Spurious correlation #4,277 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Popularity of the first name Lizette and the second variable is Air pollution in Nashville. The chart goes from 1980 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Popularity of the first name Lizette and the second variable is Air pollution in Nashville. The chart goes from 1980 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

Fewer "Lizette" name mugs and keychains were made, leading to a slight reduction in overall production emissions. Plus, with fewer Lizettes, there were fewer personalized car air fresheners being used, leading to a decrease in individual vehicle air pollution. Looks like Lizette isn't just an uncommon name; it's also an unintentional eco-friendly trendsetter!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Generate an image of a whimsical Nashville skyline with exaggerated elements, such as oversized "Lizette" name mugs and keychains floating in the air. Show cars in the foreground with comically large air fresheners boasting the name "Lizette" hanging from their rearview mirrors. The city should have a playful, vibrant feel, and emit an aura of reduced pollution and eco-friendliness in the air. 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: Popularity of the first name Lizette and Air pollution in Nashville. 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: Whimsical illustration Glitch art Hyper-realistic Cutsy graphics Charcoal
ChatGPT: Cutsy graphics

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Popularity of the first name Lizette and Air pollution in Nashville, in the following situation: Fewer "Lizette" name mugs and keychains were made, leading to a slight reduction in overall production emissions. Plus, with fewer Lizettes, there were fewer personalized car air fresheners being used, leading to a decrease in individual vehicle air pollution. Looks like Lizette isn't just an uncommon name; it's also an unintentional eco-friendly trendsetter!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Nashville, there are fewer "Lizette" name mugs and keychains available. As a result, fewer personalized car air fresheners with the name Lizette are being used, leading to a decrease in individual vehicle air pollution. The city sees a slight reduction in overall production emissions as a result.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Cutsy graphics ] and depicting this scene: In Nashville, there are fewer "Lizette" name mugs and keychains available. As a result, fewer personalized car air fresheners with the name Lizette are being used, leading to a decrease in individual vehicle air pollution. The city sees a slight reduction in overall production emissions as a result. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Generate an image of a whimsical Nashville skyline with exaggerated elements, such as oversized "Lizette" name mugs and keychains floating in the air. Show cars in the foreground with comically large air fresheners boasting the name "Lizette" hanging from their rearview mirrors. The city should have a playful, vibrant feel, and emit an aura of reduced pollution and eco-friendliness in the air.

*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.
^{Show prompt for explanation} 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 Popularity of the first name Lizette caused Air pollution in Nashville to decrease. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

The Lizette Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Smog-Inducing Phenomenon?

The Journal of Environmental Quirks

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!

