about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #3,478 · 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 forest and conservation workers in Washington and the second variable is Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

They're experts at creating a believable foliage cover-up. We could say they really know how to branch out into new identities. It seems like their skills are not going unnoticed, they're really leaving a treeail of influence.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a serene woodland in Washington, with towering trees and dappled sunlight filtering through the leaves. In the foreground, a team of forest and conservation workers is engaged in various tasks, surrounded by lush foliage. Some members of the team are shown pausing from their work, discreetly using their phones. The atmosphere is tranquil, yet the contrast between their diligent efforts in the forest and their secretive internet searches creates a subtle tension. 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 forest and conservation workers in Washington and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. 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: Charcoal A scene from Skyrim Cybernetic art Glitch art Symbolism
ChatGPT: A scene from Skyrim

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 forest and conservation workers in Washington and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death', in the following situation: The increase in forest and conservation workers in Washington led to an influx of skilled individuals well-versed in disappearing into dense wooded areas, subsequently sparking a renewed interest in faking one's own demise to escape the scrutiny of a particularly aggravating lumberjack.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a serene woodland in Washington, a team of forest and conservation workers is gathered together, all diligently tending to the dense foliage. In the midst of their work, a few of them pause and open their phones, discreetly searching for "how to fake your own death" on Google. The juxtaposition of their dedication to the forest and their clandestine internet searches captures the unusual convergence of these two variables in the tranquil setting of the forest.

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 scene from Skyrim ] and depicting this scene: In a serene woodland in Washington, a team of forest and conservation workers is gathered together, all diligently tending to the dense foliage. In the midst of their work, a few of them pause and open their phones, discreetly searching for "how to fake your own death" on Google. The juxtaposition of their dedication to the forest and their clandestine internet searches captures the unusual convergence of these two variables in the tranquil setting of the forest. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a serene woodland in Washington, with towering trees and dappled sunlight filtering through the leaves. In the foreground, a team of forest and conservation workers is engaged in various tasks, surrounded by lush foliage. Some members of the team are shown pausing from their work, discreetly using their phones. The atmosphere is tranquil, yet the contrast between their diligent efforts in the forest and their secretive internet searches creates a subtle tension.

*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 forest and conservation workers in Washington positively influenced how to fake your own death (Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'). Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Timber Terrors: The Lumbering Link Between Forest and Conservation Workers in Washington and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'

Journal of Forestry and Behavioral Sciences

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of forest and conservation workers in Washington and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Include a pun 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 0.7405500 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2021.

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]]
"Timber Terrors: The Lumbering Link Between Forest and Conservation Workers in Washington and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we sought to investigate the seemingly bizarre correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. With a forest of data at our disposal courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we delved into the wooded world of employment numbers and internet intrigue. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7405500 and a statistically significant relationship with p < 0.01, spanning the years 2004 to 2021.

As we peeled back the layers of this peculiar partnership, it became clear that forest and conservation workers in Washington were somehow entangled in the web of macabre curiosity that led to these unconventional online queries. Our results not only highlight the intertwining branches of labor statistics and search engine data but also offer a unique perspective on occupational trends and the mysterious ways in which they intersect with our digital world.

Of course, we couldn't help but ponder whether these findings might be a result of "branching out" into new hobbies or simply an unintended consequence of spending too much time in the woods. But as they say, when it comes to correlation, sometimes you just can't see the forest for the search trends.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of forest and conservation workers in Washington and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
"Timber Terrors: The Lumbering Link Between Forest and Conservation Workers in Washington and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we sought to investigate the seemingly bizarre correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. With a forest of data at our disposal courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we delved into the wooded world of employment numbers and internet intrigue. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7405500 and a statistically significant relationship with p < 0.01, spanning the years 2004 to 2021.

As we peeled back the layers of this peculiar partnership, it became clear that forest and conservation workers in Washington were somehow entangled in the web of macabre curiosity that led to these unconventional online queries. Our results not only highlight the intertwining branches of labor statistics and search engine data but also offer a unique perspective on occupational trends and the mysterious ways in which they intersect with our digital world.

Of course, we couldn't help but ponder whether these findings might be a result of "branching out" into new hobbies or simply an unintended consequence of spending too much time in the woods. But as they say, when it comes to correlation, sometimes you just can't see the forest for the search trends.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The pursuit of truth often leads researchers down unexpected paths and into the most peculiar of correlations. In the world of data analysis, we are accustomed to uncovering connections that may seem esoteric at first glance but reveal underlying patterns worthy of investigation. One such enigma that captured our attention is the curious link between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'.

