about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,917 · 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 statisticians in New Mexico and the second variable is Google searches for 'do vaccines work'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the statisticians multiplied in New Mexico, so did the understanding of data analysis. This led to a higher average 'alge-brain' capacity in the population, equipping more people to comprehend the effectiveness of vaccines. It seems the 'herd immunity' against misinformation was on the rise, creating a positive 'outbreak' of accurate knowledge. Who knew that the real 'infectious agents' in this scenario were the statistical concepts spreading like 'standard deviation' in discussions about vaccination efficacy!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image in the style of a TIME magazine cover, depicting a bustling office scene in New Mexico. In the foreground, show a team of statisticians engrossed in data analysis, surrounded by computer screens displaying intricate graphs and charts. Outside the office, depict a group of individuals eagerly gathered around a smartphone, fervently typing "do vaccines work" into the Google search bar. In the background, include a wall poster showcasing a graph with a distinct downward trend from "vaccinated" to "belief in alien abductions." Ensure the image conveys the complex interplay between data analysis, public curiosity, and societal trends. 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 statisticians in New Mexico and Google searches for 'do vaccines work'. 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 3D Pixar Style Realistic Macabre A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s
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 The number of statisticians in New Mexico and Google searches for 'do vaccines work', in the following situation: Because the influx of statisticians in New Mexico led to more accurate population data analysis, it became clear that vaccinated people were significantly less likely to believe in alien abductions. This realization prompted a surge in "do vaccines work" searches as people sought to understand this unexpected correlation.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling office in New Mexico, a team of statisticians pore over data, their bright computer screens filled with graphs and charts. Outside, a group of people huddle around a smartphone, furiously typing "do vaccines work" into the Google search bar. In the background, a poster on the wall shows a graph with a clear downward trend from "vaccinated" to "belief in alien abductions."

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 a bustling office in New Mexico, a team of statisticians pore over data, their bright computer screens filled with graphs and charts. Outside, a group of people huddle around a smartphone, furiously typing "do vaccines work" into the Google search bar. In the background, a poster on the wall shows a graph with a clear downward trend from "vaccinated" to "belief in alien abductions." Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image in the style of a TIME magazine cover, depicting a bustling office scene in New Mexico. In the foreground, show a team of statisticians engrossed in data analysis, surrounded by computer screens displaying intricate graphs and charts. Outside the office, depict a group of individuals eagerly gathered around a smartphone, fervently typing "do vaccines work" into the Google search bar. In the background, include a wall poster showcasing a graph with a distinct downward trend from "vaccinated" to "belief in alien abductions." Ensure the image conveys the complex interplay between data analysis, public curiosity, and societal trends.

*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 an increase in The number of statisticians in New Mexico caused do vaccines work (Google searches for 'do vaccines work') to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
InSTATable Evidence: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between New Mexico Statisticians and Google Searches for 'Do Vaccines Work'

The Journal of Quirky Statistical Analyses

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of statisticians in New Mexico and Google searches for 'do vaccines work'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8900129 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2020.

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]]
InSTATable Evidence: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between New Mexico Statisticians and Google Searches for 'Do Vaccines Work'

[[ABSTRACT]]
The perennial debate surrounding the efficacy of vaccines has increasingly pervaded public discourse and prompted socio-scientific inquiry. Drawing on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, this study endeavors to unravel the enigmatic linkage between the number of statisticians in New Mexico and the frequency of internet searches for the query 'do vaccines work'. Utilizing rigorous statistical methods, we established a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8900129 and achieved a statistical significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2004 to 2020. The empirical evidence obtained from this investigation implicates a noteworthy association, sparking contemplation on the potential influences of statistical inference and societal attitudes towards immunization. This study concurrently demonstrates the profound implications of interdisciplinary research and underscores the profound insight that may be gleaned from seemingly incongruous data sources.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of statisticians in New Mexico and Google searches for 'do vaccines work'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
InSTATable Evidence: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between New Mexico Statisticians and Google Searches for 'Do Vaccines Work'

[[ABSTRACT]]
The perennial debate surrounding the efficacy of vaccines has increasingly pervaded public discourse and prompted socio-scientific inquiry. Drawing on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, this study endeavors to unravel the enigmatic linkage between the number of statisticians in New Mexico and the frequency of internet searches for the query 'do vaccines work'. Utilizing rigorous statistical methods, we established a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8900129 and achieved a statistical significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2004 to 2020. The empirical evidence obtained from this investigation implicates a noteworthy association, sparking contemplation on the potential influences of statistical inference and societal attitudes towards immunization. This study concurrently demonstrates the profound implications of interdisciplinary research and underscores the profound insight that may be gleaned from seemingly incongruous data sources.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

In recent years, the public dialogue on vaccinations has been nothing short of contagious, spreading through the digital landscape like an exuberant meme. With polarizing views and conflicting information, the topic of immunization has sparked fervent debates that transcend disciplinary boundaries. As the ebb and flow of public opinion sways like a statistical bar chart, researchers have turned their attention to the quirky correlations and unexpected associations that lie beneath the surface of societal trends.

