Download png, svg
AI explanation
As fewer Tiffanys were around, there were fewer people asking, "Isn't it just Tiff-any for a smoggy day in LA?". With less demand for punny pollution commentary, the air quality improved in a stroke of bizarre linguistic luck!Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a bustling downtown Los Angeles street scene with a prominent building resembling a stylish cafe labeled "Tiffany's Brew." The establishment should have a long line of well-dressed patrons eagerly waiting outside, with a smog-filled urban skyline in the background to indicate the poor air quality. The street should be crowded with trendy individuals, and the cafe should exude a modern and inviting atmosphere. 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 Tiffany and Poor air quality in Los Angeles. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: A TIME magazine cover image Cute cartoon Parallax art Futuristic Voxel art
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 Popularity of the first name Tiffany and Poor air quality in Los Angeles together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In downtown Los Angeles, a trendy cafe with the name "Tiffany's Brew" boasts a long line of customers waiting to get in. However, the outdoor seating area is empty as the smoggy air hangs heavily over the city, indicating poor air quality.
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 downtown Los Angeles, a trendy cafe with the name "Tiffany's Brew" boasts a long line of customers waiting to get in. However, the outdoor seating area is empty as the smoggy air hangs heavily over the city, indicating poor air quality. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a bustling downtown Los Angeles street scene with a prominent building resembling a stylish cafe labeled "Tiffany's Brew." The establishment should have a long line of well-dressed patrons eagerly waiting outside, with a smog-filled urban skyline in the background to indicate the poor air quality. The street should be crowded with trendy individuals, and the cafe should exude a modern and inviting atmosphere.
*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.
System prompt: You provide humerus 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 Tiffany caused Air pollution in Los Angeles to decrease. Make it silly.
AI academic paper
Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles The Journal of Quirky Atmospheric Anomalies Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
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 Popularity of the first name Tiffany and Poor air quality in Los Angeles. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, make it sound serious.
Your research team used data from US Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9656376 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2022.
Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)
[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the puzzling relationship between the prominence of the first name Tiffany and the deteriorating air quality in the Los Angeles area. By harnessing datasets from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we present evidence suggesting a surprising correlation. Our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9656376 and p < 0.01. The data spanning from 1980 to 2022 consistently points to a connection between the rise of Tiffany and the decline of air quality in the Los Angeles region. The implications of our study extend beyond statistical fascination, shedding light on a quirky connection that warrants further exploration.
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 Popularity of the first name Tiffany and Poor air quality in Los Angeles. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the puzzling relationship between the prominence of the first name Tiffany and the deteriorating air quality in the Los Angeles area. By harnessing datasets from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we present evidence suggesting a surprising correlation. Our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9656376 and p < 0.01. The data spanning from 1980 to 2022 consistently points to a connection between the rise of Tiffany and the decline of air quality in the Los Angeles region. The implications of our study extend beyond statistical fascination, shedding light on a quirky connection that warrants further exploration.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
**[[INTRODUCTION]]**
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany," a title that sounds like a strange combination of a 90s rom-com and a science fiction disaster film. Fear not, dear reader, for what we are about to embark upon is a journey into the wacky world of statistical correlations, social trends, and environmental phenomena. In this groundbreaking research paper, we dive headfirst into the perplexing relationship between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and the often dire air quality in the sprawling city of Los Angeles.
Picture this: a scene straight out of a Hollywood script, where the protagonist, Tiffany, emerges from a cloud of smog, coughing and wheezing, desperately searching for an inhaler. Meanwhile, statisticians and social scientists alike scratch their heads, pondering the connection between a moniker and the quality of the air we breathe. It’s a tale of two variables – one whimsical and the other, quite literally, up in the air.
As if plucked from the plot of a sitcom, this peculiar correlation raises more than a few eyebrows. By meticulously sifting through data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we aim to shed light on this curious phenomenon. With a correlation coefficient that could make even seasoned researchers do a double-take (0.9656376, if you're into specifics), this study ventures into uncharted territory, both statistically and anecdotally.
In this paper, we aim not only to tickle your statistical fancy, but also to challenge conventional wisdom and encourage a healthy skepticism of seemingly unrelated phenomena. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a whimsical, yet scientifically rigorous adventure, as we explore the enigmatic link between the rise of Tiffany and the fall of fresh air in the City of Angels.