We found this topic so fascinating that we simply had to "branch" out and explore its potential implications. Certainly, the idea of individuals in forestry-related occupations being associated with searches about faking one's demise raises eyebrows, not to mention a few timber jokes.

It is worth noting that the term "lumbering" takes on a whole new meaning in the context of this research, as we delve into the statistical landscape of both employment figures and online behavioral trends. The interconnectedness of these seemingly disparate elements may leave one pondering whether there is something more sinister at play or if it's all just a "tree-mendous" coincidence.

Our objective in this study is not only to present the statistical evidence of this correlation but also to provide a deeper understanding of the underlying factors driving such an unexpected relationship. As we "forge" ahead into the analysis, we invite the reader to join us in this journey through the "wooded" world of employment data and online curiosity.

In the spirit of combining levity with scholarly pursuits, let us not lose sight of the forest for the trees or the data for the search trends._FETCH_FAILED


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of forest and conservation workers in Washington and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. 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 name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Timber Terrors: The Lumbering Link Between Forest and Conservation Workers in Washington and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we sought to investigate the seemingly bizarre correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. With a forest of data at our disposal courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we delved into the wooded world of employment numbers and internet intrigue. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7405500 and a statistically significant relationship with p < 0.01, spanning the years 2004 to 2021.

As we peeled back the layers of this peculiar partnership, it became clear that forest and conservation workers in Washington were somehow entangled in the web of macabre curiosity that led to these unconventional online queries. Our results not only highlight the intertwining branches of labor statistics and search engine data but also offer a unique perspective on occupational trends and the mysterious ways in which they intersect with our digital world.

Of course, we couldn't help but ponder whether these findings might be a result of "branching out" into new hobbies or simply an unintended consequence of spending too much time in the woods. But as they say, when it comes to correlation, sometimes you just can't see the forest for the search trends.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The pursuit of truth often leads researchers down unexpected paths and into the most peculiar of correlations. In the world of data analysis, we are accustomed to uncovering connections that may seem esoteric at first glance but reveal underlying patterns worthy of investigation. One such enigma that captured our attention is the curious link between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'.
We found this topic so fascinating that we simply had to "branch" out and explore its potential implications. Certainly, the idea of individuals in forestry-related occupations being associated with searches about faking one's demise raises eyebrows, not to mention a few timber jokes.
It is worth noting that the term "lumbering" takes on a whole new meaning in the context of this research, as we delve into the statistical landscape of both employment figures and online behavioral trends. The interconnectedness of these seemingly disparate elements may leave one pondering whether there is something more sinister at play or if it's all just a "tree-mendous" coincidence.
Our objective in this study is not only to present the statistical evidence of this correlation but also to provide a deeper understanding of the underlying factors driving such an unexpected relationship. As we "forge" ahead into the analysis, we invite the reader to join us in this journey through the "wooded" world of employment data and online curiosity.
In the spirit of combining levity with scholarly pursuits, let us not lose sight of the forest for the trees or the data for the search trends._FETCH_FAILED

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In their groundbreaking study, Smith and Doe (2015) provide a thorough examination of employment trends in Washington state's forestry sector, shedding light on the demographics and occupational dynamics of forest and conservation workers. The study offers valuable insights into the labor force composition, job characteristics, and regional distribution, painting a comprehensive picture of the forest-related workforce. Nevertheless, we found their analysis to be lacking in one critical aspect: the exploration of the peculiar link between these workers and the inexplicable surge in online searches for ways to simulate one's own demise.

Jones et al. (2018) contribute to the literature with a detailed investigation of Google search patterns related to unusual and unexplained topics. Their study delves into the psychology behind unconventional online queries, offering a glimpse into the mysterious inclinations of internet users. While their findings enhance our understanding of digital behavior, the notable absence of any mention of forest or conservation-related occupations in their analysis leaves an intriguing gap in the scholarly discourse.

Turning our attention to non-fiction literature, "The Hidden Life of Trees" by Peter Wohlleben presents a captivating exploration of the interconnectedness and resilience of forest ecosystems. This work provides a wealth of knowledge about the intricate dynamics at play within wooded environments, but regrettably, it offers no clues about the clandestine connection between forestry workers and inquiries about faking one's demise.

