlandish as a penguin playing shortstop, yet here we are, presenting compelling evidence of their unexpected association.
Our foray into this peculiar association has led us to uncover a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013. These findings, much like a bolt of lightning in the polar sky, challenge the traditional boundaries of what is deemed as unrelated in the world of sports and energy economics. The implications of this revelatory connection are as stunning as a high-voltage discharge, shaking the very foundation of conventional thinking and inspiring us to extend our inquiry into uncharted territories.
In the pages that follow, we invite you to join us in unraveling this enigmatic connection, to consider the current flowing between these distant phenomena, and to ponder the electrifying implications that may illuminate our future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics. As we embark on this dizzying journey, let us not forget that the quest for knowledge is much like navigating a circuitous maze – full of unexpected turns, hidden connections, and the occasional shocking revelation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Data Collection: To investigate the intriguing link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series, our research team embarked on a quest for information that rivaled the explorations of the early Antarctic expeditions. Our data collection process involved trawling through the icy depths of the Energy Information Administration database and navigating the vast, often precarious terrain of Wikipedia. We wielded our proverbial ice picks and shovels to extract relevant data from the years 2005 to 2013, casting a wide net to capture the electrifying nuances of power generation in the world's southernmost continent and the ebbs and flows of runs scored in the pinnacle of American baseball.

Antarctic Electricity Generation Metrics: The Energy Information Administration proved to be a veritable treasure trove of information, offering insights into the esoteric world of electricity production in Antarctica. We meticulously combed through the data, navigating through the figurative snowdrifts of kilowatt-hour generation, installed capacity, and energy sources. Our team weathered the data blizzards to extract the necessary metrics, spanning geothermal, solar, wind, and the ever-mysterious "other" category of energy sources that we imagined might involve harnessing the thermal energy of snowmen or the kinetic potential of penguins' waddles. While the actual processes of electrical generation in Antarctica remain as elusive as a hidden iceberg, we persevered in extracting the numerical representations of this remote energy landscape.

World Series Run Scores: The task of gathering data on the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series involved navigating the colorful, ever-evolving landscape of Wikipedia. Much like a seasoned explorer charting uncertain terrain, we sifted through the historical records of baseball games, discerning and documenting the nuances of each run, stolen base, and home run. Our intrepid excursion into this repository of baseball lore allowed us to capture the captivating drama of each World Series, from the crack of the bat to the thunderous cheers of the crowd, all in pursuit of uncovering the subtle connections between these riveting sporting events and the distant whispers of Antarctic energy generation.

Correlation Analysis: Armed with our trove of Antarctic electricity generation metrics and World Series run scores, our analytical journey traversed the treacherous peaks and valleys of statistical analysis. Like intrepid mountaineers navigating through a statistical alpine wonderland, we calculated correlation coefficients, p-values, and confidence intervals to discern the underlying patterns that might reveal the clandestine relationship between these seemingly disparate phenomena. The unexpected revelation of a correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 left our research team buzzing with excitement, much like a circuit pulsing with a surge of electrifying energy.

In conclusion, our methodology may not have involved dog sleds or penguin assistants, but our journey into the heart of this surprising connection was no less thrilling. We invite fellow researchers to join us in unraveling the mystery, to ponder the potential currents flowing between the frigid expanses of Antarctica and the electrically charged atmosphere of the World Series, and to consider the enigmatic implications for the future pursuit of knowledge at the nexus of sports and energy economics. Remember, in the pursuit of knowledge, it is often the unexplored territories and the unconventional connections that yield the most shocking revelations.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Electricity generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia .

For the time period 2005 to 2013, you found a correlation 0.7357479, r-squared of 0.5413249, and p < 0.05.

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]]
Charging the Batter: A Shocking Connection between Electricity Generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by the Winning Team in the World Series

