about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #3,800 · 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 telephone operators in Oklahoma and the second variable is Google searches for 'helicopter accident'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2019, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma decreased, there were fewer people available to make prank calls to helicopter pilots, leading to a decrease in their distraction and ultimately fewer helicopter accidents.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a serene Oklahoma landscape with rolling hills and a clear blue sky. In the foreground, show a vintage telephone operator station with a diminishing number of operators. Embed a subtle shift in the pattern of the telephone lines indicating fewer wrong numbers being dialed. On a computer screen within the scene, display a decreasing trend graph for the Google search term "helicopter accident". In the background, illustrate a calm helicopter pilot in full control, flying undistracted amidst the peaceful landscape. The scene should emanate a sense of tranquility and safety. 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 telephone operators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'helicopter accident'. 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: Psychedelic Magic realism Cutsy graphics Cute cartoon Brutalism
ChatGPT: Cutsy graphics

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 telephone operators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'helicopter accident', in the following situation: Because fewer telephone operators in Oklahoma meant fewer wrong numbers dialed, resulting in fewer distractions for helicopter pilots and decreasing the likelihood of accidents.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Oklahoma, the number of telephone operators decreases, and as a result, there are fewer wrong numbers dialed. Meanwhile, on a computer screen, the Google search for 'helicopter accident' shows a decreasing trend. In the background, a helicopter pilot flies without any distractions, leading to a reduced likelihood of accidents.

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: [ Cutsy graphics ] and depicting this scene: In Oklahoma, the number of telephone operators decreases, and as a result, there are fewer wrong numbers dialed. Meanwhile, on a computer screen, the Google search for 'helicopter accident' shows a decreasing trend. In the background, a helicopter pilot flies without any distractions, leading to a reduced likelihood of accidents. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a serene Oklahoma landscape with rolling hills and a clear blue sky. In the foreground, show a vintage telephone operator station with a diminishing number of operators. Embed a subtle shift in the pattern of the telephone lines indicating fewer wrong numbers being dialed. On a computer screen within the scene, display a decreasing trend graph for the Google search term "helicopter accident". In the background, illustrate a calm helicopter pilot in full control, flying undistracted amidst the peaceful landscape. The scene should emanate a sense of tranquility and safety.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in The number of telephone operators in Oklahoma caused helicopter accident (Google searches for 'helicopter accident') to decrease. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Heli-calling for Help: Analyzing the Relationship Between Telephone Operators in Oklahoma and Google Searches for 'Helicopter Accident'

The Journal of Quirky Research Studies

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 goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 telephone operators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'helicopter accident'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2019.

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]]
Heli-calling for Help: Analyzing the Relationship Between Telephone Operators in Oklahoma and Google Searches for 'Helicopter Accident'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examined the curious association between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' in the same region. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 2004 to 2019. The results indicated a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 with statistical significance (p < 0.01), revealing a strong link between these two variables. Our findings have intriguing implications for understanding the dynamics of information-seeking behavior and the peculiar connections that lurk beneath seemingly disparate phenomena.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 telephone operators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'helicopter accident'. 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]]
Heli-calling for Help: Analyzing the Relationship Between Telephone Operators in Oklahoma and Google Searches for 'Helicopter Accident'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examined the curious association between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' in the same region. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 2004 to 2019. The results indicated a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 with statistical significance (p < 0.01), revealing a strong link between these two variables. Our findings have intriguing implications for understanding the dynamics of information-seeking behavior and the peculiar connections that lurk beneath seemingly disparate phenomena.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

In the realm of data analysis, it is not uncommon to stumble upon unexpected correlations and connections that defy conventional wisdom. The complex web of human behavior often weaves together seemingly unrelated factors, leading researchers to embark on endeavors that border on the curious and the whimsical. In this study, we delve into the enigmatic relationship between the number of telephone operators in the state of Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for 'helicopter accident.' While one might initially dismiss such an association as mere happenstance, our investigation sought to unearth the underlying patterns and implications that lie beneath this intriguing juxtaposition.

As the digital age continues to redefine the ways in which information is accessed and disseminated, the investigation of online search behavior has emerged as a fertile ground for uncovering clandestine connections. Over the past decade, internet users have displayed a penchant for seeking information on a wide array of topics, often leading researchers to unravel peculiar trends and correlations. One such trend that piqued our interest was the apparent link between the presence of telephone operators, known for providing assistance and guidance, and the proclivity to search for helicopter accidents, an unfortunate yet riveting subject of public interest.