In an attempt to disentangle the knotty skein of vaccine skepticism and statistical curiosity, we embarked on a data-driven expedition into the state of New Mexico, where the desert sun seems to cast a statistical shadow over the tenuous relationship between the number of statisticians and the fervent inquiries into the effectiveness of vaccines. While some may perceive this as an incongruous pairing akin to a desert mirage, we ventured forth with a pledging spirit to uncover the surprising statistical revelations that awaited us.

The overarching aim of this study is to explore the intersection of mathematical prowess and public health concerns, piecing together the puzzle of why the presence of statisticians appears to be intricately entwined with the surging tide of internet queries asking, "Do vaccines work?" With all the statistical gusto we could muster, we set out to ascertain whether a palpable statistical connection exists between the presence of number-crunching savants and the probing queries that populate search engine databases.

As our investigation unfolds, we present the tantalizing statistical evidence that suggests a quizzical connection between New Mexico statisticians and the cyberspace clamor for vaccine-related knowledge. Through this enigmatic journey, we unveil the underlying statistical nuances that could potentially provide a novel vantage point for understanding the interplay of public opinion and mathematical acumen in the realm of vaccination debates.

The subsequent sections of this paper will deluge the reader with the meticulous methods employed, the robust statistical results obtained, and the thought-provoking implications that materialized from our statistical jaunt through the desert of data. Embrace yourselves, dear reader, for the labyrinth of statistics and the intriguing linkages that dance between New Mexico statisticians and the audacious search queries lie ahead.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of statisticians in New Mexico and Google searches for 'do vaccines work'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
InSTATable Evidence: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between New Mexico Statisticians and Google Searches for 'Do Vaccines Work'

[[ABSTRACT]]
The perennial debate surrounding the efficacy of vaccines has increasingly pervaded public discourse and prompted socio-scientific inquiry. Drawing on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, this study endeavors to unravel the enigmatic linkage between the number of statisticians in New Mexico and the frequency of internet searches for the query 'do vaccines work'. Utilizing rigorous statistical methods, we established a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8900129 and achieved a statistical significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2004 to 2020. The empirical evidence obtained from this investigation implicates a noteworthy association, sparking contemplation on the potential influences of statistical inference and societal attitudes towards immunization. This study concurrently demonstrates the profound implications of interdisciplinary research and underscores the profound insight that may be gleaned from seemingly incongruous data sources.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In recent years, the public dialogue on vaccinations has been nothing short of contagious, spreading through the digital landscape like an exuberant meme. With polarizing views and conflicting information, the topic of immunization has sparked fervent debates that transcend disciplinary boundaries. As the ebb and flow of public opinion sways like a statistical bar chart, researchers have turned their attention to the quirky correlations and unexpected associations that lie beneath the surface of societal trends.
In an attempt to disentangle the knotty skein of vaccine skepticism and statistical curiosity, we embarked on a data-driven expedition into the state of New Mexico, where the desert sun seems to cast a statistical shadow over the tenuous relationship between the number of statisticians and the fervent inquiries into the effectiveness of vaccines. While some may perceive this as an incongruous pairing akin to a desert mirage, we ventured forth with a pledging spirit to uncover the surprising statistical revelations that awaited us.
The overarching aim of this study is to explore the intersection of mathematical prowess and public health concerns, piecing together the puzzle of why the presence of statisticians appears to be intricately entwined with the surging tide of internet queries asking, "Do vaccines work?" With all the statistical gusto we could muster, we set out to ascertain whether a palpable statistical connection exists between the presence of number-crunching savants and the probing queries that populate search engine databases.
As our investigation unfolds, we present the tantalizing statistical evidence that suggests a quizzical connection between New Mexico statisticians and the cyberspace clamor for vaccine-related knowledge. Through this enigmatic journey, we unveil the underlying statistical nuances that could potentially provide a novel vantage point for understanding the interplay of public opinion and mathematical acumen in the realm of vaccination debates.
The subsequent sections of this paper will deluge the reader with the meticulous methods employed, the robust statistical results obtained, and the thought-provoking implications that materialized from our statistical jaunt through the desert of data. Embrace yourselves, dear reader, for the labyrinth of statistics and the intriguing linkages that dance between New Mexico statisticians and the audacious search queries lie ahead.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In Smith's seminal work, "Statistical Significance in Public Health," the authors elucidate the vital role of statisticians in deciphering the complexity of public health phenomena. The interplay of statistical inference and epidemiological investigations underscores the profound implications that statistical expertise holds for understanding population health dynamics. Similarly, Doe and Jones, in "Quantitative Analysis of Vaccine Attitudes," delve into the intricate statistical underpinnings of public attitudes towards immunization, shedding light on the multifaceted nature of vaccine skepticism and acceptance.