^{Show prompt used to generate this paper} 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 dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Popularity of the first name Lizette and Air pollution in Nashville. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"The Lizette Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Smog-Inducing Phenomenon?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the unlikely relationship between the popularity of the first name Lizette and air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee. Leveraging data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, our research team delves into this peculiar correlation with a keen eye and a healthy dose of skepticism. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8284594 and a p-value of less than 0.01 spanning the years 1980 to 2022, the results suggest a perplexing link between the frequency of the moniker "Lizette" and atmospheric contaminant levels. This unexpected finding beckons for further exploration, prompting both a chuckle and a furrowed brow as we ponder the intricate web of factors influencing air quality, from human behavior to pure serendipity. Our study unearths a curious connection that may titillate the curious minds of researchers and practitioners alike, provoking both laughter and contemplation in its wake.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between personal nomenclature and environmental factors has long been a subject of curious inquiry, often dismissed as mere coincidence or whimsical speculation. However, the intricate interplay of human behavior, societal influences, and environmental conditions may harbor unexpected connections that lie beyond the realm of conventional wisdom. Our study endeavors to unravel one such enigma, delving into the uncharted territory of the "Lizette Effect" and its potential impact on air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee.
The moniker "Lizette" itself carries an air of allure and mystery, evoking intrigue and sophistication, much like the elusive forces of atmospheric contamination. Despite the initial appearance of an incongruous pairing, our analysis has exposed a compelling correlation that challenges the boundaries of traditional causality. The juxtaposition of a seemingly innocuous name with the ambient presence of air pollutants presents a conundrum that both bemuses and beguiles the inquisitive mind.
As we embark on this scholarly pursuit, we are reminded of the words of the great playwright, William Shakespeare: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." However, in this context, we are compelled to ponder, would the aroma of pollution be as pungent if not for the prevalence of the name "Lizette"? This whimsical inquiry serves as a lighthearted backdrop to our earnest exploration, as we endeavor to discern whether the "Lizette Effect" is indeed a breath of fresh air or a smog-inducing phenomenon.
The imponderable nature of this correlation beckons us to approach our investigation with a blend of analytical rigor and a modicum of mirth. Through this inquiry, we aim to elevate the discourse surrounding environmental influences and human nomenclature, infusing a dash of levity into the often austere domain of academic research. Our findings may not only elucidate the peculiar convergence of these disparate elements but also serve as a testament to the unforeseen whimsy that permeates the tapestry of scientific inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The authors delve into a myriad of studies that aim to elucidate the connection between personal nomenclature and environmental influences, although most alliances between the two topics remain tenuous at best. Smith et al. (2010) present an extensive investigation of naming patterns and their putative impact on urban air quality, concluding that such associations are spurious at best and ludicrous at worst. Conversely, Doe and Jones (2015) opine that the significance of nomenclatural influence on atmospheric conditions merits further examination, albeit with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Turning to non-fiction works, "The Name Book" by Dorothy Astoria offers a comprehensive compendium of monikers and their connotations, with the occasional aside on climate patterns, while "Pollution and You" by Environmental Foundation delves into the intricacies of air contamination with little regard for the potential influence of names on the matter.

In the realm of fiction, "The Airborne Toxic Event" by Don DeLillo provides a literary exploration of airborne hazards, albeit without reference to the impact of names. "The Name of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss offers a saga of magic and mystery, with nary a whisper about the potential correlation between nomenclature and environmental phenomena.

It is during this literary pursuit that unexpected insights surface, akin to the perplexing correlation under investigation. Reflecting on the animated series "Captain Planet and the Planeteers," one cannot help but ponder the whimsical influence of names on the eponymous hero and his valiant efforts to combat environmental degradation. Similarly, the children's show "The Magic School Bus" imbues a sense of wonder about the interplay of anthropogenic factors and their ecological ramifications, veering into the realm of speculative nomenclatural impact.

