Download png, svg
AI explanation
As directors win Best Picture at an older age, they become more nostalgic for the good old days of clickbait, leading to a surge in clickbait-y Be Smart video titles. It's like they're saying, "Back in my day, we didn't need flashy thumbnails and exaggerated promises to get views!"Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a reddit-style funny portrayal of a vintage movie theater lobby where a grey-haired director is holding a golden Oscar trophy and gazing fondly at classic film posters. The lobby should have a nostalgic atmosphere, with black-and-white era titles and a flickering screen showing a YouTube video titled "Unlock the Secrets of The Universe with These Mind-Blowing Science Hacks!" in bold, colorful letters. 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: How clickbait-y 'Be Smart' science YouTube video titles are and Age of the director who won the Best Picture award. 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: Symbolism Oragami Cute cartoon Cute 2D animation a funny image you would see on reddit
ChatGPT: a funny image you would see on reddit
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 How clickbait-y 'Be Smart' science YouTube video titles are and Age of the director who won the Best Picture award, in the following situation: As directors win Best Picture at an older age, they become more nostalgic for the good old days of clickbait, leading to a surge in clickbait-y Be Smart video titles. It's like they're saying, "Back in my day, we didn't need flashy thumbnails and exaggerated promises to get views!". Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: A grey-haired director, clutching a golden Oscar trophy, stands in a vintage movie theater lobby adorned with classic film posters. He gazes fondly at the black-and-white era titles, while a nearby screen flickers with the image of a YouTube video titled "Unlock the Secrets of The Universe with These Mind-Blowing Science Hacks!" in bold, colorful letters.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ a funny image you would see on reddit ] and depicting this scene: A grey-haired director, clutching a golden Oscar trophy, stands in a vintage movie theater lobby adorned with classic film posters. He gazes fondly at the black-and-white era titles, while a nearby screen flickers with the image of a YouTube video titled "Unlock the Secrets of The Universe with These Mind-Blowing Science Hacks!" in bold, colorful letters. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a reddit-style funny portrayal of a vintage movie theater lobby where a grey-haired director is holding a golden Oscar trophy and gazing fondly at classic film posters. The lobby should have a nostalgic atmosphere, with black-and-white era titles and a flickering screen showing a YouTube video titled "Unlock the Secrets of The Universe with These Mind-Blowing Science Hacks!" in bold, colorful letters.
*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.
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 How clickbait-y Be Smart YouTube video titles are caused Age of the director who won the Best Picture award to increase.
AI academic paper
Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation Journal of Media Psychology and Culture Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Be Smart YouTube video titles are and Age of the director who won the Best Picture award. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Rhyme words in the title.
Your research team used data from AI analysis of YouTube video titles and Film Affinity to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8659911 and p < 0.01 for 2013 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]]
"Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation"
[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the intersection of pop culture and statistical analysis, our study delves into the tantalizing realm of clickbait and acclaimed cinema. Through an amalgamation of data from YouTube clickbait tendencies and the age of Best Picture-winning directors, we sought to unveil any unexpected ties between the two. Using AI analysis of YouTube video titles and the thorough records of Film Affinity, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8659911, with a p-value less than 0.01, for the years spanning from 2013 to 2022. Our findings not only unravel an intriguing correlation but also shed light on the whimsical and capricious nature of online video culture and the illustrious world of cinema. So, buckle up and prepare for a rollercoaster of statistical analysis and cinematic whimsy.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Be Smart YouTube video titles are and Age of the director who won the Best Picture award. 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]]
"Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation"
[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the intersection of pop culture and statistical analysis, our study delves into the tantalizing realm of clickbait and acclaimed cinema. Through an amalgamation of data from YouTube clickbait tendencies and the age of Best Picture-winning directors, we sought to unveil any unexpected ties between the two. Using AI analysis of YouTube video titles and the thorough records of Film Affinity, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8659911, with a p-value less than 0.01, for the years spanning from 2013 to 2022. Our findings not only unravel an intriguing correlation but also shed light on the whimsical and capricious nature of online video culture and the illustrious world of cinema. So, buckle up and prepare for a rollercoaster of statistical analysis and cinematic whimsy.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
**[[INTRODUCTION]]**
Lights, camera, action! Our foray into the whimsical world of clickbait and Best Picture-winning directors is about to begin. With the rise of online video culture and the enduring allure of cinematic masterpieces, we aimed to unravel the enigmatic connection between the two. It's like trying to solve a Rubik's cube blindfolded – challenging, yet exhilarating.