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we explore the unexpected link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. Drawing data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, our analysis reveals a statistically significant correlation between the two seemingly disparate variables. Our findings show a correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013, suggesting a potential relationship between these distant phenomena. Despite the chilly reception to this hypothesis, the evidence demonstrates a striking connection that shocks the conventional wisdom about sports and remote energy generation. We invite readers to ponder the potential current flowing between these curious associations and consider the electrifying implications for future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
As humans, we are drawn to uncovering hidden connections, much like an electrician constantly searching for the source of a power outage. Curiosity drives us to explore unexpected correlations, and in the realm of academic inquiry, where the stakes are high and the journals are endless, we have the privilege of diving into the most peculiar puzzles. In this study, we venture into uncharted territory to shed light on an unlikely pair: electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series.
The idea of linking the frigid expanses of Antarctica with the heated competition of the World Series may at first glance seem as far-fetched as trying to power a toaster with an iceberg. However, as we delve into the depths of our data, we cannot help but be struck by the spark of correlation between these two seemingly disparate domains. The notion that the icy blast of Antarctica could have any influence on the fervent swings of a baseball bat might seem as outlandish as a penguin playing shortstop, yet here we are, presenting compelling evidence of their unexpected association.
Our foray into this peculiar association has led us to uncover a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013. These findings, much like a bolt of lightning in the polar sky, challenge the traditional boundaries of what is deemed as unrelated in the world of sports and energy economics. The implications of this revelatory connection are as stunning as a high-voltage discharge, shaking the very foundation of conventional thinking and inspiring us to extend our inquiry into uncharted territories.
In the pages that follow, we invite you to join us in unraveling this enigmatic connection, to consider the current flowing between these distant phenomena, and to ponder the electrifying implications that may illuminate our future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics. As we embark on this dizzying journey, let us not forget that the quest for knowledge is much like navigating a circuitous maze – full of unexpected turns, hidden connections, and the occasional shocking revelation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the relationship between electricity generation in Antarctica and the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series for the period from 2005 to 2013 reveals a shockingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.7357479. This correlation coefficient, affectionally named "The Wattage Factor" by our research team, suggests a remarkable association between these remote and seemingly unrelated variables. Much like a power surge in the Antarctic snow, the evidence of this unexpected connection illuminates a new perspective on the interplay between energy economics and sporting success.

Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.5413249 indicates that approximately 54.13% of the variation in the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series can be explained by the electricity generation in Antarctica. This finding challenges conventional wisdom about the factors that influence sporting achievement, prompting us to consider the potential impact of the polar power grid on the competitive prowess of baseball teams.

The p-value of less than 0.05, denoted by the symbol "p < 0.05," provides compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. This statistically significant result buzzes with implications for further exploration into the uncharted territory of interdisciplinary research, as it suggests a meaningful connection that defies traditional expectations.

As depicted in Fig. 1, the scatterplot visually demonstrates the robust correlation between electricity generation in Antarctica and the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series, further emphasizing the striking nature of this unexpected relationship. The figure (Fig. 1) showcases the electrifying marriage of these seemingly disparate variables, inviting viewers to contemplate the power of this unanticipated association.

In summary, the results of this study provide compelling evidence of the surprising link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. This unexpected correlation challenges the conventional boundaries of sports and energy economics, and it sparks a call for further exploration into the potential impact of remote energy sources on athletic achievements. The findings of this investigation, much like a jolt of inspiration, ignite a new wave of curiosity and inquiry at the intersection of these distinctive domains, electrifying the landscape of academic research with its shocking implications.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Electricity generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Charging the Batter: A Shocking Connection between Electricity Generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by the Winning Team in the World Series

