about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #3,842 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Air pollution in Sacramento and the second variable is Arson in United States.  The chart goes from 1985 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the air cleared in Sacramento, it also cleared the minds of potential arsonists across the country. With each breath of fresh, clean air, the urge to set things ablaze just wafted away. It turns out, all those air pollutants were not just bad for the environment, but also for the inner fire of would-be arsonists. Who would have thought that fighting air pollution could also douse the flames of arson?

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image featuring a contrast between urban environments affected by air pollution and a scene of attempted arson foiled by the clearing pollution. Show the smog-blanketed Sacramento skyline dominated by brutalist architectural structures, while in the other part of the US, a lone figure attempts to set fire to a building under cover of night. As the smog dissipates, the rising smoke becomes visible, revealing the arsonist's activities and leading to their capture. Create a composition that conveys the striking visual impact of the cleared air pollution and the thwarted sabotage. 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: Air pollution in Sacramento and Arson in United States. 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: inspired by bauhaus Brutalism Photorealism Cute cartoon a meme
ChatGPT: Brutalism

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 Air pollution in Sacramento and Arson in United States, in the following situation: Because with cleaner air, arsonists can't use pollution to hide smoke, making it harder to commit arson without getting caught.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Sacramento, a clear blue sky is marred by a dense cloud of smog, with buildings and landmarks barely visible through the haze. Meanwhile, in another part of the United States, a person stands under the cover of darkness, attempting to set fire to a building. However, as the air pollution has cleared, the rising smoke becomes a beacon, making it easier to spot and stop the arsonist's nefarious activities.

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: [ Brutalism ] and depicting this scene: In Sacramento, a clear blue sky is marred by a dense cloud of smog, with buildings and landmarks barely visible through the haze. Meanwhile, in another part of the United States, a person stands under the cover of darkness, attempting to set fire to a building. However, as the air pollution has cleared, the rising smoke becomes a beacon, making it easier to spot and stop the arsonist's nefarious activities. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image featuring a contrast between urban environments affected by air pollution and a scene of attempted arson foiled by the clearing pollution. Show the smog-blanketed Sacramento skyline dominated by brutalist architectural structures, while in the other part of the US, a lone figure attempts to set fire to a building under cover of night. As the smog dissipates, the rising smoke becomes visible, revealing the arsonist's activities and leading to their capture. Create a composition that conveys the striking visual impact of the cleared air pollution and the thwarted sabotage.

*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 Air pollution in Sacramento caused Arson in United States to decrease. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Sacramento Smog and Suspect Soot: The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution and Arson

Journal of Environmental Criminology

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Sacramento and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from Environmental Protection Agency and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.7480844 and p < 0.01 for 1985 to 2022.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Sacramento Smog and Suspect Soot: The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution and Arson

[[ABSTRACT]]
This scholarly study scrutinizes the curious connection between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. Using comprehensive data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services spanning from 1985 to 2022, our research team unveils a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7480844 and a p-value less than 0.01. The findings of this investigation reveal an intriguing relationship between the quality of air in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson nationally, shedding light on the potentially incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Sacramento and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Sacramento Smog and Suspect Soot: The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution and Arson

[[ABSTRACT]]
This scholarly study scrutinizes the curious connection between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. Using comprehensive data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services spanning from 1985 to 2022, our research team unveils a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7480844 and a p-value less than 0.01. The findings of this investigation reveal an intriguing relationship between the quality of air in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson nationally, shedding light on the potentially incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The study of environmental factors influencing criminal behavior has long intrigued researchers, prompting a firestorm of investigation into the nuanced interplay between ecology and psychology. In this regard, the peculiar association between air pollution and arson has ignited scholarly curiosity, leading to a smoldering exploration of potential correlations and causations. The blazing question at the heart of this investigation is whether the atmospheric conditions in Sacramento, noted for its notorious smog, could kindle criminal inclinations across the nation, leaving a trail of suspect soot and statistical smoke signals.

The juxtaposition of air pollution and arson may initially seem like comparing apples to oranges - or perhaps, in this context, coal to cinders. However, as we delve into the labyrinthine landscape of empirical data, the conflation of these seemingly disparate variables ceases to exist purely in the realm of speculative wildfire and begins to take on the empirical heft of a controlled burn. With environmental quality metrics from the Environmental Protection Agency and incendiary incident reports from the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we embark on a quest to untangle this enigmatic nexus, armed with statistical tools and a healthy appetite for a good pun.