The landscape of YouTube, with its tantalizing thumbnails and seductive video titles, often draws viewers in like a moth to a flame. And in the midst of this digital frenzy, we set out to measure just how clickbait-y "Be Smart" YouTube video titles are and whether there's an unexpected dance between their clickbait levels and the age of the directors who graced the stage to claim the Best Picture award.
In the hallowed halls of statistical analysis, our quest involved diving deep into the treasure trove of YouTube video data and the age-old records of acclaimed directors. We turned to the trusty tools of AI to analyze the clickbait tendencies in "Be Smart" video titles, applying a blend of wit and wisdom to decipher the cryptic patterns within the titles.
We then donned our metaphorical deerstalker hats and ventured into the world of cinema, traversing through the ages to trace the paths of directors who triumphed in claiming the coveted Best Picture accolade. It was a journey that unfolded like a gripping mystery novel, where each page turned revealed subtle clues and big surprises.
As we peered through the lens of statistics, a glimmer of correlation revealed itself, akin to finding treasure at the end of a rainbow. The correlation coefficient of 0.8659911 sent shivers down our spines – almost like discovering a hidden passage in a labyrinthine cave. And the p-value less than 0.01? Well, that's like spotting a shooting star in a moonlit sky - rare and utterly mesmerizing.
So, dear reader, as we embark on this whimsical escapade through the realms of clickbait and cinematic brilliance, prepare to be enchanted, amused, and perhaps slightly befuddled. The curtain rises on our improbable voyage, where statistical analysis and silver screen magic inexplicably converge, inviting you to join in the revelry of scientific exploration and offbeat discovery. Let the show begin!
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Be Smart YouTube video titles are and Age of the director who won the Best Picture award. 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 name a few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation"
[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the intersection of pop culture and statistical analysis, our study delves into the tantalizing realm of clickbait and acclaimed cinema. Through an amalgamation of data from YouTube clickbait tendencies and the age of Best Picture-winning directors, we sought to unveil any unexpected ties between the two. Using AI analysis of YouTube video titles and the thorough records of Film Affinity, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8659911, with a p-value less than 0.01, for the years spanning from 2013 to 2022. Our findings not only unravel an intriguing correlation but also shed light on the whimsical and capricious nature of online video culture and the illustrious world of cinema. So, buckle up and prepare for a rollercoaster of statistical analysis and cinematic whimsy.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Lights, camera, action! Our foray into the whimsical world of clickbait and Best Picture-winning directors is about to begin. With the rise of online video culture and the enduring allure of cinematic masterpieces, we aimed to unravel the enigmatic connection between the two. It's like trying to solve a Rubik's cube blindfolded – challenging, yet exhilarating.
The landscape of YouTube, with its tantalizing thumbnails and seductive video titles, often draws viewers in like a moth to a flame. And in the midst of this digital frenzy, we set out to measure just how clickbait-y "Be Smart" YouTube video titles are and whether there's an unexpected dance between their clickbait levels and the age of the directors who graced the stage to claim the Best Picture award.
In the hallowed halls of statistical analysis, our quest involved diving deep into the treasure trove of YouTube video data and the age-old records of acclaimed directors. We turned to the trusty tools of AI to analyze the clickbait tendencies in "Be Smart" video titles, applying a blend of wit and wisdom to decipher the cryptic patterns within the titles.
We then donned our metaphorical deerstalker hats and ventured into the world of cinema, traversing through the ages to trace the paths of directors who triumphed in claiming the coveted Best Picture accolade. It was a journey that unfolded like a gripping mystery novel, where each page turned revealed subtle clues and big surprises.
As we peered through the lens of statistics, a glimmer of correlation revealed itself, akin to finding treasure at the end of a rainbow. The correlation coefficient of 0.8659911 sent shivers down our spines – almost like discovering a hidden passage in a labyrinthine cave. And the p-value less than 0.01? Well, that's like spotting a shooting star in a moonlit sky - rare and utterly mesmerizing.
