about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,273 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is US household spending on prescription drugs and the second variable is Air pollution in St. Louis.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

With fewer prescription drugs being purchased, there were fewer unused pill bottles to be thrown away. This led to a decreased demand for manufacturing plastic pill bottles, which in turn lowered the industrial emissions in St. Louis.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: "Generate an image of a futuristic St. Louis skyline with reduced industrial emissions and a trash bin overflowing with unused pill bottles, symbolizing the decrease in US household spending on prescription drugs. The skyline should incorporate modern elements and a sense of cleanliness and sustainability, while the pill bottles should be noticeable and reflective of the reduction in consumption." The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: US household spending on prescription drugs and Air pollution in St. Louis. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Cubism Cutsy art illustration Macabre Art nouveau Futuristic
ChatGPT: Futuristic

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both US household spending on prescription drugs and Air pollution in St. Louis, in the following situation: With fewer prescription drugs being purchased, there were fewer unused pill bottles to be thrown away. This led to a decreased demand for manufacturing plastic pill bottles, which in turn lowered the industrial emissions in St. Louis.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In St. Louis, the city skyline appeared clearer as industrial emissions decreased. Alongside it, a trash bin overflowed with unused pill bottles, reflecting the reduction in US household spending on prescription drugs.

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: [ Futuristic ] and depicting this scene: In St. Louis, the city skyline appeared clearer as industrial emissions decreased. Alongside it, a trash bin overflowed with unused pill bottles, reflecting the reduction in US household spending on prescription drugs. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: "Generate an image of a futuristic St. Louis skyline with reduced industrial emissions and a trash bin overflowing with unused pill bottles, symbolizing the decrease in US household spending on prescription drugs. The skyline should incorporate modern elements and a sense of cleanliness and sustainability, while the pill bottles should be noticeable and reflective of the reduction in consumption."

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

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in US household spending on prescription drugs caused Air pollution in St. Louis to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Wheezy Connection: A Breath of Fresh Air on US Household Spending and Air Pollution in St. Louis

The Journal of Ecological Economics and Environmental Policy

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and Air pollution in St. Louis. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Include a pun in the title.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Environmental Protection Agency to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8589101 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2022.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
The Wheezy Connection: A Breath of Fresh Air on US Household Spending and Air Pollution in St. Louis

[[ABSTRACT]]
With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics. In this study, we delved into the realm of household spending on prescription drugs in the United States and its potential relationship with air pollution, focusing specifically on the winds of change blowing through St. Louis. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency to tackle this conundrum, aiming to shed light on a topic that has been a bit up in the air. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8589101 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, suggesting that there may indeed be an airy connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and the pollution lingering in the skies over the Gateway to the West. So, take a deep breath, and prepare to be blown away by our potentially breathtaking findings!


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 US household spending on prescription drugs and Air pollution in St. Louis. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Wheezy Connection: A Breath of Fresh Air on US Household Spending and Air Pollution in St. Louis

[[ABSTRACT]]
With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics. In this study, we delved into the realm of household spending on prescription drugs in the United States and its potential relationship with air pollution, focusing specifically on the winds of change blowing through St. Louis. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency to tackle this conundrum, aiming to shed light on a topic that has been a bit up in the air. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8589101 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, suggesting that there may indeed be an airy connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and the pollution lingering in the skies over the Gateway to the West. So, take a deep breath, and prepare to be blown away by our potentially breathtaking findings!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution is a topic that has been floating around in the air for quite some time. While some may argue that economics and air quality are like oil and water, with distinct properties and not easily mixed, our study aims to show that they are more interconnected than meets the eye. We chose to focus our research on the city of St. Louis, a place known for its iconic Gateway Arch and unfortunately, its not-so-iconic air pollution levels.

With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics, or "economi"-breath if you will. St. Louis, nestled by the banks of the mighty Mississippi River, has been grappling with air pollution issues, leaving residents to ponder if they are breathing in more than just the sweet aroma of barbeque. As the saying goes, "When in St. Louis, do as the pollutants do!"

As researchers, we felt a certain wheeze of excitement about delving into the relationship between household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution. We aimed to uncover whether the dollars spent on medications were merely paying for the air we breathe or if there was a more concrete connection to be found. After all, there's no need to "puff" up a flimsy correlation if there's nothing substantial there!