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 Popularity of the first name Tiffany and Poor air quality in Los Angeles. 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 cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the puzzling relationship between the prominence of the first name Tiffany and the deteriorating air quality in the Los Angeles area. By harnessing datasets from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we present evidence suggesting a surprising correlation. Our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9656376 and p < 0.01. The data spanning from 1980 to 2022 consistently points to a connection between the rise of Tiffany and the decline of air quality in the Los Angeles region. The implications of our study extend beyond statistical fascination, shedding light on a quirky connection that warrants further exploration.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany," a title that sounds like a strange combination of a 90s rom-com and a science fiction disaster film. Fear not, dear reader, for what we are about to embark upon is a journey into the wacky world of statistical correlations, social trends, and environmental phenomena. In this groundbreaking research paper, we dive headfirst into the perplexing relationship between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and the often dire air quality in the sprawling city of Los Angeles.
Picture this: a scene straight out of a Hollywood script, where the protagonist, Tiffany, emerges from a cloud of smog, coughing and wheezing, desperately searching for an inhaler. Meanwhile, statisticians and social scientists alike scratch their heads, pondering the connection between a moniker and the quality of the air we breathe. It’s a tale of two variables – one whimsical and the other, quite literally, up in the air.
As if plucked from the plot of a sitcom, this peculiar correlation raises more than a few eyebrows. By meticulously sifting through data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we aim to shed light on this curious phenomenon. With a correlation coefficient that could make even seasoned researchers do a double-take (0.9656376, if you're into specifics), this study ventures into uncharted territory, both statistically and anecdotally.
In this paper, we aim not only to tickle your statistical fancy, but also to challenge conventional wisdom and encourage a healthy skepticism of seemingly unrelated phenomena. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a whimsical, yet scientifically rigorous adventure, as we explore the enigmatic link between the rise of Tiffany and the fall of fresh air in the City of Angels.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and poor air quality in Los Angeles has elicited bewilderment and skepticism within both the academic and non-academic communities. Critics have often scoffed at the idea, deeming it a mere coincidence or perhaps the result of overzealous data mining. However, a closer examination of the existing literature reveals a tapestry of scholarly inquiries, from the analytical to the downright absurd.
Smith et al. (2010) conducted a comprehensive study exploring the potential social implications of uncommon correlations between names and environmental factors. Though their focus was not specifically on the name Tiffany, their findings did anticipate the kind of unconventional relationship we are currently investigating. The authors find that societal naming trends can often reflect underlying cultural and environmental shifts, paving the way for unexpected patterns that challenge traditional statistical norms.
Doe (2015), in a study on population demographics and metropolitan air quality, hinted at the possibility of a whimsical connection between the choices of first names and atmospheric conditions. Although their research did not delve into specific names such as Tiffany, it laid the groundwork for exploring the intersection between social trends and environmental indicators. Doe ultimately reminded the scientific community to approach anomalous correlations with both curiosity and caution, prefiguring the unexpected bond we are now unraveling.
Jones (2018) delved into the psychological and sociological implications of personal name choices, uncovering a potential link between individual naming preferences and societal influences. While Jones did not directly address the correlation between the name Tiffany and air quality in a particular region, their work hinted at the intricate interplay between human behavior and environmental variables. Their findings lend credence to the notion that individual naming trends may indeed reflect broader societal shifts, including those related to environmental conditions.
Venturing beyond the realm of traditional academic research, the influence of popular non-fiction literature on societal attitudes toward environmental issues cannot be ignored. In "The Air We Breathe: A History of Atmospheric Anomalies" (2020) by E. Clean, discussions on urban air pollution and its complex interactions with social phenomena shed light on the plausibility of unexpected connections such as the one under scrutiny.
Similarly, in "Whispers in the Smog" (2017) by A. Q. Nod, a fictional account of a young woman named Tiffany navigating the foggy sprawl of Los Angeles prompts imaginative considerations of the confluence of personal nomenclature and environmental challenges. Though a work of fiction, the thematic parallels are undeniably thought-provoking and evocative in the context of our investigation.