As we traverse further into the compendium of literature, it becomes apparent that the intersection of statistics and public health is a fertile ground for scholarly exploration. However, amidst the scholarly tomes, one cannot help but ponder the undeniable allure of non-fiction works that oscillate between statistical finesse and probing musings on public health conundrums. Titles such as "The Numbers Game: Vaccines and Society," "Data Crunchers and Vaccine Hunches," and "Quantitative Quandaries on Inoculations" sparkle with the promise of untangling the statistical threads woven into the fabric of vaccine debates.

In a departure from the confines of the factual, fictitious works also proffer a whimsical lens through which to contemplate the enigmatic relationship between statisticians in New Mexico and the fervent Google searches for vaccine efficacy. Nodding to the realm of fiction, "The Statistical Sleuth and the Search Engine Saga," "Vaccine Ventures: A Statistical Odyssey," and "The Curious Case of Correlation and Causation in New Mexico" present an imaginative foray into the statistical landscape of vaccine inquiries.

On the televisual front, a not-so-coincidental binge of pertinent TV shows proved surprisingly enlightening for this investigation. "Numbers," with its enchanting portrayal of mathematical prowess, "The X-Files," offering a curious blend of inquiry and intrigue, and "Breaking Bad," juxtaposing statistical ambiguity with the New Mexican milieu, all served as inadvertent sources of casual insight regarding statistical expositions and New Mexico's curious charms.

In the pursuit of scholarly rigor, a liberal sprinkling of humor and levity does not go amiss. After all, the statistical odyssey we traverse is not devoid of quirks and idiosyncrasies, much like the enigmatic relationship between New Mexico statisticians and internet inquiries on vaccine efficacy. With such a colorful array of literature, the stage is set for an unforgettable statistical romp through the New Mexican desert.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of statisticians in New Mexico and Google searches for 'do vaccines work'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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 2020

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]]
InSTATable Evidence: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between New Mexico Statisticians and Google Searches for 'Do Vaccines Work'

[[ABSTRACT]]
The perennial debate surrounding the efficacy of vaccines has increasingly pervaded public discourse and prompted socio-scientific inquiry. Drawing on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, this study endeavors to unravel the enigmatic linkage between the number of statisticians in New Mexico and the frequency of internet searches for the query 'do vaccines work'. Utilizing rigorous statistical methods, we established a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8900129 and achieved a statistical significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2004 to 2020. The empirical evidence obtained from this investigation implicates a noteworthy association, sparking contemplation on the potential influences of statistical inference and societal attitudes towards immunization. This study concurrently demonstrates the profound implications of interdisciplinary research and underscores the profound insight that may be gleaned from seemingly incongruous data sources.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In recent years, the public dialogue on vaccinations has been nothing short of contagious, spreading through the digital landscape like an exuberant meme. With polarizing views and conflicting information, the topic of immunization has sparked fervent debates that transcend disciplinary boundaries. As the ebb and flow of public opinion sways like a statistical bar chart, researchers have turned their attention to the quirky correlations and unexpected associations that lie beneath the surface of societal trends.
In an attempt to disentangle the knotty skein of vaccine skepticism and statistical curiosity, we embarked on a data-driven expedition into the state of New Mexico, where the desert sun seems to cast a statistical shadow over the tenuous relationship between the number of statisticians and the fervent inquiries into the effectiveness of vaccines. While some may perceive this as an incongruous pairing akin to a desert mirage, we ventured forth with a pledging spirit to uncover the surprising statistical revelations that awaited us.
The overarching aim of this study is to explore the intersection of mathematical prowess and public health concerns, piecing together the puzzle of why the presence of statisticians appears to be intricately entwined with the surging tide of internet queries asking, "Do vaccines work?" With all the statistical gusto we could muster, we set out to ascertain whether a palpable statistical connection exists between the presence of number-crunching savants and the probing queries that populate search engine databases.
As our investigation unfolds, we present the tantalizing statistical evidence that suggests a quizzical connection between New Mexico statisticians and the cyberspace clamor for vaccine-related knowledge. Through this enigmatic journey, we unveil the underlying statistical nuances that could potentially provide a novel vantage point for understanding the interplay of public opinion and mathematical acumen in the realm of vaccination debates.
The subsequent sections of this paper will deluge the reader with the meticulous methods employed, the robust statistical results obtained, and the thought-provoking implications that materialized from our statistical jaunt through the desert of data. Embrace yourselves, dear reader, for the labyrinth of statistics and the intriguing linkages that dance between New Mexico statisticians and the audacious search queries lie ahead.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

In order to illuminate the statistical relationship between the number of statisticians in New Mexico and the frequency of 'do vaccines work' Google searches, a multifaceted approach was undertaken. The primary data sources for this study were the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, proving that sometimes, the unlikeliest pairings can yield the most intriguing insights.

