about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,348 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is The number of actuaries in Oregon and the second variable is Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the number of actuaries in Oregon increases, so does the demand for safe and secure living spaces. These number-savvy individuals have calculated the optimal bunker construction methods, factoring in everything from the cost of materials to the probability of a Doomsday scenario. It seems the key to building a bunker that really adds up is having a surplus of actuaries in the equation!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ a meme ] A solitary figure sitting at a desk, surrounded by empty chairs, with a sign on the window reading "Actuary Office Closing Down," while in the background, on a computer screen, a person is frantically searching "how to build a bunker" on Google, as a storm gathers outside. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: The number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. 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 scene from Skyrim a meme Minimalism Magic realism Macabre
ChatGPT: a meme

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both The number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker', in the following situation: As the number of actuaries in Oregon decreases, the risk of quirky yet overly-prepared individuals living in underground bunkers increases, leading to a surge in Google searches for "how to build a bunker" in anticipation of the impending doom.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a small Oregon town, the number of actuaries slowly dwindles as people begin to pursue other careers. Meanwhile, in the outskirts of town, a quirky individual busily searches on Google for "how to build a bunker" as a sense of impending doom settles over the community.

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 meme ] and depicting this scene: In a small Oregon town, the number of actuaries slowly dwindles as people begin to pursue other careers. Meanwhile, in the outskirts of town, a quirky individual busily searches on Google for "how to build a bunker" as a sense of impending doom settles over the community. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ a meme ] A solitary figure sitting at a desk, surrounded by empty chairs, with a sign on the window reading "Actuary Office Closing Down," while in the background, on a computer screen, a person is frantically searching "how to build a bunker" on Google, as a storm gathers outside.

*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 increases in The number of actuaries in Oregon positively influenced how to build a bunker (Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'). Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Actuaries and Aeries: Can Number Crunchers Predict Bunker Builders?

The Journal of Quantitative Quirks

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 and p < 0.01 for 2004 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]]
"Actuaries and Aeries: Can Number Crunchers Predict Bunker Builders?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This tongue-in-cheek research study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker." Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the count of actuaries and Google Trends for bunker-building queries, this study applies correlation analysis to uncover whether there is a statistical link between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. The results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 and p < 0.01, suggesting a potential association between the presence of actuaries and an interest in bunker construction. As we crunch the numbers, it becomes clear that the act of pondering underground shelter construction is not just for the paranoid - it's a serious statistical matter!


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Actuaries and Aeries: Can Number Crunchers Predict Bunker Builders?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This tongue-in-cheek research study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker." Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the count of actuaries and Google Trends for bunker-building queries, this study applies correlation analysis to uncover whether there is a statistical link between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. The results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 and p < 0.01, suggesting a potential association between the presence of actuaries and an interest in bunker construction. As we crunch the numbers, it becomes clear that the act of pondering underground shelter construction is not just for the paranoid - it's a serious statistical matter!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Peering into the world of numbers and trends can often yield unexpected and, dare I say, eccentric connections. As researchers with a penchant for uncovering peculiar patterns, we were drawn to investigate the correlation between the number of actuaries in Oregon and the frequency of Google searches for "how to build a bunker." In this study, we tasked ourselves with the challenge of bridging the gap between the serious business of actuarial science and the not-so-subtle quest for subterranean shelters - because who says statisticians can't have a sense of humor?

But why delve into the esoteric realm of actuarial science and bunker building, you might ask? Well, as the old joke goes, "Why did the actuary cross the road? To reach a higher statistical significance level!" And, what do actuaries and architects have in common? They both enjoy celebrating ground-breaking achievements! Jesting aside, our inquiry stems from a genuine curiosity about the societal forces that drive interest in bunker construction, and whether these forces could potentially intersect with the presence of actuarial professionals.

The juxtaposition of these two seemingly disparate phenomena may seem like a statistical punchline waiting for a setup, but as we embark on this exploration, we aim to tease out any substantive connections and uncover the underlying story that these data present. After all, who wouldn't want to know whether an uptick in bunker-related searches can be predicted using actuarial metrics, right? It's time to shed some light on the statistical significance of bunker-busting revelations and the number-crunching prowess of actuaries!


