about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #3,985 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is US household spending on other household products and the second variable is Wins for the Baltimore Orioles.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image

AI explanation

As US household spending on other household products increased, more families bought feather dusters to keep their homes clean. This led to a higher demand for feathers, causing a nationwide shortage of feathers. Without access to their lucky feathers, the Baltimore Orioles experienced a decrease in wins as their superstitions faltered. Remember, when it comes to baseball, it's all about those feathered superstitions!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie ] Generate an image of a cozy dining room with warm lighting, where a family is gathered around the dinner table. The table is set with their favorite meal, and a bowl of cracker jacks is placed in the center. The family members are smiling and laughing as they watch the Baltimore Orioles game on TV in the background. Behind them, a calendar prominently displays the number of wins for the Orioles. The whole scene is filled with warmth and happiness, akin to a heartwarming moment from a Pixar movie. 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: US household spending on other household products and Wins for the Baltimore Orioles. 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: Cubism Cutsy art illustration An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie Macabre Futuristic
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie

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 US household spending on other household products and Wins for the Baltimore Orioles, in the following situation: Because increases in US household spending on other household products lead to more families embracing the tradition of eating cracker jacks, boosting the morale of Orioles fans and players, resulting in more wins.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: A family happily gathers around the dinner table, enjoying their favorite meal with a bowl of cracker jacks as they watch the Baltimore Orioles game on TV. In the background, a calendar with the number of wins for the Orioles prominently displayed.

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: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie ] and depicting this scene: A family happily gathers around the dinner table, enjoying their favorite meal with a bowl of cracker jacks as they watch the Baltimore Orioles game on TV. In the background, a calendar with the number of wins for the Orioles prominently displayed. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie ] Generate an image of a cozy dining room with warm lighting, where a family is gathered around the dinner table. The table is set with their favorite meal, and a bowl of cracker jacks is placed in the center. The family members are smiling and laughing as they watch the Baltimore Orioles game on TV in the background. Behind them, a calendar prominently displays the number of wins for the Orioles. The whole scene is filled with warmth and happiness, akin to a heartwarming moment from a Pixar movie.

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

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in US household spending on other household products caused Wins for the Baltimore Orioles to decrease.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Swing and Spend: A Correlation Analysis of US Household Expenditures on Other Household Products and Baltimore Orioles' Wins

The Journal of Quirky Economics and Unconventional Behavioral Studies

Jan 2024
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on other household products and Wins for the Baltimore Orioles. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Your research team used data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Baseball-Reference.com to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of -0.7849441 and p < 0.01 for 2000 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]]
Swing and Spend: A Correlation Analysis of US Household Expenditures on Other Household Products and Baltimore Orioles' Wins

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unexpected relationship between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. With a whimsical spin on the conventional economic analysis, we use econometric tools and baseball statistics to uncover a correlation that has been flying under the radar. Through meticulous data mining from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Baseball-Reference.com, we discover a striking link between these seemingly unrelated realms. Our findings reveal a negative correlation coefficient of -0.7849441 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the 2000 to 2022 period. This prompts us to question whether households are inadvertently influencing the performance of the Orioles through their mundane purchases. We also speculate whether the Orioles' wins drive households to splurge or economize on household goods. While our study offers an amusing lens on the intersection of consumer behavior and sports outcomes, it also underscores the quirky nature of statistical relationships and invites further investigation into the whimsical side of data analysis.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on other household products and Wins for the Baltimore Orioles. Make lots of 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]]
Swing and Spend: A Correlation Analysis of US Household Expenditures on Other Household Products and Baltimore Orioles' Wins

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unexpected relationship between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. With a whimsical spin on the conventional economic analysis, we use econometric tools and baseball statistics to uncover a correlation that has been flying under the radar. Through meticulous data mining from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Baseball-Reference.com, we discover a striking link between these seemingly unrelated realms. Our findings reveal a negative correlation coefficient of -0.7849441 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the 2000 to 2022 period. This prompts us to question whether households are inadvertently influencing the performance of the Orioles through their mundane purchases. We also speculate whether the Orioles' wins drive households to splurge or economize on household goods. While our study offers an amusing lens on the intersection of consumer behavior and sports outcomes, it also underscores the quirky nature of statistical relationships and invites further investigation into the whimsical side of data analysis.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Who would have thought that the world of consumer spending and the world of baseball could be intertwined like two star-crossed lovers? In this offbeat study, we embark on a whimsical journey to explore the uncharted terrain where US household expenditures on other household products intersect with the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. Like a pair of statistical lovebirds, these seemingly unrelated variables have caught our eye, and we can't help but wonder if there's more to their story.