The intermingling of these disparate and, at times, whimsical sources fosters a deeper appreciation for the unlikely connections that permeate the investigation at hand. It is these unanticipated nuances that infuse the scholarly pursuit with an air of levity, prompting a chuckle and a furrowed brow in equal measure.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Popularity of the first name Lizette and Air pollution in Nashville. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from US Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency . You used data from 1980 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]]
"The Lizette Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Smog-Inducing Phenomenon?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the unlikely relationship between the popularity of the first name Lizette and air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee. Leveraging data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, our research team delves into this peculiar correlation with a keen eye and a healthy dose of skepticism. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8284594 and a p-value of less than 0.01 spanning the years 1980 to 2022, the results suggest a perplexing link between the frequency of the moniker "Lizette" and atmospheric contaminant levels. This unexpected finding beckons for further exploration, prompting both a chuckle and a furrowed brow as we ponder the intricate web of factors influencing air quality, from human behavior to pure serendipity. Our study unearths a curious connection that may titillate the curious minds of researchers and practitioners alike, provoking both laughter and contemplation in its wake.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between personal nomenclature and environmental factors has long been a subject of curious inquiry, often dismissed as mere coincidence or whimsical speculation. However, the intricate interplay of human behavior, societal influences, and environmental conditions may harbor unexpected connections that lie beyond the realm of conventional wisdom. Our study endeavors to unravel one such enigma, delving into the uncharted territory of the "Lizette Effect" and its potential impact on air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee.
The moniker "Lizette" itself carries an air of allure and mystery, evoking intrigue and sophistication, much like the elusive forces of atmospheric contamination. Despite the initial appearance of an incongruous pairing, our analysis has exposed a compelling correlation that challenges the boundaries of traditional causality. The juxtaposition of a seemingly innocuous name with the ambient presence of air pollutants presents a conundrum that both bemuses and beguiles the inquisitive mind.
As we embark on this scholarly pursuit, we are reminded of the words of the great playwright, William Shakespeare: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." However, in this context, we are compelled to ponder, would the aroma of pollution be as pungent if not for the prevalence of the name "Lizette"? This whimsical inquiry serves as a lighthearted backdrop to our earnest exploration, as we endeavor to discern whether the "Lizette Effect" is indeed a breath of fresh air or a smog-inducing phenomenon.
The imponderable nature of this correlation beckons us to approach our investigation with a blend of analytical rigor and a modicum of mirth. Through this inquiry, we aim to elevate the discourse surrounding environmental influences and human nomenclature, infusing a dash of levity into the often austere domain of academic research. Our findings may not only elucidate the peculiar convergence of these disparate elements but also serve as a testament to the unforeseen whimsy that permeates the tapestry of scientific inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Data Collection:
The first step in our process involved the retrieval of data pertaining to the frequency of the name "Lizette" from the US Social Security Administration's records. This endeavor required sifting through vast troves of nomenclatural data, akin to scouring a metaphorical haystack in search of a particularly elusive needle. We then meticulously tabulated the occurrences of this distinctive appellation over the years 1980 to 2022, taking care to account for any potential variations in data recording practices or societal trends that might influence the reported frequencies.

In parallel, we procured records of air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee, from the Environmental Protection Agency. This involved navigating through a figurative fog of environmental data, where the presence of obscure metrics and arcane measurement units threatened to obfuscate our quest for clarity. Despite the nebulous nature of atmospheric contaminants, we managed to extract coherent and reliable measures of air quality, spanning the same temporal domain as our nomenclatural data.

Data Analysis:
With our datasets in hand, we embarked on a journey of statistical analysis, endeavoring to unravel the potential entwining of "Lizette" popularity and air pollution levels. Employing sophisticated mathematical tools and tapping into the enigmatic power of correlation coefficients, we sought to distill relationships from the data reservoirs before us. The juxtaposition of these seemingly disparate domains beckoned to our collective curiosity, prompting us to navigate the intricate terrain of statistical inference with an air of bemusement and intellectual rigor.

Our methodology, akin to a figurative pas de deux between data and theory, involved the deployment of robust statistical tests to ascertain the strength and significance of the observed correlation. The enigmatic dance between p-values and coefficient assessments led us to a nuanced understanding of the purported link, underscoring the intricate nature of this seemingly implausible association. Through this analytical ballet, we sought not only to glean insights into the empirical connection but also to infuse a subtle sense of whimsy into our scientific inquiry.

Concerns for Causality:
As we delved deeper into our analysis, we maintained a keen awareness of the potential fallacies associated with inferring causality from correlation. The subtle interplay between the popularity of a name and environmental pollutants evoked a sense of philosophical contemplation, akin to pondering the timeless question of which came first - the chicken or the egg. While our findings suggest a compelling association, we approached our conclusions with a measured dose of caution, acknowledging the tantalizing allure of spurious correlations that may lurk in the labyrinthine corridors of data analysis.

Ethical Considerations:
In the pursuit of knowledge, we remained mindful of the ethical dimensions underlying our research. Ensuring the integrity and confidentiality of personal nomenclature data, while analyzing its potential relationship to environmental variables, entailed a steadfast commitment to ethical principles. Furthermore, our exploration of this unorthodox association required a delicate balance of academic rigor and lighthearted contemplation, as we navigated the terrain of empirical investigation with a nuanced appreciation for the boundary between scholarly inquiry and whimsical curiosity.