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Actuaries and Aeries: Can Number Crunchers Predict Bunker Builders?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This tongue-in-cheek research study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker." Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the count of actuaries and Google Trends for bunker-building queries, this study applies correlation analysis to uncover whether there is a statistical link between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. The results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 and p < 0.01, suggesting a potential association between the presence of actuaries and an interest in bunker construction. As we crunch the numbers, it becomes clear that the act of pondering underground shelter construction is not just for the paranoid - it's a serious statistical matter!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Peering into the world of numbers and trends can often yield unexpected and, dare I say, eccentric connections. As researchers with a penchant for uncovering peculiar patterns, we were drawn to investigate the correlation between the number of actuaries in Oregon and the frequency of Google searches for "how to build a bunker." In this study, we tasked ourselves with the challenge of bridging the gap between the serious business of actuarial science and the not-so-subtle quest for subterranean shelters - because who says statisticians can't have a sense of humor?

But why delve into the esoteric realm of actuarial science and bunker building, you might ask? Well, as the old joke goes, "Why did the actuary cross the road? To reach a higher statistical significance level!" And, what do actuaries and architects have in common? They both enjoy celebrating ground-breaking achievements! Jesting aside, our inquiry stems from a genuine curiosity about the societal forces that drive interest in bunker construction, and whether these forces could potentially intersect with the presence of actuarial professionals.
The juxtaposition of these two seemingly disparate phenomena may seem like a statistical punchline waiting for a setup, but as we embark on this exploration, we aim to tease out any substantive connections and uncover the underlying story that these data present. After all, who wouldn't want to know whether an uptick in bunker-related searches can be predicted using actuarial metrics, right? It's time to shed some light on the statistical significance of bunker-busting revelations and the number-crunching prowess of actuaries!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The connection between quantitative professionals and seemingly unrelated societal phenomena is a subject that has piqued the interest of researchers for decades. Smith et al. (2015) found a significant correlation between the density of accountants in urban areas and the sales of lock-picking tools. Similarly, Doe (2018) observed a positive relationship between the number of statisticians in a region and the popularity of vegetable-themed music bands. These studies highlight the potential for statistical professionals to impact unconventional aspects of society, prompting our investigation into the relationship between the prevalence of actuaries in Oregon and the frequency of "how to build a bunker" searches on Google.

It is a commonly held belief that the field of actuarial science is a realm of seriousness and solemnity, but one must not discount the whimsical side of number crunchers. As the old saying goes, "Why don't actuaries ever gamble? Because they always make sure the odds are in their favor!" (Jones, 2009). This lighthearted quip encapsulates the underlying humor that often underpins the work of actuaries, making it all the more fitting for them to be associated with the more enigmatic realm of bunker construction inquiries.

Turning to the world of non-fiction literature, books such as "Financial Derivatives for Dummies" and "The Actuary's Almanac" have long been staples for professionals in the field. However, their relevance to the study at hand is far less intriguing than that of fictional works such as "The Bunker Builder's Bible" and "Underground Adventures: A Tale of Subterranean Secrets." While these titles may not provide empirical evidence, they certainly speak to the ongoing fascination with bunker construction and the allure of hidden subterranean spaces.

Venturing further into the depths of literature, one cannot overlook the impact of unorthodox sources of information. A perusal through the annals of CVS receipts revealed an unexpected yet surprisingly comprehensive repository of "how to build a bunker" tips, forming a truly peculiar addition to the extant literature on the subject.

As we navigate this comical yet thought-provoking investigation, it becomes abundantly clear that the intersection of actuarial science and bunker-building queries presents an enthralling opportunity to meld quantitative analysis with the quirkier aspects of contemporary societal trends. After all, what better way to appreciate the multifaceted nature of statistician humor than by uncovering the statistical significance of bunker-building affinities?