A stark departure from non-fiction, we encounter "The Secret History of Twin Peaks" by Mark Frost, a fictional narrative woven with enigmatic tales and hidden truths. While the book may not directly address the correlation under scrutiny, its mysterious storytelling and concealed revelations seem to resonate with the enigmatic nature of our research findings.

In the realm of internet culture, the "Is This a Pigeon?" meme encapsulates the essence of misguided identification, mirroring the puzzling nature of this correlation. Additionally, the "Hide the Pain Harold" meme captures the essence of concealing one's true emotions, providing an abstract connection to the concept of faking one's own demise.

As we maneuver through the thickets of academic literature and pop culture references, we are reminded that even the most rigorous research pursuits benefit from a touch of humor and a healthy dose of curiosity. In the midst of our investigations, we could not resist the temptation to inject a bit of levity, for after all, when it comes to the correlation between forestry labor statistics and Google search trends, it appears that sometimes you really can't see the forest for the search trends.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of forest and conservation workers in Washington and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 2021

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]]
"Timber Terrors: The Lumbering Link Between Forest and Conservation Workers in Washington and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we sought to investigate the seemingly bizarre correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. With a forest of data at our disposal courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we delved into the wooded world of employment numbers and internet intrigue. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7405500 and a statistically significant relationship with p < 0.01, spanning the years 2004 to 2021.

As we peeled back the layers of this peculiar partnership, it became clear that forest and conservation workers in Washington were somehow entangled in the web of macabre curiosity that led to these unconventional online queries. Our results not only highlight the intertwining branches of labor statistics and search engine data but also offer a unique perspective on occupational trends and the mysterious ways in which they intersect with our digital world.

Of course, we couldn't help but ponder whether these findings might be a result of "branching out" into new hobbies or simply an unintended consequence of spending too much time in the woods. But as they say, when it comes to correlation, sometimes you just can't see the forest for the search trends.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The pursuit of truth often leads researchers down unexpected paths and into the most peculiar of correlations. In the world of data analysis, we are accustomed to uncovering connections that may seem esoteric at first glance but reveal underlying patterns worthy of investigation. One such enigma that captured our attention is the curious link between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'.
We found this topic so fascinating that we simply had to "branch" out and explore its potential implications. Certainly, the idea of individuals in forestry-related occupations being associated with searches about faking one's demise raises eyebrows, not to mention a few timber jokes.
It is worth noting that the term "lumbering" takes on a whole new meaning in the context of this research, as we delve into the statistical landscape of both employment figures and online behavioral trends. The interconnectedness of these seemingly disparate elements may leave one pondering whether there is something more sinister at play or if it's all just a "tree-mendous" coincidence.
Our objective in this study is not only to present the statistical evidence of this correlation but also to provide a deeper understanding of the underlying factors driving such an unexpected relationship. As we "forge" ahead into the analysis, we invite the reader to join us in this journey through the "wooded" world of employment data and online curiosity.
In the spirit of combining levity with scholarly pursuits, let us not lose sight of the forest for the trees or the data for the search trends._FETCH_FAILED

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unearth the roots of the perplexing correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death', our research team embarked on a methodological journey teeming with intrigue and the occasional tree pun.

First and foremost, we gathered employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, meticulously sifting through occupational records spanning the years 2004 to 2021. This comprehensive undertaking involved delving into the employment figures of forest and conservation workers in Washington state, allowing us to lay the groundwork for our subsequent analysis. Our approach to data collection was as thorough as a forest ranger checking for fallen timber, leaving no statistical stump unturned.

Next, to capture the digital dimension of our inquiry, we turned to Google Trends, a virtual arboretum of search query data. We carefully harvested information on the frequency of searches for phrases related to 'how to fake your own death', seeking patterns and fluctuations that could shed light on the internet's peculiar predilection for morbid curiosity. Our approach to navigating the virtual wilderness of search trends involved employing a mix of keyword selection and temporal analysis, akin to mapping out a forest clearing to identify patterns of sunlight and shade.

While our methodological approach may not involve axe-swinging loggers or undercover detective work, it did require a keen eye for detail and an appreciation for the nuances of both labor statistics and online search behavior. After all, when exploring the correlation between forestry employment and macabre online quests, precision and thoroughness were paramount.

In conducting an analysis that waded through the underbrush of employment numbers and the digital thicket of internet search queries, we strived to avoid getting "stumped" by potential biases or confounding factors. Our meticulous approach sought to "branch" out beyond surface-level correlation to ascertain the underlying factors that might be influencing this unexpected relationship.