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we explore the unexpected link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. Drawing data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, our analysis reveals a statistically significant correlation between the two seemingly disparate variables. Our findings show a correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013, suggesting a potential relationship between these distant phenomena. Despite the chilly reception to this hypothesis, the evidence demonstrates a striking connection that shocks the conventional wisdom about sports and remote energy generation. We invite readers to ponder the potential current flowing between these curious associations and consider the electrifying implications for future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The intriguing correlation between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series has prompted a comprehensive review of existing literature to contextualize our findings within the broader scholarly discourse. While this topic may initially appear as incongruous as a yeti playing baseball, our investigation brings to light a range of perspectives that shed light on the unexpected relationship between these two seemingly distinct domains.
Smith, in his seminal work "Currents and Currents: A Comparative Study of Electricity Generation in Polar Regions," delves into the unique challenges and opportunities associated with harnessing electricity in extreme cold climates. This work provides valuable insights into the technical and logistical aspects of powering remote locations, reminding us that the paths to generating electricity and hitting home runs are often fraught with unforeseen obstacles and formidable opposition.
Doe's analysis in "Power Play: Energy Economics and Professional Sports" presents an insightful examination of the complex interplay between energy consumption and athletic performance. While the focus is primarily on conventional energy sources and their impact on sports, the framework laid out in this work serves as a thought-provoking backdrop against which to consider the seemingly inexplicable connection between Antarctic electricity generation and World Series triumphs.
Jones, in "On Thin Ice: Exploring the Economic and Environmental Implications of Polar Energy Projects," offers a nuanced exploration of the economic and environmental considerations surrounding energy initiatives in polar regions. This work underscores the intricate balance between sustainable energy practices and the broader implications for global ecosystems, serving as a potent reminder that even the most remote energy projects are not isolated from the complex web of interconnected systems.
Shifting our gaze beyond the confines of traditional academic literature, we encounter a host of non-fiction books that offer intriguing parallels to our investigation. "Ice Capades: A History of Antarctic Exploration" by Cherry describes the harrowing adventures of early explorers, akin to the trials faced by both baseball players and those seeking to generate electricity in the harshest of environments. Similarly, "The Baseball Encyclopedia" by Neft and Cohen serves as a treasure trove of statistical analyses and player profiles, perhaps offering a more straightforward key to the connection than one might have thought.
In the realm of fiction, the works of Jules Verne, particularly "The Adventures of Captain Hatteras," hint at the untold potential hidden within the polar expanse, much like the untapped energies waiting to be harnessed beneath the icy surface. Similarly, Hermann Melville's "Moby-Dick" offers a metaphor for the quest to uncover the elusive interactions between electricity generation in Antarctica and World Series victories, a journey as tumultuous and enigmatic as chasing the great white whale.
As we embrace a more whimsical approach, we cannot ignore the influence of popular culture on our perceptions of the unexpected. The timeless antics of the Looney Tunes crew, particularly in "Chilly Willy" cartoons, evoke visions of the Antarctic landscape and the playful antics of penguins, serving as a charming reminder of the seemingly limitless connections that our minds can conjure. Furthermore, the zany world of "SpongeBob SquarePants" playfully navigates the underwater realm, prompting us to consider the implausible amidst the absurd.
In sum, our foray into the existing literature reveals a rich tapestry of insights that, much like an intricate circuit, illuminates the unanticipated intersections between electricity generation in Antarctica and the outcomes of the World Series. As we continue to unravel the mysteries underlying this unorthodox correlation, we remain mindful of the fact that the pursuit of knowledge often takes us through unexpected and delightful realms, where the figurative home run may be just a shock away.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the relationship between electricity generation in Antarctica and the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series for the period from 2005 to 2013 reveals a shockingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.7357479. This correlation coefficient, affectionally named "The Wattage Factor" by our research team, suggests a remarkable association between these remote and seemingly unrelated variables. Much like a power surge in the Antarctic snow, the evidence of this unexpected connection illuminates a new perspective on the interplay between energy economics and sporting success.
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.5413249 indicates that approximately 54.13% of the variation in the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series can be explained by the electricity generation in Antarctica. This finding challenges conventional wisdom about the factors that influence sporting achievement, prompting us to consider the potential impact of the polar power grid on the competitive prowess of baseball teams.
The p-value of less than 0.05, denoted by the symbol "p < 0.05," provides compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. This statistically significant result buzzes with implications for further exploration into the uncharted territory of interdisciplinary research, as it suggests a meaningful connection that defies traditional expectations.
As depicted in Fig. 1, the scatterplot visually demonstrates the robust correlation between electricity generation in Antarctica and the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series, further emphasizing the striking nature of this unexpected relationship. The figure (Fig. 1) showcases the electrifying marriage of these seemingly disparate variables, inviting viewers to contemplate the power of this unanticipated association.
In summary, the results of this study provide compelling evidence of the surprising link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. This unexpected correlation challenges the conventional boundaries of sports and energy economics, and it sparks a call for further exploration into the potential impact of remote energy sources on athletic achievements. The findings of this investigation, much like a jolt of inspiration, ignite a new wave of curiosity and inquiry at the intersection of these distinctive domains, electrifying the landscape of academic research with its shocking implications.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our investigation into the connection between electricity generation in Antarctica and runs scored by the winning team in the World Series delves into uncharted territory, arguably as distant as a Scott Base resident attending a baseball game in the United States. The striking correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 sets off a spark in the academic realm, shedding light on a connection that, much like an electric circuit, involves unexpected currents and potential shocks.

Our findings, while perplexing at first glance, harmonize with previous works that hint at the hidden synergies within seemingly incongruous realms. The metaphorical "Power Play" explored by Doe, though focusing on conventional energy sources, finds an uncanny echo in our discovery of the impact of Antarctic electricity generation on America's favorite pastime. Similarly, Smith's insights into the complexities of harnessing power in polar regions could be seen as an allegorical foretelling of the shocking connection we have uncovered: just as frigid conditions present a challenge for energy generation, they seem to exert a degree of influence on the runs scored in the World Series.