Our study utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track household spending patterns and the Environmental Protection Agency to measure various air pollutants. We then "ventured" into statistical analyses to uncover any potential links, aiming to breathe new life into the conversation about the impact of air pollution on household health expenses.

So, buckle up and put on your thinking cap, because we're about to take a deep dive into the winds of change blowing through the Midwest and uncover some potentially eye-opening findings. Prepare to be "blown away" by our exciting exploration of the wheezy connection between household spending and St. Louis air pollution!


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 US household spending on prescription drugs and Air pollution in St. Louis. 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 you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Wheezy Connection: A Breath of Fresh Air on US Household Spending and Air Pollution in St. Louis

[[ABSTRACT]]
With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics. In this study, we delved into the realm of household spending on prescription drugs in the United States and its potential relationship with air pollution, focusing specifically on the winds of change blowing through St. Louis. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency to tackle this conundrum, aiming to shed light on a topic that has been a bit up in the air. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8589101 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, suggesting that there may indeed be an airy connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and the pollution lingering in the skies over the Gateway to the West. So, take a deep breath, and prepare to be blown away by our potentially breathtaking findings!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution is a topic that has been floating around in the air for quite some time. While some may argue that economics and air quality are like oil and water, with distinct properties and not easily mixed, our study aims to show that they are more interconnected than meets the eye. We chose to focus our research on the city of St. Louis, a place known for its iconic Gateway Arch and unfortunately, its not-so-iconic air pollution levels.
With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics, or "economi"-breath if you will. St. Louis, nestled by the banks of the mighty Mississippi River, has been grappling with air pollution issues, leaving residents to ponder if they are breathing in more than just the sweet aroma of barbeque. As the saying goes, "When in St. Louis, do as the pollutants do!"
As researchers, we felt a certain wheeze of excitement about delving into the relationship between household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution. We aimed to uncover whether the dollars spent on medications were merely paying for the air we breathe or if there was a more concrete connection to be found. After all, there's no need to "puff" up a flimsy correlation if there's nothing substantial there!
Our study utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track household spending patterns and the Environmental Protection Agency to measure various air pollutants. We then "ventured" into statistical analyses to uncover any potential links, aiming to breathe new life into the conversation about the impact of air pollution on household health expenses.
So, buckle up and put on your thinking cap, because we're about to take a deep dive into the winds of change blowing through the Midwest and uncover some potentially eye-opening findings. Prepare to be "blown away" by our exciting exploration of the wheezy connection between household spending and St. Louis air pollution!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Previous studies have delved into the intricacies of household spending on prescription drugs and its potential correlation with air pollution, providing a solid foundation for our wheezy exploration. Smith et al. (2015) examined the trends in pharmaceutical expenditures in urban areas, highlighting the financial burden of maintaining respiratory health in polluted environments. Likewise, Doe and Jones (2018) conducted a comprehensive analysis of air quality indices and healthcare costs, hinting at the swirling connection between dirty air and empty wallets. These scholarly works set the stage for our own investigation, inspiring us to "nose" dive into the data with a gust of enthusiasm.

In the world of non-fiction literature, the works of "Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art" by James Nestor and "The Air That We Breathe" by Andrea Barrett offer valuable insights into the complex relationship between respiration and environmental influences. As we crafted our research framework, these works served as a breath of fresh air, propelling us forward with their illuminating perspectives. On the flip side, the fictional realm has not shied away from exploring themes of pollution and its impact on health. From "The Air He Breathes" by Brittainy C. Cherry to "Fumes of Fury" by Arthur P. Smoke, these imaginative titles playfully danced on the edge of our research topic, reminding us that even in the world of fiction, there is no escaping the air we breathe.

In the world of animated entertainment, we turned our attention to "Captain Planet and the Planeteers," where the eco-friendly superhero battles pollution with a powerful blend of environmental awareness and spandex. Watching the show served as a whimsical break from our rigorous data analysis, offering a reminder that even the most daunting challenges can be tackled with a dash of humor and a heart full of determination. Additionally, "The Magic School Bus" episode on air quality provided a lighthearted yet educational perspective on the invisible gases floating through the atmosphere, proving that learning about air pollution doesn't have to be a "breezy" affair.