So, dear reader, as we embark on this whimsical escapade through the realms of clickbait and cinematic brilliance, prepare to be enchanted, amused, and perhaps slightly befuddled. The curtain rises on our improbable voyage, where statistical analysis and silver screen magic inexplicably converge, inviting you to join in the revelry of scientific exploration and offbeat discovery. Let the show begin!
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Smith et al.'s Study on YouTube Clickbait Trends," the authors find a comprehensive analysis of the evolving landscape of clickbait-y titles on YouTube, providing insights into the captivating allure of sensationalism in online video content. This work sets the stage for our investigation into the clickbait tendencies present in "Be Smart" YouTube video titles and their potential connection to the age of Best Picture-winning directors.
Doe and Jones delved into the phenomenon of age and success in their seminal work "Age and Achievement in Cinema." Their findings illuminate the intriguing interplay between the age of directors and their cinematic triumphs, offering a compelling lens through which we can view the correlation between directorial age and Best Picture accolades.
Beyond the realm of academic literature, non-fiction works such as "The Clickbait Code: Decrypting the Secrets of Attention-Grabbing Titles" and "Age is Just a Reel Number: Exploring Directing Success Across Generations" provide additional perspectives on the multifaceted nature of our investigation.
On the fictional front, the enigmatic allure of clickbait and the cinematic world has been explored in works such as "Clickbait Chronicles: Tales of Tempting Titles" and "Directorial Destiny: Age, Oscars, and Otherworldly Connections." While these titles may not contribute direct empirical evidence, their imaginative narratives offer a whimsical backdrop for our research.
In the pursuit of firsthand insights, the researchers engaged in a scholarly viewing of TV shows such as "The Director's Cut" and "Clickbait Unveiled." These programs not only provided a delightful escape from the rigors of research but also offered a window into the pop culture representations of our key variables.
As we navigate through this tapestry of academic literature, fictional musings, and pop culture indulgences, it becomes evident that our investigation stands at the crossroads of statistical analysis and cinematic enchantment, offering a unique blend of scientific rigor and playful curiosity. So, without further ado, let the quirky and captivating exploration begin!
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Be Smart YouTube video titles are and Age of the director who won the Best Picture award. 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 AI analysis of YouTube video titles and Film Affinity . You used data from 2013 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]]
"Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation"
[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the intersection of pop culture and statistical analysis, our study delves into the tantalizing realm of clickbait and acclaimed cinema. Through an amalgamation of data from YouTube clickbait tendencies and the age of Best Picture-winning directors, we sought to unveil any unexpected ties between the two. Using AI analysis of YouTube video titles and the thorough records of Film Affinity, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8659911, with a p-value less than 0.01, for the years spanning from 2013 to 2022. Our findings not only unravel an intriguing correlation but also shed light on the whimsical and capricious nature of online video culture and the illustrious world of cinema. So, buckle up and prepare for a rollercoaster of statistical analysis and cinematic whimsy.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Lights, camera, action! Our foray into the whimsical world of clickbait and Best Picture-winning directors is about to begin. With the rise of online video culture and the enduring allure of cinematic masterpieces, we aimed to unravel the enigmatic connection between the two. It's like trying to solve a Rubik's cube blindfolded – challenging, yet exhilarating.
The landscape of YouTube, with its tantalizing thumbnails and seductive video titles, often draws viewers in like a moth to a flame. And in the midst of this digital frenzy, we set out to measure just how clickbait-y "Be Smart" YouTube video titles are and whether there's an unexpected dance between their clickbait levels and the age of the directors who graced the stage to claim the Best Picture award.
In the hallowed halls of statistical analysis, our quest involved diving deep into the treasure trove of YouTube video data and the age-old records of acclaimed directors. We turned to the trusty tools of AI to analyze the clickbait tendencies in "Be Smart" video titles, applying a blend of wit and wisdom to decipher the cryptic patterns within the titles.
We then donned our metaphorical deerstalker hats and ventured into the world of cinema, traversing through the ages to trace the paths of directors who triumphed in claiming the coveted Best Picture accolade. It was a journey that unfolded like a gripping mystery novel, where each page turned revealed subtle clues and big surprises.
As we peered through the lens of statistics, a glimmer of correlation revealed itself, akin to finding treasure at the end of a rainbow. The correlation coefficient of 0.8659911 sent shivers down our spines – almost like discovering a hidden passage in a labyrinthine cave. And the p-value less than 0.01? Well, that's like spotting a shooting star in a moonlit sky - rare and utterly mesmerizing.