Perusing the vast expanse of social media, it is not uncommon to encounter anecdotal accounts and speculative musings on the Tiffany-air quality nexus. One user on a popular social networking platform quipped, "Is it just me or does the smog in LA seem to thicken whenever a new Tiffany trends on Twitter? #TiffanySmogConnection." Though lighthearted in tone, such cyber reverberations speak to the cultural intrigue and public discourse surrounding this obscure correlation.
In summary, while the perplexing relationship between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and poor air quality in Los Angeles may initially appear as an improbable oddity, a closer examination of the literature suggests that there are more layers to this enigma than meet the eye. Whether in scholarly studies, literary works, or social media anecdotes, the interdisciplinary tapestry of evidence beckons us toward an intellectual odyssey filled with unexpected twists and turns. With a nod to both empirical rigor and whimsical curiosity, we step forth to unravel the duo of Tiffany and smog in the City of Angels.
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 Popularity of the first name Tiffany and Poor air quality in Los Angeles. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from US Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency . You used data from 1980 to 2022
Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.
Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the puzzling relationship between the prominence of the first name Tiffany and the deteriorating air quality in the Los Angeles area. By harnessing datasets from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we present evidence suggesting a surprising correlation. Our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9656376 and p < 0.01. The data spanning from 1980 to 2022 consistently points to a connection between the rise of Tiffany and the decline of air quality in the Los Angeles region. The implications of our study extend beyond statistical fascination, shedding light on a quirky connection that warrants further exploration.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany," a title that sounds like a strange combination of a 90s rom-com and a science fiction disaster film. Fear not, dear reader, for what we are about to embark upon is a journey into the wacky world of statistical correlations, social trends, and environmental phenomena. In this groundbreaking research paper, we dive headfirst into the perplexing relationship between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and the often dire air quality in the sprawling city of Los Angeles.
Picture this: a scene straight out of a Hollywood script, where the protagonist, Tiffany, emerges from a cloud of smog, coughing and wheezing, desperately searching for an inhaler. Meanwhile, statisticians and social scientists alike scratch their heads, pondering the connection between a moniker and the quality of the air we breathe. It’s a tale of two variables – one whimsical and the other, quite literally, up in the air.
As if plucked from the plot of a sitcom, this peculiar correlation raises more than a few eyebrows. By meticulously sifting through data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we aim to shed light on this curious phenomenon. With a correlation coefficient that could make even seasoned researchers do a double-take (0.9656376, if you're into specifics), this study ventures into uncharted territory, both statistically and anecdotally.
In this paper, we aim not only to tickle your statistical fancy, but also to challenge conventional wisdom and encourage a healthy skepticism of seemingly unrelated phenomena. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a whimsical, yet scientifically rigorous adventure, as we explore the enigmatic link between the rise of Tiffany and the fall of fresh air in the City of Angels.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To unravel the confounding correlation between the ascendancy of the name Tiffany and the degradation of air quality in Los Angeles, our research team embarked on a quest that can only be described as a blend of Sherlock Holmes' deductive reasoning and the whimsy of a children's treasure hunt.
Firstly, to capture the zeitgeist of Tiffany's popularity, we delved into the troves of the US Social Security Administration's databases, scouring through decades of trends in baby names. We wrangled with more data than a cowboy in a cattle drive, meticulously tracking the frequency of the name Tiffany from 1980 to 2022. We even donned our metaphorical deerstalkers to weed out any anomalies or outliers that could taint our analysis.
With our hands firmly grasping onto the reins of statistical rigor, we then tapped into the Environmental Protection Agency's dataset on air quality in the Los Angeles region. Armed with a plethora of air pollution metrics, including atmospheric ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide levels, we carefully examined the ebb and flow of air quality alongside Tiffany's rise to stardom.
But wait, there's more! Our investigation didn't stop with mere number-crunching. We also delved into the annals of pop culture, scrutinizing the appearances of the name Tiffany in music, films, and television shows, as it blossomed into a symbol of a bygone era. We wanted to capture the full spectrum of Tiffany's influence, from mall rendezvous to chart-topping hits, as her name reverberated through the cultural ether like a catchy tune that refuses to leave your head.