The statistical significance of our results, with a p-value of less than 0.05, electrifies the field of interdisciplinary research, bucking the traditional constraints of what we perceive as interconnected systems. Akin to the unanticipated twists in a Jules Verne novel, our findings beckon us to venture into the unexplored depths of this surprising relationship and consider its implications on sports, energy economics, and, dare we say, the fabric of the universe itself – after all, if electricity in Antarctica can influence the World Series, what might it inspire next? With a r-squared value of 0.5413249, over half the variation in the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series can be attributed to the power generated in Antarctica. The energy that this paradoxical association generates in the scholarly community is palpable, and we invite fellow researchers to flick the switch on their curiosity and illuminate this hitherto overlooked connection.

As we toggle between the serious and the fanciful, echoing the Looney Tunes' dynamism, we move beyond our seemingly discrete domains to embrace the offbeat, the whimsical, and the serendipitous. Our journey through the literature, much like Captain Hatteras' voyages or the spirited escapades of SpongeBob SquarePants in the undersea depths, teaches us that the pursuit of knowledge often ventures through the most unexpected and delightful of realms. It is in these improbable connections, these metaphorical home runs hidden amidst the equations, that the true magic of research resides.

In light of these astonishing results, we invite fellow scholars to contemplate the potential energy transfer between unlikely subjects, reveling in the wondrous potential of academic pursuits that defy traditional boundaries and expectations. Much like an Antarctic gust inspiring a propeller, our findings propel further exploration that may lead to uncovering more astonishing connections between seemingly unrelated fields. After all, the world might be our oyster, but it could very well be powered by Antarctic currents.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Electricity generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Charging the Batter: A Shocking Connection between Electricity Generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by the Winning Team in the World Series

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we explore the unexpected link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. Drawing data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, our analysis reveals a statistically significant correlation between the two seemingly disparate variables. Our findings show a correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013, suggesting a potential relationship between these distant phenomena. Despite the chilly reception to this hypothesis, the evidence demonstrates a striking connection that shocks the conventional wisdom about sports and remote energy generation. We invite readers to ponder the potential current flowing between these curious associations and consider the electrifying implications for future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
As humans, we are drawn to uncovering hidden connections, much like an electrician constantly searching for the source of a power outage. Curiosity drives us to explore unexpected correlations, and in the realm of academic inquiry, where the stakes are high and the journals are endless, we have the privilege of diving into the most peculiar puzzles. In this study, we venture into uncharted territory to shed light on an unlikely pair: electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series.
The idea of linking the frigid expanses of Antarctica with the heated competition of the World Series may at first glance seem as far-fetched as trying to power a toaster with an iceberg. However, as we delve into the depths of our data, we cannot help but be struck by the spark of correlation between these two seemingly disparate domains. The notion that the icy blast of Antarctica could have any influence on the fervent swings of a baseball bat might seem as outlandish as a penguin playing shortstop, yet here we are, presenting compelling evidence of their unexpected association.
Our foray into this peculiar association has led us to uncover a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013. These findings, much like a bolt of lightning in the polar sky, challenge the traditional boundaries of what is deemed as unrelated in the world of sports and energy economics. The implications of this revelatory connection are as stunning as a high-voltage discharge, shaking the very foundation of conventional thinking and inspiring us to extend our inquiry into uncharted territories.
In the pages that follow, we invite you to join us in unraveling this enigmatic connection, to consider the current flowing between these distant phenomena, and to ponder the electrifying implications that may illuminate our future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics. As we embark on this dizzying journey, let us not forget that the quest for knowledge is much like navigating a circuitous maze – full of unexpected turns, hidden connections, and the occasional shocking revelation.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the relationship between electricity generation in Antarctica and the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series for the period from 2005 to 2013 reveals a shockingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.7357479. This correlation coefficient, affectionally named "The Wattage Factor" by our research team, suggests a remarkable association between these remote and seemingly unrelated variables. Much like a power surge in the Antarctic snow, the evidence of this unexpected connection illuminates a new perspective on the interplay between energy economics and sporting success.
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.5413249 indicates that approximately 54.13% of the variation in the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series can be explained by the electricity generation in Antarctica. This finding challenges conventional wisdom about the factors that influence sporting achievement, prompting us to consider the potential impact of the polar power grid on the competitive prowess of baseball teams.
The p-value of less than 0.05, denoted by the symbol "p < 0.05," provides compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. This statistically significant result buzzes with implications for further exploration into the uncharted territory of interdisciplinary research, as it suggests a meaningful connection that defies traditional expectations.
As depicted in Fig. 1, the scatterplot visually demonstrates the robust correlation between electricity generation in Antarctica and the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series, further emphasizing the striking nature of this unexpected relationship. The figure (Fig. 1) showcases the electrifying marriage of these seemingly disparate variables, inviting viewers to contemplate the power of this unanticipated association.
In summary, the results of this study provide compelling evidence of the surprising link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. This unexpected correlation challenges the conventional boundaries of sports and energy economics, and it sparks a call for further exploration into the potential impact of remote energy sources on athletic achievements. The findings of this investigation, much like a jolt of inspiration, ignite a new wave of curiosity and inquiry at the intersection of these distinctive domains, electrifying the landscape of academic research with its shocking implications.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has illuminated a striking connection between the electricity generation in Antarctica and the runs scored by the winning team in the World Series. The correlation coefficient of 0.7357479, affectionately known as "The Wattage Factor," serves as a beacon of the unexpected association between these seemingly unrelated entities. This revelation has sparked an electrifying discourse, challenging traditional assumptions and prompting us to consider the potential impact of remote energy sources on sporting achievements.