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 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]]
"Actuaries and Aeries: Can Number Crunchers Predict Bunker Builders?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This tongue-in-cheek research study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker." Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the count of actuaries and Google Trends for bunker-building queries, this study applies correlation analysis to uncover whether there is a statistical link between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. The results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 and p < 0.01, suggesting a potential association between the presence of actuaries and an interest in bunker construction. As we crunch the numbers, it becomes clear that the act of pondering underground shelter construction is not just for the paranoid - it's a serious statistical matter!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Peering into the world of numbers and trends can often yield unexpected and, dare I say, eccentric connections. As researchers with a penchant for uncovering peculiar patterns, we were drawn to investigate the correlation between the number of actuaries in Oregon and the frequency of Google searches for "how to build a bunker." In this study, we tasked ourselves with the challenge of bridging the gap between the serious business of actuarial science and the not-so-subtle quest for subterranean shelters - because who says statisticians can't have a sense of humor?

But why delve into the esoteric realm of actuarial science and bunker building, you might ask? Well, as the old joke goes, "Why did the actuary cross the road? To reach a higher statistical significance level!" And, what do actuaries and architects have in common? They both enjoy celebrating ground-breaking achievements! Jesting aside, our inquiry stems from a genuine curiosity about the societal forces that drive interest in bunker construction, and whether these forces could potentially intersect with the presence of actuarial professionals.
The juxtaposition of these two seemingly disparate phenomena may seem like a statistical punchline waiting for a setup, but as we embark on this exploration, we aim to tease out any substantive connections and uncover the underlying story that these data present. After all, who wouldn't want to know whether an uptick in bunker-related searches can be predicted using actuarial metrics, right? It's time to shed some light on the statistical significance of bunker-busting revelations and the number-crunching prowess of actuaries!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To investigate the potential relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and the frequency of Google searches for "how to build a bunker," our research team embarked on a comical journey through the maze of statistical analysis and internet data mining. As we delved into this peculiar puzzle, we aimed to apply rigorous methods, despite the temptation to make endless bunker-related puns.

First, we gathered data on the count of actuaries in Oregon from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, using their Occupational Employment Statistics database. We meticulously tallied the number of number-crunching professionals in the quirky state of Oregon, resisting the urge to calculate the chances of an actuary predicting the exact punchline of a dad joke. The data spanned the years 2004 to 2022, allowing us to capture the full spectrum of the actuarial workforce in Oregon.

Next, to capture the whimsical world of bunker enthusiasts, we turned to Google Trends and extracted the search volume index for the term "how to build a bunker" in Oregon. We couldn't help but marvel at the wacky search queries related to underground abodes, resisting the temptation to delve into our own bunker-building aspirations. The Google Trends data was also collected from 2004 to 2022, aligning with the timeline of our actuarial data to ensure coherence in our analysis.

With the datasets in hand, we bravely confronted the challenge of statistical analysis. Employing the power of correlation coefficients, we sought to uncover any meaningful association between the count of actuaries and the frequency of bunker-building searches. As we waded through the sea of statistical calculations, we couldn't help but appreciate the humor in attempting to predict the seriousness of bunker inquiries using the meticulous deliberations of actuaries.

To ensure the robustness of our findings, we utilized a variety of statistical tools, including time series analysis and regression models. We dared to venture into the realm of predictive modeling, keen on exploring whether the presence of actuarial professionals could offer some insight into the fluctuations of bunker-related interests. As we embarked on this statistical escapade, we couldn't shake off the alluring thought of devising actuarial equations for bunker construction probabilities.

Finally, to inject an element of whimsy into our methodological odyssey, we indulged in some lighthearted diversions, such as brainstorming the potential of creating a "bunker index" based on actuarial involvement and the ebbs and flows of search queries. While we maintained a serious commitment to scientific rigor, we couldn't resist the occasional wink and nod to the hilarity woven into our research focus.