Through a clever concoction of statistical analyses, including regression models, time series analyses, and spatial mapping techniques, we eked out the elusive correlation between the fluctuations in air quality and the prevalence of Tiffany. The resulting correlation coefficient, a jaw-dropping 0.9656376, smacked of a cosmic joke whispered by the statistical deities. It was as if the numbers themselves were nudging us, saying, "Can you believe this?"
In essence, our methodology embraced both the meticulousness of a scientific inquiry and the playfulness of a madcap adventure, weaving together data, cultural trends, and statistical wizardry into a tapestry of delightfully unexpected connections.
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 Popularity of the first name Tiffany and Poor air quality in Los Angeles. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from US Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency .
For the time period 1980 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9656376, r-squared of 0.9324559, 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]]
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the puzzling relationship between the prominence of the first name Tiffany and the deteriorating air quality in the Los Angeles area. By harnessing datasets from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we present evidence suggesting a surprising correlation. Our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9656376 and p < 0.01. The data spanning from 1980 to 2022 consistently points to a connection between the rise of Tiffany and the decline of air quality in the Los Angeles region. The implications of our study extend beyond statistical fascination, shedding light on a quirky connection that warrants further exploration.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany," a title that sounds like a strange combination of a 90s rom-com and a science fiction disaster film. Fear not, dear reader, for what we are about to embark upon is a journey into the wacky world of statistical correlations, social trends, and environmental phenomena. In this groundbreaking research paper, we dive headfirst into the perplexing relationship between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and the often dire air quality in the sprawling city of Los Angeles.
Picture this: a scene straight out of a Hollywood script, where the protagonist, Tiffany, emerges from a cloud of smog, coughing and wheezing, desperately searching for an inhaler. Meanwhile, statisticians and social scientists alike scratch their heads, pondering the connection between a moniker and the quality of the air we breathe. It’s a tale of two variables – one whimsical and the other, quite literally, up in the air.
As if plucked from the plot of a sitcom, this peculiar correlation raises more than a few eyebrows. By meticulously sifting through data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we aim to shed light on this curious phenomenon. With a correlation coefficient that could make even seasoned researchers do a double-take (0.9656376, if you're into specifics), this study ventures into uncharted territory, both statistically and anecdotally.
In this paper, we aim not only to tickle your statistical fancy, but also to challenge conventional wisdom and encourage a healthy skepticism of seemingly unrelated phenomena. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a whimsical, yet scientifically rigorous adventure, as we explore the enigmatic link between the rise of Tiffany and the fall of fresh air in the City of Angels.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
In this section, we present the results of our investigation into the correlation between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and poor air quality in Los Angeles. Prepare yourself for a journey through the world of correlations and whimsical statistical discoveries.
Our data analysis uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9656376, which, for those unfamiliar with statistics, is about as close to a perfect linear relationship as finding a needle in a haystack (with p < 0.01, of course). This impressive strength of association suggests a strong linear relationship between the rise of Tiffany and the decline of air quality in the City of Angels.
To put it plainly, the connection between Tiffany and the smog in LA is stronger than a caffeine addict’s attachment to their morning cup of joe. In fact, it's so strong that we wouldn't be surprised if the next "Air Quality Alert" message in Los Angeles is personalized with a "Hey Tiffany, please bring better air with you" note.
Furthermore, our findings are supported by an r-squared value of 0.9324559, indicating that a whopping 93.25% of the variability in air quality can be explained by the popularity of the name Tiffany. If only all relationships in life could be explained with such certainty – think of the simplicity of explaining a failed relationship by saying, "Well, honey, our r-squared just wasn't high enough."
Fig. 1 illustrates the scatterplot depicting the incredibly tight relationship between the two variables. The points are so closely clustered that one might mistake them for a group of Tiffanys gossiping about the state of the air. The scatterplot serves as compelling visual evidence, showcasing the strength and robustness of the correlation between Tiffany and air quality in Los Angeles.
In conclusion, our results provide unmistakable evidence of a notable association between the rise of the name Tiffany and the decline of air quality in Los Angeles. This unexpected correlation offers not only statistical intrigue but also a curious twist that raises more questions than it answers. The saga of smog and Tiffanys continues to baffle and amuse, opening doors for further exploration into the quirky world of unexpected statistical relationships.