Armed with this diverse array of sources and inspirations, we set out to unfurl the relationship between US household spending on prescription drugs and the atmospheric tango of air pollution in St. Louis. Our journey led us through a landscape of statistics, theories, and a few unexpected detours, ultimately breathing life into the conversation and serving as a testament to the inescapable influence of the air we breathe.


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 US household spending on prescription drugs and Air pollution in St. Louis. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Environmental Protection Agency . You used data from 2000 to 2022

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Wheezy Connection: A Breath of Fresh Air on US Household Spending and Air Pollution in St. Louis

[[ABSTRACT]]
With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics. In this study, we delved into the realm of household spending on prescription drugs in the United States and its potential relationship with air pollution, focusing specifically on the winds of change blowing through St. Louis. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency to tackle this conundrum, aiming to shed light on a topic that has been a bit up in the air. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8589101 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, suggesting that there may indeed be an airy connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and the pollution lingering in the skies over the Gateway to the West. So, take a deep breath, and prepare to be blown away by our potentially breathtaking findings!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution is a topic that has been floating around in the air for quite some time. While some may argue that economics and air quality are like oil and water, with distinct properties and not easily mixed, our study aims to show that they are more interconnected than meets the eye. We chose to focus our research on the city of St. Louis, a place known for its iconic Gateway Arch and unfortunately, its not-so-iconic air pollution levels.
With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics, or "economi"-breath if you will. St. Louis, nestled by the banks of the mighty Mississippi River, has been grappling with air pollution issues, leaving residents to ponder if they are breathing in more than just the sweet aroma of barbeque. As the saying goes, "When in St. Louis, do as the pollutants do!"
As researchers, we felt a certain wheeze of excitement about delving into the relationship between household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution. We aimed to uncover whether the dollars spent on medications were merely paying for the air we breathe or if there was a more concrete connection to be found. After all, there's no need to "puff" up a flimsy correlation if there's nothing substantial there!
Our study utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track household spending patterns and the Environmental Protection Agency to measure various air pollutants. We then "ventured" into statistical analyses to uncover any potential links, aiming to breathe new life into the conversation about the impact of air pollution on household health expenses.
So, buckle up and put on your thinking cap, because we're about to take a deep dive into the winds of change blowing through the Midwest and uncover some potentially eye-opening findings. Prepare to be "blown away" by our exciting exploration of the wheezy connection between household spending and St. Louis air pollution!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To untangle the convoluted web of US household spending on prescription drugs and the air pollution dynamics in the air over St. Louis, we employed a variety of analytical methods that were as diverse as the smorgasbord of BBQ joints in the city.

First, we acquired data on household spending on prescription drugs from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This involved sifting through a vast digital jungle of statistics, navigating the treacherous terrain of spreadsheets and databases, and dodging the occasional pop-up ad for "cheap meds" – a timely reminder of the importance of reliable data sources.

For our examination of air pollution, we turned to the Environmental Protection Agency’s dataset, diving into a sea of atmospheric measurements and pollutant levels. It felt a bit like trying to find a needle in a haystack, except in this case, the needle was a tiny molecule of clean air in a bustling metropolis of pollutants.

With both datasets in hand, we meticulously cleaned and pre-processed the information, ensuring that we didn't accidentally mix up the "pollution" column with the "prescription drugs" column – a mix-up that might have polluted our findings!

Next, we performed a series of statistical analyses akin to unraveling a particularly perplexing knot. We employed correlation analyses to uncover potential associations between household spending on prescription drugs and specific air pollutants. It was like trying to figure out if the proverbial chicken or the egg came first, except in this case, we were determining if the asthma medication prescriptions or the air pollution came first.

Additionally, we delved into a time-series analysis, observing how trends in household spending on prescription drugs related to changes in air pollution levels over the period from 2000 to 2022. This was akin to tracking the evolving plot of a suspenseful novel, with fluctuations in spending and pollutants revealing dramatic twists and turns in the story of household health and air quality.

Finally, we applied sophisticated econometric models to tease out the causality between household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution. It was a bit like trying to determine if the chicken crossing the road had any impact on traffic patterns – a classic case of clucking causation.

Our data analysis was conducted using a mix of Python, R, and good ol' spreadsheet software, ensuring that we employed a diverse array of analytical tools to capture the full breadth of our wheezy investigation.