In summary, our methodology entailed a systematic collection of actuarial and bunker-related data, rigorous statistical analysis, and an unwavering commitment to balancing scientific gravitas with a touch of scholarly playfulness. As we embark on this data-driven adventure, we aim to capture the quirks of statistical exploration while unraveling the serious statistical implications of actuarial intrigue and bunker eccentricity. After all, who wouldn't want to know if actuaries can predict the rise of bunker enthusiasm with quantitative finesse? It's a statistical mystery wrapped in an enigma, sprinkled with a dash of bunker humor!


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

For the time period 2004 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.6917751, r-squared of 0.4785528, 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]]
"Actuaries and Aeries: Can Number Crunchers Predict Bunker Builders?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This tongue-in-cheek research study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker." Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the count of actuaries and Google Trends for bunker-building queries, this study applies correlation analysis to uncover whether there is a statistical link between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. The results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 and p < 0.01, suggesting a potential association between the presence of actuaries and an interest in bunker construction. As we crunch the numbers, it becomes clear that the act of pondering underground shelter construction is not just for the paranoid - it's a serious statistical matter!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Peering into the world of numbers and trends can often yield unexpected and, dare I say, eccentric connections. As researchers with a penchant for uncovering peculiar patterns, we were drawn to investigate the correlation between the number of actuaries in Oregon and the frequency of Google searches for "how to build a bunker." In this study, we tasked ourselves with the challenge of bridging the gap between the serious business of actuarial science and the not-so-subtle quest for subterranean shelters - because who says statisticians can't have a sense of humor?

But why delve into the esoteric realm of actuarial science and bunker building, you might ask? Well, as the old joke goes, "Why did the actuary cross the road? To reach a higher statistical significance level!" And, what do actuaries and architects have in common? They both enjoy celebrating ground-breaking achievements! Jesting aside, our inquiry stems from a genuine curiosity about the societal forces that drive interest in bunker construction, and whether these forces could potentially intersect with the presence of actuarial professionals.
The juxtaposition of these two seemingly disparate phenomena may seem like a statistical punchline waiting for a setup, but as we embark on this exploration, we aim to tease out any substantive connections and uncover the underlying story that these data present. After all, who wouldn't want to know whether an uptick in bunker-related searches can be predicted using actuarial metrics, right? It's time to shed some light on the statistical significance of bunker-busting revelations and the number-crunching prowess of actuaries!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data revealed a notable correlation between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker" over the period from 2004 to 2022. The correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 suggests a moderately strong positive relationship between these two variables. In other words, as the number of actuaries in Oregon increased, so did the frequency of Google searches related to bunker construction. It seems that as the number of number crunchers multiplied, so did the interest in underground number shelters! (I can't resist a good "number" pun!)

Moreover, the coefficient of determination (r-squared) was found to be 0.4785528, indicating that approximately 47.86% of the variability in bunker-building searches can be explained by the number of actuaries in Oregon. This finding provides statistical support for the notion that actuaries might actually have a knack for predicting not just financial risks, but also the likelihood of an individual embarking on a doomsday prepping journey. It's like they're making predictions about predicting - meta, right?

The statistical analysis also yielded a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating strong evidence against the null hypothesis of no relationship. This suggests that the observed correlation is not due to random chance and provides support for the existence of a genuine link between the presence of actuaries and the interest in bunker construction. It appears that these actuaries are not just good with numbers; they are predicting the underground trends too! (I couldn't resist another actuarial pun – they're just too tempting!)

Fig. 1 illustrates the scatterplot depicting the relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and the Google searches for "how to build a bunker." The plot clearly portrays a positive linear association, with the bunker-building searches trending upwards as the count of actuaries increases. It's as if the actuarial science itself is creating a numerical underground movement, isn't it?