Econometric aficionados spend their days crunching numbers and dissecting economic trends, but we're here to inject a dose of levity into the mix. We've rolled up our sleeves, donned our baseball caps, and embarked on a data mining expedition that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double-take. Using our trusty tools and a sprinkle of baseball magic, we've unraveled a connection that's as perplexing as it is intriguing.

So, what did our journey reveal? Brace yourselves for a wildly unexpected correlation coefficient of -0.7849441. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the statistical stars have aligned to show us that as US household spending on other household products goes up, the wins of the Baltimore Orioles tend to go down. And if you're a fan of statistical significance, our p-value of less than 0.01 will surely make you do a double-take.

You might be asking yourself, "How on earth could the shampoo or detergent in my shopping cart be influencing the outcome of a baseball game hundreds of miles away?" Trust us, we're scratching our heads too. Nevertheless, the data don't lie – or do they? Could it be that households across America are unwittingly casting a mystical spell on the Orioles through their everyday purchases? Or perhaps there's a mysterious force at play that shapes both consumer behavior and sports victories, all behind the scenes?

As we traverse this unconventional terrain, we're reminded of the playfulness and unpredictability of statistical relationships. After all, who said that correlation analyses couldn't have a sense of humor? We invite you to join us in reveling in the curious dance between consumer choices and athletic triumphs, as we tip our hats to the enigmatic nature of data and the boundless possibilities of statistical exploration.

So, fasten your seatbelts, folks – we're about to embark on a statistical rollercoaster that will leave you both scratching your head and grinning from ear to ear. Welcome to the world of "Swing and Spend," where the madcap meeting of household expenditures and baseball victories takes center stage.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on other household products and Wins for the Baltimore Orioles. Make lots of 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 cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Swing and Spend: A Correlation Analysis of US Household Expenditures on Other Household Products and Baltimore Orioles' Wins

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unexpected relationship between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. With a whimsical spin on the conventional economic analysis, we use econometric tools and baseball statistics to uncover a correlation that has been flying under the radar. Through meticulous data mining from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Baseball-Reference.com, we discover a striking link between these seemingly unrelated realms. Our findings reveal a negative correlation coefficient of -0.7849441 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the 2000 to 2022 period. This prompts us to question whether households are inadvertently influencing the performance of the Orioles through their mundane purchases. We also speculate whether the Orioles' wins drive households to splurge or economize on household goods. While our study offers an amusing lens on the intersection of consumer behavior and sports outcomes, it also underscores the quirky nature of statistical relationships and invites further investigation into the whimsical side of data analysis.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Who would have thought that the world of consumer spending and the world of baseball could be intertwined like two star-crossed lovers? In this offbeat study, we embark on a whimsical journey to explore the uncharted terrain where US household expenditures on other household products intersect with the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. Like a pair of statistical lovebirds, these seemingly unrelated variables have caught our eye, and we can't help but wonder if there's more to their story.
Econometric aficionados spend their days crunching numbers and dissecting economic trends, but we're here to inject a dose of levity into the mix. We've rolled up our sleeves, donned our baseball caps, and embarked on a data mining expedition that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double-take. Using our trusty tools and a sprinkle of baseball magic, we've unraveled a connection that's as perplexing as it is intriguing.
So, what did our journey reveal? Brace yourselves for a wildly unexpected correlation coefficient of -0.7849441. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the statistical stars have aligned to show us that as US household spending on other household products goes up, the wins of the Baltimore Orioles tend to go down. And if you're a fan of statistical significance, our p-value of less than 0.01 will surely make you do a double-take.
You might be asking yourself, "How on earth could the shampoo or detergent in my shopping cart be influencing the outcome of a baseball game hundreds of miles away?" Trust us, we're scratching our heads too. Nevertheless, the data don't lie – or do they? Could it be that households across America are unwittingly casting a mystical spell on the Orioles through their everyday purchases? Or perhaps there's a mysterious force at play that shapes both consumer behavior and sports victories, all behind the scenes?
As we traverse this unconventional terrain, we're reminded of the playfulness and unpredictability of statistical relationships. After all, who said that correlation analyses couldn't have a sense of humor? We invite you to join us in reveling in the curious dance between consumer choices and athletic triumphs, as we tip our hats to the enigmatic nature of data and the boundless possibilities of statistical exploration.
So, fasten your seatbelts, folks – we're about to embark on a statistical rollercoaster that will leave you both scratching your head and grinning from ear to ear. Welcome to the world of "Swing and Spend," where the madcap meeting of household expenditures and baseball victories takes center stage.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

To establish the context for our unconventional exploration, we commence by delving into the scholarly work that precedes our whimsical foray into the connection between US household spending on other household products and the triumphs of the Baltimore Orioles. First on the docket is Smith et al.'s seminal paper "Consumer Purchasing Patterns and Sports Outcomes," where the authors find a compelling link between an increase in spending on hygiene products and a decrease in the number of home runs scored by a baseball team. Building on this insightful thread, Doe and Jones (2015) undertake a comprehensive analysis in "The Dollars and Dingers Dilemma," unveiling an intricate association between household expenditure on cleaning supplies and the strikeouts accumulated by a baseball team.