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 Popularity of the first name Tiffany and Poor air quality in Los Angeles. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 500 tokens.
Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.
Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.
[[TITLE]]
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the puzzling relationship between the prominence of the first name Tiffany and the deteriorating air quality in the Los Angeles area. By harnessing datasets from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we present evidence suggesting a surprising correlation. Our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9656376 and p < 0.01. The data spanning from 1980 to 2022 consistently points to a connection between the rise of Tiffany and the decline of air quality in the Los Angeles region. The implications of our study extend beyond statistical fascination, shedding light on a quirky connection that warrants further exploration.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and poor air quality in Los Angeles has elicited bewilderment and skepticism within both the academic and non-academic communities. Critics have often scoffed at the idea, deeming it a mere coincidence or perhaps the result of overzealous data mining. However, a closer examination of the existing literature reveals a tapestry of scholarly inquiries, from the analytical to the downright absurd.
Smith et al. (2010) conducted a comprehensive study exploring the potential social implications of uncommon correlations between names and environmental factors. Though their focus was not specifically on the name Tiffany, their findings did anticipate the kind of unconventional relationship we are currently investigating. The authors find that societal naming trends can often reflect underlying cultural and environmental shifts, paving the way for unexpected patterns that challenge traditional statistical norms.
Doe (2015), in a study on population demographics and metropolitan air quality, hinted at the possibility of a whimsical connection between the choices of first names and atmospheric conditions. Although their research did not delve into specific names such as Tiffany, it laid the groundwork for exploring the intersection between social trends and environmental indicators. Doe ultimately reminded the scientific community to approach anomalous correlations with both curiosity and caution, prefiguring the unexpected bond we are now unraveling.
Jones (2018) delved into the psychological and sociological implications of personal name choices, uncovering a potential link between individual naming preferences and societal influences. While Jones did not directly address the correlation between the name Tiffany and air quality in a particular region, their work hinted at the intricate interplay between human behavior and environmental variables. Their findings lend credence to the notion that individual naming trends may indeed reflect broader societal shifts, including those related to environmental conditions.
Venturing beyond the realm of traditional academic research, the influence of popular non-fiction literature on societal attitudes toward environmental issues cannot be ignored. In "The Air We Breathe: A History of Atmospheric Anomalies" (2020) by E. Clean, discussions on urban air pollution and its complex interactions with social phenomena shed light on the plausibility of unexpected connections such as the one under scrutiny.
Similarly, in "Whispers in the Smog" (2017) by A. Q. Nod, a fictional account of a young woman named Tiffany navigating the foggy sprawl of Los Angeles prompts imaginative considerations of the confluence of personal nomenclature and environmental challenges. Though a work of fiction, the thematic parallels are undeniably thought-provoking and evocative in the context of our investigation.
Perusing the vast expanse of social media, it is not uncommon to encounter anecdotal accounts and speculative musings on the Tiffany-air quality nexus. One user on a popular social networking platform quipped, "Is it just me or does the smog in LA seem to thicken whenever a new Tiffany trends on Twitter? #TiffanySmogConnection." Though lighthearted in tone, such cyber reverberations speak to the cultural intrigue and public discourse surrounding this obscure correlation.
In summary, while the perplexing relationship between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and poor air quality in Los Angeles may initially appear as an improbable oddity, a closer examination of the literature suggests that there are more layers to this enigma than meet the eye. Whether in scholarly studies, literary works, or social media anecdotes, the interdisciplinary tapestry of evidence beckons us toward an intellectual odyssey filled with unexpected twists and turns. With a nod to both empirical rigor and whimsical curiosity, we step forth to unravel the duo of Tiffany and smog in the City of Angels.
[[RESULTS]]
In this section, we present the results of our investigation into the correlation between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and poor air quality in Los Angeles. Prepare yourself for a journey through the world of correlations and whimsical statistical discoveries.
Our data analysis uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9656376, which, for those unfamiliar with statistics, is about as close to a perfect linear relationship as finding a needle in a haystack (with p < 0.01, of course). This impressive strength of association suggests a strong linear relationship between the rise of Tiffany and the decline of air quality in the City of Angels.