As with all ambitious endeavors, the data collection process was akin to navigating a convoluted maze. Firstly, data on the number of statisticians employed in New Mexico over the period 2004-2020 was diligently abstracted from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This process required a keen eye for detail and a fascinating appreciation for the bureaucratic beauty of employment databases; it also necessitated a surprising number of caffeinated beverages to prevent any statistical drowsiness from setting in.

To mirror the colorful tapestry of the digital ecosystem, Google Trends served as the conduit to capture the ebbs and flows of public curiosity, particularly when it came to vaccine-related inquiries. The search query 'do vaccines work' was embraced like a long-lost friend, enticing us to unravel its digital behavioral patterns with the voracity of curious statisticians, diving deep into the statistical sea of internet searches.

The data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends was harmoniously combined, creating a lavish statistical feast for analytical appetites. Thanks to the obscurity of our research topic, we reveled in the limelight of data sources that, on the surface, appeared as separate as asymptotes, yet when brought together, coalesced into a wondrous depiction of statistical intrigue.

Following the tumultuous data gathering phase, we settled in to sculpt and mold our data into a form that could be neatly analyzed. Statistical software programs were employed with a fervor rivaling that of an enthusiastic high school geometry student, ever-eager to crack the enigma of an obtuse angle. Through the delicate art of statistical analysis, we were as precise as a mathematician's compass, meticulously measuring the correlation between the number of statisticians and 'do vaccines work' Google searches.

The statistical relationship between these non-traditional bedfellows was then rigorously scrutinized using correlation analysis, akin to peering through the lens of a statistical microscope to detect the tiniest traces of association, no matter how elusive. The resulting correlation coefficient emerged like a dazzling gem, its brilliance casting a glow over our statistical efforts and creating an 'aha' moment akin to stumbling across an unexpected punchline in a dense statistical tome.

In addition, significance testing was carried out, demonstrating the statistical robustness of our findings with a confidence level that was as sturdy as a well-constructed regression model. The p-value calculations were the subject of many a sleepless night, but the empirical rigor they added to our study was well worth the statistical sacrifice.

It is here that we could regale the reader with tales of "missing data" and the intricacies of model selection, but in the interest of economy and brevity, we shall confine ourselves to a sanctuary of succinctness.

The ensuing sections of this paper will unveil the triumphant dimensions of our statistical analysis, presenting the beguiling insights that emerged from the fusion of New Mexico statisticians and Google search inquiries. Prepare to be captivated as we unravel the statistical enigma that surrounds the seemingly disparate entities of number-crunching aficionados and digital queries.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of statisticians in New Mexico and Google searches for 'do vaccines work'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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 2020, you found a correlation 0.8900129, r-squared of 0.7921229, 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]]
InSTATable Evidence: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between New Mexico Statisticians and Google Searches for 'Do Vaccines Work'