As we meander through the labyrinth of economic and sporting analyses, we encounter "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" by Michael Lewis and "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Seemingly unrelated to our current inquiry, these literary works shed light on the unassuming quirks of statistical correlations, reminding us that beneath the veneer of serious scholarship lies a realm of playful paradoxes and amusing connections.

Turning our attention to the fictional realm, we discover "The Cuckoo's Calling" by Robert Galbraith and "The Art of Fielding" by Chad Harbach, where the serendipitous interplay of household items and baseball victories takes center stage in unexpected plot twists. The lines between reality and imagination blur, beckoning us to consider the blithe influence of household goods on sports outcomes with a newfound sense of mirth and wonder.

Broadening our horizons, we inadvertently stumbled upon social media commentary that left us both bewildered and amused. One post on Twitter suggested that a surge in popcorn sales coincided with an infamous losing streak for the Orioles, prompting us to ponder whether buttery snacks hold the key to unraveling the enigma of sporting triumphs. Meanwhile, a comical meme on Instagram juxtaposed laundry detergent sales with baseball team performances, eliciting belly laughs and prompting us to contemplate the whimsical dance between domestic essentials and athletic achievements.

In the spirit of scholarly inquiry, we must acknowledge that our literature review may have taken an unexpectedly lighthearted turn. However, we would be remiss not to honor the unintentionally comical sources that beckoned us to embrace the whimsical side of statistical exploration. As we proceed with our analysis, we invite readers to revel in the offbeat revelations that await and to join us in celebrating the delightful intersections between consumer behaviors and sporting conquests.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on other household products and Wins for the Baltimore Orioles. Make lots of 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 Bureau of Labor Statistics and Baseball-Reference.com . You used data from 2000 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]]
Swing and Spend: A Correlation Analysis of US Household Expenditures on Other Household Products and Baltimore Orioles' Wins

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unexpected relationship between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. With a whimsical spin on the conventional economic analysis, we use econometric tools and baseball statistics to uncover a correlation that has been flying under the radar. Through meticulous data mining from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Baseball-Reference.com, we discover a striking link between these seemingly unrelated realms. Our findings reveal a negative correlation coefficient of -0.7849441 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the 2000 to 2022 period. This prompts us to question whether households are inadvertently influencing the performance of the Orioles through their mundane purchases. We also speculate whether the Orioles' wins drive households to splurge or economize on household goods. While our study offers an amusing lens on the intersection of consumer behavior and sports outcomes, it also underscores the quirky nature of statistical relationships and invites further investigation into the whimsical side of data analysis.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Who would have thought that the world of consumer spending and the world of baseball could be intertwined like two star-crossed lovers? In this offbeat study, we embark on a whimsical journey to explore the uncharted terrain where US household expenditures on other household products intersect with the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. Like a pair of statistical lovebirds, these seemingly unrelated variables have caught our eye, and we can't help but wonder if there's more to their story.
Econometric aficionados spend their days crunching numbers and dissecting economic trends, but we're here to inject a dose of levity into the mix. We've rolled up our sleeves, donned our baseball caps, and embarked on a data mining expedition that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double-take. Using our trusty tools and a sprinkle of baseball magic, we've unraveled a connection that's as perplexing as it is intriguing.
So, what did our journey reveal? Brace yourselves for a wildly unexpected correlation coefficient of -0.7849441. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the statistical stars have aligned to show us that as US household spending on other household products goes up, the wins of the Baltimore Orioles tend to go down. And if you're a fan of statistical significance, our p-value of less than 0.01 will surely make you do a double-take.
You might be asking yourself, "How on earth could the shampoo or detergent in my shopping cart be influencing the outcome of a baseball game hundreds of miles away?" Trust us, we're scratching our heads too. Nevertheless, the data don't lie – or do they? Could it be that households across America are unwittingly casting a mystical spell on the Orioles through their everyday purchases? Or perhaps there's a mysterious force at play that shapes both consumer behavior and sports victories, all behind the scenes?
As we traverse this unconventional terrain, we're reminded of the playfulness and unpredictability of statistical relationships. After all, who said that correlation analyses couldn't have a sense of humor? We invite you to join us in reveling in the curious dance between consumer choices and athletic triumphs, as we tip our hats to the enigmatic nature of data and the boundless possibilities of statistical exploration.
So, fasten your seatbelts, folks – we're about to embark on a statistical rollercoaster that will leave you both scratching your head and grinning from ear to ear. Welcome to the world of "Swing and Spend," where the madcap meeting of household expenditures and baseball victories takes center stage.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To embark on our whimsical data odyssey, we cast a wide net across the boundless expanse of the internet, navigating the treacherous seas of data sources and braving the labyrinth of information overload. We turned our gaze toward the venerable Bureau of Labor Statistics, where we unearthed a trove of consumer expenditure data, ranging from toothpaste to toasters and from vacuum cleaners to video games. With a hearty chuckle and a hint of skepticism, we gathered these data with fervor, knowing that within the mundane lay the potential for the extraordinary.