So, dear reader, as we embark on this whimsical escapade through the realms of clickbait and cinematic brilliance, prepare to be enchanted, amused, and perhaps slightly befuddled. The curtain rises on our improbable voyage, where statistical analysis and silver screen magic inexplicably converge, inviting you to join in the revelry of scientific exploration and offbeat discovery. Let the show begin!
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In our pursuit of unraveling the correlation between clickbait tendencies in "Be Smart" YouTube video titles and the age of Best Picture-winning directors, we employed a delightfully unconventional yet rigorously systematic approach. Picture a mad scientist mixing potions in a laboratory, but replace the potions with data sets and the laboratory with a fusion of AI analysis and cinematic archives.
To embark on this whimsical escapade, we first enlisted the aid of AI analysis to delve into the intricate world of YouTube video titles. Our team of digital sleuths programmed the AI to scrutinize the titles of "Be Smart" videos with the keen eye of a detective on the trail of a mischievous riddle. Through a series of convoluted algorithms and whimsical heuristics, we sought to quantify the clickbait-y allure of these titles, teasing apart the subtle nuances of linguistic enticements with the precision of a linguistics professor unraveling a cryptic code.
As the AI toiled away in the digital realm, analyzing strings of characters with the fervor of an enthusiast solving a Rubik's cube in record time, we turned our gaze towards the venerable archives of Film Affinity. Like intrepid explorers unearthing buried treasure, we sifted through the annals of cinematic history to unveil the ages of directors who ascended to the pinnacle of recognition by claiming the illustrious Best Picture award. This journey through the annals of filmmaking was akin to deciphering ancient hieroglyphs, with each director's birth year serving as a cryptic clue in our grand statistical enigma.
With our data sets in hand, glowing with the digital imprints of AI analysis and cinematic chronicles, we invoked the sacred rites of statistical analysis. Armed with powerful software and an arsenal of esoteric mathematical incantations, we summoned the mystical powers of correlation coefficients and p-values to unveil the hidden dance between clickbait and cinematic greatness.
Now, picture the reveal of our findings not as a dry statistical report, but as the denouement of a gripping mystery novel – filled with unexpected twists, pulse-quickening revelations, and a sprinkle of statistical enchantment. So, without further ado, let the revelry of scientific exploration and offbeat discovery commence!
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Be Smart YouTube video titles are and Age of the director who won the Best Picture award. 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 AI analysis of YouTube video titles and Film Affinity .
For the time period 2013 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.8659911, r-squared of 0.7499406, 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]]
"Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation"
[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the intersection of pop culture and statistical analysis, our study delves into the tantalizing realm of clickbait and acclaimed cinema. Through an amalgamation of data from YouTube clickbait tendencies and the age of Best Picture-winning directors, we sought to unveil any unexpected ties between the two. Using AI analysis of YouTube video titles and the thorough records of Film Affinity, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8659911, with a p-value less than 0.01, for the years spanning from 2013 to 2022. Our findings not only unravel an intriguing correlation but also shed light on the whimsical and capricious nature of online video culture and the illustrious world of cinema. So, buckle up and prepare for a rollercoaster of statistical analysis and cinematic whimsy.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Lights, camera, action! Our foray into the whimsical world of clickbait and Best Picture-winning directors is about to begin. With the rise of online video culture and the enduring allure of cinematic masterpieces, we aimed to unravel the enigmatic connection between the two. It's like trying to solve a Rubik's cube blindfolded – challenging, yet exhilarating.
The landscape of YouTube, with its tantalizing thumbnails and seductive video titles, often draws viewers in like a moth to a flame. And in the midst of this digital frenzy, we set out to measure just how clickbait-y "Be Smart" YouTube video titles are and whether there's an unexpected dance between their clickbait levels and the age of the directors who graced the stage to claim the Best Picture award.
In the hallowed halls of statistical analysis, our quest involved diving deep into the treasure trove of YouTube video data and the age-old records of acclaimed directors. We turned to the trusty tools of AI to analyze the clickbait tendencies in "Be Smart" video titles, applying a blend of wit and wisdom to decipher the cryptic patterns within the titles.