Additionally, because we couldn't resist the lure of humor even in the most scholarly of pursuits, our methodologies involved occasional checks for pun-induced eye rolls and an ongoing quest to infuse the discourse with a hint of levity. After all, when uncovering the unexpected, a little laughter can serve as the perfect compass to guide us through the "twists and turns" of our data analysis.

In sum, our methodology combined the rigors of statistical analysis with the whimsical charm of wordplay, resulting in an approach that aimed to bring both scholarly gravitas and a touch of woodland whimsy to our investigative endeavors. Simply put, we navigated through this research journey with a steadfast determination to leave no statistical stone unturned, all the while weaving in the occasional pun to infuse our scholarly pursuits with lightheartedness and levity.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of forest and conservation workers in Washington and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 2021, you found a correlation 0.7405500, r-squared of 0.5484143, 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]]
"Timber Terrors: The Lumbering Link Between Forest and Conservation Workers in Washington and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we sought to investigate the seemingly bizarre correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. With a forest of data at our disposal courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we delved into the wooded world of employment numbers and internet intrigue. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7405500 and a statistically significant relationship with p < 0.01, spanning the years 2004 to 2021.

As we peeled back the layers of this peculiar partnership, it became clear that forest and conservation workers in Washington were somehow entangled in the web of macabre curiosity that led to these unconventional online queries. Our results not only highlight the intertwining branches of labor statistics and search engine data but also offer a unique perspective on occupational trends and the mysterious ways in which they intersect with our digital world.

Of course, we couldn't help but ponder whether these findings might be a result of "branching out" into new hobbies or simply an unintended consequence of spending too much time in the woods. But as they say, when it comes to correlation, sometimes you just can't see the forest for the search trends.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The pursuit of truth often leads researchers down unexpected paths and into the most peculiar of correlations. In the world of data analysis, we are accustomed to uncovering connections that may seem esoteric at first glance but reveal underlying patterns worthy of investigation. One such enigma that captured our attention is the curious link between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'.
We found this topic so fascinating that we simply had to "branch" out and explore its potential implications. Certainly, the idea of individuals in forestry-related occupations being associated with searches about faking one's demise raises eyebrows, not to mention a few timber jokes.
It is worth noting that the term "lumbering" takes on a whole new meaning in the context of this research, as we delve into the statistical landscape of both employment figures and online behavioral trends. The interconnectedness of these seemingly disparate elements may leave one pondering whether there is something more sinister at play or if it's all just a "tree-mendous" coincidence.
Our objective in this study is not only to present the statistical evidence of this correlation but also to provide a deeper understanding of the underlying factors driving such an unexpected relationship. As we "forge" ahead into the analysis, we invite the reader to join us in this journey through the "wooded" world of employment data and online curiosity.
In the spirit of combining levity with scholarly pursuits, let us not lose sight of the forest for the trees or the data for the search trends._FETCH_FAILED

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Upon conducting our analysis, we found a notable correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. The correlation coefficient was determined to be 0.7405500, with an r-squared value of 0.5484143, and a p-value of less than 0.01. This signifies a strong positive relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables, indicating that as employment in the forestry sector increases, so do the searches related to faking one's demise.

Fig. 1 displays a scatterplot illustrating the robust correlation between the variables, with each data point resembling a tree in a forest, standing tall amidst the statistical underbrush. Much like a well-rooted tree, the relationship is firmly grounded in the data, providing a clear visual representation of the bizarre connection we uncovered.

Now, one might wonder, "Why would forest and conservation workers be associated with searches for faking one's own death?" Well, to humor you for a moment, maybe they were simply "pining" for a change in career or seeking an "exit strategy" from the daily grind. After all, who wouldn't want to "leaf" their troubles behind and start anew? However, in all seriousness, the reasons behind this correlation necessitate further investigation beyond mere speculation.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of forest and conservation workers in Washington and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
"Timber Terrors: The Lumbering Link Between Forest and Conservation Workers in Washington and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we sought to investigate the seemingly bizarre correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. With a forest of data at our disposal courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we delved into the wooded world of employment numbers and internet intrigue. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7405500 and a statistically significant relationship with p < 0.01, spanning the years 2004 to 2021.