But our expedition didn't stop there. No, we set our sights on the hallowed grounds of Baseball-Reference.com, where the triumphs and travails of the Baltimore Orioles were meticulously recorded for posterity. With the swagger of a cavalcade of statistical swashbucklers, we plundered the virtual archives for wins, losses, and the glorious pursuit of victory. From the crack of the bat to the roar of the crowd, we harnessed the raw power of baseball statistics, ready to unearth secrets that even the most seasoned sabermetricians might overlook.

Armed with our trusty spreadsheet software and a good-natured dose of skepticism, we set sail on the turbulent seas of data manipulation. We wrangled the assortment of household expenditure categories, from pet supplies to furniture, and meticulously curated the wins of the Baltimore Orioles, scrutinizing each data point with the precision of a watchmaker and the tenacity of a bloodhound on the scent. Our quixotic quest for hidden patterns and unforeseen connections led us to the heart of our analysis, where we juxtaposed these seemingly incongruous datasets with a fervor akin to mixing oil and water – all in the name of discovery!

In our fervent pursuit of insight, we employed the venerable tools of econometric analysis, summoning the spirits of regression and correlation to probe the depths of these enigmatic relationships. With a twinkle in our eyes and an ever-present appreciation for the capricious nature of statistics, we immersed ourselves in the tangled web of coefficients, p-values, and confidence intervals, all in an effort to unravel the mystery that lay at the heart of our offbeat inquiry.

Our methodology, crafted with equal parts diligence and whimsy, invites you to join us on this grand adventure through the looking glass of statistical inquiry. As we set sail into uncharted territory, we implore you to embrace the boundless curiosity that fuels our quest and to revel in the sheer delight of uncovering the unexpected in the hallowed halls of data analysis. So, dear reader, buckle up and prepare to be captivated by the mesmerizing dance of household spending and baseball victories, brought to life through the lens of our unorthodox, yet undeniably intriguing, approach to scientific exploration.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on other household products and Wins for the Baltimore Orioles. Make lots of 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 Bureau of Labor Statistics and Baseball-Reference.com .

For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation -0.7849441, r-squared of 0.6161373, 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]]
Swing and Spend: A Correlation Analysis of US Household Expenditures on Other Household Products and Baltimore Orioles' Wins

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unexpected relationship between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. With a whimsical spin on the conventional economic analysis, we use econometric tools and baseball statistics to uncover a correlation that has been flying under the radar. Through meticulous data mining from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Baseball-Reference.com, we discover a striking link between these seemingly unrelated realms. Our findings reveal a negative correlation coefficient of -0.7849441 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the 2000 to 2022 period. This prompts us to question whether households are inadvertently influencing the performance of the Orioles through their mundane purchases. We also speculate whether the Orioles' wins drive households to splurge or economize on household goods. While our study offers an amusing lens on the intersection of consumer behavior and sports outcomes, it also underscores the quirky nature of statistical relationships and invites further investigation into the whimsical side of data analysis.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Who would have thought that the world of consumer spending and the world of baseball could be intertwined like two star-crossed lovers? In this offbeat study, we embark on a whimsical journey to explore the uncharted terrain where US household expenditures on other household products intersect with the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. Like a pair of statistical lovebirds, these seemingly unrelated variables have caught our eye, and we can't help but wonder if there's more to their story.
Econometric aficionados spend their days crunching numbers and dissecting economic trends, but we're here to inject a dose of levity into the mix. We've rolled up our sleeves, donned our baseball caps, and embarked on a data mining expedition that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double-take. Using our trusty tools and a sprinkle of baseball magic, we've unraveled a connection that's as perplexing as it is intriguing.
So, what did our journey reveal? Brace yourselves for a wildly unexpected correlation coefficient of -0.7849441. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the statistical stars have aligned to show us that as US household spending on other household products goes up, the wins of the Baltimore Orioles tend to go down. And if you're a fan of statistical significance, our p-value of less than 0.01 will surely make you do a double-take.
You might be asking yourself, "How on earth could the shampoo or detergent in my shopping cart be influencing the outcome of a baseball game hundreds of miles away?" Trust us, we're scratching our heads too. Nevertheless, the data don't lie – or do they? Could it be that households across America are unwittingly casting a mystical spell on the Orioles through their everyday purchases? Or perhaps there's a mysterious force at play that shapes both consumer behavior and sports victories, all behind the scenes?
As we traverse this unconventional terrain, we're reminded of the playfulness and unpredictability of statistical relationships. After all, who said that correlation analyses couldn't have a sense of humor? We invite you to join us in reveling in the curious dance between consumer choices and athletic triumphs, as we tip our hats to the enigmatic nature of data and the boundless possibilities of statistical exploration.
So, fasten your seatbelts, folks – we're about to embark on a statistical rollercoaster that will leave you both scratching your head and grinning from ear to ear. Welcome to the world of "Swing and Spend," where the madcap meeting of household expenditures and baseball victories takes center stage.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of -0.7849441, indicating a strong negative relationship between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles during the 2000 to 2022 period. This unexpected result certainly threw us a curveball, and we couldn't help but wonder if there was some statistical knuckleball at play here. With an r-squared of 0.6161373, we found that over 61% of the variation in Orioles' wins could be explained by the variation in household expenditures on other household products. It seems that when consumers are reaching for their wallets to stock up on household items, the Orioles might be reaching for their baseball gloves with less success.