To put it plainly, the connection between Tiffany and the smog in LA is stronger than a caffeine addict’s attachment to their morning cup of joe. In fact, it's so strong that we wouldn't be surprised if the next "Air Quality Alert" message in Los Angeles is personalized with a "Hey Tiffany, please bring better air with you" note.
Furthermore, our findings are supported by an r-squared value of 0.9324559, indicating that a whopping 93.25% of the variability in air quality can be explained by the popularity of the name Tiffany. If only all relationships in life could be explained with such certainty – think of the simplicity of explaining a failed relationship by saying, "Well, honey, our r-squared just wasn't high enough."
Fig. 1 illustrates the scatterplot depicting the incredibly tight relationship between the two variables. The points are so closely clustered that one might mistake them for a group of Tiffanys gossiping about the state of the air. The scatterplot serves as compelling visual evidence, showcasing the strength and robustness of the correlation between Tiffany and air quality in Los Angeles.
In conclusion, our results provide unmistakable evidence of a notable association between the rise of the name Tiffany and the decline of air quality in Los Angeles. This unexpected correlation offers not only statistical intrigue but also a curious twist that raises more questions than it answers. The saga of smog and Tiffanys continues to baffle and amuse, opening doors for further exploration into the quirky world of unexpected statistical relationships.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
Our investigation into the correlation between the popularity of the name Tiffany and poor air quality in Los Angeles has revealed a connection so sturdy, it makes the bond between macaroni and cheese look weak. Our findings align with existing research, with Smith et al. (2010) hinting at the possibility of unconventional relationships between names and environmental factors. Who knew that statistical analysis could be as surprising as finding a long-lost cousin at a family reunion?
Doe (2015) set the stage for our findings by suggesting the potential for whimsical connections between first names and atmospheric conditions. The Los Angeles smog seems to have a fondness for the name Tiffany, as our data suggests a nearly perfect linear relationship between Tiffany's rise and the decline of air quality. If this were a romance, it would be the talk of the town – the Romeo and Juliet of statistical anomalies!
Jones (2018) delved into the psychological and sociological implications of personal name choices, inadvertently laying the groundwork for our investigation. Little did Jones know that the spotlight would soon be on Tiffany and the atmospheric drama she seems to be stirring in Los Angeles. If only psychology had more plot twists like this!
Our results, with a correlation coefficient practically as strong as a diamond, have not only substantiated prior research but also raised new questions. The Tiffany-air quality liaison seems to have a magnetic pull stronger than a black hole, explaining a whopping 93.25% of the variability in air quality. If only love were as easy to explain as the relationship between Tiffany and smog in LA!
The scatterplot further substantiates the bizarre link between Tiffany and air quality. The tightly clustered points almost create the illusion of an assembly of Tiffanys whispering about the state of the air – it's like a statistical soap opera!
In conclusion, our study punctuates the notion that statistical research need not always be a somber affair. The intrigue of our findings opens a Pandora's box of curiosity, urging us to further unwrap the quirky world of unexpected statistical relationships. Just when you thought you had a good grasp on statistics, in waltzes Tiffany with a gust of smog and upends everything. Oh, the joys of statistical serendipity!
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 Popularity of the first name Tiffany and Poor air quality in Los Angeles. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.
Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the puzzling relationship between the prominence of the first name Tiffany and the deteriorating air quality in the Los Angeles area. By harnessing datasets from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we present evidence suggesting a surprising correlation. Our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9656376 and p < 0.01. The data spanning from 1980 to 2022 consistently points to a connection between the rise of Tiffany and the decline of air quality in the Los Angeles region. The implications of our study extend beyond statistical fascination, shedding light on a quirky connection that warrants further exploration.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
"Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany," a title that sounds like a strange combination of a 90s rom-com and a science fiction disaster film. Fear not, dear reader, for what we are about to embark upon is a journey into the wacky world of statistical correlations, social trends, and environmental phenomena. In this groundbreaking research paper, we dive headfirst into the perplexing relationship between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and the often dire air quality in the sprawling city of Los Angeles.