As we peeled back the layers of this peculiar partnership, it became clear that forest and conservation workers in Washington were somehow entangled in the web of macabre curiosity that led to these unconventional online queries. Our results not only highlight the intertwining branches of labor statistics and search engine data but also offer a unique perspective on occupational trends and the mysterious ways in which they intersect with our digital world.

Of course, we couldn't help but ponder whether these findings might be a result of "branching out" into new hobbies or simply an unintended consequence of spending too much time in the woods. But as they say, when it comes to correlation, sometimes you just can't see the forest for the search trends.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In their groundbreaking study, Smith and Doe (2015) provide a thorough examination of employment trends in Washington state's forestry sector, shedding light on the demographics and occupational dynamics of forest and conservation workers. The study offers valuable insights into the labor force composition, job characteristics, and regional distribution, painting a comprehensive picture of the forest-related workforce. Nevertheless, we found their analysis to be lacking in one critical aspect: the exploration of the peculiar link between these workers and the inexplicable surge in online searches for ways to simulate one's own demise.
Jones et al. (2018) contribute to the literature with a detailed investigation of Google search patterns related to unusual and unexplained topics. Their study delves into the psychology behind unconventional online queries, offering a glimpse into the mysterious inclinations of internet users. While their findings enhance our understanding of digital behavior, the notable absence of any mention of forest or conservation-related occupations in their analysis leaves an intriguing gap in the scholarly discourse.
Turning our attention to non-fiction literature, "The Hidden Life of Trees" by Peter Wohlleben presents a captivating exploration of the interconnectedness and resilience of forest ecosystems. This work provides a wealth of knowledge about the intricate dynamics at play within wooded environments, but regrettably, it offers no clues about the clandestine connection between forestry workers and inquiries about faking one's demise.
A stark departure from non-fiction, we encounter "The Secret History of Twin Peaks" by Mark Frost, a fictional narrative woven with enigmatic tales and hidden truths. While the book may not directly address the correlation under scrutiny, its mysterious storytelling and concealed revelations seem to resonate with the enigmatic nature of our research findings.
In the realm of internet culture, the "Is This a Pigeon?" meme encapsulates the essence of misguided identification, mirroring the puzzling nature of this correlation. Additionally, the "Hide the Pain Harold" meme captures the essence of concealing one's true emotions, providing an abstract connection to the concept of faking one's own demise.
As we maneuver through the thickets of academic literature and pop culture references, we are reminded that even the most rigorous research pursuits benefit from a touch of humor and a healthy dose of curiosity. In the midst of our investigations, we could not resist the temptation to inject a bit of levity, for after all, when it comes to the correlation between forestry labor statistics and Google search trends, it appears that sometimes you really can't see the forest for the search trends.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon conducting our analysis, we found a notable correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. The correlation coefficient was determined to be 0.7405500, with an r-squared value of 0.5484143, and a p-value of less than 0.01. This signifies a strong positive relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables, indicating that as employment in the forestry sector increases, so do the searches related to faking one's demise.
Fig. 1 displays a scatterplot illustrating the robust correlation between the variables, with each data point resembling a tree in a forest, standing tall amidst the statistical underbrush. Much like a well-rooted tree, the relationship is firmly grounded in the data, providing a clear visual representation of the bizarre connection we uncovered.
Now, one might wonder, "Why would forest and conservation workers be associated with searches for faking one's own death?" Well, to humor you for a moment, maybe they were simply "pining" for a change in career or seeking an "exit strategy" from the daily grind. After all, who wouldn't want to "leaf" their troubles behind and start anew? However, in all seriousness, the reasons behind this correlation necessitate further investigation beyond mere speculation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our investigation into the correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' has yielded intriguing results. Firstly, our findings not only align with prior research by Smith and Doe (2015) regarding employment trends in the forestry sector but also complement the insights provided by Jones et al. (2018) on unusual online search patterns.

One cannot help but wonder about the underlying reasons for this unexpected connection. Could it be that the serene tranquility of the forest prompts contemplation of existential matters, leading individuals to drift towards morbid curiosities? Or perhaps there is a more whimsical explanation, such as forest workers entertaining the idea of staging their own disappearance akin to a mysterious tale from "The Secret History of Twin Peaks" by Mark Frost.

While the correlation coefficient of 0.7405500 points to a robust relationship between the variables, we must exercise caution in interpreting the results. As with all correlation studies, the classic adage of "correlation does not imply causation" rings true. Nevertheless, the statistical significance and consistency of the findings across the years from 2004 to 2021 warrant deeper scrutiny into the underlying mechanisms driving this correlation.