To visually encapsulate this surprising relationship, Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot that showcases the robust negative correlation between these two unlikely bedfellows. This graphical representation truly drives home the unconventional nature of our findings and leaves us pondering the possibility of statistical home runs in the realm of consumer behavior and sports outcomes.

The significance level of our p-value, which stood at less than 0.01, further underscores the statistical validity of this peculiar connection. It seems that the statistical odds were in favor of the unexpected link we uncovered, prompting us to consider the possibility of a statistical grand slam in the domain of household spending and baseball victories.

In the world of data analysis, it's not every day that you stumble upon such an amusingly juxtaposed pair of variables exhibiting such a strong and significant relationship. This quirky statistical revelation invites us to embrace the whimsical side of research and the unpredictable nature of statistical relationships. As we delve into the offbeat territory where consumer purchases and athletic accomplishments converge, we beckon fellow researchers and enthusiasts to join us in the delightful dance of data exploration and to revel in the chuckle-worthy twists and turns that statistical analyses can take.

The unexpected correlation we uncovered between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles offers a lighthearted reminder of the whimsical possibilities that lurk within the depths of statistical analyses. So, let's raise our data-filled glasses to a statistical home run that defies the conventional and invites us to embrace the zany side of research.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on other household products and Wins for the Baltimore Orioles. Make lots of 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]]
Swing and Spend: A Correlation Analysis of US Household Expenditures on Other Household Products and Baltimore Orioles' Wins

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unexpected relationship between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. With a whimsical spin on the conventional economic analysis, we use econometric tools and baseball statistics to uncover a correlation that has been flying under the radar. Through meticulous data mining from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Baseball-Reference.com, we discover a striking link between these seemingly unrelated realms. Our findings reveal a negative correlation coefficient of -0.7849441 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the 2000 to 2022 period. This prompts us to question whether households are inadvertently influencing the performance of the Orioles through their mundane purchases. We also speculate whether the Orioles' wins drive households to splurge or economize on household goods. While our study offers an amusing lens on the intersection of consumer behavior and sports outcomes, it also underscores the quirky nature of statistical relationships and invites further investigation into the whimsical side of data analysis.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
To establish the context for our unconventional exploration, we commence by delving into the scholarly work that precedes our whimsical foray into the connection between US household spending on other household products and the triumphs of the Baltimore Orioles. First on the docket is Smith et al.'s seminal paper "Consumer Purchasing Patterns and Sports Outcomes," where the authors find a compelling link between an increase in spending on hygiene products and a decrease in the number of home runs scored by a baseball team. Building on this insightful thread, Doe and Jones (2015) undertake a comprehensive analysis in "The Dollars and Dingers Dilemma," unveiling an intricate association between household expenditure on cleaning supplies and the strikeouts accumulated by a baseball team.
As we meander through the labyrinth of economic and sporting analyses, we encounter "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" by Michael Lewis and "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Seemingly unrelated to our current inquiry, these literary works shed light on the unassuming quirks of statistical correlations, reminding us that beneath the veneer of serious scholarship lies a realm of playful paradoxes and amusing connections.
Turning our attention to the fictional realm, we discover "The Cuckoo's Calling" by Robert Galbraith and "The Art of Fielding" by Chad Harbach, where the serendipitous interplay of household items and baseball victories takes center stage in unexpected plot twists. The lines between reality and imagination blur, beckoning us to consider the blithe influence of household goods on sports outcomes with a newfound sense of mirth and wonder.
Broadening our horizons, we inadvertently stumbled upon social media commentary that left us both bewildered and amused. One post on Twitter suggested that a surge in popcorn sales coincided with an infamous losing streak for the Orioles, prompting us to ponder whether buttery snacks hold the key to unraveling the enigma of sporting triumphs. Meanwhile, a comical meme on Instagram juxtaposed laundry detergent sales with baseball team performances, eliciting belly laughs and prompting us to contemplate the whimsical dance between domestic essentials and athletic achievements.
In the spirit of scholarly inquiry, we must acknowledge that our literature review may have taken an unexpectedly lighthearted turn. However, we would be remiss not to honor the unintentionally comical sources that beckoned us to embrace the whimsical side of statistical exploration. As we proceed with our analysis, we invite readers to revel in the offbeat revelations that await and to join us in celebrating the delightful intersections between consumer behaviors and sporting conquests.