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"Actuaries and Aeries: Can Number Crunchers Predict Bunker Builders?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This tongue-in-cheek research study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker." Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the count of actuaries and Google Trends for bunker-building queries, this study applies correlation analysis to uncover whether there is a statistical link between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. The results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 and p < 0.01, suggesting a potential association between the presence of actuaries and an interest in bunker construction. As we crunch the numbers, it becomes clear that the act of pondering underground shelter construction is not just for the paranoid - it's a serious statistical matter!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between quantitative professionals and seemingly unrelated societal phenomena is a subject that has piqued the interest of researchers for decades. Smith et al. (2015) found a significant correlation between the density of accountants in urban areas and the sales of lock-picking tools. Similarly, Doe (2018) observed a positive relationship between the number of statisticians in a region and the popularity of vegetable-themed music bands. These studies highlight the potential for statistical professionals to impact unconventional aspects of society, prompting our investigation into the relationship between the prevalence of actuaries in Oregon and the frequency of "how to build a bunker" searches on Google.
It is a commonly held belief that the field of actuarial science is a realm of seriousness and solemnity, but one must not discount the whimsical side of number crunchers. As the old saying goes, "Why don't actuaries ever gamble? Because they always make sure the odds are in their favor!" (Jones, 2009). This lighthearted quip encapsulates the underlying humor that often underpins the work of actuaries, making it all the more fitting for them to be associated with the more enigmatic realm of bunker construction inquiries.
Turning to the world of non-fiction literature, books such as "Financial Derivatives for Dummies" and "The Actuary's Almanac" have long been staples for professionals in the field. However, their relevance to the study at hand is far less intriguing than that of fictional works such as "The Bunker Builder's Bible" and "Underground Adventures: A Tale of Subterranean Secrets." While these titles may not provide empirical evidence, they certainly speak to the ongoing fascination with bunker construction and the allure of hidden subterranean spaces.
Venturing further into the depths of literature, one cannot overlook the impact of unorthodox sources of information. A perusal through the annals of CVS receipts revealed an unexpected yet surprisingly comprehensive repository of "how to build a bunker" tips, forming a truly peculiar addition to the extant literature on the subject.
As we navigate this comical yet thought-provoking investigation, it becomes abundantly clear that the intersection of actuarial science and bunker-building queries presents an enthralling opportunity to meld quantitative analysis with the quirkier aspects of contemporary societal trends. After all, what better way to appreciate the multifaceted nature of statistician humor than by uncovering the statistical significance of bunker-building affinities?

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data revealed a notable correlation between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker" over the period from 2004 to 2022. The correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 suggests a moderately strong positive relationship between these two variables. In other words, as the number of actuaries in Oregon increased, so did the frequency of Google searches related to bunker construction. It seems that as the number of number crunchers multiplied, so did the interest in underground number shelters! (I can't resist a good "number" pun!)
Moreover, the coefficient of determination (r-squared) was found to be 0.4785528, indicating that approximately 47.86% of the variability in bunker-building searches can be explained by the number of actuaries in Oregon. This finding provides statistical support for the notion that actuaries might actually have a knack for predicting not just financial risks, but also the likelihood of an individual embarking on a doomsday prepping journey. It's like they're making predictions about predicting - meta, right?
The statistical analysis also yielded a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating strong evidence against the null hypothesis of no relationship. This suggests that the observed correlation is not due to random chance and provides support for the existence of a genuine link between the presence of actuaries and the interest in bunker construction. It appears that these actuaries are not just good with numbers; they are predicting the underground trends too! (I couldn't resist another actuarial pun – they're just too tempting!)
Fig. 1 illustrates the scatterplot depicting the relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and the Google searches for "how to build a bunker." The plot clearly portrays a positive linear association, with the bunker-building searches trending upwards as the count of actuaries increases. It's as if the actuarial science itself is creating a numerical underground movement, isn't it?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study lend robust support to the quirky yet compelling notion that the presence of actuaries in a region is associated with an increased interest in bunker construction. Our results, as indicated by the correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 and the p-value of less than 0.01, align with prior literature suggesting unexpected connections between quantitative professionals and seemingly unrelated societal phenomena. These results echo the work of Smith et al. (2015), who uncovered a significant correlation between the density of accountants and sales of lock-picking tools. Just as numbers can unlock the mysteries of financial risk, it appears that they may also unlock the fascination with securing underground fortresses. It seems that the actuarial minds are not just crunching numbers, they are also "crunching" the likelihood of underground adventures!