In conclusion, our methodology, while navigating the labyrinthine domains of nomenclatural data and environmental metrics, sought to unravel the enigmatic connection between the name "Lizette" and atmospheric pollution levels. With a judicious blend of statistical prowess and a touch of scholarly whimsy, we endeavored to shed light on this peculiar correlation while maintaining a lighthearted appreciation for the unexpected intricacies that permeate the fabric of scientific exploration.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Popularity of the first name Lizette and Air pollution in Nashville. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from US Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency .

For the time period 1980 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.8284594, r-squared of 0.6863449, 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]]
"The Lizette Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Smog-Inducing Phenomenon?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the unlikely relationship between the popularity of the first name Lizette and air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee. Leveraging data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, our research team delves into this peculiar correlation with a keen eye and a healthy dose of skepticism. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8284594 and a p-value of less than 0.01 spanning the years 1980 to 2022, the results suggest a perplexing link between the frequency of the moniker "Lizette" and atmospheric contaminant levels. This unexpected finding beckons for further exploration, prompting both a chuckle and a furrowed brow as we ponder the intricate web of factors influencing air quality, from human behavior to pure serendipity. Our study unearths a curious connection that may titillate the curious minds of researchers and practitioners alike, provoking both laughter and contemplation in its wake.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The relationship between personal nomenclature and environmental factors has long been a subject of curious inquiry, often dismissed as mere coincidence or whimsical speculation. However, the intricate interplay of human behavior, societal influences, and environmental conditions may harbor unexpected connections that lie beyond the realm of conventional wisdom. Our study endeavors to unravel one such enigma, delving into the uncharted territory of the "Lizette Effect" and its potential impact on air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee.
The moniker "Lizette" itself carries an air of allure and mystery, evoking intrigue and sophistication, much like the elusive forces of atmospheric contamination. Despite the initial appearance of an incongruous pairing, our analysis has exposed a compelling correlation that challenges the boundaries of traditional causality. The juxtaposition of a seemingly innocuous name with the ambient presence of air pollutants presents a conundrum that both bemuses and beguiles the inquisitive mind.
As we embark on this scholarly pursuit, we are reminded of the words of the great playwright, William Shakespeare: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." However, in this context, we are compelled to ponder, would the aroma of pollution be as pungent if not for the prevalence of the name "Lizette"? This whimsical inquiry serves as a lighthearted backdrop to our earnest exploration, as we endeavor to discern whether the "Lizette Effect" is indeed a breath of fresh air or a smog-inducing phenomenon.
The imponderable nature of this correlation beckons us to approach our investigation with a blend of analytical rigor and a modicum of mirth. Through this inquiry, we aim to elevate the discourse surrounding environmental influences and human nomenclature, infusing a dash of levity into the often austere domain of academic research. Our findings may not only elucidate the peculiar convergence of these disparate elements but also serve as a testament to the unforeseen whimsy that permeates the tapestry of scientific inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]

ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The findings of our study reveal a positive correlation between the popularity of the first name Lizette and air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee. Over the period from 1980 to 2022, the correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.8284594, with an r-squared value of 0.6863449, and a p-value of less than 0.01. These statistical measures indicate a remarkably strong relationship between the frequency of the name "Lizette" and atmospheric contaminant levels in Music City.

As depicted in Figure 1, the scatterplot visually represents the robust correlation between the two variables, providing a compelling illustration of this unexpected association. The scatterplot leaves little room for doubt and may even elicit a bemused nod or a quizzical raised eyebrow from the discerning observer.

This intriguing nexus between a seemingly innocuous name and the ambient presence of air pollutants challenges conventional expectations and encourages a playful yet contemplative examination of the intertwined forces at play. The sheer audacity of this correlation not only piques the curiosity of researchers and practitioners but also injects an air of levity into the realm of scientific inquiry, an unexpected breath of fresh air in the study of air pollution dynamics.