So, with our methodological toolbox packed with statistical techniques, data cleansing prowess, and a healthy dose of humor, we set out to uncover the intricate relationship between US household spending on prescription drugs and the airy shenanigans of St. Louis air pollution. The results of our adventure will be unveiled in the following sections – get ready to breathe in the suspense of our findings!


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 US household spending on prescription drugs and Air pollution in St. Louis. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Environmental Protection Agency .

For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.8589101, r-squared of 0.7377266, 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 Wheezy Connection: A Breath of Fresh Air on US Household Spending and Air Pollution in St. Louis

[[ABSTRACT]]
With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics. In this study, we delved into the realm of household spending on prescription drugs in the United States and its potential relationship with air pollution, focusing specifically on the winds of change blowing through St. Louis. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency to tackle this conundrum, aiming to shed light on a topic that has been a bit up in the air. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8589101 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, suggesting that there may indeed be an airy connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and the pollution lingering in the skies over the Gateway to the West. So, take a deep breath, and prepare to be blown away by our potentially breathtaking findings!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution is a topic that has been floating around in the air for quite some time. While some may argue that economics and air quality are like oil and water, with distinct properties and not easily mixed, our study aims to show that they are more interconnected than meets the eye. We chose to focus our research on the city of St. Louis, a place known for its iconic Gateway Arch and unfortunately, its not-so-iconic air pollution levels.
With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics, or "economi"-breath if you will. St. Louis, nestled by the banks of the mighty Mississippi River, has been grappling with air pollution issues, leaving residents to ponder if they are breathing in more than just the sweet aroma of barbeque. As the saying goes, "When in St. Louis, do as the pollutants do!"
As researchers, we felt a certain wheeze of excitement about delving into the relationship between household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution. We aimed to uncover whether the dollars spent on medications were merely paying for the air we breathe or if there was a more concrete connection to be found. After all, there's no need to "puff" up a flimsy correlation if there's nothing substantial there!
Our study utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track household spending patterns and the Environmental Protection Agency to measure various air pollutants. We then "ventured" into statistical analyses to uncover any potential links, aiming to breathe new life into the conversation about the impact of air pollution on household health expenses.
So, buckle up and put on your thinking cap, because we're about to take a deep dive into the winds of change blowing through the Midwest and uncover some potentially eye-opening findings. Prepare to be "blown away" by our exciting exploration of the wheezy connection between household spending and St. Louis air pollution!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our study revealed a striking correlation coefficient (r) of 0.8589101, with an r-squared of 0.7377266 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong association between US household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution in St. Louis. It seems that the economic impact of air pollution may be nothing to sneeze at!

Our findings suggest that as air pollution levels in St. Louis increased, so did household spending on prescription drugs, painting a rather vivid picture of the wheezy connection between the two. It's like a tale of two cities: as the air quality worsened, the dollar signs for prescription medications seemed to inflate like a balloon filled with polluted air.

Fig. 1 (provided separately) displays the scatterplot illustrating this robust relationship, showing how household spending on prescription drugs is positively linked to air pollution levels. It's as clear as the smog-filled skies over St. Louis!

These results imply that air pollution doesn't just cloud the atmosphere; it may also cast a shadow over the wallets of residents, driving up healthcare expenses. It's like the air pollution is saying, "Inhale all you want, but make sure to exhale those dollars for medications!"

With a correlation this strong, it's clear that the wheeze is on when it comes to the intersection of household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution. Our findings not only provide valuable insights into the economic consequences of poor air quality but also shine a light on the potential health impacts that have been blowing in the wind, reaching households' bottom lines.

So, as the winds of change continue to blow through St. Louis, it's essential to keep an eye on both the respiratory and economic well-being of its residents. After all, when it comes to the wheezy connection between spending and pollution, there's no room for hot air – only cold, hard data!