In the realm of occupational psychology, the connection between the forestry industry and searches for faking one's own death raises thought-provoking questions about job satisfaction, stress levels, and existential ponderings among workers in this field. While we jest about the prospect of individuals "pining" for a career change or seeking an "exit strategy," the implications for occupational well-being and psychosocial dynamics within the forestry workforce cannot be ignored.

From a methodological perspective, the emergence of this correlation serves as a testament to the unpredictable and often whimsical nature of big data analysis. It underscores the importance of remaining open to unexpected patterns and delving into seemingly unrelated domains to unveil novel insights. After all, as researchers, we must be ever-vigilant to avoid "missing the forest for the search trends" as we navigate the thickets of data analysis.

So, as we continue to unpack the mysteries of this correlation, let us approach our investigation with the same curiosity and lightheartedness that imbued the "Is This a Pigeon?" and "Hide the Pain Harold" memes. For in the quest for knowledge, a sprinkle of humor and a dash of curiosity may just lead us to unexpected, but nonetheless valuable, discoveries.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of forest and conservation workers in Washington and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
"Timber Terrors: The Lumbering Link Between Forest and Conservation Workers in Washington and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we sought to investigate the seemingly bizarre correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. With a forest of data at our disposal courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we delved into the wooded world of employment numbers and internet intrigue. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7405500 and a statistically significant relationship with p < 0.01, spanning the years 2004 to 2021.

As we peeled back the layers of this peculiar partnership, it became clear that forest and conservation workers in Washington were somehow entangled in the web of macabre curiosity that led to these unconventional online queries. Our results not only highlight the intertwining branches of labor statistics and search engine data but also offer a unique perspective on occupational trends and the mysterious ways in which they intersect with our digital world.

Of course, we couldn't help but ponder whether these findings might be a result of "branching out" into new hobbies or simply an unintended consequence of spending too much time in the woods. But as they say, when it comes to correlation, sometimes you just can't see the forest for the search trends.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The pursuit of truth often leads researchers down unexpected paths and into the most peculiar of correlations. In the world of data analysis, we are accustomed to uncovering connections that may seem esoteric at first glance but reveal underlying patterns worthy of investigation. One such enigma that captured our attention is the curious link between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'.
We found this topic so fascinating that we simply had to "branch" out and explore its potential implications. Certainly, the idea of individuals in forestry-related occupations being associated with searches about faking one's demise raises eyebrows, not to mention a few timber jokes.
It is worth noting that the term "lumbering" takes on a whole new meaning in the context of this research, as we delve into the statistical landscape of both employment figures and online behavioral trends. The interconnectedness of these seemingly disparate elements may leave one pondering whether there is something more sinister at play or if it's all just a "tree-mendous" coincidence.
Our objective in this study is not only to present the statistical evidence of this correlation but also to provide a deeper understanding of the underlying factors driving such an unexpected relationship. As we "forge" ahead into the analysis, we invite the reader to join us in this journey through the "wooded" world of employment data and online curiosity.
In the spirit of combining levity with scholarly pursuits, let us not lose sight of the forest for the trees or the data for the search trends._FETCH_FAILED

[[RESULTS]]
Upon conducting our analysis, we found a notable correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. The correlation coefficient was determined to be 0.7405500, with an r-squared value of 0.5484143, and a p-value of less than 0.01. This signifies a strong positive relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables, indicating that as employment in the forestry sector increases, so do the searches related to faking one's demise.
Fig. 1 displays a scatterplot illustrating the robust correlation between the variables, with each data point resembling a tree in a forest, standing tall amidst the statistical underbrush. Much like a well-rooted tree, the relationship is firmly grounded in the data, providing a clear visual representation of the bizarre connection we uncovered.
Now, one might wonder, "Why would forest and conservation workers be associated with searches for faking one's own death?" Well, to humor you for a moment, maybe they were simply "pining" for a change in career or seeking an "exit strategy" from the daily grind. After all, who wouldn't want to "leaf" their troubles behind and start anew? However, in all seriousness, the reasons behind this correlation necessitate further investigation beyond mere speculation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation into the correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' has yielded intriguing results. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.7405500 and statistically significant p-value support the existence of a strong positive relationship between these variables. It seems that as employment in the forestry sector grows, so does the interest in unconventional exit strategies, prompting the question: what "wood" prompt such morbid curiosity among forestry enthusiasts?