As we carry out this investigation, it is important to acknowledge the potential confounding variables that could cast a shadow on our findings. After all, correlation does not always imply causation, and in the realm of empirical inquiry, a careful consideration of potential lurking variables is the scientific equivalent of practicing fire safety - always have an extinguisher on hand. Additionally, it is imperative to remain cognizant of the broader social, economic, and demographic landscape within which air pollution and arson converge, recognizing that our statistical inferno is but one facet of the multivariate mosaic of criminogenic factors.

With a spark of curiosity and an inferno of analytical rigor, this research endeavors to shed light on the intriguing relationship between air pollution in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson across the United States. The path ahead is illuminated by the flickering glow of empirical evidence, leading us to the tantalizing possibility of uncovering the incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior. So, buckle up, because we're about to embark on a statistical expedition through uncharted territories, and who knows what kind of statistical sparks we may ignite along the way.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Sacramento and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Sacramento Smog and Suspect Soot: The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution and Arson

[[ABSTRACT]]
This scholarly study scrutinizes the curious connection between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. Using comprehensive data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services spanning from 1985 to 2022, our research team unveils a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7480844 and a p-value less than 0.01. The findings of this investigation reveal an intriguing relationship between the quality of air in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson nationally, shedding light on the potentially incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The study of environmental factors influencing criminal behavior has long intrigued researchers, prompting a firestorm of investigation into the nuanced interplay between ecology and psychology. In this regard, the peculiar association between air pollution and arson has ignited scholarly curiosity, leading to a smoldering exploration of potential correlations and causations. The blazing question at the heart of this investigation is whether the atmospheric conditions in Sacramento, noted for its notorious smog, could kindle criminal inclinations across the nation, leaving a trail of suspect soot and statistical smoke signals.
The juxtaposition of air pollution and arson may initially seem like comparing apples to oranges - or perhaps, in this context, coal to cinders. However, as we delve into the labyrinthine landscape of empirical data, the conflation of these seemingly disparate variables ceases to exist purely in the realm of speculative wildfire and begins to take on the empirical heft of a controlled burn. With environmental quality metrics from the Environmental Protection Agency and incendiary incident reports from the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we embark on a quest to untangle this enigmatic nexus, armed with statistical tools and a healthy appetite for a good pun.
As we carry out this investigation, it is important to acknowledge the potential confounding variables that could cast a shadow on our findings. After all, correlation does not always imply causation, and in the realm of empirical inquiry, a careful consideration of potential lurking variables is the scientific equivalent of practicing fire safety - always have an extinguisher on hand. Additionally, it is imperative to remain cognizant of the broader social, economic, and demographic landscape within which air pollution and arson converge, recognizing that our statistical inferno is but one facet of the multivariate mosaic of criminogenic factors.
With a spark of curiosity and an inferno of analytical rigor, this research endeavors to shed light on the intriguing relationship between air pollution in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson across the United States. The path ahead is illuminated by the flickering glow of empirical evidence, leading us to the tantalizing possibility of uncovering the incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior. So, buckle up, because we're about to embark on a statistical expedition through uncharted territories, and who knows what kind of statistical sparks we may ignite along the way.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "The Ashen Axiom: Exploring Atmospheric Anomalies and Arson Trends," Smith et al. delve into the enigmatic relationship between air quality in Sacramento and incidences of arson nationwide. Their findings uncover a substantial correlation between air pollution metrics and the frequency of arson-related incidents, prompting a fiery debate among scholars regarding the potential causative mechanisms at play. Similarly, Doe's seminal work, "Smoke Signals: A Statistical Saga of Smog and Suspect Soot," provides a comprehensive analysis of air quality indices and arson rates, discerning a pattern of conflagration that defies conventional wisdom.

But enough of the serious stuff - let's stoke the fires of curiosity with some unconventional sources. In "The Big Book of Barbecue Blunders," the authors uncover the culinary consequences of air pollution and its potential impact on the prevalence of backyard bonfires. Likewise, "The Arsonist's Almanac" by Jones offers a tongue-in-cheek take on the intersection of environmental factors and incendiary inclinations, providing a playful yet thought-provoking perspective on this incendiary topic.

In the realm of fiction, "The Smoke Jumper's Secret" by Firestone and "Burning Bridges: A Tale of Torching Tensions" by Emberly present fictional narratives that, while not grounded in empirical evidence, kindle the imagination and spark further contemplation on the potential relationship between air pollution and arson.

Turning to internet culture, the "This is Fine" meme, depicting a dog calmly sipping coffee amidst a room engulfed in flames, humorously encapsulates the notion of remaining unfazed in the midst of chaos - perhaps an apt metaphor for the enduring debate surrounding the connection between air pollution and arson. Furthermore, the "hot take" meme, with its playful connotations of scorching opinions, serves as a lighthearted reminder of the heated discourse surrounding this incendiary research endeavor.

As we navigate through this unconventional literary landscape, it becomes clear that the investigation of air pollution in Sacramento and its potential link to arson transcends conventional boundaries, sparking a fusion of scholarly inquiry and whimsical contemplation. With the stage set and the embers smoldering, we now turn to the empirical findings that lie at the heart of this scintillating investigation.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Sacramento and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services . You used data from 1985 to 2022

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Sacramento Smog and Suspect Soot: The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution and Arson

[[ABSTRACT]]
This scholarly study scrutinizes the curious connection between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. Using comprehensive data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services spanning from 1985 to 2022, our research team unveils a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7480844 and a p-value less than 0.01. The findings of this investigation reveal an intriguing relationship between the quality of air in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson nationally, shedding light on the potentially incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The study of environmental factors influencing criminal behavior has long intrigued researchers, prompting a firestorm of investigation into the nuanced interplay between ecology and psychology. In this regard, the peculiar association between air pollution and arson has ignited scholarly curiosity, leading to a smoldering exploration of potential correlations and causations. The blazing question at the heart of this investigation is whether the atmospheric conditions in Sacramento, noted for its notorious smog, could kindle criminal inclinations across the nation, leaving a trail of suspect soot and statistical smoke signals.
The juxtaposition of air pollution and arson may initially seem like comparing apples to oranges - or perhaps, in this context, coal to cinders. However, as we delve into the labyrinthine landscape of empirical data, the conflation of these seemingly disparate variables ceases to exist purely in the realm of speculative wildfire and begins to take on the empirical heft of a controlled burn. With environmental quality metrics from the Environmental Protection Agency and incendiary incident reports from the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we embark on a quest to untangle this enigmatic nexus, armed with statistical tools and a healthy appetite for a good pun.
As we carry out this investigation, it is important to acknowledge the potential confounding variables that could cast a shadow on our findings. After all, correlation does not always imply causation, and in the realm of empirical inquiry, a careful consideration of potential lurking variables is the scientific equivalent of practicing fire safety - always have an extinguisher on hand. Additionally, it is imperative to remain cognizant of the broader social, economic, and demographic landscape within which air pollution and arson converge, recognizing that our statistical inferno is but one facet of the multivariate mosaic of criminogenic factors.
With a spark of curiosity and an inferno of analytical rigor, this research endeavors to shed light on the intriguing relationship between air pollution in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson across the United States. The path ahead is illuminated by the flickering glow of empirical evidence, leading us to the tantalizing possibility of uncovering the incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior. So, buckle up, because we're about to embark on a statistical expedition through uncharted territories, and who knows what kind of statistical sparks we may ignite along the way.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

The empirical investigation at the crux of this research was executed with meticulous attention to detail and a hearty dose of statistical fervor. Our team conducted an extensive data collection endeavor, encompassing a broad temporal swath from 1985 to 2022, with a keen focus on procuring a dataset that would be as robust as a fire-resistant suit. The primary sources of our data were the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, where we sifted through what could be likened to the smoke and mirrors of the internet to extract the relevant information for our analysis. Like intrepid firefighters scouting a burning building, we scoured through the deluge of data, scrutinizing it for any glimmer of insight into the enigmatic connection between air pollution in Sacramento and arson outbreaks across the United States.

To commence our inferential journey, we harnessed the power of statistical software to wrangle the data into a form that would be amenable to the discriminative gaze of our analytical tools. Our preliminary foray involved cleaning and harmonizing the disparate datasets, akin to stoking the flames of a campfire until they dance in cohesion. Once the data was standardized and prepared, we set the stage for the grand statistical performance, where the star of the show was the cleverly devised regression analysis.

Our inferential journey traversed the venerable paths of linear regression, a method that holds within its statistical bosom the ability to unravel the entwined skeins of causation and correlation. As we embarked on this exciting statistical expedition, we trekked into the wilds of model specification, carefully selecting the variables that would add fuel to the fire of our analysis. The atmospheric conditions in Sacramento, represented by air quality indices and particulate matter levels, were scrutinized with the fervor of an investigator examining a trail of ashes at a crime scene, while the occurrence of arson incidents in the United States stood as the fiery outcome enveloped in statistical enigma.

With the hallowed assistance of multiple regression models, we sought to identify the extent to which the quality of air in Sacramento was associated with the prevalence of arson incidents across the nation. The resulting coefficients and significance tests were then scrutinized with the same fervor as assessing the smoldering embers in a hearth, seeking the tell-tale signs of an inferential conflagration. Furthermore, in a nod to the multifaceted nature of our investigation, we also delved into the potential moderation and mediation effects, recognizing that the statistical journey often uncovers unexpected twists and turns akin to navigating a labyrinthine maze.

Lastly, to fortify our inferences and demonstrate the robustness of our findings, we undertook a battery of sensitivity analyses and diagnostic tests, ensuring that our statistical edifice stood firm amidst the searing winds of empirical scrutiny. The resultant findings, like the glow of a well-fed flame, shone a light on the surprising and statistically significant relationship between air pollution in Sacramento and the prevalence of arson across the United States, eliciting both admiration for the empirical prowess exhibited and a few charred statistical puns along the way.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Sacramento and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Environmental Protection Agency and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services .

For the time period 1985 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.7480844, r-squared of 0.5596303, 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]]
Sacramento Smog and Suspect Soot: The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution and Arson

[[ABSTRACT]]
This scholarly study scrutinizes the curious connection between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. Using comprehensive data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services spanning from 1985 to 2022, our research team unveils a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7480844 and a p-value less than 0.01. The findings of this investigation reveal an intriguing relationship between the quality of air in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson nationally, shedding light on the potentially incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The study of environmental factors influencing criminal behavior has long intrigued researchers, prompting a firestorm of investigation into the nuanced interplay between ecology and psychology. In this regard, the peculiar association between air pollution and arson has ignited scholarly curiosity, leading to a smoldering exploration of potential correlations and causations. The blazing question at the heart of this investigation is whether the atmospheric conditions in Sacramento, noted for its notorious smog, could kindle criminal inclinations across the nation, leaving a trail of suspect soot and statistical smoke signals.
The juxtaposition of air pollution and arson may initially seem like comparing apples to oranges - or perhaps, in this context, coal to cinders. However, as we delve into the labyrinthine landscape of empirical data, the conflation of these seemingly disparate variables ceases to exist purely in the realm of speculative wildfire and begins to take on the empirical heft of a controlled burn. With environmental quality metrics from the Environmental Protection Agency and incendiary incident reports from the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we embark on a quest to untangle this enigmatic nexus, armed with statistical tools and a healthy appetite for a good pun.
As we carry out this investigation, it is important to acknowledge the potential confounding variables that could cast a shadow on our findings. After all, correlation does not always imply causation, and in the realm of empirical inquiry, a careful consideration of potential lurking variables is the scientific equivalent of practicing fire safety - always have an extinguisher on hand. Additionally, it is imperative to remain cognizant of the broader social, economic, and demographic landscape within which air pollution and arson converge, recognizing that our statistical inferno is but one facet of the multivariate mosaic of criminogenic factors.
With a spark of curiosity and an inferno of analytical rigor, this research endeavors to shed light on the intriguing relationship between air pollution in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson across the United States. The path ahead is illuminated by the flickering glow of empirical evidence, leading us to the tantalizing possibility of uncovering the incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior. So, buckle up, because we're about to embark on a statistical expedition through uncharted territories, and who knows what kind of statistical sparks we may ignite along the way.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis of the relationship between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States has yielded illuminating findings. Our research team crunched the numbers and emerged with a correlation coefficient of 0.7480844, indicating a strong positive relationship between these two variables. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.5596303 further underscores the robustness of this correlation, capturing over 55% of the variation in arson incidents explained by the variation in air pollution levels. Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides substantial evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship between these variables, adding another log to the statistical fire.

Figure 1 presents a scatterplot showcasing the flamingly evident correlation between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. The dots on the graph practically sizzle with significance, visually encapsulating the alignment between these variables.

These scorching statistical findings uncover a compelling connection between environmental quality and criminal behavior, challenging traditional boundaries of research and setting ablaze new avenues of inquiry. The heat is on for further exploration into the mechanisms underlying this association and its implications for understanding the complex interplay between ecological factors and human actions.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Sacramento and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
Sacramento Smog and Suspect Soot: The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution and Arson

[[ABSTRACT]]
This scholarly study scrutinizes the curious connection between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. Using comprehensive data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services spanning from 1985 to 2022, our research team unveils a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7480844 and a p-value less than 0.01. The findings of this investigation reveal an intriguing relationship between the quality of air in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson nationally, shedding light on the potentially incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "The Ashen Axiom: Exploring Atmospheric Anomalies and Arson Trends," Smith et al. delve into the enigmatic relationship between air quality in Sacramento and incidences of arson nationwide. Their findings uncover a substantial correlation between air pollution metrics and the frequency of arson-related incidents, prompting a fiery debate among scholars regarding the potential causative mechanisms at play. Similarly, Doe's seminal work, "Smoke Signals: A Statistical Saga of Smog and Suspect Soot," provides a comprehensive analysis of air quality indices and arson rates, discerning a pattern of conflagration that defies conventional wisdom.
But enough of the serious stuff - let's stoke the fires of curiosity with some unconventional sources. In "The Big Book of Barbecue Blunders," the authors uncover the culinary consequences of air pollution and its potential impact on the prevalence of backyard bonfires. Likewise, "The Arsonist's Almanac" by Jones offers a tongue-in-cheek take on the intersection of environmental factors and incendiary inclinations, providing a playful yet thought-provoking perspective on this incendiary topic.
In the realm of fiction, "The Smoke Jumper's Secret" by Firestone and "Burning Bridges: A Tale of Torching Tensions" by Emberly present fictional narratives that, while not grounded in empirical evidence, kindle the imagination and spark further contemplation on the potential relationship between air pollution and arson.
Turning to internet culture, the "This is Fine" meme, depicting a dog calmly sipping coffee amidst a room engulfed in flames, humorously encapsulates the notion of remaining unfazed in the midst of chaos - perhaps an apt metaphor for the enduring debate surrounding the connection between air pollution and arson. Furthermore, the "hot take" meme, with its playful connotations of scorching opinions, serves as a lighthearted reminder of the heated discourse surrounding this incendiary research endeavor.
As we navigate through this unconventional literary landscape, it becomes clear that the investigation of air pollution in Sacramento and its potential link to arson transcends conventional boundaries, sparking a fusion of scholarly inquiry and whimsical contemplation. With the stage set and the embers smoldering, we now turn to the empirical findings that lie at the heart of this scintillating investigation.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the relationship between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States has yielded illuminating findings. Our research team crunched the numbers and emerged with a correlation coefficient of 0.7480844, indicating a strong positive relationship between these two variables. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.5596303 further underscores the robustness of this correlation, capturing over 55% of the variation in arson incidents explained by the variation in air pollution levels. Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides substantial evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship between these variables, adding another log to the statistical fire.
Figure 1 presents a scatterplot showcasing the flamingly evident correlation between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. The dots on the graph practically sizzle with significance, visually encapsulating the alignment between these variables.
These scorching statistical findings uncover a compelling connection between environmental quality and criminal behavior, challenging traditional boundaries of research and setting ablaze new avenues of inquiry. The heat is on for further exploration into the mechanisms underlying this association and its implications for understanding the complex interplay between ecological factors and human actions.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The scorching statistical findings from our investigation illuminate the fiery relationship between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. Our research team's blistering analysis adds fuel to the flames of prior research, as it aligns with and amplifies the substantial correlation between air pollution metrics and the frequency of arson-related incidents found by Smith et al. and Doe. The conflagration of empirical evidence supports the notion of a substantial link between environmental quality and criminal behavior, setting ablaze new avenues of inquiry and challenging traditional boundaries of research.

The coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.5596303 further reinforces the robustness of this correlation, capturing over 55% of the variation in arson incidents explained by the variation in air pollution levels. This illuminating finding ignites a fervent debate among scholars, prompting them to stoke the fires of curiosity in exploring the potential causative mechanisms underlying this unexpected connection. The sizzling scatterplot presented in Figure 1 visually encapsulates the incendiary alignment between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States, providing a vivid representation of the searing statistical relationship uncovered in our analysis.

As we fan the flames of scientific inquiry, it is essential to remain mindful of the potential limitations and smokescreens that may obscure the interpretation of our findings. The complex interplay between ecological factors and human actions undoubtedly kindles the need for further research to shed light on the mechanisms underpinning this relationship. The searing significance of our results underscores the imperative to stoke the embers of empirical investigation and extinguish any inferential misfires that may arise from prematurely jumping to conclusions.

In conclusion, our scintillating findings have laid the groundwork for a toasted dialogue on the unexpected connection between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States, enkindling a fervent pursuit of knowledge in the field of environmental criminology. The heat is on for future research to blaze a trail in unraveling the smoldering intricacies of this relationship, sparking a fusion of scholarly rigor and whimsical contemplation in the realm of statistical analysis.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Air pollution in Sacramento and Arson in United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Sacramento Smog and Suspect Soot: The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution and Arson

[[ABSTRACT]]
This scholarly study scrutinizes the curious connection between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. Using comprehensive data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services spanning from 1985 to 2022, our research team unveils a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7480844 and a p-value less than 0.01. The findings of this investigation reveal an intriguing relationship between the quality of air in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson nationally, shedding light on the potentially incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The study of environmental factors influencing criminal behavior has long intrigued researchers, prompting a firestorm of investigation into the nuanced interplay between ecology and psychology. In this regard, the peculiar association between air pollution and arson has ignited scholarly curiosity, leading to a smoldering exploration of potential correlations and causations. The blazing question at the heart of this investigation is whether the atmospheric conditions in Sacramento, noted for its notorious smog, could kindle criminal inclinations across the nation, leaving a trail of suspect soot and statistical smoke signals.
The juxtaposition of air pollution and arson may initially seem like comparing apples to oranges - or perhaps, in this context, coal to cinders. However, as we delve into the labyrinthine landscape of empirical data, the conflation of these seemingly disparate variables ceases to exist purely in the realm of speculative wildfire and begins to take on the empirical heft of a controlled burn. With environmental quality metrics from the Environmental Protection Agency and incendiary incident reports from the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services, we embark on a quest to untangle this enigmatic nexus, armed with statistical tools and a healthy appetite for a good pun.
As we carry out this investigation, it is important to acknowledge the potential confounding variables that could cast a shadow on our findings. After all, correlation does not always imply causation, and in the realm of empirical inquiry, a careful consideration of potential lurking variables is the scientific equivalent of practicing fire safety - always have an extinguisher on hand. Additionally, it is imperative to remain cognizant of the broader social, economic, and demographic landscape within which air pollution and arson converge, recognizing that our statistical inferno is but one facet of the multivariate mosaic of criminogenic factors.
With a spark of curiosity and an inferno of analytical rigor, this research endeavors to shed light on the intriguing relationship between air pollution in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson across the United States. The path ahead is illuminated by the flickering glow of empirical evidence, leading us to the tantalizing possibility of uncovering the incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior. So, buckle up, because we're about to embark on a statistical expedition through uncharted territories, and who knows what kind of statistical sparks we may ignite along the way.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the relationship between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States has yielded illuminating findings. Our research team crunched the numbers and emerged with a correlation coefficient of 0.7480844, indicating a strong positive relationship between these two variables. The coefficient of determination (r-squared) of 0.5596303 further underscores the robustness of this correlation, capturing over 55% of the variation in arson incidents explained by the variation in air pollution levels. Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides substantial evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship between these variables, adding another log to the statistical fire.
Figure 1 presents a scatterplot showcasing the flamingly evident correlation between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. The dots on the graph practically sizzle with significance, visually encapsulating the alignment between these variables.
These scorching statistical findings uncover a compelling connection between environmental quality and criminal behavior, challenging traditional boundaries of research and setting ablaze new avenues of inquiry. The heat is on for further exploration into the mechanisms underlying this association and its implications for understanding the complex interplay between ecological factors and human actions.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation has brought to light a substantial and statistically significant relationship between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. The scorching correlation coefficient of 0.7480844 and the p-value of less than 0.01 provide compelling evidence for the influence of environmental factors on criminal behavior. It appears that the smog in Sacramento may indeed have kindled criminal inclinations across the nation, creating an atmospheric recipe for fiery felonies.

However, it is crucial to approach these findings with caution, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The multifaceted nature of criminal behavior demands a comprehensive understanding of the myriad factors at play, akin to navigating a labyrinth of legal landmines where one wrong step could lead to a statistical explosion. Our findings must be interpreted within the broader contextual framework of socioeconomic and demographic influences, akin to analyzing a complex crime scene where every piece of evidence tells a story.

While our research has illuminated an intriguing relationship, there is still much uncharted territory to explore in the realm of environmental criminology. As we extinguish the flames of this particular statistical inferno, it is clear that further inquiry is warranted to unravel the intricacies of this association and its implications for crime prevention and environmental policy. Nevertheless, it’s safe to say that with this research, we’ve certainly fanned the flames of scientific curiosity and ignited a lively discussion in the academic community.

In summary, the heat is on for future studies to delve deeper into the nexus of air pollution and arson, although it’s safe to say that for now, this paper has set the statistical landscape ablaze with its findings. It seems we’ve truly sparked an interest in the unexpected connection between Sacramento's smog and the nation's fiery felonies, but as for future studies in this area, it looks like there's no need to add fuel to the fire.


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 Sacramento Smog and Suspect Soot: The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution and Arson. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Environmental Criminology


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 Sacramento Smog and Suspect Soot: The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution and Arson. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Atmospheric Anomalies Research (IAAR)


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 Sacramento Smog and Suspect Soot: The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution and Arson with an abstract of This scholarly study scrutinizes the curious connection between air pollution in Sacramento and incidents of arson across the United States. Using comprehensive data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services spanning from 1985 to 2022, our research team unveils a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.7480844 and a p-value less than 0.01. The findings of this investigation reveal an intriguing relationship between the quality of air in Sacramento and the occurrences of arson nationally, shedding light on the potentially incendiary impact of environmental factors on criminal behavior.

ChatGPT:

Sacramento air pollution, arson correlation, environmental factors criminal behavior, air quality arson connection, Sacramento smog arson, FBI EPA air pollution arson, air pollution criminal behavior 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

Air pollution in Sacramento
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with air quality at 'unhealthy for sensitive groups' or worse in Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Sacramento

Arson in United States
Detailed data title: The arson rate per 100,000 residents in United States
Source: FBI Criminal Justice Information Services
See what else correlates with Arson in United States

Correlation r = 0.7480844 (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 = 0.5596303 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 56% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Arson in United States) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Sacramento) over the 38 years from 1985 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.7E-8. 0.0000000671344231114607700000
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 0.75 in 6.7E-6% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 14,895,488 random variables You don't actually need 14 million 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 37 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 37 because we have two variables measured over a period of 38 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.

[ 0.56, 0.86 ] 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.
19851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
Air pollution in Sacramento (Bad air quality days)32.876730.684939.72637.978141.643833.972637.260333.606617.534228.493222.739726.229516.438422.465838.082228.688531.780839.72631.232930.601125.205533.150726.575324.316918.904111.506821.369921.584713.698615.616410.958916.120215.342515.61645.4794513.661215.890411.2329
Arson in United States (Arson rate)43.646.342.54141.441.74140.837.339.636.734.632.629.728.824.727.726.82523.623.124.422.621.619.518.117.517.614.914.513.714.113.2121113.98.911.6




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([32.8767,30.6849,39.726,37.9781,41.6438,33.9726,37.2603,33.6066,17.5342,28.4932,22.7397,26.2295,16.4384,22.4658,38.0822,28.6885,31.7808,39.726,31.2329,30.6011,25.2055,33.1507,26.5753,24.3169,18.9041,11.5068,21.3699,21.5847,13.6986,15.6164,10.9589,16.1202,15.3425,15.6164,5.47945,13.6612,15.8904,11.2329,])
array_2 = np.array([43.6,46.3,42.5,41,41.4,41.7,41,40.8,37.3,39.6,36.7,34.6,32.6,29.7,28.8,24.7,27.7,26.8,25,23.6,23.1,24.4,22.6,21.6,19.5,18.1,17.5,17.6,14.9,14.5,13.7,14.1,13.2,12,11,13.9,8.9,11.6,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Sacramento"
array_2_name = "Arson in United States"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating is pure awesomeness!


Correlation ID: 3842 · Black Variable ID: 21171 · Red Variable ID: 20038
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0