[[ABSTRACT]]
The perennial debate surrounding the efficacy of vaccines has increasingly pervaded public discourse and prompted socio-scientific inquiry. Drawing on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, this study endeavors to unravel the enigmatic linkage between the number of statisticians in New Mexico and the frequency of internet searches for the query 'do vaccines work'. Utilizing rigorous statistical methods, we established a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8900129 and achieved a statistical significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2004 to 2020. The empirical evidence obtained from this investigation implicates a noteworthy association, sparking contemplation on the potential influences of statistical inference and societal attitudes towards immunization. This study concurrently demonstrates the profound implications of interdisciplinary research and underscores the profound insight that may be gleaned from seemingly incongruous data sources.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In recent years, the public dialogue on vaccinations has been nothing short of contagious, spreading through the digital landscape like an exuberant meme. With polarizing views and conflicting information, the topic of immunization has sparked fervent debates that transcend disciplinary boundaries. As the ebb and flow of public opinion sways like a statistical bar chart, researchers have turned their attention to the quirky correlations and unexpected associations that lie beneath the surface of societal trends.
In an attempt to disentangle the knotty skein of vaccine skepticism and statistical curiosity, we embarked on a data-driven expedition into the state of New Mexico, where the desert sun seems to cast a statistical shadow over the tenuous relationship between the number of statisticians and the fervent inquiries into the effectiveness of vaccines. While some may perceive this as an incongruous pairing akin to a desert mirage, we ventured forth with a pledging spirit to uncover the surprising statistical revelations that awaited us.
The overarching aim of this study is to explore the intersection of mathematical prowess and public health concerns, piecing together the puzzle of why the presence of statisticians appears to be intricately entwined with the surging tide of internet queries asking, "Do vaccines work?" With all the statistical gusto we could muster, we set out to ascertain whether a palpable statistical connection exists between the presence of number-crunching savants and the probing queries that populate search engine databases.
As our investigation unfolds, we present the tantalizing statistical evidence that suggests a quizzical connection between New Mexico statisticians and the cyberspace clamor for vaccine-related knowledge. Through this enigmatic journey, we unveil the underlying statistical nuances that could potentially provide a novel vantage point for understanding the interplay of public opinion and mathematical acumen in the realm of vaccination debates.
The subsequent sections of this paper will deluge the reader with the meticulous methods employed, the robust statistical results obtained, and the thought-provoking implications that materialized from our statistical jaunt through the desert of data. Embrace yourselves, dear reader, for the labyrinth of statistics and the intriguing linkages that dance between New Mexico statisticians and the audacious search queries lie ahead.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong positive correlation of 0.8900129 (p < 0.01) between the number of statisticians employed in New Mexico and the frequency of Google searches for 'do vaccines work' from 2004 to 2020. This correlation, with an r-squared value of 0.7921229, demonstrates an astonishing degree of association between the two seemingly disparate sets of data.

Figure 1 illustrates the striking relationship between the number of statisticians and the frequency of searches for vaccine efficacy. As the number of statisticians in the Land of Enchantment increases, so does the fervor of individuals fervently typing "do vaccines work" into their search bar. It seems that as statisticians in New Mexico crunch numbers, the public's curiosity about vaccine effectiveness experiences a statistical surge of its own.

The findings not only attest to the statistical prowess of New Mexico's number-crunching aficionados but also provoke a bemused inquiry into the nature of this puzzling correlation. One cannot help but muse whether an increase in statisticians influences public attitudes towards vaccination, or if the public's search for vaccine-related information motivates analysts to explore the nuances of data in greater depth. The dynamics at play here are as enthralling as an unexpected resurgence in statistical interest.

In perplexing fashion, these results burst forth with thought-provoking implications. Beyond the dry desert landscape lies a statistical mirage, where the convergence of statisticians and vaccine queries spawns a phenomenon worthy of both statistical and societal consideration. The juxtaposition of numbers and vaccine queries in the digital sphere presents an intriguing tableau, calling into question the often obscure interplay between empirical data and public inquiry.

Our findings hint at the enigmatic nature of statistical curiosity and its unexpected influence on public behaviors. As statisticians labor over their data tables, the public's yearning for vaccination-related knowledge seems to sway in harmonious synchrony. While these revelations may initially elicit a wry smile, they also beckon further investigation into the complex relationship between number-crunching acumen and public attitudes. This statistical odyssey through the digital desert uncovers an unanticipated oasis of correlation, inviting contemplation on the intersecting realms of data analytics and public discourse.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of statisticians in New Mexico and Google searches for 'do vaccines work'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
InSTATable Evidence: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between New Mexico Statisticians and Google Searches for 'Do Vaccines Work'

[[ABSTRACT]]
The perennial debate surrounding the efficacy of vaccines has increasingly pervaded public discourse and prompted socio-scientific inquiry. Drawing on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, this study endeavors to unravel the enigmatic linkage between the number of statisticians in New Mexico and the frequency of internet searches for the query 'do vaccines work'. Utilizing rigorous statistical methods, we established a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8900129 and achieved a statistical significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2004 to 2020. The empirical evidence obtained from this investigation implicates a noteworthy association, sparking contemplation on the potential influences of statistical inference and societal attitudes towards immunization. This study concurrently demonstrates the profound implications of interdisciplinary research and underscores the profound insight that may be gleaned from seemingly incongruous data sources.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In Smith's seminal work, "Statistical Significance in Public Health," the authors elucidate the vital role of statisticians in deciphering the complexity of public health phenomena. The interplay of statistical inference and epidemiological investigations underscores the profound implications that statistical expertise holds for understanding population health dynamics. Similarly, Doe and Jones, in "Quantitative Analysis of Vaccine Attitudes," delve into the intricate statistical underpinnings of public attitudes towards immunization, shedding light on the multifaceted nature of vaccine skepticism and acceptance.
As we traverse further into the compendium of literature, it becomes apparent that the intersection of statistics and public health is a fertile ground for scholarly exploration. However, amidst the scholarly tomes, one cannot help but ponder the undeniable allure of non-fiction works that oscillate between statistical finesse and probing musings on public health conundrums. Titles such as "The Numbers Game: Vaccines and Society," "Data Crunchers and Vaccine Hunches," and "Quantitative Quandaries on Inoculations" sparkle with the promise of untangling the statistical threads woven into the fabric of vaccine debates.
In a departure from the confines of the factual, fictitious works also proffer a whimsical lens through which to contemplate the enigmatic relationship between statisticians in New Mexico and the fervent Google searches for vaccine efficacy. Nodding to the realm of fiction, "The Statistical Sleuth and the Search Engine Saga," "Vaccine Ventures: A Statistical Odyssey," and "The Curious Case of Correlation and Causation in New Mexico" present an imaginative foray into the statistical landscape of vaccine inquiries.
On the televisual front, a not-so-coincidental binge of pertinent TV shows proved surprisingly enlightening for this investigation. "Numbers," with its enchanting portrayal of mathematical prowess, "The X-Files," offering a curious blend of inquiry and intrigue, and "Breaking Bad," juxtaposing statistical ambiguity with the New Mexican milieu, all served as inadvertent sources of casual insight regarding statistical expositions and New Mexico's curious charms.
In the pursuit of scholarly rigor, a liberal sprinkling of humor and levity does not go amiss. After all, the statistical odyssey we traverse is not devoid of quirks and idiosyncrasies, much like the enigmatic relationship between New Mexico statisticians and internet inquiries on vaccine efficacy. With such a colorful array of literature, the stage is set for an unforgettable statistical romp through the New Mexican desert.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong positive correlation of 0.8900129 (p < 0.01) between the number of statisticians employed in New Mexico and the frequency of Google searches for 'do vaccines work' from 2004 to 2020. This correlation, with an r-squared value of 0.7921229, demonstrates an astonishing degree of association between the two seemingly disparate sets of data.
Figure 1 illustrates the striking relationship between the number of statisticians and the frequency of searches for vaccine efficacy. As the number of statisticians in the Land of Enchantment increases, so does the fervor of individuals fervently typing "do vaccines work" into their search bar. It seems that as statisticians in New Mexico crunch numbers, the public's curiosity about vaccine effectiveness experiences a statistical surge of its own.
The findings not only attest to the statistical prowess of New Mexico's number-crunching aficionados but also provoke a bemused inquiry into the nature of this puzzling correlation. One cannot help but muse whether an increase in statisticians influences public attitudes towards vaccination, or if the public's search for vaccine-related information motivates analysts to explore the nuances of data in greater depth. The dynamics at play here are as enthralling as an unexpected resurgence in statistical interest.
In perplexing fashion, these results burst forth with thought-provoking implications. Beyond the dry desert landscape lies a statistical mirage, where the convergence of statisticians and vaccine queries spawns a phenomenon worthy of both statistical and societal consideration. The juxtaposition of numbers and vaccine queries in the digital sphere presents an intriguing tableau, calling into question the often obscure interplay between empirical data and public inquiry.
Our findings hint at the enigmatic nature of statistical curiosity and its unexpected influence on public behaviors. As statisticians labor over their data tables, the public's yearning for vaccination-related knowledge seems to sway in harmonious synchrony. While these revelations may initially elicit a wry smile, they also beckon further investigation into the complex relationship between number-crunching acumen and public attitudes. This statistical odyssey through the digital desert uncovers an unanticipated oasis of correlation, inviting contemplation on the intersecting realms of data analytics and public discourse.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study, which have unveiled a remarkably robust correlation between the number of statisticians in New Mexico and the frequency of Google searches for 'do vaccines work', not only substantiate the existing literature but also raise thought-provoking considerations. It is gratifying to see our empirical evidence aligning with the insights put forth in the literature. The works of Smith and Doe and Jones aptly underscore the indispensable role of statisticians in unraveling public health enigmas and delving into the multifaceted nature of vaccine attitudes. Moreover, our inconspicuous references to the fictitious explorations of "The Statistical Sleuth and the Search Engine Saga" and the whimsical "Vaccine Ventures: A Statistical Odyssey" now manifest as nods to a previously unexplored truth.

The remarkable level of correlation unveiled by our study invites a delightful pondering: does the affinity for statistical inquiry among New Mexico's number-crunching savants inadvertently influence the public's curiosity about vaccine efficacy, or is it the fervent searches for vaccine information that spark a statistical renaissance?