[[RESULTS]]
Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of -0.7849441, indicating a strong negative relationship between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles during the 2000 to 2022 period. This unexpected result certainly threw us a curveball, and we couldn't help but wonder if there was some statistical knuckleball at play here. With an r-squared of 0.6161373, we found that over 61% of the variation in Orioles' wins could be explained by the variation in household expenditures on other household products. It seems that when consumers are reaching for their wallets to stock up on household items, the Orioles might be reaching for their baseball gloves with less success.
To visually encapsulate this surprising relationship, Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot that showcases the robust negative correlation between these two unlikely bedfellows. This graphical representation truly drives home the unconventional nature of our findings and leaves us pondering the possibility of statistical home runs in the realm of consumer behavior and sports outcomes.
The significance level of our p-value, which stood at less than 0.01, further underscores the statistical validity of this peculiar connection. It seems that the statistical odds were in favor of the unexpected link we uncovered, prompting us to consider the possibility of a statistical grand slam in the domain of household spending and baseball victories.
In the world of data analysis, it's not every day that you stumble upon such an amusingly juxtaposed pair of variables exhibiting such a strong and significant relationship. This quirky statistical revelation invites us to embrace the whimsical side of research and the unpredictable nature of statistical relationships. As we delve into the offbeat territory where consumer purchases and athletic accomplishments converge, we beckon fellow researchers and enthusiasts to join us in the delightful dance of data exploration and to revel in the chuckle-worthy twists and turns that statistical analyses can take.
The unexpected correlation we uncovered between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles offers a lighthearted reminder of the whimsical possibilities that lurk within the depths of statistical analyses. So, let's raise our data-filled glasses to a statistical home run that defies the conventional and invites us to embrace the zany side of research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Well, folks, it's time to step up to the plate and dig into the wacky world of statistical correlations between household spending and baseball wins. Our findings have certainly hit us out of left field, and we can't help but marvel at the curveball nature of this unlikely relationship. Reflecting on our literature review, it's almost as if we're in a real-life "Moneyball" scenario, where the whimsical and the statistical collide like a rogue knuckleball.

The negative correlation coefficient of -0.7849441 we've uncovered may seem like a statistical anomaly, but it aligns with the revelatory work of Smith et al. and the insights from Doe and Jones. Just as in "The Art of Fielding," where the unexpected plays and offbeat connections drive the narrative, our findings contribute to the lively saga of statistical puzzlement and scholarly caprice.

As we analyze this peculiar partnership between household spending and Orioles' triumphs, we're reminded of the intrepid spirit of "The Cuckoo's Calling," where the unraveling of mysteries parallels our investigation into the hidden connections between consumer choices and sporting outcomes. It's like unraveling a comical meme on Instagram—except our scatterplot is the punchline, capturing the quirkiness of this statistical comic strip.

With an r-squared of 0.6161373, we've certainly hit a statistical grand slam, showcasing the substantive influence of household purchases on Orioles' wins. It's as if we've stumbled upon a statistical honey of a home run, making us wonder if there's a sabermetric secret brewing in the aisles of household products.

Our p-value of less than 0.01 further solidifies the legitimacy of this unconventional correlation, akin to the validation of an unexpected theory in the realm of scientific caprice. It's as if statistical odds-makers saw this correlation as a surefire bet, inviting us to ponder the whimsical potential of a statistical curveball in the domain of consumer spending and athletic glories.

Embracing the lively dance of data exploration, we invite our fellow researchers to revel in the chuckle-worthy twists and turns that statistical analyses can take. Our findings may seem like an amusingly mismatched pair of variables, but they beckon us to embrace the comical and the curious in the realm of research.

In the spirit of scholarly jocularity, let's raise our data-filled glasses to a statistical home run that defies convention and invites us to embrace the zany side of research. After all, who knew that household spending could secretly moonlight as a baseball coach for the Baltimore Orioles?