In light of these findings, it becomes evident that the "Lizette Effect" prompts us to reconsider the complexities of causality and the unanticipated interplay between human behavior and environmental phenomena. It beckons us to embrace the serendipitous whimsy that often eludes the rigors of academic investigation, reminding us that amidst the haze of data and analysis, an unexpected revelation may emerge, not unlike a sudden gust of wind dispersing the smog of preconceived notions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Popularity of the first name Lizette and Air pollution in Nashville. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
"The Lizette Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Smog-Inducing Phenomenon?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the unlikely relationship between the popularity of the first name Lizette and air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee. Leveraging data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, our research team delves into this peculiar correlation with a keen eye and a healthy dose of skepticism. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8284594 and a p-value of less than 0.01 spanning the years 1980 to 2022, the results suggest a perplexing link between the frequency of the moniker "Lizette" and atmospheric contaminant levels. This unexpected finding beckons for further exploration, prompting both a chuckle and a furrowed brow as we ponder the intricate web of factors influencing air quality, from human behavior to pure serendipity. Our study unearths a curious connection that may titillate the curious minds of researchers and practitioners alike, provoking both laughter and contemplation in its wake.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The authors delve into a myriad of studies that aim to elucidate the connection between personal nomenclature and environmental influences, although most alliances between the two topics remain tenuous at best. Smith et al. (2010) present an extensive investigation of naming patterns and their putative impact on urban air quality, concluding that such associations are spurious at best and ludicrous at worst. Conversely, Doe and Jones (2015) opine that the significance of nomenclatural influence on atmospheric conditions merits further examination, albeit with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Turning to non-fiction works, "The Name Book" by Dorothy Astoria offers a comprehensive compendium of monikers and their connotations, with the occasional aside on climate patterns, while "Pollution and You" by Environmental Foundation delves into the intricacies of air contamination with little regard for the potential influence of names on the matter.
In the realm of fiction, "The Airborne Toxic Event" by Don DeLillo provides a literary exploration of airborne hazards, albeit without reference to the impact of names. "The Name of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss offers a saga of magic and mystery, with nary a whisper about the potential correlation between nomenclature and environmental phenomena.
It is during this literary pursuit that unexpected insights surface, akin to the perplexing correlation under investigation. Reflecting on the animated series "Captain Planet and the Planeteers," one cannot help but ponder the whimsical influence of names on the eponymous hero and his valiant efforts to combat environmental degradation. Similarly, the children's show "The Magic School Bus" imbues a sense of wonder about the interplay of anthropogenic factors and their ecological ramifications, veering into the realm of speculative nomenclatural impact.
The intermingling of these disparate and, at times, whimsical sources fosters a deeper appreciation for the unlikely connections that permeate the investigation at hand. It is these unanticipated nuances that infuse the scholarly pursuit with an air of levity, prompting a chuckle and a furrowed brow in equal measure.

[[RESULTS]]
The findings of our study reveal a positive correlation between the popularity of the first name Lizette and air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee. Over the period from 1980 to 2022, the correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.8284594, with an r-squared value of 0.6863449, and a p-value of less than 0.01. These statistical measures indicate a remarkably strong relationship between the frequency of the name "Lizette" and atmospheric contaminant levels in Music City.
As depicted in Figure 1, the scatterplot visually represents the robust correlation between the two variables, providing a compelling illustration of this unexpected association. The scatterplot leaves little room for doubt and may even elicit a bemused nod or a quizzical raised eyebrow from the discerning observer.
This intriguing nexus between a seemingly innocuous name and the ambient presence of air pollutants challenges conventional expectations and encourages a playful yet contemplative examination of the intertwined forces at play. The sheer audacity of this correlation not only piques the curiosity of researchers and practitioners but also injects an air of levity into the realm of scientific inquiry, an unexpected breath of fresh air in the study of air pollution dynamics.
In light of these findings, it becomes evident that the "Lizette Effect" prompts us to reconsider the complexities of causality and the unanticipated interplay between human behavior and environmental phenomena. It beckons us to embrace the serendipitous whimsy that often eludes the rigors of academic investigation, reminding us that amidst the haze of data and analysis, an unexpected revelation may emerge, not unlike a sudden gust of wind dispersing the smog of preconceived notions.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study substantially corroborate, and indeed enhance, the existing body of research on the relationship between personal nomenclature and environmental factors. The unwavering positive correlation between the frequency of the name "Lizette" and air pollution levels in Nashville stands as a testament to the unanticipated complexities that underpin this seemingly whimsical association, reaffirming the potential impact of nomenclature on atmospheric conditions. One cannot help but be reminded of the whimsical musings of Smith et al. (2010), whose skepticism regarding such correlations may now be greeted with a quizzical raised eyebrow in light of these compelling results.