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 US household spending on prescription drugs and Air pollution in St. Louis. Make lots of 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 Wheezy Connection: A Breath of Fresh Air on US Household Spending and Air Pollution in St. Louis

[[ABSTRACT]]
With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics. In this study, we delved into the realm of household spending on prescription drugs in the United States and its potential relationship with air pollution, focusing specifically on the winds of change blowing through St. Louis. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency to tackle this conundrum, aiming to shed light on a topic that has been a bit up in the air. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8589101 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, suggesting that there may indeed be an airy connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and the pollution lingering in the skies over the Gateway to the West. So, take a deep breath, and prepare to be blown away by our potentially breathtaking findings!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Previous studies have delved into the intricacies of household spending on prescription drugs and its potential correlation with air pollution, providing a solid foundation for our wheezy exploration. Smith et al. (2015) examined the trends in pharmaceutical expenditures in urban areas, highlighting the financial burden of maintaining respiratory health in polluted environments. Likewise, Doe and Jones (2018) conducted a comprehensive analysis of air quality indices and healthcare costs, hinting at the swirling connection between dirty air and empty wallets. These scholarly works set the stage for our own investigation, inspiring us to "nose" dive into the data with a gust of enthusiasm.
In the world of non-fiction literature, the works of "Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art" by James Nestor and "The Air That We Breathe" by Andrea Barrett offer valuable insights into the complex relationship between respiration and environmental influences. As we crafted our research framework, these works served as a breath of fresh air, propelling us forward with their illuminating perspectives. On the flip side, the fictional realm has not shied away from exploring themes of pollution and its impact on health. From "The Air He Breathes" by Brittainy C. Cherry to "Fumes of Fury" by Arthur P. Smoke, these imaginative titles playfully danced on the edge of our research topic, reminding us that even in the world of fiction, there is no escaping the air we breathe.
In the world of animated entertainment, we turned our attention to "Captain Planet and the Planeteers," where the eco-friendly superhero battles pollution with a powerful blend of environmental awareness and spandex. Watching the show served as a whimsical break from our rigorous data analysis, offering a reminder that even the most daunting challenges can be tackled with a dash of humor and a heart full of determination. Additionally, "The Magic School Bus" episode on air quality provided a lighthearted yet educational perspective on the invisible gases floating through the atmosphere, proving that learning about air pollution doesn't have to be a "breezy" affair.
Armed with this diverse array of sources and inspirations, we set out to unfurl the relationship between US household spending on prescription drugs and the atmospheric tango of air pollution in St. Louis. Our journey led us through a landscape of statistics, theories, and a few unexpected detours, ultimately breathing life into the conversation and serving as a testament to the inescapable influence of the air we breathe.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our study revealed a striking correlation coefficient (r) of 0.8589101, with an r-squared of 0.7377266 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong association between US household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution in St. Louis. It seems that the economic impact of air pollution may be nothing to sneeze at!
Our findings suggest that as air pollution levels in St. Louis increased, so did household spending on prescription drugs, painting a rather vivid picture of the wheezy connection between the two. It's like a tale of two cities: as the air quality worsened, the dollar signs for prescription medications seemed to inflate like a balloon filled with polluted air.
Fig. 1 (provided separately) displays the scatterplot illustrating this robust relationship, showing how household spending on prescription drugs is positively linked to air pollution levels. It's as clear as the smog-filled skies over St. Louis!
These results imply that air pollution doesn't just cloud the atmosphere; it may also cast a shadow over the wallets of residents, driving up healthcare expenses. It's like the air pollution is saying, "Inhale all you want, but make sure to exhale those dollars for medications!"
With a correlation this strong, it's clear that the wheeze is on when it comes to the intersection of household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution. Our findings not only provide valuable insights into the economic consequences of poor air quality but also shine a light on the potential health impacts that have been blowing in the wind, reaching households' bottom lines.
So, as the winds of change continue to blow through St. Louis, it's essential to keep an eye on both the respiratory and economic well-being of its residents. After all, when it comes to the wheezy connection between spending and pollution, there's no room for hot air – only cold, hard data!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of our study not only add a breath of fresh air to the existing literature but also provide a gust of insight into the wheezy connection between household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution in St. Louis. Our results, strikingly echoing the prior research by Smith et al. (2015) and Doe and Jones (2018), validate the swirling suspicion that dirty air and empty wallets go hand in hand. It's as if economic strain and polluted air are engaged in a never-ending tango, the kind that no one really wants to participate in but can't seem to avoid.

While our study took a rather tongue-in-cheek approach with the literature review, our results speak volumes about the serious implications of this wheezy connection. The correlation coefficient of 0.8589101 stands as a testament to the undeniable link between how much households spend on prescription drugs and the quality of the air they breathe, and it's no small feat. Our findings support the notion that as air pollution levels rise, so do healthcare expenses, making it abundantly clear that poor air quality isn't just bad for the lungs – it's also bad for the pocketbook. It's like the air pollution is a persistent salesperson, relentlessly peddling its wares to the unsuspecting residents, with no "opt-out" button in sight.

Furthermore, our study aligns with the early works of literary sources and animated entertainment, underscoring the inescapable influence of air pollution on health and economics. Just as "Captain Planet" valiantly battled pollution, our research heroically delved into the statistical battleground to illuminate the wheezy connection, proving that even the most whimsical of inspirations can lead to impactful discoveries. In this case, it's not just about a breath of fresh air, but a wheeze of economic consequence that demands attention.

In the end, our results support and bolster the existing understanding of the interplay between household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution, providing a solid foundation for future investigations. As we conclude this discussion, it's impossible to ignore the weight of our findings and the far-reaching implications they carry. It's clear that the wheezy connection between spending and pollution demands not only further research but also policy and public health interventions. After all, there's no room for hot air when it comes to our respiratory and economic well-being – only hard-hitting data and a resolute determination to clear the air, ensuring that the breaths we take are truly a breath of fresh, untainted air.


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 US household spending on prescription drugs and Air pollution in St. Louis. Make lots of 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 Wheezy Connection: A Breath of Fresh Air on US Household Spending and Air Pollution in St. Louis

[[ABSTRACT]]
With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics. In this study, we delved into the realm of household spending on prescription drugs in the United States and its potential relationship with air pollution, focusing specifically on the winds of change blowing through St. Louis. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency to tackle this conundrum, aiming to shed light on a topic that has been a bit up in the air. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8589101 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, suggesting that there may indeed be an airy connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and the pollution lingering in the skies over the Gateway to the West. So, take a deep breath, and prepare to be blown away by our potentially breathtaking findings!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution is a topic that has been floating around in the air for quite some time. While some may argue that economics and air quality are like oil and water, with distinct properties and not easily mixed, our study aims to show that they are more interconnected than meets the eye. We chose to focus our research on the city of St. Louis, a place known for its iconic Gateway Arch and unfortunately, its not-so-iconic air pollution levels.
With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics, or "economi"-breath if you will. St. Louis, nestled by the banks of the mighty Mississippi River, has been grappling with air pollution issues, leaving residents to ponder if they are breathing in more than just the sweet aroma of barbeque. As the saying goes, "When in St. Louis, do as the pollutants do!"
As researchers, we felt a certain wheeze of excitement about delving into the relationship between household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution. We aimed to uncover whether the dollars spent on medications were merely paying for the air we breathe or if there was a more concrete connection to be found. After all, there's no need to "puff" up a flimsy correlation if there's nothing substantial there!
Our study utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track household spending patterns and the Environmental Protection Agency to measure various air pollutants. We then "ventured" into statistical analyses to uncover any potential links, aiming to breathe new life into the conversation about the impact of air pollution on household health expenses.
So, buckle up and put on your thinking cap, because we're about to take a deep dive into the winds of change blowing through the Midwest and uncover some potentially eye-opening findings. Prepare to be "blown away" by our exciting exploration of the wheezy connection between household spending and St. Louis air pollution!

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our study revealed a striking correlation coefficient (r) of 0.8589101, with an r-squared of 0.7377266 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong association between US household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution in St. Louis. It seems that the economic impact of air pollution may be nothing to sneeze at!
Our findings suggest that as air pollution levels in St. Louis increased, so did household spending on prescription drugs, painting a rather vivid picture of the wheezy connection between the two. It's like a tale of two cities: as the air quality worsened, the dollar signs for prescription medications seemed to inflate like a balloon filled with polluted air.
Fig. 1 (provided separately) displays the scatterplot illustrating this robust relationship, showing how household spending on prescription drugs is positively linked to air pollution levels. It's as clear as the smog-filled skies over St. Louis!
These results imply that air pollution doesn't just cloud the atmosphere; it may also cast a shadow over the wallets of residents, driving up healthcare expenses. It's like the air pollution is saying, "Inhale all you want, but make sure to exhale those dollars for medications!"
With a correlation this strong, it's clear that the wheeze is on when it comes to the intersection of household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution. Our findings not only provide valuable insights into the economic consequences of poor air quality but also shine a light on the potential health impacts that have been blowing in the wind, reaching households' bottom lines.
So, as the winds of change continue to blow through St. Louis, it's essential to keep an eye on both the respiratory and economic well-being of its residents. After all, when it comes to the wheezy connection between spending and pollution, there's no room for hot air – only cold, hard data!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has blown the lid off the wheezy connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and air pollution in St. Louis. With a correlation coefficient that could knock the wind out of you and a p-value lower than basement-level air quality, it's safe to say we've uncovered some groundbreaking findings. It appears that the more polluted the air, the more cash households are shelling out for prescription medications, leaving residents to wonder if they're not just breathing in pollution, but also breathing out their hard-earned dollars.

Our results paint a vivid picture of the economic impact of air pollution, showing that it's not just a mere breezy inconvenience but a significant factor in healthcare expenses. It's like the air pollution's slogan is, "Inhale for free, exhale for a fee!" And with our robust findings, there's no room for doubts or second-guessing – this correlation is as clear as the smog-filled skies over St. Louis.

So, there you have it, folks. The wheezy connection has been uncovered, and we've given it our full lung capacity. With this comprehensive exploration, it's fair to say that no further research is needed in this area. We've filled our lungs with data, and it's time to let this topic breathe – without any more puns, promise!


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 Wheezy Connection: A Breath of Fresh Air on US Household Spending and Air Pollution in St. Louis. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Ecological Economics and Environmental Policy


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 Wheezy Connection: A Breath of Fresh Air on US Household Spending and Air Pollution in St. Louis. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Environmental Health and Economic Analysis


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 Wheezy Connection: A Breath of Fresh Air on US Household Spending and Air Pollution in St. Louis with an abstract of With every breath we take, we inhale not only air but also quite a bit of economics. In this study, we delved into the realm of household spending on prescription drugs in the United States and its potential relationship with air pollution, focusing specifically on the winds of change blowing through St. Louis. We employed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Environmental Protection Agency to tackle this conundrum, aiming to shed light on a topic that has been a bit up in the air. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8589101 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, suggesting that there may indeed be an airy connection between US household spending on prescription drugs and the pollution lingering in the skies over the Gateway to the West. So, take a deep breath, and prepare to be blown away by our potentially breathtaking findings!

ChatGPT:

household spending, prescription drugs, air pollution, St. Louis, US, economics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Environmental Protection Agency, correlation coefficient, p-value, pollution, prescription drug spending, air quality, economic impact, health effects, environmental data, pollution correlation

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Air pollution in St. Louis
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with air quality at 'unhealthy for sensitive groups' or worse in St. Louis, MO-IL
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in St. Louis

Correlation r = 0.8589101 (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 = 0.7377266 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 73.8% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Air pollution in St. Louis) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., US household spending on prescription drugs) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.6E-7. 0.0000001556473955920379000000
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 0.86 in 1.6E-5% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 6,424,778 random variables You don't actually need 6 million variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 22 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 22 because we have two variables measured over a period of 23 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.69, 0.94 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
US household spending on prescription drugs (Household spend)1.093441.136191.197241.144131.106121.122631.061980.9690160.954720.9904821.008130.9838041.001130.9197650.9084960.7592270.8078730.8091910.7889060.7709880.7760790.7440830.842847
Air pollution in St. Louis (Bad air quality days)14.207720.547921.917815.890410.92922.191820.821915.34256.557384.6575312.602712.876719.12575.479455.753424.383565.191263.287675.205482.465753.005464.109594.10959




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([1.09344,1.13619,1.19724,1.14413,1.10612,1.12263,1.06198,0.969016,0.95472,0.990482,1.00813,0.983804,1.00113,0.919765,0.908496,0.759227,0.807873,0.809191,0.788906,0.770988,0.776079,0.744083,0.842847,])
array_2 = np.array([14.2077,20.5479,21.9178,15.8904,10.929,22.1918,20.8219,15.3425,6.55738,4.65753,12.6027,12.8767,19.1257,5.47945,5.75342,4.38356,5.19126,3.28767,5.20548,2.46575,3.00546,4.10959,4.10959,])
array_1_name = "US household spending on prescription drugs"
array_2_name = "Air pollution in St. Louis"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating skills are top-notch!


Correlation ID: 5273 · Black Variable ID: 19995 · Red Variable ID: 21311
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0