Picture this: a scene straight out of a Hollywood script, where the protagonist, Tiffany, emerges from a cloud of smog, coughing and wheezing, desperately searching for an inhaler. Meanwhile, statisticians and social scientists alike scratch their heads, pondering the connection between a moniker and the quality of the air we breathe. It’s a tale of two variables – one whimsical and the other, quite literally, up in the air.
As if plucked from the plot of a sitcom, this peculiar correlation raises more than a few eyebrows. By meticulously sifting through data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we aim to shed light on this curious phenomenon. With a correlation coefficient that could make even seasoned researchers do a double-take (0.9656376, if you're into specifics), this study ventures into uncharted territory, both statistically and anecdotally.
In this paper, we aim not only to tickle your statistical fancy, but also to challenge conventional wisdom and encourage a healthy skepticism of seemingly unrelated phenomena. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a whimsical, yet scientifically rigorous adventure, as we explore the enigmatic link between the rise of Tiffany and the fall of fresh air in the City of Angels.
[[RESULTS]]
In this section, we present the results of our investigation into the correlation between the popularity of the first name Tiffany and poor air quality in Los Angeles. Prepare yourself for a journey through the world of correlations and whimsical statistical discoveries.
Our data analysis uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9656376, which, for those unfamiliar with statistics, is about as close to a perfect linear relationship as finding a needle in a haystack (with p < 0.01, of course). This impressive strength of association suggests a strong linear relationship between the rise of Tiffany and the decline of air quality in the City of Angels.
To put it plainly, the connection between Tiffany and the smog in LA is stronger than a caffeine addict’s attachment to their morning cup of joe. In fact, it's so strong that we wouldn't be surprised if the next "Air Quality Alert" message in Los Angeles is personalized with a "Hey Tiffany, please bring better air with you" note.
Furthermore, our findings are supported by an r-squared value of 0.9324559, indicating that a whopping 93.25% of the variability in air quality can be explained by the popularity of the name Tiffany. If only all relationships in life could be explained with such certainty – think of the simplicity of explaining a failed relationship by saying, "Well, honey, our r-squared just wasn't high enough."
Fig. 1 illustrates the scatterplot depicting the incredibly tight relationship between the two variables. The points are so closely clustered that one might mistake them for a group of Tiffanys gossiping about the state of the air. The scatterplot serves as compelling visual evidence, showcasing the strength and robustness of the correlation between Tiffany and air quality in Los Angeles.
In conclusion, our results provide unmistakable evidence of a notable association between the rise of the name Tiffany and the decline of air quality in Los Angeles. This unexpected correlation offers not only statistical intrigue but also a curious twist that raises more questions than it answers. The saga of smog and Tiffanys continues to baffle and amuse, opening doors for further exploration into the quirky world of unexpected statistical relationships.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In the illustrious words of Shakespeare, "What’s in a name?" Well, apparently a whole lot of smog, if our findings are any indicator! Our study not only uncovered a compelling correlation between the popularity of the name Tiffany and poor air quality in Los Angeles but also set the stage for a new box office hit - "The Smoggy Tiffany Chronicles"!
As we bid adieu to this whimsical exploration, it's undeniable that the bond between Tiffany and smog is as strong as the force of gravity – which reminds us, perhaps it's time to rebrand "Tiffany & Co." to "Tiffany & Ozone" for that environmentally friendly bling.
While our findings may sound like the beginning of an urban legend, rest assured, this is no tall tale but a true statistical oddity! With a correlation coefficient so robust, one might wonder if Tiffany's mere presence could summon the haze of Los Angeles.
As we close the chapter on "Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany," it's tempting to ask, what next? Well, in the immortal words of Cher, "If I could turn back time," we’d use it to further explore this zany link. However, as no stone has been left unturned, no air quality report unread, it's safe to say that no further research is needed in this arena - unless, of course, we stumble upon a sudden surge of Tiffanys leading to smog-free 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 Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Quirky Atmospheric Anomalies
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 Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Center for Atmospheric Tiffany Studies
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 Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles with an abstract of This study investigates the puzzling relationship between the prominence of the first name Tiffany and the deteriorating air quality in the Los Angeles area. By harnessing datasets from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, we present evidence suggesting a surprising correlation. Our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9656376 and p < 0.01. The data spanning from 1980 to 2022 consistently points to a connection between the rise of Tiffany and the decline of air quality in the Los Angeles region. The implications of our study extend beyond statistical fascination, shedding light on a quirky connection that warrants further exploration.