It is perhaps in the domain of speculative influences, as superficially whimsical as they may appear, that the seeds of thought-provoking insights are sown. The reflection on the animated hero "Captain Planet" now takes on a new resonance, as the sheer audacity of our findings prompts a reevaluation of the potential nomenclatural influences that may have permeated the creators' minds. Similarly, the overlooked possibility of a clandestine nomenclatural impact in "The Magic School Bus" now warrants a moment of contemplation, for unearthing the hidden layers of whimsy may ultimately illuminate the unexpected intertwined forces shaping our surroundings.

The robustness of the correlation coefficient and the conspicuous positioning of the scatterplot, with its arresting visual representation of the "Lizette Effect," stand as a testament to the unanticipated capacity for levity and contemplation to coalesce in the realm of scientific inquiry. This investigation into the "Lizette Effect" not only invigorates the scholarly pursuit with a breath of fresh air but also emphasizes the paramount need to acknowledge and embrace the serendipitous revelations that may unfurl amidst the haze of scientific exploration.

The unexpectedness of this correlation prompts a reevaluation of the intricate web of factors influencing air quality and unequivocally underscores the importance of harboring a sense of levity and open-mindedness in the scholarly endeavor. The "Lizette Effect" serves as a whimsical but resounding testament to the profound interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena, underscoring, in its own curious way, the poignant reminder that even the most unexpected revelations may ripple through the placid surface of academic inquiry, not unlike a gust of wind dispersing the smog of preconceived notions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Popularity of the first name Lizette and Air pollution in Nashville. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
"The Lizette Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Smog-Inducing Phenomenon?"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the unlikely relationship between the popularity of the first name Lizette and air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee. Leveraging data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, our research team delves into this peculiar correlation with a keen eye and a healthy dose of skepticism. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8284594 and a p-value of less than 0.01 spanning the years 1980 to 2022, the results suggest a perplexing link between the frequency of the moniker "Lizette" and atmospheric contaminant levels. This unexpected finding beckons for further exploration, prompting both a chuckle and a furrowed brow as we ponder the intricate web of factors influencing air quality, from human behavior to pure serendipity. Our study unearths a curious connection that may titillate the curious minds of researchers and practitioners alike, provoking both laughter and contemplation in its wake.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The relationship between personal nomenclature and environmental factors has long been a subject of curious inquiry, often dismissed as mere coincidence or whimsical speculation. However, the intricate interplay of human behavior, societal influences, and environmental conditions may harbor unexpected connections that lie beyond the realm of conventional wisdom. Our study endeavors to unravel one such enigma, delving into the uncharted territory of the "Lizette Effect" and its potential impact on air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee.
The moniker "Lizette" itself carries an air of allure and mystery, evoking intrigue and sophistication, much like the elusive forces of atmospheric contamination. Despite the initial appearance of an incongruous pairing, our analysis has exposed a compelling correlation that challenges the boundaries of traditional causality. The juxtaposition of a seemingly innocuous name with the ambient presence of air pollutants presents a conundrum that both bemuses and beguiles the inquisitive mind.
As we embark on this scholarly pursuit, we are reminded of the words of the great playwright, William Shakespeare: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." However, in this context, we are compelled to ponder, would the aroma of pollution be as pungent if not for the prevalence of the name "Lizette"? This whimsical inquiry serves as a lighthearted backdrop to our earnest exploration, as we endeavor to discern whether the "Lizette Effect" is indeed a breath of fresh air or a smog-inducing phenomenon.
The imponderable nature of this correlation beckons us to approach our investigation with a blend of analytical rigor and a modicum of mirth. Through this inquiry, we aim to elevate the discourse surrounding environmental influences and human nomenclature, infusing a dash of levity into the often austere domain of academic research. Our findings may not only elucidate the peculiar convergence of these disparate elements but also serve as a testament to the unforeseen whimsy that permeates the tapestry of scientific inquiry.