The statistical odyssey we have embarked upon beckons further investigation into the complex relationship between quantitative prowess and public inquiries. The juxtaposition of these seemingly unrelated phenomena appears to embody a mirage in the digital desert, where statistical prowess and public curiosity dance in harmonious synchrony.

This unexpected oasis of correlation uncovered in the digital sphere certainly calls for deeper contemplation of the intersecting realms of data analytics and public discourse. The prospects appear staggering, and our journey has only just started to unearth the enthralling dynamics at play. As we continue to untangle this statistical web, the potential insights and implications will undoubtedly unfurl with the flair and drama of a New Mexican sunset.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of statisticians in New Mexico and Google searches for 'do vaccines work'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
InSTATable Evidence: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between New Mexico Statisticians and Google Searches for 'Do Vaccines Work'

[[ABSTRACT]]
The perennial debate surrounding the efficacy of vaccines has increasingly pervaded public discourse and prompted socio-scientific inquiry. Drawing on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, this study endeavors to unravel the enigmatic linkage between the number of statisticians in New Mexico and the frequency of internet searches for the query 'do vaccines work'. Utilizing rigorous statistical methods, we established a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8900129 and achieved a statistical significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2004 to 2020. The empirical evidence obtained from this investigation implicates a noteworthy association, sparking contemplation on the potential influences of statistical inference and societal attitudes towards immunization. This study concurrently demonstrates the profound implications of interdisciplinary research and underscores the profound insight that may be gleaned from seemingly incongruous data sources.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In recent years, the public dialogue on vaccinations has been nothing short of contagious, spreading through the digital landscape like an exuberant meme. With polarizing views and conflicting information, the topic of immunization has sparked fervent debates that transcend disciplinary boundaries. As the ebb and flow of public opinion sways like a statistical bar chart, researchers have turned their attention to the quirky correlations and unexpected associations that lie beneath the surface of societal trends.
In an attempt to disentangle the knotty skein of vaccine skepticism and statistical curiosity, we embarked on a data-driven expedition into the state of New Mexico, where the desert sun seems to cast a statistical shadow over the tenuous relationship between the number of statisticians and the fervent inquiries into the effectiveness of vaccines. While some may perceive this as an incongruous pairing akin to a desert mirage, we ventured forth with a pledging spirit to uncover the surprising statistical revelations that awaited us.
The overarching aim of this study is to explore the intersection of mathematical prowess and public health concerns, piecing together the puzzle of why the presence of statisticians appears to be intricately entwined with the surging tide of internet queries asking, "Do vaccines work?" With all the statistical gusto we could muster, we set out to ascertain whether a palpable statistical connection exists between the presence of number-crunching savants and the probing queries that populate search engine databases.
As our investigation unfolds, we present the tantalizing statistical evidence that suggests a quizzical connection between New Mexico statisticians and the cyberspace clamor for vaccine-related knowledge. Through this enigmatic journey, we unveil the underlying statistical nuances that could potentially provide a novel vantage point for understanding the interplay of public opinion and mathematical acumen in the realm of vaccination debates.
The subsequent sections of this paper will deluge the reader with the meticulous methods employed, the robust statistical results obtained, and the thought-provoking implications that materialized from our statistical jaunt through the desert of data. Embrace yourselves, dear reader, for the labyrinth of statistics and the intriguing linkages that dance between New Mexico statisticians and the audacious search queries lie ahead.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis revealed a remarkably strong positive correlation of 0.8900129 (p < 0.01) between the number of statisticians employed in New Mexico and the frequency of Google searches for 'do vaccines work' from 2004 to 2020. This correlation, with an r-squared value of 0.7921229, demonstrates an astonishing degree of association between the two seemingly disparate sets of data.
Figure 1 illustrates the striking relationship between the number of statisticians and the frequency of searches for vaccine efficacy. As the number of statisticians in the Land of Enchantment increases, so does the fervor of individuals fervently typing "do vaccines work" into their search bar. It seems that as statisticians in New Mexico crunch numbers, the public's curiosity about vaccine effectiveness experiences a statistical surge of its own.
The findings not only attest to the statistical prowess of New Mexico's number-crunching aficionados but also provoke a bemused inquiry into the nature of this puzzling correlation. One cannot help but muse whether an increase in statisticians influences public attitudes towards vaccination, or if the public's search for vaccine-related information motivates analysts to explore the nuances of data in greater depth. The dynamics at play here are as enthralling as an unexpected resurgence in statistical interest.
In perplexing fashion, these results burst forth with thought-provoking implications. Beyond the dry desert landscape lies a statistical mirage, where the convergence of statisticians and vaccine queries spawns a phenomenon worthy of both statistical and societal consideration. The juxtaposition of numbers and vaccine queries in the digital sphere presents an intriguing tableau, calling into question the often obscure interplay between empirical data and public inquiry.
Our findings hint at the enigmatic nature of statistical curiosity and its unexpected influence on public behaviors. As statisticians labor over their data tables, the public's yearning for vaccination-related knowledge seems to sway in harmonious synchrony. While these revelations may initially elicit a wry smile, they also beckon further investigation into the complex relationship between number-crunching acumen and public attitudes. This statistical odyssey through the digital desert uncovers an unanticipated oasis of correlation, inviting contemplation on the intersecting realms of data analytics and public discourse.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our statistical investigation into the intriguingly linked occurrences of the number of statisticians in New Mexico and Google searches for 'do vaccines work' has uncovered a compelling association worthy of scrutiny. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.8900129 and statistically significant p-value suggest a palpable relationship that looms larger than life, not unlike an unexpected outlier in a scatter plot.

As we contemplate the spirited dance between statistical expertise and public curiosity, it becomes evident that this linkage transcends conventional paradigms of inquiry and begs the question of what other statistical phenomena lie buried beneath the sands of public discourse. It's as if statistical enthusiasts in the desert exude an invisible influence compelling individuals to delve into the depths of vaccine efficacy, creating a statistical feedback loop of intellectual curiosity and empirical exploration.

Our findings, though enigmatic and amusing in their own right, raise profound questions about the interplay between statistical inquiry and societal attitudes. Whether it's the statistical prowess of New Mexico's number-crunching aficionados shaping public perception or the inquisitive public driving statisticians to unravel new statistical depths, the entwining of statistical acumen and public inquiry yields a tapestry of unforeseen correlations that beckon further contemplation.

In this light, we assert with statistical confidence that no further research on this peculiar correlation is warranted. Our findings tantalize the statistical taste buds while hinting at a world of hidden correlations awaiting discovery. It seems that even in the arid landscape of statistical analysis, the unexpected blooms like a desert flower, reminding us that statistics, like the desert sands, conceal beguiling patterns beneath their surface.


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 InSTATable Evidence: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between New Mexico Statisticians and Google Searches for 'Do Vaccines Work'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Statistical Analyses


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 InSTATable Evidence: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between New Mexico Statisticians and Google Searches for 'Do Vaccines Work'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Advancement of Statistical Research and Analysis (SASRA)


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 InSTATable Evidence: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship Between New Mexico Statisticians and Google Searches for 'Do Vaccines Work' with an abstract of The perennial debate surrounding the efficacy of vaccines has increasingly pervaded public discourse and prompted socio-scientific inquiry. Drawing on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, this study endeavors to unravel the enigmatic linkage between the number of statisticians in New Mexico and the frequency of internet searches for the query 'do vaccines work'. Utilizing rigorous statistical methods, we established a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8900129 and achieved a statistical significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2004 to 2020. The empirical evidence obtained from this investigation implicates a noteworthy association, sparking contemplation on the potential influences of statistical inference and societal attitudes towards immunization. This study concurrently demonstrates the profound implications of interdisciplinary research and underscores the profound insight that may be gleaned from seemingly incongruous data sources.

ChatGPT:

vaccines, efficacy, public discourse, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Google Trends, statisticians, New Mexico, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, immunization, interdisciplinary research, data sources

*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 statisticians in New Mexico
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of statisticians in New Mexico
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of statisticians in New Mexico

Google searches for 'do vaccines work'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'do vaccines work' (United States, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'do vaccines work'

Correlation r = 0.8900129 (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 = 0.7921229 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 79.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'do vaccines work') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of statisticians in New Mexico) over the 17 years from 2004 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.7E-6. 0.0000017152367544633827000000
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 0.89 in 0.00017% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 583,010 random variables You don't actually need 583 thousand 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 16 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 16 because we have two variables measured over a period of 17 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.

[ 0.72, 0.96 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
20042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020
The number of statisticians in New Mexico (Statisticians)4030507050707090709080130909070190200
Google searches for 'do vaccines work' (Rel. search volume)53.254.083334.083334.166678.55.666677.916677.66667911.166714.166711.333312.514.333319.2535.8333




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.




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([40,30,50,70,50,70,70,90,70,90,80,130,90,90,70,190,200,])
array_2 = np.array([5,3.25,4.08333,4.08333,4.16667,8.5,5.66667,7.91667,7.66667,9,11.1667,14.1667,11.3333,12.5,14.3333,19.25,35.8333,])
array_1_name = "The number of statisticians in New Mexico"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'do vaccines work'"

# 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?

Your rating skills are top-notch!


Correlation ID: 2917 · Black Variable ID: 11787 · Red Variable ID: 1433
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0