ChatGPT:
Tiffany, air quality, Los Angeles, first name, correlation, US Social Security Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, dataset, correlation coefficient, statistical analysis, pollution, urban environment, societal trends, demographic patterns
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Popularity of the first name TiffanyDetailed data title: Babies of all sexes born in the US named Tiffany
Source: US Social Security Administration
See what else correlates with Popularity of the first name Tiffany
Air pollution in Los Angeles
Detailed data title: Percentage of days 'unhealthy' or worse air quality in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Los Angeles
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 = 0.9324559 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 93.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Air pollution in Los Angeles) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Popularity of the first name Tiffany) over the 43 years from 1980 through 2022.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.3E-25. 0.0000000000000000000000001300
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 0.97 in 1.3E-23% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 7,692,307,692,307,692,178,636,800 random variables You don't actually need 7 septillion 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 42 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 42 because we have two variables measured over a period of 43 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.
[ 0.94, 0.98 ] 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.
1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 | 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
Popularity of the first name Tiffany (Babies born) | 16295 | 16489 | 17228 | 16015 | 15927 | 13735 | 14546 | 14793 | 18436 | 15831 | 13207 | 11179 | 9746 | 8609 | 8112 | 6955 | 6165 | 5229 | 4623 | 3895 | 3310 | 2690 | 2398 | 2258 | 1974 | 1767 | 1644 | 1622 | 1376 | 1169 | 1029 | 919 | 848 | 705 | 726 | 649 | 559 | 518 | 421 | 416 | 342 | 316 | 289 |
Air pollution in Los Angeles (Bad air quality days) | 56.2842 | 56.7123 | 50.137 | 47.3973 | 52.459 | 50.137 | 53.4247 | 49.589 | 57.377 | 48.2192 | 39.726 | 37.5342 | 40.4372 | 32.0548 | 33.6986 | 28.7671 | 21.5847 | 12.3288 | 12.6027 | 8.21918 | 18.0328 | 16.7123 | 20.8219 | 24.6575 | 20.2186 | 16.7123 | 14.2466 | 10.137 | 15.0273 | 13.4247 | 4.10959 | 10.6849 | 10.1093 | 6.84932 | 7.67123 | 10.411 | 6.8306 | 12.6027 | 5.47945 | 7.94521 | 17.2131 | 7.39726 | 8.21918 |
Why this works
- 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.
- 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. - Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
Try it yourself
You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.
Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"
Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.
Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.
Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.
Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"
If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:
"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."
# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):
# Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)
# Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
r_squared = correlation**2
return correlation, r_squared, p_value
# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([16295,16489,17228,16015,15927,13735,14546,14793,18436,15831,13207,11179,9746,8609,8112,6955,6165,5229,4623,3895,3310,2690,2398,2258,1974,1767,1644,1622,1376,1169,1029,919,848,705,726,649,559,518,421,416,342,316,289,])
array_2 = np.array([56.2842,56.7123,50.137,47.3973,52.459,50.137,53.4247,49.589,57.377,48.2192,39.726,37.5342,40.4372,32.0548,33.6986,28.7671,21.5847,12.3288,12.6027,8.21918,18.0328,16.7123,20.8219,24.6575,20.2186,16.7123,14.2466,10.137,15.0273,13.4247,4.10959,10.6849,10.1093,6.84932,7.67123,10.411,6.8306,12.6027,5.47945,7.94521,17.2131,7.39726,8.21918,])
array_1_name = "Popularity of the first name Tiffany"
array_2_name = "Air pollution in Los Angeles"
# 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:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only Popularity of the first name Tiffany
- Line chart for only Air pollution in Los Angeles
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Smoggy with a Chance of Tiffany: The Correlation Between the Popularity of the Name Tiffany and Poor Air Quality in Los Angeles
Your rating is stellar!
Correlation ID: 2183 · Black Variable ID: 2082 · Red Variable ID: 20839