Our findings open the door to a myriad of interpretations, from the possibility of individuals in this profession seeking an "evergreen" change in their lives to the more light-hearted notion of them simply "branching out" into peculiar internet searches. Nonetheless, the enigma persists, leaving us to "bark up the right tree" and seek a deeper understanding of the underlying motivations behind these online inquiries.

As we "shed light" on this unusual correlation, it is essential to recognize that our study merely scratches the surface of this peculiar phenomenon. The "root" causes of such a connection may lie in the intertwined complexities of human behavior, the influence of media and popular culture, or perhaps some "forest" for the trees that we have yet to uncover.

Therefore, while our research sheds a "beaming" light on this unlikely association, further exploration is warranted to comprehensively comprehend the mechanisms driving these trends. Nevertheless, for now, we can at least take solace in the fact that our investigation has brought to light a correlation both baffling and intriguing, turning the tables on conventional expectations and prompting us to consider the great "unknowables" lurking within the forest of data analysis.

In closing, while we have "twigged" some fascinating connections, it may be time to "branch" out into other areas of research, leaving this particular correlation to "log" off for now. In the words of a wise oak, "It's time to leaf it behind and not get stumped on the forest floor of familiarity." Therefore, we assert that no further research is needed in this area, allowing this study to "root" itself in the annals of statistical curiosities.

But hey, if you're ever lost in the woods of research, you can always count on a good correlation to "spruce" up your day!


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 Timber Terrors: The Lumbering Link Between Forest and Conservation Workers in Washington and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Forestry and Behavioral Sciences


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 Timber Terrors: The Lumbering Link Between Forest and Conservation Workers in Washington and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

Society for Quirky Conservation Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Timber Terrors: The Lumbering Link Between Forest and Conservation Workers in Washington and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death' with an abstract of In this study, we sought to investigate the seemingly bizarre correlation between the number of forest and conservation workers in Washington state and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. With a forest of data at our disposal courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we delved into the wooded world of employment numbers and internet intrigue. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.7405500 and a statistically significant relationship with p < 0.01, spanning the years 2004 to 2021.
As we peeled back the layers of this peculiar partnership, it became clear that forest and conservation workers in Washington were somehow entangled in the web of macabre curiosity that led to these unconventional online queries. Our results not only highlight the intertwining branches of labor statistics and search engine data but also offer a unique perspective on occupational trends and the mysterious ways in which they intersect with our digital world.
Of course, we couldn't help but ponder whether these findings might be a result of "branching out" into new hobbies or simply an unintended consequence of spending too much time in the woods. But as they say, when it comes to correlation, sometimes you just can't see the forest for the search trends.

ChatGPT:

Timber Terrors, Lumbering, Forest workers, Conservation workers, Washington, Google searches, How to fake your own death, Correlation coefficient, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Google Trends, Employment numbers, Internet intrigue, Occupational trends, Search engine data, Statistical significance, Macabre curiosity, Digital world, Correlation analysis, Unconventional online queries, Labor statistics, Bizarre correlation

*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 forest and conservation workers in Washington
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of forest and conservation workers in Washington
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of forest and conservation workers in Washington

Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' (Worldwide), with quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'

Correlation r = 0.7405500 (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 = 0.5484143 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 54.8% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'how to fake your own death') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of forest and conservation workers in Washington) over the 18 years from 2004 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00044. 0.0004398500295690379600000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.74 in 0.044% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 2,274 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 17 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 17 because we have two variables measured over a period of 18 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.

[ 0.42, 0.9 ] 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.
200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
The number of forest and conservation workers in Washington (Laborers)1105804402702002503904405605705502704603803801609070
Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' (Rel. search volume)15.583325.083313.66676.2510.166712.416714.514.515.333320.83332313.91678.1666711.916711.91676.833335.333334.08333




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([110,580,440,270,200,250,390,440,560,570,550,270,460,380,380,160,90,70,])
array_2 = np.array([15.5833,25.0833,13.6667,6.25,10.1667,12.4167,14.5,14.5,15.3333,20.8333,23,13.9167,8.16667,11.9167,11.9167,6.83333,5.33333,4.08333,])
array_1_name = "The number of forest and conservation workers in Washington"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'"

# 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?

Thanks for being the explorer we needed!


Correlation ID: 3478 · Black Variable ID: 15803 · Red Variable ID: 1494
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0