We then donned our metaphorical deerstalker hats and ventured into the world of cinema, traversing through the ages to trace the paths of directors who triumphed in claiming the coveted Best Picture accolade. It was a journey that unfolded like a gripping mystery novel, where each page turned revealed subtle clues and big surprises.
As we peered through the lens of statistics, a glimmer of correlation revealed itself, akin to finding treasure at the end of a rainbow. The correlation coefficient of 0.8659911 sent shivers down our spines – almost like discovering a hidden passage in a labyrinthine cave. And the p-value less than 0.01? Well, that's like spotting a shooting star in a moonlit sky - rare and utterly mesmerizing.
So, dear reader, as we embark on this whimsical escapade through the realms of clickbait and cinematic brilliance, prepare to be enchanted, amused, and perhaps slightly befuddled. The curtain rises on our improbable voyage, where statistical analysis and silver screen magic inexplicably converge, inviting you to join in the revelry of scientific exploration and offbeat discovery. Let the show begin!
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
Our statistical analysis revealed a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8659911 between the clickbait level of "Be Smart" YouTube video titles and the age of directors who clinched the prestigious Best Picture award. This correlation coefficient, akin to discovering a pot of gold at the end of a statistical rainbow, suggests a remarkably strong relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. It's as if the YouTube algorithm and the Academy voters were secretly in cahoots, orchestrating a symphony of click-worthy titles and award-winning directors.
The r-squared value of 0.7499406 further solidifies the robustness of this correlation, indicating that a staggering 74.99% of the variability in the age of Best Picture-winning directors can be explained by the clickbait-level variable. It's like finding that missing puzzle piece that completes a complex statistical jigsaw, leaving us in awe of the intricate connections within our data.
Moreover, the p-value being less than 0.01 is like stumbling upon a statistical unicorn – an exceedingly rare and compelling find that indicates the strength of our results. This p-value practically whispers sweet nothings of significance, affirming the validity and robustness of our findings.
To visually capture this mesmerizing correlation, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that vividly illustrates the strong relationship between clickbait-y "Be Smart" YouTube video titles and the age of Best Picture-winning directors. The upward trend in the scatterplot is a visual testament to the captivating correlation we uncovered, like witnessing a celestial dance between digital allure and silver screen mastery.
In essence, our findings not only illuminate an unexpected link between clickbait and cinematic acclaim but also serve as a lighthearted reminder that statistical analysis can unfold in the most amusing and offbeat ways. So, let's raise a toast to the enchanting union of YouTube clickbait and illustrious cinema, where data analysis meets showbiz in an unforeseen, statistically significant waltz.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Be Smart YouTube video titles are and Age of the director who won the Best Picture award. 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]]
"Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation"
[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the intersection of pop culture and statistical analysis, our study delves into the tantalizing realm of clickbait and acclaimed cinema. Through an amalgamation of data from YouTube clickbait tendencies and the age of Best Picture-winning directors, we sought to unveil any unexpected ties between the two. Using AI analysis of YouTube video titles and the thorough records of Film Affinity, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8659911, with a p-value less than 0.01, for the years spanning from 2013 to 2022. Our findings not only unravel an intriguing correlation but also shed light on the whimsical and capricious nature of online video culture and the illustrious world of cinema. So, buckle up and prepare for a rollercoaster of statistical analysis and cinematic whimsy.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Smith et al.'s Study on YouTube Clickbait Trends," the authors find a comprehensive analysis of the evolving landscape of clickbait-y titles on YouTube, providing insights into the captivating allure of sensationalism in online video content. This work sets the stage for our investigation into the clickbait tendencies present in "Be Smart" YouTube video titles and their potential connection to the age of Best Picture-winning directors.
Doe and Jones delved into the phenomenon of age and success in their seminal work "Age and Achievement in Cinema." Their findings illuminate the intriguing interplay between the age of directors and their cinematic triumphs, offering a compelling lens through which we can view the correlation between directorial age and Best Picture accolades.
Beyond the realm of academic literature, non-fiction works such as "The Clickbait Code: Decrypting the Secrets of Attention-Grabbing Titles" and "Age is Just a Reel Number: Exploring Directing Success Across Generations" provide additional perspectives on the multifaceted nature of our investigation.
On the fictional front, the enigmatic allure of clickbait and the cinematic world has been explored in works such as "Clickbait Chronicles: Tales of Tempting Titles" and "Directorial Destiny: Age, Oscars, and Otherworldly Connections." While these titles may not contribute direct empirical evidence, their imaginative narratives offer a whimsical backdrop for our research.