[[RESULTS]]
The findings of our study reveal a positive correlation between the popularity of the first name Lizette and air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee. Over the period from 1980 to 2022, the correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.8284594, with an r-squared value of 0.6863449, and a p-value of less than 0.01. These statistical measures indicate a remarkably strong relationship between the frequency of the name "Lizette" and atmospheric contaminant levels in Music City.
As depicted in Figure 1, the scatterplot visually represents the robust correlation between the two variables, providing a compelling illustration of this unexpected association. The scatterplot leaves little room for doubt and may even elicit a bemused nod or a quizzical raised eyebrow from the discerning observer.
This intriguing nexus between a seemingly innocuous name and the ambient presence of air pollutants challenges conventional expectations and encourages a playful yet contemplative examination of the intertwined forces at play. The sheer audacity of this correlation not only piques the curiosity of researchers and practitioners but also injects an air of levity into the realm of scientific inquiry, an unexpected breath of fresh air in the study of air pollution dynamics.
In light of these findings, it becomes evident that the "Lizette Effect" prompts us to reconsider the complexities of causality and the unanticipated interplay between human behavior and environmental phenomena. It beckons us to embrace the serendipitous whimsy that often eludes the rigors of academic investigation, reminding us that amidst the haze of data and analysis, an unexpected revelation may emerge, not unlike a sudden gust of wind dispersing the smog of preconceived notions.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation into the enigmatic "Lizette Effect" has unveiled a compelling correlation between the popularity of the first name "Lizette" and air pollution levels in Nashville. The robust correlation coefficient and statistically significant p-value underscore the unlikely connection between human nomenclature and atmospheric contaminant levels, adding an intriguing twist to the discourse on environmental influences. The unexpected nature of this association elicits a wry smile, prompting us to ponder the whimsical forces at play in the realm of scholarly inquiry.

This peculiar linkage between a seemingly innocuous name and ambient pollution levels challenges traditional expectations, tantalizing the intellect with its paradoxical charm. The juxtaposition of the elegant appellation "Lizette" with the shadow of smog yields a thought-provoking tableau, invoking both a chuckle and a furrowed brow. The lighthearted backdrop of our exploration, coupled with the earnest pursuit of knowledge, demonstrates the fusion of analytical rigor and serendipitous levity, a testament to the delightful caprice that threads through the tapestry of scientific inquiry.

Ultimately, our findings beckon us to celebrate the unexpected and embrace the buoyant spirit of curiosity that animates scholarly pursuits. Our study serves as a whimsical ode to the unfathomed intricacies of the human experience and its idiosyncratic dance with the elements, prompting both laughter and contemplation in equal measure. With these revelations in hand, we assert that no further research is needed in this area.

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 The Lizette Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Smog-Inducing Phenomenon?. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Environmental Quirks

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 The Lizette Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Smog-Inducing Phenomenon?. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Atmospheric Dynamics and Regional Environmental Preservation

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 The Lizette Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Smog-Inducing Phenomenon? with an abstract of This paper investigates the unlikely relationship between the popularity of the first name Lizette and air pollution levels in Nashville, Tennessee. Leveraging data from the US Social Security Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, our research team delves into this peculiar correlation with a keen eye and a healthy dose of skepticism. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8284594 and a p-value of less than 0.01 spanning the years 1980 to 2022, the results suggest a perplexing link between the frequency of the moniker "Lizette" and atmospheric contaminant levels. This unexpected finding beckons for further exploration, prompting both a chuckle and a furrowed brow as we ponder the intricate web of factors influencing air quality, from human behavior to pure serendipity. Our study unearths a curious connection that may titillate the curious minds of researchers and practitioners alike, provoking both laughter and contemplation in its wake.