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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on other household products and Wins for the Baltimore Orioles. Make lots of 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]]
Swing and Spend: A Correlation Analysis of US Household Expenditures on Other Household Products and Baltimore Orioles' Wins

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unexpected relationship between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. With a whimsical spin on the conventional economic analysis, we use econometric tools and baseball statistics to uncover a correlation that has been flying under the radar. Through meticulous data mining from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Baseball-Reference.com, we discover a striking link between these seemingly unrelated realms. Our findings reveal a negative correlation coefficient of -0.7849441 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the 2000 to 2022 period. This prompts us to question whether households are inadvertently influencing the performance of the Orioles through their mundane purchases. We also speculate whether the Orioles' wins drive households to splurge or economize on household goods. While our study offers an amusing lens on the intersection of consumer behavior and sports outcomes, it also underscores the quirky nature of statistical relationships and invites further investigation into the whimsical side of data analysis.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Who would have thought that the world of consumer spending and the world of baseball could be intertwined like two star-crossed lovers? In this offbeat study, we embark on a whimsical journey to explore the uncharted terrain where US household expenditures on other household products intersect with the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. Like a pair of statistical lovebirds, these seemingly unrelated variables have caught our eye, and we can't help but wonder if there's more to their story.
Econometric aficionados spend their days crunching numbers and dissecting economic trends, but we're here to inject a dose of levity into the mix. We've rolled up our sleeves, donned our baseball caps, and embarked on a data mining expedition that would make even the most seasoned statistician do a double-take. Using our trusty tools and a sprinkle of baseball magic, we've unraveled a connection that's as perplexing as it is intriguing.
So, what did our journey reveal? Brace yourselves for a wildly unexpected correlation coefficient of -0.7849441. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the statistical stars have aligned to show us that as US household spending on other household products goes up, the wins of the Baltimore Orioles tend to go down. And if you're a fan of statistical significance, our p-value of less than 0.01 will surely make you do a double-take.
You might be asking yourself, "How on earth could the shampoo or detergent in my shopping cart be influencing the outcome of a baseball game hundreds of miles away?" Trust us, we're scratching our heads too. Nevertheless, the data don't lie – or do they? Could it be that households across America are unwittingly casting a mystical spell on the Orioles through their everyday purchases? Or perhaps there's a mysterious force at play that shapes both consumer behavior and sports victories, all behind the scenes?
As we traverse this unconventional terrain, we're reminded of the playfulness and unpredictability of statistical relationships. After all, who said that correlation analyses couldn't have a sense of humor? We invite you to join us in reveling in the curious dance between consumer choices and athletic triumphs, as we tip our hats to the enigmatic nature of data and the boundless possibilities of statistical exploration.
So, fasten your seatbelts, folks – we're about to embark on a statistical rollercoaster that will leave you both scratching your head and grinning from ear to ear. Welcome to the world of "Swing and Spend," where the madcap meeting of household expenditures and baseball victories takes center stage.

[[RESULTS]]
Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of -0.7849441, indicating a strong negative relationship between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles during the 2000 to 2022 period. This unexpected result certainly threw us a curveball, and we couldn't help but wonder if there was some statistical knuckleball at play here. With an r-squared of 0.6161373, we found that over 61% of the variation in Orioles' wins could be explained by the variation in household expenditures on other household products. It seems that when consumers are reaching for their wallets to stock up on household items, the Orioles might be reaching for their baseball gloves with less success.
To visually encapsulate this surprising relationship, Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot that showcases the robust negative correlation between these two unlikely bedfellows. This graphical representation truly drives home the unconventional nature of our findings and leaves us pondering the possibility of statistical home runs in the realm of consumer behavior and sports outcomes.
The significance level of our p-value, which stood at less than 0.01, further underscores the statistical validity of this peculiar connection. It seems that the statistical odds were in favor of the unexpected link we uncovered, prompting us to consider the possibility of a statistical grand slam in the domain of household spending and baseball victories.
In the world of data analysis, it's not every day that you stumble upon such an amusingly juxtaposed pair of variables exhibiting such a strong and significant relationship. This quirky statistical revelation invites us to embrace the whimsical side of research and the unpredictable nature of statistical relationships. As we delve into the offbeat territory where consumer purchases and athletic accomplishments converge, we beckon fellow researchers and enthusiasts to join us in the delightful dance of data exploration and to revel in the chuckle-worthy twists and turns that statistical analyses can take.
The unexpected correlation we uncovered between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles offers a lighthearted reminder of the whimsical possibilities that lurk within the depths of statistical analyses. So, let's raise our data-filled glasses to a statistical home run that defies the conventional and invites us to embrace the zany side of research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

As we conclude our wild ride through the zany world of "Swing and Spend," we can't help but revel in the delightful absurdity of the connection between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. It seems that in the twisted and turned world of statistical oddities, the curveballs never stop coming! With an r-squared of 0.6161373, we uncovered that over 61% of the variation in Orioles' wins could be explained by the variation in household expenditures on other household products. Who knew that the fate of the Orioles could be tied to the purchase of a new set of kitchen sponges or a crate of laundry detergent? It's as though consumer wallets and baseball bats are engaged in a cosmic ballet, twirling and intertwining in ways we never thought possible.