In the pursuit of firsthand insights, the researchers engaged in a scholarly viewing of TV shows such as "The Director's Cut" and "Clickbait Unveiled." These programs not only provided a delightful escape from the rigors of research but also offered a window into the pop culture representations of our key variables.
As we navigate through this tapestry of academic literature, fictional musings, and pop culture indulgences, it becomes evident that our investigation stands at the crossroads of statistical analysis and cinematic enchantment, offering a unique blend of scientific rigor and playful curiosity. So, without further ado, let the quirky and captivating exploration begin!
[[RESULTS]]
Our statistical analysis revealed a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8659911 between the clickbait level of "Be Smart" YouTube video titles and the age of directors who clinched the prestigious Best Picture award. This correlation coefficient, akin to discovering a pot of gold at the end of a statistical rainbow, suggests a remarkably strong relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. It's as if the YouTube algorithm and the Academy voters were secretly in cahoots, orchestrating a symphony of click-worthy titles and award-winning directors.
The r-squared value of 0.7499406 further solidifies the robustness of this correlation, indicating that a staggering 74.99% of the variability in the age of Best Picture-winning directors can be explained by the clickbait-level variable. It's like finding that missing puzzle piece that completes a complex statistical jigsaw, leaving us in awe of the intricate connections within our data.
Moreover, the p-value being less than 0.01 is like stumbling upon a statistical unicorn – an exceedingly rare and compelling find that indicates the strength of our results. This p-value practically whispers sweet nothings of significance, affirming the validity and robustness of our findings.
To visually capture this mesmerizing correlation, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that vividly illustrates the strong relationship between clickbait-y "Be Smart" YouTube video titles and the age of Best Picture-winning directors. The upward trend in the scatterplot is a visual testament to the captivating correlation we uncovered, like witnessing a celestial dance between digital allure and silver screen mastery.
In essence, our findings not only illuminate an unexpected link between clickbait and cinematic acclaim but also serve as a lighthearted reminder that statistical analysis can unfold in the most amusing and offbeat ways. So, let's raise a toast to the enchanting union of YouTube clickbait and illustrious cinema, where data analysis meets showbiz in an unforeseen, statistically significant waltz.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
Our study has unearthed a fascinating correlation between the clickbait level of "Be Smart" YouTube video titles and the age of directors who secured the coveted Best Picture award. It's as though the statistical gods themselves conspired to weave a captivating tale of digital sensationalism and silver screen triumphs. Our findings not only align with prior research but also add a whimsical twist to the scientific tapestry.
Drawing from the enthralling literature review, the works of Smith et al. and Doe and Jones laid the groundwork for our investigation, like the opening act of a riveting cinematic adventure. Much like the protagonist being primed for a hero's journey, our study was propelled into uncharted territories of correlation and causation. The scholarly viewing of TV shows "The Director's Cut" and "Clickbait Unveiled" not only offered a delightful reprieve but also reinforced the interconnectedness of our variables, like easter eggs hidden in the grand narrative of our research.
With a correlation coefficient akin to a striking revelation in a suspense thriller, our results harmonize with the notion that age and accomplishment in cinema possess an enchanting relationship. The r-squared value serving as a beacon of statistical prowess further corroborates the robustness of our findings, akin to the satisfying closure of a meticulously crafted storyline. As for the p-value, its significance is reminiscent of discovering a mythical creature in statistical folklore – a rare and compelling validation of our results.
Our visual representation in Fig. 1 unveils a compelling narrative of the coalescence between clickbait allure and directorial triumph, like an artistic masterpiece crafted from the brushstrokes of data points. This evocative scatterplot is not just a testament to our findings but a visual invitation to witness the harmonious dance between digital intrigue and cinematic eminence.