The coefficient of determination of 0.4785528 further bolsters the evidence that approximately 47.86% of the variability in bunker-building searches can be attributed to the number of actuaries in Oregon. This finding strengthens the argument that actuaries possess an innate ability not only to assess risk but also to forecast esoteric societal trends. It's as if they are using their statistical models to peer into the "underground" world of trends - a true testament to their predictive prowess. Speaking of predicting, it's like actuaries are saying, "I predict you're preparing for the apocalypse, and I have the numbers to prove it!"

The significance of our findings is underscored by the entertaining yet thought-provoking underpinning of this investigation. The literature review humorously hinted at the whimsical nature of actuarial predispositions, and our results further underscore the potential whimsy inherent in the profession. As the research unfolds, it becomes increasingly apparent that actuarial science may have a knack for forecasting not just financial risks but also the inclinations of individuals to engage in non-traditional pursuits such as bunker building. It's like they are crafting a new specialty - "apocalyptic actuarial analysis" - predicting the risks of terrestrial shifts!

In conclusion, these findings add an unexpected yet captivating dimension to the field of actuarial science, revealing an uncanny connection between the number of actuaries in Oregon and the curiosity surrounding bunker construction. Our study sheds light on the offbeat yet intriguing ways in which quantitative professionals may impact unconventional societal trends, elevating the discourse on the multidimensional nature of statistics. It seems that actuarial science is not just about assessing probabilities; it's also about predicting the most unpredictable - human behavior! And remember, when it comes to bunker building, the actuarial trends are definitely underground - pun intended!


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Actuaries and Aeries: Can Number Crunchers Predict Bunker Builders?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This tongue-in-cheek research study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker." Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the count of actuaries and Google Trends for bunker-building queries, this study applies correlation analysis to uncover whether there is a statistical link between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. The results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 and p < 0.01, suggesting a potential association between the presence of actuaries and an interest in bunker construction. As we crunch the numbers, it becomes clear that the act of pondering underground shelter construction is not just for the paranoid - it's a serious statistical matter!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Peering into the world of numbers and trends can often yield unexpected and, dare I say, eccentric connections. As researchers with a penchant for uncovering peculiar patterns, we were drawn to investigate the correlation between the number of actuaries in Oregon and the frequency of Google searches for "how to build a bunker." In this study, we tasked ourselves with the challenge of bridging the gap between the serious business of actuarial science and the not-so-subtle quest for subterranean shelters - because who says statisticians can't have a sense of humor?

But why delve into the esoteric realm of actuarial science and bunker building, you might ask? Well, as the old joke goes, "Why did the actuary cross the road? To reach a higher statistical significance level!" And, what do actuaries and architects have in common? They both enjoy celebrating ground-breaking achievements! Jesting aside, our inquiry stems from a genuine curiosity about the societal forces that drive interest in bunker construction, and whether these forces could potentially intersect with the presence of actuarial professionals.
The juxtaposition of these two seemingly disparate phenomena may seem like a statistical punchline waiting for a setup, but as we embark on this exploration, we aim to tease out any substantive connections and uncover the underlying story that these data present. After all, who wouldn't want to know whether an uptick in bunker-related searches can be predicted using actuarial metrics, right? It's time to shed some light on the statistical significance of bunker-busting revelations and the number-crunching prowess of actuaries!

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data revealed a notable correlation between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker" over the period from 2004 to 2022. The correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 suggests a moderately strong positive relationship between these two variables. In other words, as the number of actuaries in Oregon increased, so did the frequency of Google searches related to bunker construction. It seems that as the number of number crunchers multiplied, so did the interest in underground number shelters! (I can't resist a good "number" pun!)
Moreover, the coefficient of determination (r-squared) was found to be 0.4785528, indicating that approximately 47.86% of the variability in bunker-building searches can be explained by the number of actuaries in Oregon. This finding provides statistical support for the notion that actuaries might actually have a knack for predicting not just financial risks, but also the likelihood of an individual embarking on a doomsday prepping journey. It's like they're making predictions about predicting - meta, right?
The statistical analysis also yielded a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating strong evidence against the null hypothesis of no relationship. This suggests that the observed correlation is not due to random chance and provides support for the existence of a genuine link between the presence of actuaries and the interest in bunker construction. It appears that these actuaries are not just good with numbers; they are predicting the underground trends too! (I couldn't resist another actuarial pun – they're just too tempting!)
Fig. 1 illustrates the scatterplot depicting the relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and the Google searches for "how to build a bunker." The plot clearly portrays a positive linear association, with the bunker-building searches trending upwards as the count of actuaries increases. It's as if the actuarial science itself is creating a numerical underground movement, isn't it?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has unearthed a compelling connection between the presence of actuaries in Oregon and the fascination with bunker construction, proving that these number crunchers possess predictive powers beyond traditional financial risk assessment. It seems they can also calculate the odds of someone digging into DIY bunker blueprints! (It's like they're building an "underground" fan base!)

The robust correlation coefficient and low p-value provide solid statistical support for the relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. This suggests that as the actuarial community in Oregon grows, so does the interest in subterranean abodes. It's as if the actuarial profession is not just predicting risks, but also anticipating the need for secure underground retreats! (Looks like they're "crunching" some serious bunker-building numbers!)

Further exploration into the underlying mechanisms driving this correlation could shed light on the societal impulses that influence both actuarial employment trends and the appeal of bunker-building pursuits. Investing in such endeavors may offer valuable insights into forecasting unconventional consumer behaviors – who knows, perhaps actuaries will soon be offering bunker-building insurance! (A whole new meaning to "underground coverage," right?)

Therefore, given the substantial evidence supporting the statistical link between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker," it may be concluded that no further research is warranted in this area. After all, we've already dug deep enough into this whimsical wormhole of statistical serendipity!


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 Actuaries and Aeries: Can Number Crunchers Predict Bunker Builders?. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quantitative Quirks


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 Actuaries and Aeries: Can Number Crunchers Predict Bunker Builders?. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Association for Futuristic Number Analysis and Structural Projections


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 Actuaries and Aeries: Can Number Crunchers Predict Bunker Builders? with an abstract of This tongue-in-cheek research study delves into the intriguing relationship between the number of actuaries in Oregon and Google searches for "how to build a bunker." Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the count of actuaries and Google Trends for bunker-building queries, this study applies correlation analysis to uncover whether there is a statistical link between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. The results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.6917751 and p < 0.01, suggesting a potential association between the presence of actuaries and an interest in bunker construction. As we crunch the numbers, it becomes clear that the act of pondering underground shelter construction is not just for the paranoid - it's a serious statistical matter!

ChatGPT:

actuaries, bunker builders, statistical analysis, correlation study, actuaries in Oregon, Google searches, bunker building queries, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Google Trends, correlation coefficient, statistical association, number crunching, underground shelter construction, data analysis

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

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

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'

Correlation r = 0.6917751 (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 = 0.4785528 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 47.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'how to build a bunker') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of actuaries in Oregon) over the 19 years from 2004 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00103. 0.0010336002958855359000000000
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 0.69 in 0.103% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 967 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 18 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 18 because we have two variables measured over a period of 19 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.

[ 0.35, 0.87 ] 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.
2004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
The number of actuaries in Oregon (Actuaries)210100130140180130240160310240190150110210200210210150220
Google searches for 'how to build a bunker' (Rel. search volume)45.525.333321.416723.2537.333331.7535.083344.560.416742.833332.916733.583336.7542.916731.416727.083345.166737.583354




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.




Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([210,100,130,140,180,130,240,160,310,240,190,150,110,210,200,210,210,150,220,])
array_2 = np.array([45.5,25.3333,21.4167,23.25,37.3333,31.75,35.0833,44.5,60.4167,42.8333,32.9167,33.5833,36.75,42.9167,31.4167,27.0833,45.1667,37.5833,54,])
array_1_name = "The number of actuaries in Oregon"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the correlation whisperer we needed!


Correlation ID: 2348 · Black Variable ID: 13294 · Red Variable ID: 1377
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0