The state of Oklahoma, renowned for its vast plains and rich cultural heritage, provided an ideal backdrop for our study, offering a microcosm for examining the interplay between human behavior and technological interfaces. The scope of our investigation encompassed a period spanning from 2004 to 2019, encompassing substantial shifts in technological use and societal dynamics. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to glean insights into the labor force composition and Google Trends to track patterns in online searches, our analysis harnessed the power of empirical evidence to shed light on this perplexing association.

With a formidable correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 and statistical significance at the p < 0.01 level, our findings unveiled a robust linkage between the number of telephone operators and the prevalence of 'helicopter accident' searches in Oklahoma. This revelation promises to contribute to the burgeoning field of information-seeking behavior and calls for a reevaluation of the subtleties that underpin seemingly disparate phenomena.

In the following sections, we delve into the methodology, results, and implications of our investigation, unraveling the threads that bind together the world of telephone operators and the eerie allure of helicopter accidents in the digital age. Join us on this venture as we navigate through the labyrinth of data and unveil the unexpected connections that lurk beneath the veneer of everyday phenomena.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 telephone operators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'helicopter accident'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Heli-calling for Help: Analyzing the Relationship Between Telephone Operators in Oklahoma and Google Searches for 'Helicopter Accident'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examined the curious association between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' in the same region. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 2004 to 2019. The results indicated a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 with statistical significance (p < 0.01), revealing a strong link between these two variables. Our findings have intriguing implications for understanding the dynamics of information-seeking behavior and the peculiar connections that lurk beneath seemingly disparate phenomena.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of data analysis, it is not uncommon to stumble upon unexpected correlations and connections that defy conventional wisdom. The complex web of human behavior often weaves together seemingly unrelated factors, leading researchers to embark on endeavors that border on the curious and the whimsical. In this study, we delve into the enigmatic relationship between the number of telephone operators in the state of Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for 'helicopter accident.' While one might initially dismiss such an association as mere happenstance, our investigation sought to unearth the underlying patterns and implications that lie beneath this intriguing juxtaposition.
As the digital age continues to redefine the ways in which information is accessed and disseminated, the investigation of online search behavior has emerged as a fertile ground for uncovering clandestine connections. Over the past decade, internet users have displayed a penchant for seeking information on a wide array of topics, often leading researchers to unravel peculiar trends and correlations. One such trend that piqued our interest was the apparent link between the presence of telephone operators, known for providing assistance and guidance, and the proclivity to search for helicopter accidents, an unfortunate yet riveting subject of public interest.
The state of Oklahoma, renowned for its vast plains and rich cultural heritage, provided an ideal backdrop for our study, offering a microcosm for examining the interplay between human behavior and technological interfaces. The scope of our investigation encompassed a period spanning from 2004 to 2019, encompassing substantial shifts in technological use and societal dynamics. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to glean insights into the labor force composition and Google Trends to track patterns in online searches, our analysis harnessed the power of empirical evidence to shed light on this perplexing association.
With a formidable correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 and statistical significance at the p < 0.01 level, our findings unveiled a robust linkage between the number of telephone operators and the prevalence of 'helicopter accident' searches in Oklahoma. This revelation promises to contribute to the burgeoning field of information-seeking behavior and calls for a reevaluation of the subtleties that underpin seemingly disparate phenomena.
In the following sections, we delve into the methodology, results, and implications of our investigation, unraveling the threads that bind together the world of telephone operators and the eerie allure of helicopter accidents in the digital age. Join us on this venture as we navigate through the labyrinth of data and unveil the unexpected connections that lurk beneath the veneer of everyday phenomena.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The connection between seemingly unrelated variables has long fascinated researchers and casual observers alike, prompting inquiries into the enigmatic ways in which human behavior and external factors intertwine. As we delved into the whimsical nexus between telephone operators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'helicopter accident,' we turned to a myriad of studies to unravel the subtle and, at times, surprising connections that manifest in the digital age.

Smith et al. (2008) examined the influence of customer service occupations on public interest in aviation-related incidents, laying the groundwork for our investigation. Their study, which explored the impact of information dissemination on internet search behavior, offered valuable insights into the dynamics of information-seeking in the age of digital connectivity. Building upon this foundational work, we ventured into the realm of labor force composition and regional search patterns to shed light on the curious correlation at hand.

In a similar vein, Doe and Jones (2013) elucidated the role of regional demographics in shaping the online search landscape, shedding light on the nuanced interplay between occupation distribution and public intrigue. Their comprehensive analysis underscored the multifaceted nature of internet search behavior, encompassing an eclectic array of queries that reflect the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity. Drawing from these seminal studies, we embarked on our own exploration, aiming to discern the peculiar links that underlie the relationship between telephone operators and helicopter accident inquiries in Oklahoma.

Transitioning from the realms of academic scholarship to the broader landscape of literature, we encountered texts that probed into the mysteries of aviation mishaps and regional dynamics, offering tangential but thought-provoking perspectives. 'Mayday: The Perils of Air Travel' by Aviation Enthusiast (2016) and 'Oklahoma Odyssey: Exploring the Heart of the Plains' by Regional Historian (2012) presented divergent yet relevant insights into the worlds of flight tragedies and regional nuances. While not directly addressing our specific inquiry, these works provided a backdrop against which the intricate interplay between telephone operators and helicopter accident searches could be contextualized.

Adopting a more whimsical approach, we sought to glean inspiration from fictional narratives that, albeit tangentially, touched upon elements of our study. 'Chopper Chaos: A Tale of Aeronautic Misadventures' by Fictional Aviator (2015) and 'The Ringing Helicopter Mystery' by Puzzling Pseudonymous (2019) hinted at the entwined themes of air travel mishaps and communication frameworks, offering a lighthearted departure from the analytical rigor that characterizes academic inquiry.

In a nod to the formative influences of childhood curiosity, we revisited the animated realm of our youth, drawing parallels between our study and the whimsical landscapes of popular culture. The animated series 'Rescue Heroes' and 'Paw Patrol' inadvertently alluded to the interactions between emergency response and aerial incidents, captivating young audiences with their depictions of heroism and rapid intervention. While seemingly removed from the confines of scholarly discourse, these animated portrayals served as reminders of the enduring allure of helicopter-related narratives and the parallel centrality of communication channels in times of crisis.

Through our eclectic foray into academic treatises, literary works, and cultural references, we endeavored to contextualize our investigation within a broader tapestry of inquiry, infusing it with the playfulness and unexpected discoveries that resonate with both scholarly pursuits and the marvels of everyday existence.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 telephone operators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'helicopter accident'. 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 2019

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]]
Heli-calling for Help: Analyzing the Relationship Between Telephone Operators in Oklahoma and Google Searches for 'Helicopter Accident'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examined the curious association between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' in the same region. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 2004 to 2019. The results indicated a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 with statistical significance (p < 0.01), revealing a strong link between these two variables. Our findings have intriguing implications for understanding the dynamics of information-seeking behavior and the peculiar connections that lurk beneath seemingly disparate phenomena.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of data analysis, it is not uncommon to stumble upon unexpected correlations and connections that defy conventional wisdom. The complex web of human behavior often weaves together seemingly unrelated factors, leading researchers to embark on endeavors that border on the curious and the whimsical. In this study, we delve into the enigmatic relationship between the number of telephone operators in the state of Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for 'helicopter accident.' While one might initially dismiss such an association as mere happenstance, our investigation sought to unearth the underlying patterns and implications that lie beneath this intriguing juxtaposition.
As the digital age continues to redefine the ways in which information is accessed and disseminated, the investigation of online search behavior has emerged as a fertile ground for uncovering clandestine connections. Over the past decade, internet users have displayed a penchant for seeking information on a wide array of topics, often leading researchers to unravel peculiar trends and correlations. One such trend that piqued our interest was the apparent link between the presence of telephone operators, known for providing assistance and guidance, and the proclivity to search for helicopter accidents, an unfortunate yet riveting subject of public interest.
The state of Oklahoma, renowned for its vast plains and rich cultural heritage, provided an ideal backdrop for our study, offering a microcosm for examining the interplay between human behavior and technological interfaces. The scope of our investigation encompassed a period spanning from 2004 to 2019, encompassing substantial shifts in technological use and societal dynamics. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to glean insights into the labor force composition and Google Trends to track patterns in online searches, our analysis harnessed the power of empirical evidence to shed light on this perplexing association.
With a formidable correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 and statistical significance at the p < 0.01 level, our findings unveiled a robust linkage between the number of telephone operators and the prevalence of 'helicopter accident' searches in Oklahoma. This revelation promises to contribute to the burgeoning field of information-seeking behavior and calls for a reevaluation of the subtleties that underpin seemingly disparate phenomena.
In the following sections, we delve into the methodology, results, and implications of our investigation, unraveling the threads that bind together the world of telephone operators and the eerie allure of helicopter accidents in the digital age. Join us on this venture as we navigate through the labyrinth of data and unveil the unexpected connections that lurk beneath the veneer of everyday phenomena.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To investigate the perplexing relationship between the number of telephone operators in the state of Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for 'helicopter accident,' our research team embarked on a data-driven odyssey spanning the years 2004 to 2019. Our approach was as systematic as it was whimsical, incorporating a blend of rigorous statistical analysis and a touch of audacious curiosity.

Data Collection:

Our endeavor commenced with the acquisition of employment data pertaining to telephone operators in Oklahoma from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We were delighted to find that the diligent labor force at the Bureau had meticulously cataloged the numbers of these communication virtuosos, allowing us to peer into the realm of telephonic connectivity with unprecedented clarity.

Simultaneously, our intrepid team harnessed the boundless expanse of the digital frontier by delving into the enigmatic realm of Google Trends. Here, amidst the ebb and flow of search queries and trending topics, we sought out the frequency of searches for 'helicopter accident' within the confines of the Sooner State. Our foray into the labyrinthine expanse of search behavior was nothing short of enthralling, as we attempted to navigate the swells and eddies of human curiosity.

Data Analysis:

Armed with our trove of employment data and search query frequencies, we embarked on a journey through the annals of quantitative analysis. Our first port of call was to wrangle the datasets into submission, a task that demanded a methodical hand and a discerning eye for trends and outliers. Once the data had been corralled, we unleashed the formidable power of statistical tools to unravel the mysteries hidden within.

Our arsenal of statistical techniques included the venerable Pearson correlation coefficient, a stalwart companion in the quest for associations. Through its unwavering gaze, we sought to discern the degree of relationship between the number of telephone operators and the frequency of 'helicopter accident' searches. Additionally, we employed the trusty t-test to assess the statistical significance of our findings, navigating the shoals of p-values with an unwavering resolve.

Caveats and Corollaries:

As with any expedition into the uncharted territories of data analysis, ours was not without its perils and pitfalls. We observed with bemusement the potential for spurious correlations and confounding variables lurking in the shadows, ready to confound our intrepid efforts. To vanquish these shadowy adversaries, we maintained a vigilant stance against the allure of false discoveries, leveraging our understanding of the domain and a touch of scholarly skepticism.

Furthermore, while our findings revealed a robust linkage between the number of telephone operators and 'helicopter accident' searches, we tread cautiously regarding the infallibility of causation. Correlation, as we astutely acknowledge, does not necessarily imply causation, and so we refrained from hastening to declare a causal link between these intriguing variables.

In the forthcoming section, we unfurl the results of our expedition, peeling back the layers of statistical intrigue to reveal the captivating contours of our findings. Join us as we unearth the treasures borne of this remarkable academic pursuit, navigating the straits of data with equal measures of sobriety and mirth.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 telephone operators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'helicopter accident'. 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 2019, you found a correlation 0.8962984, r-squared of 0.8033507, 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]]
Heli-calling for Help: Analyzing the Relationship Between Telephone Operators in Oklahoma and Google Searches for 'Helicopter Accident'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examined the curious association between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' in the same region. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 2004 to 2019. The results indicated a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 with statistical significance (p < 0.01), revealing a strong link between these two variables. Our findings have intriguing implications for understanding the dynamics of information-seeking behavior and the peculiar connections that lurk beneath seemingly disparate phenomena.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the realm of data analysis, it is not uncommon to stumble upon unexpected correlations and connections that defy conventional wisdom. The complex web of human behavior often weaves together seemingly unrelated factors, leading researchers to embark on endeavors that border on the curious and the whimsical. In this study, we delve into the enigmatic relationship between the number of telephone operators in the state of Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for 'helicopter accident.' While one might initially dismiss such an association as mere happenstance, our investigation sought to unearth the underlying patterns and implications that lie beneath this intriguing juxtaposition.
As the digital age continues to redefine the ways in which information is accessed and disseminated, the investigation of online search behavior has emerged as a fertile ground for uncovering clandestine connections. Over the past decade, internet users have displayed a penchant for seeking information on a wide array of topics, often leading researchers to unravel peculiar trends and correlations. One such trend that piqued our interest was the apparent link between the presence of telephone operators, known for providing assistance and guidance, and the proclivity to search for helicopter accidents, an unfortunate yet riveting subject of public interest.
The state of Oklahoma, renowned for its vast plains and rich cultural heritage, provided an ideal backdrop for our study, offering a microcosm for examining the interplay between human behavior and technological interfaces. The scope of our investigation encompassed a period spanning from 2004 to 2019, encompassing substantial shifts in technological use and societal dynamics. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to glean insights into the labor force composition and Google Trends to track patterns in online searches, our analysis harnessed the power of empirical evidence to shed light on this perplexing association.
With a formidable correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 and statistical significance at the p < 0.01 level, our findings unveiled a robust linkage between the number of telephone operators and the prevalence of 'helicopter accident' searches in Oklahoma. This revelation promises to contribute to the burgeoning field of information-seeking behavior and calls for a reevaluation of the subtleties that underpin seemingly disparate phenomena.
In the following sections, we delve into the methodology, results, and implications of our investigation, unraveling the threads that bind together the world of telephone operators and the eerie allure of helicopter accidents in the digital age. Join us on this venture as we navigate through the labyrinth of data and unveil the unexpected connections that lurk beneath the veneer of everyday phenomena.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' within the same geographical region. The correlation exhibited a robust r-squared value of 0.8033507, indicating that approximately 80.3% of the variation in the frequency of 'helicopter accident' searches could be explained by the number of telephone operators.

Fig. 1 depicts the scatterplot illustrating the strong positive correlation between these seemingly unrelated variables. The figure showcases the alignment of data points that unmistakably trace the upward trajectory of 'helicopter accident' searches alongside the increase in the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma. It serves as a visual testament to the data's harmonious dance, foxtrotting in perfect correlation.

The statistical significance of the correlation at a p-value of less than 0.01 further substantiates the robustness of the association, dismissing any notion of pure coincidence. It appears that the rise and fall of 'helicopter accident' searches mirror the undulating presence of telephone operators, suggesting an intricate interplay between information-seeking behavior and the availability of telephonic assistance.

Our findings not only underscore the empirical veracity of this peculiar linkage but also beckon the scientific community to contemplate the deeper implications embedded within. The correlation between these two variables transcends happenstance, urging us to unravel the complex tapestry of human behavior and technological integration.

In summary, our investigation has unfurled a notable connection between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the frequency of 'helicopter accident' searches, highlighting the mysterious interdependence of seemingly incongruous phenomena. These findings beckon scholars and enthusiasts alike to wax philosophical about the whims of correlation and causation, a delightful romp through the realm of unexpected associations.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 telephone operators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'helicopter accident'. 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]]
Heli-calling for Help: Analyzing the Relationship Between Telephone Operators in Oklahoma and Google Searches for 'Helicopter Accident'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examined the curious association between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' in the same region. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 2004 to 2019. The results indicated a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 with statistical significance (p < 0.01), revealing a strong link between these two variables. Our findings have intriguing implications for understanding the dynamics of information-seeking behavior and the peculiar connections that lurk beneath seemingly disparate phenomena.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between seemingly unrelated variables has long fascinated researchers and casual observers alike, prompting inquiries into the enigmatic ways in which human behavior and external factors intertwine. As we delved into the whimsical nexus between telephone operators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'helicopter accident,' we turned to a myriad of studies to unravel the subtle and, at times, surprising connections that manifest in the digital age.
Smith et al. (2008) examined the influence of customer service occupations on public interest in aviation-related incidents, laying the groundwork for our investigation. Their study, which explored the impact of information dissemination on internet search behavior, offered valuable insights into the dynamics of information-seeking in the age of digital connectivity. Building upon this foundational work, we ventured into the realm of labor force composition and regional search patterns to shed light on the curious correlation at hand.
In a similar vein, Doe and Jones (2013) elucidated the role of regional demographics in shaping the online search landscape, shedding light on the nuanced interplay between occupation distribution and public intrigue. Their comprehensive analysis underscored the multifaceted nature of internet search behavior, encompassing an eclectic array of queries that reflect the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity. Drawing from these seminal studies, we embarked on our own exploration, aiming to discern the peculiar links that underlie the relationship between telephone operators and helicopter accident inquiries in Oklahoma.
Transitioning from the realms of academic scholarship to the broader landscape of literature, we encountered texts that probed into the mysteries of aviation mishaps and regional dynamics, offering tangential but thought-provoking perspectives. 'Mayday: The Perils of Air Travel' by Aviation Enthusiast (2016) and 'Oklahoma Odyssey: Exploring the Heart of the Plains' by Regional Historian (2012) presented divergent yet relevant insights into the worlds of flight tragedies and regional nuances. While not directly addressing our specific inquiry, these works provided a backdrop against which the intricate interplay between telephone operators and helicopter accident searches could be contextualized.
Adopting a more whimsical approach, we sought to glean inspiration from fictional narratives that, albeit tangentially, touched upon elements of our study. 'Chopper Chaos: A Tale of Aeronautic Misadventures' by Fictional Aviator (2015) and 'The Ringing Helicopter Mystery' by Puzzling Pseudonymous (2019) hinted at the entwined themes of air travel mishaps and communication frameworks, offering a lighthearted departure from the analytical rigor that characterizes academic inquiry.
In a nod to the formative influences of childhood curiosity, we revisited the animated realm of our youth, drawing parallels between our study and the whimsical landscapes of popular culture. The animated series 'Rescue Heroes' and 'Paw Patrol' inadvertently alluded to the interactions between emergency response and aerial incidents, captivating young audiences with their depictions of heroism and rapid intervention. While seemingly removed from the confines of scholarly discourse, these animated portrayals served as reminders of the enduring allure of helicopter-related narratives and the parallel centrality of communication channels in times of crisis.
Through our eclectic foray into academic treatises, literary works, and cultural references, we endeavored to contextualize our investigation within a broader tapestry of inquiry, infusing it with the playfulness and unexpected discoveries that resonate with both scholarly pursuits and the marvels of everyday existence.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' within the same geographical region. The correlation exhibited a robust r-squared value of 0.8033507, indicating that approximately 80.3% of the variation in the frequency of 'helicopter accident' searches could be explained by the number of telephone operators.
Fig. 1 depicts the scatterplot illustrating the strong positive correlation between these seemingly unrelated variables. The figure showcases the alignment of data points that unmistakably trace the upward trajectory of 'helicopter accident' searches alongside the increase in the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma. It serves as a visual testament to the data's harmonious dance, foxtrotting in perfect correlation.
The statistical significance of the correlation at a p-value of less than 0.01 further substantiates the robustness of the association, dismissing any notion of pure coincidence. It appears that the rise and fall of 'helicopter accident' searches mirror the undulating presence of telephone operators, suggesting an intricate interplay between information-seeking behavior and the availability of telephonic assistance.
Our findings not only underscore the empirical veracity of this peculiar linkage but also beckon the scientific community to contemplate the deeper implications embedded within. The correlation between these two variables transcends happenstance, urging us to unravel the complex tapestry of human behavior and technological integration.
In summary, our investigation has unfurled a notable connection between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the frequency of 'helicopter accident' searches, highlighting the mysterious interdependence of seemingly incongruous phenomena. These findings beckon scholars and enthusiasts alike to wax philosophical about the whims of correlation and causation, a delightful romp through the realm of unexpected associations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our study elucidated a compelling correlation between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the prevalence of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' in the same geographical area. The robust correlation coefficient and significant p-value affirmed the entwined nature of these ostensibly unrelated variables. Our findings hold intriguing implications for understanding the undercurrents of human behavior and the interplay between occupation distribution and information-seeking proclivities.

Harking back to the scholarly musings on the influence of customer service occupations on public interest in aviation-related incidents, as posited by Smith et al. (2008), our findings corroborate the notion of information dissemination and occupational influence on internet search behavior. Perhaps the individuals reaching out for telephonic assistance are more likely to turn to online resources for aviation-related queries, creating a symbiotic relationship between the two channels of information dissemination. Similarly, the insights offered by Doe and Jones (2013) regarding regional demographics shaping online search landscapes resonate with our own findings, reflecting the nuanced interplay between occupation distribution and public intrigue.

The scatterplot visually encapsulates the synchronous movements of the data points, mirroring the undeniable harmony between the number of telephone operators and the frequency of 'helicopter accident' searches. This alignment is a not-so-subtle reminder of the interconnectedness that pervades the digital realm, reminiscent of a well-choreographed dance routine – albeit with a touch of morbidity – between telephone operators and helicopter accident inquiries.

In line with the scholarly literature that we traversed in our review, the statistical robustness of our findings further confirms the empirical authenticity of this peculiar association. The reverberations of correlation and causation resonate through the nuanced tapestry of our data, echoing the enigmatic interdependence that characterizes seemingly incongruous phenomena. Indeed, one cannot help but marvel at the unexpected affinities that surface when delving into the intricacies of human behavior and technological integration.

While we may have started our journey by seeking connections between telephone operators and helicopter accidents, our endeavor offers a whimsical reminder of the serendipitous nature of scholarly inquiry. As we navigated through academic treatises, cultural references, and the lighthearted whispers of animated series, we were continuously beckoned by the playful intrigues that underpin the quest for knowledge. Our study, thus, stands as a testament to the enduring allure of unexpected associations and the scholarly joy that springs from unearthing the unlikeliest of connections.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 telephone operators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'helicopter accident'. 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]]
Heli-calling for Help: Analyzing the Relationship Between Telephone Operators in Oklahoma and Google Searches for 'Helicopter Accident'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examined the curious association between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' in the same region. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 2004 to 2019. The results indicated a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 with statistical significance (p < 0.01), revealing a strong link between these two variables. Our findings have intriguing implications for understanding the dynamics of information-seeking behavior and the peculiar connections that lurk beneath seemingly disparate phenomena.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the realm of data analysis, it is not uncommon to stumble upon unexpected correlations and connections that defy conventional wisdom. The complex web of human behavior often weaves together seemingly unrelated factors, leading researchers to embark on endeavors that border on the curious and the whimsical. In this study, we delve into the enigmatic relationship between the number of telephone operators in the state of Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for 'helicopter accident.' While one might initially dismiss such an association as mere happenstance, our investigation sought to unearth the underlying patterns and implications that lie beneath this intriguing juxtaposition.
As the digital age continues to redefine the ways in which information is accessed and disseminated, the investigation of online search behavior has emerged as a fertile ground for uncovering clandestine connections. Over the past decade, internet users have displayed a penchant for seeking information on a wide array of topics, often leading researchers to unravel peculiar trends and correlations. One such trend that piqued our interest was the apparent link between the presence of telephone operators, known for providing assistance and guidance, and the proclivity to search for helicopter accidents, an unfortunate yet riveting subject of public interest.
The state of Oklahoma, renowned for its vast plains and rich cultural heritage, provided an ideal backdrop for our study, offering a microcosm for examining the interplay between human behavior and technological interfaces. The scope of our investigation encompassed a period spanning from 2004 to 2019, encompassing substantial shifts in technological use and societal dynamics. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to glean insights into the labor force composition and Google Trends to track patterns in online searches, our analysis harnessed the power of empirical evidence to shed light on this perplexing association.
With a formidable correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 and statistical significance at the p < 0.01 level, our findings unveiled a robust linkage between the number of telephone operators and the prevalence of 'helicopter accident' searches in Oklahoma. This revelation promises to contribute to the burgeoning field of information-seeking behavior and calls for a reevaluation of the subtleties that underpin seemingly disparate phenomena.
In the following sections, we delve into the methodology, results, and implications of our investigation, unraveling the threads that bind together the world of telephone operators and the eerie allure of helicopter accidents in the digital age. Join us on this venture as we navigate through the labyrinth of data and unveil the unexpected connections that lurk beneath the veneer of everyday phenomena.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' within the same geographical region. The correlation exhibited a robust r-squared value of 0.8033507, indicating that approximately 80.3% of the variation in the frequency of 'helicopter accident' searches could be explained by the number of telephone operators.
Fig. 1 depicts the scatterplot illustrating the strong positive correlation between these seemingly unrelated variables. The figure showcases the alignment of data points that unmistakably trace the upward trajectory of 'helicopter accident' searches alongside the increase in the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma. It serves as a visual testament to the data's harmonious dance, foxtrotting in perfect correlation.
The statistical significance of the correlation at a p-value of less than 0.01 further substantiates the robustness of the association, dismissing any notion of pure coincidence. It appears that the rise and fall of 'helicopter accident' searches mirror the undulating presence of telephone operators, suggesting an intricate interplay between information-seeking behavior and the availability of telephonic assistance.
Our findings not only underscore the empirical veracity of this peculiar linkage but also beckon the scientific community to contemplate the deeper implications embedded within. The correlation between these two variables transcends happenstance, urging us to unravel the complex tapestry of human behavior and technological integration.
In summary, our investigation has unfurled a notable connection between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the frequency of 'helicopter accident' searches, highlighting the mysterious interdependence of seemingly incongruous phenomena. These findings beckon scholars and enthusiasts alike to wax philosophical about the whims of correlation and causation, a delightful romp through the realm of unexpected associations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In the immortal words of the band The Police, "Every step you take, every move you make, I'll be watching you" seems to ring true in the world of telephone operators and Google searches for 'helicopter accident' in Oklahoma. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.8962984, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, has left us astounded at the synchronicity between these two seemingly disparate entities. The correlation has withstood scrutiny and statistical tests, akin to a helicopter's propeller slicing through the air with precision.

The scatterplot, akin to a visual masterpiece, vividly illustrates the harmonious dance of 'helicopter accident' searches in perfect synchrony with the number of telephone operators, as if they were waltzing partners in a grand ballroom. This unexpected tango of data prompts us to ponder the intricate interplay of human behavior and technological evolution, akin to a scholarly waltz through the labyrinth of unanticipated connections.

Our findings hold substantial implications for understanding information-seeking behavior and the clandestine threads that tether unrelated domains. As the enigmatic relationship between telephone operators and 'helicopter accident' searches unravels before our very eyes, it beckons us to ponder the whims of correlation and causation, akin to an intellectual masquerade ball where unlikely couples twirl across the dance floor.

In light of these findings, we assert with confidence that further research in this area would be as unnecessary as a helicopter with a 'Do Not Disturb' sign. The correlation has been unveiled, the plot has thickened, and it's time to pack up our academic helicopters and head for new research horizons.


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 Heli-calling for Help: Analyzing the Relationship Between Telephone Operators in Oklahoma and Google Searches for 'Helicopter Accident'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Research Studies


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 Heli-calling for Help: Analyzing the Relationship Between Telephone Operators in Oklahoma and Google Searches for 'Helicopter Accident'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Social Media and Digital Anthropology


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 Heli-calling for Help: Analyzing the Relationship Between Telephone Operators in Oklahoma and Google Searches for 'Helicopter Accident' with an abstract of This study examined the curious association between the number of telephone operators in Oklahoma and the volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' in the same region. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, we conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning from 2004 to 2019. The results indicated a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8962984 with statistical significance (p < 0.01), revealing a strong link between these two variables. Our findings have intriguing implications for understanding the dynamics of information-seeking behavior and the peculiar connections that lurk beneath seemingly disparate phenomena.

ChatGPT:

helicopter accident, Oklahoma, telephone operators, Google searches, information-seeking behavior, data analysis, associations, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Google Trends

*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 telephone operators in Oklahoma
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of telephone operators in Oklahoma
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of telephone operators in Oklahoma

Google searches for 'helicopter accident'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'helicopter accident' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'helicopter accident'

Correlation r = 0.8962984 (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 = 0.8033507 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 80.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'helicopter accident') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of telephone operators in Oklahoma) over the 16 years from 2004 through 2019.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.6E-6. 0.0000026186937178001984000000
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 0.9 in 0.00026% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 381,870 random variables You don't actually need 381 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 15 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 15 because we have two variables measured over a period of 16 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.
2004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019
The number of telephone operators in Oklahoma (Telephone Operators)15018080100405040806080304030405060
Google searches for 'helicopter accident' (Rel. search volume)910.58.083338.57.57.833336.333336.666676.758.255.916676.6666766.166677.083337.58333




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. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




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([150,180,80,100,40,50,40,80,60,80,30,40,30,40,50,60,])
array_2 = np.array([9,10.5,8.08333,8.5,7.5,7.83333,6.33333,6.66667,6.75,8.25,5.91667,6.66667,6,6.16667,7.08333,7.58333,])
array_1_name = "The number of telephone operators in Oklahoma"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'helicopter accident'"

# 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?

Hats off to you for rating!


Correlation ID: 3800 · Black Variable ID: 13180 · Red Variable ID: 1410
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0