The robust r-squared value of 0.5413249 further underscores the influence of Antarctica's power generation on the competitive prowess of baseball teams, shedding light on the unexplored territories of sports and energy economics. The p-value of less than 0.05 buzzes with implications for further exploration, defying the conventional wisdom and calling for a reevaluation of the factors that drive athletic success. As depicted in Fig. 1, the visual representation of this correlation serves as a poignant reminder of the electrifying marriage between these distant variables, inviting further contemplation and exploration.

This revelation challenges us to consider the current flowing between these curious associations and to ponder the electrifying implications for future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics. However, it is important to note the limitations of this study, particularly the lack of causal evidence and the potential for spurious correlations in the data. Given the eccentric nature of our findings, we must acknowledge the need for cautious interpretation and further investigation into the mechanisms underlying this unexpected relationship.

Having ventured into this unconventional territory and uncovered a startling connection, we are compelled to acknowledge that the quest for knowledge often leads us through unexpected turns, hidden connections, and the occasional shocking revelation. As such, we conclude that no further research is needed in this area, as the unexpected nature of this relationship defies traditional expectations and invites further speculation and humor in our academic discourse.


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 Charging the Batter: A Shocking Connection between Electricity Generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by the Winning Team in the World Series. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Antarctic Power and Sports Statistics


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 Charging the Batter: A Shocking Connection between Electricity Generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by the Winning Team in the World Series. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Antarctic Energy and Sports Statistics


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 Charging the Batter: A Shocking Connection between Electricity Generation in Antarctica and Runs Scored by the Winning Team in the World Series with an abstract of In this study, we explore the unexpected link between electricity generation in Antarctica and the performance of the winning team in the World Series. Drawing data from the Energy Information Administration and Wikipedia, our analysis reveals a statistically significant correlation between the two seemingly disparate variables. Our findings show a correlation coefficient of 0.7357479 and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the period from 2005 to 2013, suggesting a potential relationship between these distant phenomena. Despite the chilly reception to this hypothesis, the evidence demonstrates a striking connection that shocks the conventional wisdom about sports and remote energy generation. We invite readers to ponder the potential current flowing between these curious associations and consider the electrifying implications for future research at the intersection of sports and energy economics.

ChatGPT:

Antarctica electricity generation, World Series winning team performance, correlation between electricity generation and World Series, Energy Information Administration data, Wikipedia data analysis, relationship between distant phenomena, sports and energy economics, correlation coefficient analysis, p-value significance, remote energy generation and sports, potential current association, implications for future research

*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

Electricity generation in Antarctica
Detailed data title: Total electricity generation in Antarctica in billion kWh
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Electricity generation in Antarctica

Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series

Correlation r = 0.7357479 (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 = 0.5413249 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 54.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Electricity generation in Antarctica) over the 9 years from 2005 through 2013.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.024. 0.0238464881114149400000000000
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 0.74 in 2.4% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 42 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 8 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 8 because we have two variables measured over a period of 9 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.

[ 0.14, 0.94 ] 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.
200520062007200820092010201120122013
Electricity generation in Antarctica (Billion kWh)0.0020.0020.0020.0020.0040.0040.0040.00050.0005
Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series (Runs scored)202229243229381627




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. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.




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([0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.004,0.004,0.004,0.0005,0.0005,])
array_2 = np.array([20,22,29,24,32,29,38,16,27,])
array_1_name = "Electricity generation in Antarctica"
array_2_name = "Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series"

# 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?

Bravo! Your evaluation rocks!


Correlation ID: 2138 · Black Variable ID: 23455 · Red Variable ID: 534
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0