In closing, our study has not only validated prior research but also added a quirky, unexpected layer to the correlation between clickbait and cinematic success. It's as though the scientific method itself beckons us to embrace whimsy and curiosity in the pursuit of knowledge. In the grand symphony of research, our findings serve as a delightful little melody, reminding us that statistical analysis is not just a serious endeavor but a playground of amusing and unanticipated connections. Cheers to the delightful union of YouTube clickbait and distinguished cinema, where data-driven analysis and showbiz whimsy intertwine in an enigmatic, statistically significant tango.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Be Smart YouTube video titles are and Age of the director who won the Best Picture award. 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]]
"Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation"
[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the intersection of pop culture and statistical analysis, our study delves into the tantalizing realm of clickbait and acclaimed cinema. Through an amalgamation of data from YouTube clickbait tendencies and the age of Best Picture-winning directors, we sought to unveil any unexpected ties between the two. Using AI analysis of YouTube video titles and the thorough records of Film Affinity, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8659911, with a p-value less than 0.01, for the years spanning from 2013 to 2022. Our findings not only unravel an intriguing correlation but also shed light on the whimsical and capricious nature of online video culture and the illustrious world of cinema. So, buckle up and prepare for a rollercoaster of statistical analysis and cinematic whimsy.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
Lights, camera, action! Our foray into the whimsical world of clickbait and Best Picture-winning directors is about to begin. With the rise of online video culture and the enduring allure of cinematic masterpieces, we aimed to unravel the enigmatic connection between the two. It's like trying to solve a Rubik's cube blindfolded – challenging, yet exhilarating.
The landscape of YouTube, with its tantalizing thumbnails and seductive video titles, often draws viewers in like a moth to a flame. And in the midst of this digital frenzy, we set out to measure just how clickbait-y "Be Smart" YouTube video titles are and whether there's an unexpected dance between their clickbait levels and the age of the directors who graced the stage to claim the Best Picture award.
In the hallowed halls of statistical analysis, our quest involved diving deep into the treasure trove of YouTube video data and the age-old records of acclaimed directors. We turned to the trusty tools of AI to analyze the clickbait tendencies in "Be Smart" video titles, applying a blend of wit and wisdom to decipher the cryptic patterns within the titles.
We then donned our metaphorical deerstalker hats and ventured into the world of cinema, traversing through the ages to trace the paths of directors who triumphed in claiming the coveted Best Picture accolade. It was a journey that unfolded like a gripping mystery novel, where each page turned revealed subtle clues and big surprises.
As we peered through the lens of statistics, a glimmer of correlation revealed itself, akin to finding treasure at the end of a rainbow. The correlation coefficient of 0.8659911 sent shivers down our spines – almost like discovering a hidden passage in a labyrinthine cave. And the p-value less than 0.01? Well, that's like spotting a shooting star in a moonlit sky - rare and utterly mesmerizing.
So, dear reader, as we embark on this whimsical escapade through the realms of clickbait and cinematic brilliance, prepare to be enchanted, amused, and perhaps slightly befuddled. The curtain rises on our improbable voyage, where statistical analysis and silver screen magic inexplicably converge, inviting you to join in the revelry of scientific exploration and offbeat discovery. Let the show begin!
[[RESULTS]]
Our statistical analysis revealed a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8659911 between the clickbait level of "Be Smart" YouTube video titles and the age of directors who clinched the prestigious Best Picture award. This correlation coefficient, akin to discovering a pot of gold at the end of a statistical rainbow, suggests a remarkably strong relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. It's as if the YouTube algorithm and the Academy voters were secretly in cahoots, orchestrating a symphony of click-worthy titles and award-winning directors.
The r-squared value of 0.7499406 further solidifies the robustness of this correlation, indicating that a staggering 74.99% of the variability in the age of Best Picture-winning directors can be explained by the clickbait-level variable. It's like finding that missing puzzle piece that completes a complex statistical jigsaw, leaving us in awe of the intricate connections within our data.
Moreover, the p-value being less than 0.01 is like stumbling upon a statistical unicorn – an exceedingly rare and compelling find that indicates the strength of our results. This p-value practically whispers sweet nothings of significance, affirming the validity and robustness of our findings.
To visually capture this mesmerizing correlation, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that vividly illustrates the strong relationship between clickbait-y "Be Smart" YouTube video titles and the age of Best Picture-winning directors. The upward trend in the scatterplot is a visual testament to the captivating correlation we uncovered, like witnessing a celestial dance between digital allure and silver screen mastery.
In essence, our findings not only illuminate an unexpected link between clickbait and cinematic acclaim but also serve as a lighthearted reminder that statistical analysis can unfold in the most amusing and offbeat ways. So, let's raise a toast to the enchanting union of YouTube clickbait and illustrious cinema, where data analysis meets showbiz in an unforeseen, statistically significant waltz.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
Conclusion
In the grand finale of our whimsical expedition, we have unearthed a correlation of epic proportions - a magnetic dance between the clickbait allure of "Be Smart" videos and the age of Best Picture-winning directors. It's like discovering a rare species of statistical unicorns frolicking in the data meadows.
The robust correlation coefficient, r-squared value, and p-value less than 0.01 paint a picture akin to a statistically significant masterpiece. It's as if our findings have been edited by the Academy Award-winning director of significance, complete with all the right twists and turns to captivate even the most discerning audience.
As we bid adieu to this curious odyssey, we assert with utmost confidence that no further research is needed in this fantastically quirky realm. The curtain closes on this statistical spectacle, leaving us with the lingering charm of clickbait and the allure of cinematic glory - a finishing touch to our rollicking, yet statistically sound, adventure.
No more popcorn needed for this journey - it's time to celebrate the offbeat union of YouTube clickbait and the silver screen with a fittingly statistical flair!
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 Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
Journal of Media Psychology and Culture
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 Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Center for Media Misinformation Studies
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation with an abstract of When it comes to the intersection of pop culture and statistical analysis, our study delves into the tantalizing realm of clickbait and acclaimed cinema. Through an amalgamation of data from YouTube clickbait tendencies and the age of Best Picture-winning directors, we sought to unveil any unexpected ties between the two. Using AI analysis of YouTube video titles and the thorough records of Film Affinity, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8659911, with a p-value less than 0.01, for the years spanning from 2013 to 2022. Our findings not only unravel an intriguing correlation but also shed light on the whimsical and capricious nature of online video culture and the illustrious world of cinema. So, buckle up and prepare for a rollercoaster of statistical analysis and cinematic whimsy.
ChatGPT:
Clickbait, Best Picture, YouTube, statistical analysis, cinema, correlation coefficient, AI analysis, Film Affinity, video titles, online video culture, directors, pop culture, acclaimed cinema, YouTube clickbait tendencies, cinematic connection, statistical investigation
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
How clickbait-y 'Be Smart' science YouTube video titles areDetailed data title: How clickbait-y Be Smart YouTube video titles are, as rated by an AI.
Source: AI analysis of YouTube video titles
Additional Info: I asked a large language model, 'On a scale of 1-10, how _______ do you think this YouTube video title is?' for every video.
See what else correlates with How clickbait-y 'Be Smart' science YouTube video titles are
Age of the director who won the Best Picture award
Source: Film Affinity
See what else correlates with Age of the director who won the Best Picture award
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 = 0.7499406 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 75% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Age of the director who won the Best Picture award) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., How clickbait-y 'Be Smart' science YouTube video titles are) over the 10 years from 2013 through 2022.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0012. 0.0011964833227186547000000000
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 0.87 in 0.12% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 836 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 9 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 9 because we have two variables measured over a period of 10 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.
[ 0.52, 0.97 ] 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.
2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
How clickbait-y 'Be Smart' science YouTube video titles are (Clickbait-y score) | 3.84 | 4.0769 | 4.66 | 4.1957 | 4.1364 | 4.4211 | 5 | 4.64 | 3.5833 | 4.3103 |
Age of the director who won the Best Picture award (Age Years) | 40 | 44 | 51 | 49 | 37 | 53 | 62 | 50 | 39 | 44 |
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
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
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
Try it yourself
You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.
Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"
Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.
Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.
Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.
Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"
If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:
"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."
# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):
# Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)
# Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
r_squared = correlation**2
return correlation, r_squared, p_value
# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([3.84,4.0769,4.66,4.1957,4.1364,4.4211,5,4.64,3.5833,4.3103,])
array_2 = np.array([40,44,51,49,37,53,62,50,39,44,])
array_1_name = "How clickbait-y 'Be Smart' science YouTube video titles are"
array_2_name = "Age of the director who won the Best Picture award"
# 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:
- High resolution line chart
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 How clickbait-y 'Be Smart' science YouTube video titles are
- Line chart for only Age of the director who won the Best Picture award
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Clickbait and Best Picture: A Cinematic Connection Investigation
You're the correlation whisperer we needed!
Correlation ID: 5264 · Black Variable ID: 25860 · Red Variable ID: 102