The negative correlation coefficient of -0.7849441 left us grinning from ear to ear, pondering the antics of statistical relationships that seem to have a mischievous sense of humor. Could it be that the Orioles are simply waiting for households to splurge or economize before deciding to hit a home run? Or maybe their victories somehow compel consumers to stock up on household goods, creating a whimsical feedback loop of spending and sporting triumph. The possibilities are as confounding as they are amusing.

As we hang up our statistical cleats and bid farewell to this offbeat inquiry, we must assert that no more research is needed in this area, for we have surely exhausted the comical depths of this statistical rabbit hole. So here's to the quirks of statistical exploration, the playful dalliances of correlation analyses, and the unexpected chuckles that accompany the unraveling of statistical mysteries. It's been a downright hoot, and we hope you've enjoyed this rollicking journey through the "Swing and Spend" saga. Until next time, may your data always surprise and your statistical relationships never cease to amuse!


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 Swing and Spend: A Correlation Analysis of US Household Expenditures on Other Household Products and Baltimore Orioles' Wins. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Economics and Unconventional Behavioral 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 Swing and Spend: A Correlation Analysis of US Household Expenditures on Other Household Products and Baltimore Orioles' Wins. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

Center for American Sports Economics


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 Swing and Spend: A Correlation Analysis of US Household Expenditures on Other Household Products and Baltimore Orioles' Wins with an abstract of In this study, we delve into the unexpected relationship between US household spending on other household products and the wins of the Baltimore Orioles. With a whimsical spin on the conventional economic analysis, we use econometric tools and baseball statistics to uncover a correlation that has been flying under the radar. Through meticulous data mining from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Baseball-Reference.com, we discover a striking link between these seemingly unrelated realms. Our findings reveal a negative correlation coefficient of -0.7849441 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the 2000 to 2022 period. This prompts us to question whether households are inadvertently influencing the performance of the Orioles through their mundane purchases. We also speculate whether the Orioles' wins drive households to splurge or economize on household goods. While our study offers an amusing lens on the intersection of consumer behavior and sports outcomes, it also underscores the quirky nature of statistical relationships and invites further investigation into the whimsical side of data analysis.

ChatGPT:

US household expenditures, Baltimore Orioles wins, correlation analysis, consumer behavior, sports outcomes, econometric tools, baseball statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Baseball-Reference.com, correlation coefficient, p-value, Baltimore Orioles performance, consumer spending, household products, statistical relationships, data analysis.

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

US household spending on other household products
Detailed data title: Annual US household spend on other household products, as a percentage of total household spend
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with US household spending on other household products

Wins for the Baltimore Orioles
Detailed data title: The total number of season wins for the Baltimore Orioles
Source: Baseball-Reference.com
See what else correlates with Wins for the Baltimore Orioles

Correlation r = -0.7849441 (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 = 0.6161373 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 61.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Wins for the Baltimore Orioles) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., US household spending on other household products) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 9.2E-6. 0.0000091951066171866380000000
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 -0.78 in 0.00092% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 108,753 random variables You don't actually need 108 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 22 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 22 because we have two variables measured over a period of 23 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.

[ -0.9, -0.55 ] 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.
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
US household spending on other household products (Household spend)0.5940330.6452760.6957250.6443390.668280.6895210.6818180.6990610.6932620.7336910.6838640.6840360.6201160.6849320.6617440.6574010.6333860.7126210.7039720.7265690.8739040.7679890.670166
Wins for the Baltimore Orioles (Game wins)7463677178747069686466699385968189754754255283




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.
  5. 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.
  6. Inverted Y-axis: I inverted the Y-axis on the chart above so that the lines would move together. This is visually pleasing, but not at all intuitive. Below is a line graph that does not invert the Y-axis.




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([0.594033,0.645276,0.695725,0.644339,0.66828,0.689521,0.681818,0.699061,0.693262,0.733691,0.683864,0.684036,0.620116,0.684932,0.661744,0.657401,0.633386,0.712621,0.703972,0.726569,0.873904,0.767989,0.670166,])
array_2 = np.array([74,63,67,71,78,74,70,69,68,64,66,69,93,85,96,81,89,75,47,54,25,52,83,])
array_1_name = "US household spending on other household products"
array_2_name = "Wins for the Baltimore Orioles"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the rating guru we've been waiting for!


Correlation ID: 3985 · Black Variable ID: 19973 · Red Variable ID: 4300
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0