ChatGPT:

"Lizette name popularity air pollution correlation, Nashville," "US Social Security Administration data analysis," "Environmental Protection Agency air pollution levels," "correlation coefficient atmospheric contaminant levels," "Lizette name frequency air quality," "factors influencing air pollution," "serendipitous air pollution correlation," "curious connection Lizette name air quality."

*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

Popularity of the first name Lizette
Detailed data title: Babies of all sexes born in the US named Lizette
Source: US Social Security Administration
See what else correlates with Popularity of the first name Lizette

Air pollution in Nashville
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with air quality at 'unhealthy for sensitive groups' or worse in Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Nashville

Correlation r = 0.8284594 (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 = 0.6863449 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 68.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Air pollution in Nashville) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Popularity of the first name Lizette) over the 43 years from 1980 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 7.04E-12.^Show 0.0000000000070371515644921220
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note 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 0.83 in 7.04E-10% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 142,102,950,439 random variables^Note You don't actually need 142 billion 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 42 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 42 because we have two variables measured over a period of 43 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.

[ 0.7, 0.9 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} 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: ^Note 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.

	1980	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Popularity of the first name Lizette (Babies born)	187	165	197	196	208	254	273	251	316	412	357	352	322	298	271	318	270	289	334	506	329	335	291	292	332	290	238	192	190	189	191	151	104	65	74	59	59	42	47	48	55	37	33
Air pollution in Nashville (Bad air quality days)	8.46994	8.76712	11.2329	14.2466	15.847	7.67123	13.1507	13.9726	25.6831	13.6986	21.0959	14.7945	6.8306	16.1644	16.4384	21.9178	17.2131	18.0822	20.8219	35.3425	20.765	12.8767	14.7945	11.7808	6.01093	15.0685	9.86301	19.1781	6.55738	0.821918	7.67123	5.47945	8.46994	0.273973	1.64384	0.273973	1.63934	0.273973	1.91781	0.273973	0.546448	1.36986	1.09589

Why this works

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.
Lack of causal connection: There is probably^Note 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.
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^Note 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. ^{Show the steps to do this.} 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([187,165,197,196,208,254,273,251,316,412,357,352,322,298,271,318,270,289,334,506,329,335,291,292,332,290,238,192,190,189,191,151,104,65,74,59,59,42,47,48,55,37,33,])
array_2 = np.array([8.46994,8.76712,11.2329,14.2466,15.847,7.67123,13.1507,13.9726,25.6831,13.6986,21.0959,14.7945,6.8306,16.1644,16.4384,21.9178,17.2131,18.0822,20.8219,35.3425,20.765,12.8767,14.7945,11.7808,6.01093,15.0685,9.86301,19.1781,6.55738,0.821918,7.67123,5.47945,8.46994,0.273973,1.64384,0.273973,1.63934,0.273973,1.91781,0.273973,0.546448,1.36986,1.09589,])
array_1_name = "Popularity of the first name Lizette"
array_2_name = "Air pollution in Nashville"

# 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. ^Note 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:

High resolution line chart ^Note The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.

If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.

Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
Alternative high resolution line chart
Scatterplot
Portable line chart (png)
Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
Line chart for only Popularity of the first name Lizette
Line chart for only Air pollution in Nashville
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: The Lizette Effect: A Breath of Fresh Air or a Smog-Inducing Phenomenon?

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Thanks for being the explorer we needed!

Correlation ID: 4277 · Black Variable ID: 3360 · Red Variable ID: 20951


Problem variable:
Issue:
Additional details: Optional
Confirm you are a human: