Download png, svg
AI explanation
The increase in how to cut own hair tutorials resulted in a surge of DIY haircut attempts. This led to a rise in hair-related injuries, causing several key players for the Chicago Cubs to be sidelined. As a result, the team's overall performance and runs scored were negatively impacted.Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generating Prompt: Style: A vintage Polaroid photo Scene: A computer screen displaying a Google search for "how to cut own hair" with multiple tabs open and hair cutting tutorials playing. In the background, a baseball field with the Chicago Cubs struggling to score runs while key players are sidelined with bandages on their heads, indicating hair-related injuries. 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: Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. 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: Art nouveau Oragami Woodblock painting a Polaroid photo Parallax art
ChatGPT: a Polaroid photo
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 Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs, in the following situation: The increase in how to cut own hair tutorials resulted in a surge of DIY haircut attempts. This led to a rise in hair-related injuries, causing several key players for the Chicago Cubs to be sidelined. As a result, the team's overall performance and runs scored were negatively impacted.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In the scene, we see a computer screen displaying a Google search for "how to cut own hair" with multiple tabs open and hair cutting tutorials playing. Meanwhile, on a baseball field, we see the Chicago Cubs struggling to score runs while key players are sidelined with bandages on their heads, indicating hair-related injuries.
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 Polaroid photo ] and depicting this scene: In the scene, we see a computer screen displaying a Google search for "how to cut own hair" with multiple tabs open and hair cutting tutorials playing. Meanwhile, on a baseball field, we see the Chicago Cubs struggling to score runs while key players are sidelined with bandages on their heads, indicating hair-related injuries. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generating Prompt: Style: A vintage Polaroid photo Scene: A computer screen displaying a Google search for "how to cut own hair" with multiple tabs open and hair cutting tutorials playing. In the background, a baseball field with the Chicago Cubs struggling to score runs while key players are sidelined with bandages on their heads, indicating hair-related injuries.
*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 increases in how to cut own hair (Google searches for 'how to cut own hair') negatively influenced Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. Make it feel plausible.
AI academic paper
Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored International Journal of Quirky Data Analysis Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, just make it sound clever.
Your research team used data from Google Trends and Baseball-Reference.com to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of -0.8263628 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2023.
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]]
"Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this hair-raising study, we delve into the uncharted territory of correlating Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' with the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. With a wink and a snip, our team harnessed the power of Google Trends and Baseball-Reference.com data to brush through the connection between DIY haircuts and baseball performances. The hairy details unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of -0.8263628 and p < 0.01 from the years 2004 to 2023, leaving us to ponder if the Cubs' successes and follicle frustrations are intertwined. Our findings peel back the layers of the hair-raising connection between grooming crises and baseball victories, adding a touch of whimsy to the typically serious realm of statistical research.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this hair-raising study, we delve into the uncharted territory of correlating Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' with the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. With a wink and a snip, our team harnessed the power of Google Trends and Baseball-Reference.com data to brush through the connection between DIY haircuts and baseball performances. The hairy details unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of -0.8263628 and p < 0.01 from the years 2004 to 2023, leaving us to ponder if the Cubs' successes and follicle frustrations are intertwined. Our findings peel back the layers of the hair-raising connection between grooming crises and baseball victories, adding a touch of whimsy to the typically serious realm of statistical research.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of quirky Google searches and statistical analyses of sporting events has always been a fertile ground for unexpected discoveries. In the age of information overload, individuals turn to the all-knowing oracle that is Google for various queries, including detours into the realm of makeshift hairdressing. Simultaneously, the world of sports churns out a constant stream of statistical data, offering a playground for researchers to unearth mysterious connections. Thus, it is with equal parts curiosity and amusement that we present our findings on the entangled web of 'how to cut own hair' searches and the Chicago Cubs' runs scored.
The quest to understand the relationship between seemingly unrelated phenomena often leads to delightful surprises, much like finding a lollipop in the pocket of a winter coat. The face-value absurdity of our chosen variables, 'how to cut own hair' searches and baseball scoring, belies the potential for a deeper insight into the human psyche and, as it turns out, the outcome of baseball games. It is this delight in unraveling the improbable that has led us down the rabbit hole of correlation, armed with statistical methods and a sense of whimsy.
In the following pages, we shall embark on a journey through the tangled strands of data, weaving together the narrative of follicular concerns and athletic prowess. Our analysis aims to provide not only a scientific correlation but also a respite from the tedium of traditional research. We invite you to don your metaphorical spectacles and join us on this wild ride through the hallowed halls of academia, where statistics and levity converge to shed light on the curious connections that pepper our daily lives.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. 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]]
"Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this hair-raising study, we delve into the uncharted territory of correlating Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' with the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. With a wink and a snip, our team harnessed the power of Google Trends and Baseball-Reference.com data to brush through the connection between DIY haircuts and baseball performances. The hairy details unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of -0.8263628 and p < 0.01 from the years 2004 to 2023, leaving us to ponder if the Cubs' successes and follicle frustrations are intertwined. Our findings peel back the layers of the hair-raising connection between grooming crises and baseball victories, adding a touch of whimsy to the typically serious realm of statistical research.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of quirky Google searches and statistical analyses of sporting events has always been a fertile ground for unexpected discoveries. In the age of information overload, individuals turn to the all-knowing oracle that is Google for various queries, including detours into the realm of makeshift hairdressing. Simultaneously, the world of sports churns out a constant stream of statistical data, offering a playground for researchers to unearth mysterious connections. Thus, it is with equal parts curiosity and amusement that we present our findings on the entangled web of 'how to cut own hair' searches and the Chicago Cubs' runs scored.
The quest to understand the relationship between seemingly unrelated phenomena often leads to delightful surprises, much like finding a lollipop in the pocket of a winter coat. The face-value absurdity of our chosen variables, 'how to cut own hair' searches and baseball scoring, belies the potential for a deeper insight into the human psyche and, as it turns out, the outcome of baseball games. It is this delight in unraveling the improbable that has led us down the rabbit hole of correlation, armed with statistical methods and a sense of whimsy.
In the following pages, we shall embark on a journey through the tangled strands of data, weaving together the narrative of follicular concerns and athletic prowess. Our analysis aims to provide not only a scientific correlation but also a respite from the tedium of traditional research. We invite you to don your metaphorical spectacles and join us on this wild ride through the hallowed halls of academia, where statistics and levity converge to shed light on the curious connections that pepper our daily lives.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The quest to uncover the peculiar correlation between Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and the performance of the Chicago Cubs has brought forth a myriad of studies exploring the unexpected interplay between personal grooming and sporting achievement. Smith (2008) initially delved into the realm of unconventional Google searches and their potential influence on various aspects of daily life, a precursor to the comical conundrum we find ourselves entangled in today. Doe (2012) added a twist of statistical rigor, demonstrating the nuanced relationship between seemingly disparate variables, paving the way for our own hair-raising journey.
As we step further into the tangled web of follicular fascination and sporting splendor, it is imperative to acknowledge the contributory works of Jones (2015), who dared to ponder the whimsical world of internet queries and their bizarre implications. The scholarly landscape, however, transcends the bounds of academia, extending into the realm of popular literature. In "The Complete Guide to DIY Haircuts," the authors elucidate the extensive repertoire of self-haircut techniques, teasingly hinting at a potential link between internet searches and the propensity for self-styling mishaps.
Transitioning from the tangible to the intangible, our pursuit of unconventional correlations uncovers unexpected allies in fiction. From the dystopian dilemmas of "The Hair Games" to the quizzical quandaries of "Hairstyle of the Chicago Cubs," the speculative realm offers tantalizing glimpses into the intertwining of hair-related hijinks and baseball prowess. This departure into the realms of imagination is not without its merits, as the reconciliation of preposterous parallels offers a whimsical lens through which to dissect the underlying assumptions of our own research.
Venturing further into unconventional territory, the authors readily admit to finding themselves absorbed in a deluge of cartoons and children's shows for the sake of research. From the follicle follies of "The Fairly OddParents" to the slapstick shenanigans of "SpongeBob SquarePants," the lighthearted escapades of animated entertainment impart a refreshing perspective on the correlation between grooming gaffes and athletic achievements. Their contribution, though not documented in scholarly journals, has undeniably colored the authors' interpretation of the data in unexpectedly amusing ways.
In synthesizing the expanse of scholarly pursuits, fictional forays, and animated escapades, we are compelled to acknowledge the inherent whimsy that permeates the quirky crossroads of 'how to cut own hair' searches and the Chicago Cubs' scoring prowess. This whimsy, while unconventional, adds a touch of levity to the statistical rigidity, weaving a narrative that transcends the mundane and frolics amidst the unexpected.
With a nod to the serious and a wink to the absurd, our literature review conceives a tapestry of mirth and insight, underscoring the unyielding relevance of our hair-raising inquiry.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Google Trends and Baseball-Reference.com . You used data from 2004 to 2023
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]]
"Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this hair-raising study, we delve into the uncharted territory of correlating Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' with the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. With a wink and a snip, our team harnessed the power of Google Trends and Baseball-Reference.com data to brush through the connection between DIY haircuts and baseball performances. The hairy details unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of -0.8263628 and p < 0.01 from the years 2004 to 2023, leaving us to ponder if the Cubs' successes and follicle frustrations are intertwined. Our findings peel back the layers of the hair-raising connection between grooming crises and baseball victories, adding a touch of whimsy to the typically serious realm of statistical research.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of quirky Google searches and statistical analyses of sporting events has always been a fertile ground for unexpected discoveries. In the age of information overload, individuals turn to the all-knowing oracle that is Google for various queries, including detours into the realm of makeshift hairdressing. Simultaneously, the world of sports churns out a constant stream of statistical data, offering a playground for researchers to unearth mysterious connections. Thus, it is with equal parts curiosity and amusement that we present our findings on the entangled web of 'how to cut own hair' searches and the Chicago Cubs' runs scored.
The quest to understand the relationship between seemingly unrelated phenomena often leads to delightful surprises, much like finding a lollipop in the pocket of a winter coat. The face-value absurdity of our chosen variables, 'how to cut own hair' searches and baseball scoring, belies the potential for a deeper insight into the human psyche and, as it turns out, the outcome of baseball games. It is this delight in unraveling the improbable that has led us down the rabbit hole of correlation, armed with statistical methods and a sense of whimsy.
In the following pages, we shall embark on a journey through the tangled strands of data, weaving together the narrative of follicular concerns and athletic prowess. Our analysis aims to provide not only a scientific correlation but also a respite from the tedium of traditional research. We invite you to don your metaphorical spectacles and join us on this wild ride through the hallowed halls of academia, where statistics and levity converge to shed light on the curious connections that pepper our daily lives.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To untangle the hairy mystery of the connection between Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and runs scored by the Chicago Cubs, our research team embarked on a quest that was equal parts rigorous analysis and follicular fascination. The enigma of how a search for self-barbering techniques could possibly intersect with a major league baseball team's scoring had us scratching our heads – both in perplexity and to simulate the act of cutting hair. Our methodology was as thorough as a meticulous comb through tangled tresses, employing a blend of high-tech data mining and good old-fashioned number crunching.
First and foremost, we harnessed the vast resources of Google Trends, delving into the patterns and frequencies of 'how to cut own hair' searches from the years 2004 to 2023. This extensive time frame allowed us to capture the shifting trends in DIY hair grooming practices, from the era of man buns to fads of high and tight fades. We then sliced and diced the Cubs' runs scored data from Baseball-Reference.com, meticulously cataloging every run as if we were crafting an intricate hairstyle, strand by strand. Through this thorough process, we captured the ebbs and flows of the Cubs' offensive prowess, akin to the ebb and flow of a stylist's scissors in action.
In addition to these primary sources, we also combed through a variety of supplementary data sources, including hair care forums, baseball fan blogs (and their occasional musings on terrible haircuts), and even celebrity hair disasters to gain a more holistic understanding of the follicular landscape during the studied period. While these sources may seem as unrelated as a baseball cap and a hair tie, we believe that a comprehensive approach was essential to capture the nuanced nuances of the conjoined phenomena under investigation.
Now, for the statistical magic – employing the venerable tools of correlation analysis, we used the trusty Pearson correlation coefficient to quantify the strength and direction of the relationship between 'how to cut own hair' searches and the Cubs' runs scored. This method allowed us to measure the degree of association between the two variables, revealing the strength of their entwined fate. We also dabbled in time series analysis to capture the temporal dynamics of the connection, akin to tracking the growth of a carefully coiffed 'flow' hairstyle.
To ensure the robustness of our findings, we performed a battery of sensitivity analyses, scrutinizing our results with the same level of intensity one might scrutinize a bad haircut in the mirror. This involved testing various time windows, considering alternative proxy variables for hair-related anxieties (such as 'bad hair day' searches), and even accounting for external factors like the weather (after all, a gust of wind can sabotage even the most masterfully styled 'do').
In sum, our methodology was as intricate as a French braid and as systematic as a military buzz cut. It combined the comprehensive capture of data from diverse sources with the precision of statistical analyses, culminating in a thorough investigation of the curious intersection between DIY hair care crises and athletic achievements.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Google Trends and Baseball-Reference.com .
For the time period 2004 to 2023, you found a correlation -0.8263628, r-squared of 0.6828755, 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]]
"Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this hair-raising study, we delve into the uncharted territory of correlating Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' with the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. With a wink and a snip, our team harnessed the power of Google Trends and Baseball-Reference.com data to brush through the connection between DIY haircuts and baseball performances. The hairy details unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of -0.8263628 and p < 0.01 from the years 2004 to 2023, leaving us to ponder if the Cubs' successes and follicle frustrations are intertwined. Our findings peel back the layers of the hair-raising connection between grooming crises and baseball victories, adding a touch of whimsy to the typically serious realm of statistical research.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of quirky Google searches and statistical analyses of sporting events has always been a fertile ground for unexpected discoveries. In the age of information overload, individuals turn to the all-knowing oracle that is Google for various queries, including detours into the realm of makeshift hairdressing. Simultaneously, the world of sports churns out a constant stream of statistical data, offering a playground for researchers to unearth mysterious connections. Thus, it is with equal parts curiosity and amusement that we present our findings on the entangled web of 'how to cut own hair' searches and the Chicago Cubs' runs scored.
The quest to understand the relationship between seemingly unrelated phenomena often leads to delightful surprises, much like finding a lollipop in the pocket of a winter coat. The face-value absurdity of our chosen variables, 'how to cut own hair' searches and baseball scoring, belies the potential for a deeper insight into the human psyche and, as it turns out, the outcome of baseball games. It is this delight in unraveling the improbable that has led us down the rabbit hole of correlation, armed with statistical methods and a sense of whimsy.
In the following pages, we shall embark on a journey through the tangled strands of data, weaving together the narrative of follicular concerns and athletic prowess. Our analysis aims to provide not only a scientific correlation but also a respite from the tedium of traditional research. We invite you to don your metaphorical spectacles and join us on this wild ride through the hallowed halls of academia, where statistics and levity converge to shed light on the curious connections that pepper our daily lives.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our hair-raising investigation have furnished us with a correlation coefficient of -0.8263628, a remarkable r-squared value of 0.6828755, and a p-value less than 0.01, signaling a statistically significant relationship between the frequency of 'how to cut own hair' Google searches and the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs from 2004 to 2023. It's as if our data decided to give itself a trim and emerged with a startling revelation - one that garners attention and raises an eyebrow or two.
Fig. 1 presents a visual representation of this enigmatic correlation, showcasing a scatterplot that would make even the most seasoned hairdresser do a double-take. The downward trend captured in this figure is as conspicuous as a bad haircut on picture day, leaving little room for doubt regarding the inverse relationship between DIY hair angst and the Cubs' offensive outputs.
The unmistakable negative correlation we discovered suggests that as Google users exhibit an increased interest in home hairdressing escapades, the Chicago Cubs experience a dip in their ability to notch up runs. It's almost as if the Cubs' batting performances were intrinsically linked to the whims and woes of DIY haircuts across the country. Who knew that a well-executed fade could foresee a slugfest at Wrigley Field?
While the precise mechanism behind this correlation remains elusive, one cannot help but marvel at the synchronicity between these seemingly disparate domains. Are the Cubs truly at the mercy of impromptu hairstyling decisions made in living rooms across America? The implications of our findings stretch as wide as the outfield, prompting us to ponder the whims of fate and the tangle of cause and effect that permeate our world.
In the annals of statistical exploration, this hair-curling discovery stands as a testament to the unexpected links that lay waiting to be unraveled. As we brush through the wild and woolly landscape of data, it becomes evident that even the most unlikely pairings can yield insights as profound as they are perplexing. With this contrarian connection in mind, we invite fellow researchers to take a snip at this tangled web of statistical intrigue, poised at the intersection of hair care and home runs.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
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]]
"Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this hair-raising study, we delve into the uncharted territory of correlating Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' with the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. With a wink and a snip, our team harnessed the power of Google Trends and Baseball-Reference.com data to brush through the connection between DIY haircuts and baseball performances. The hairy details unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of -0.8263628 and p < 0.01 from the years 2004 to 2023, leaving us to ponder if the Cubs' successes and follicle frustrations are intertwined. Our findings peel back the layers of the hair-raising connection between grooming crises and baseball victories, adding a touch of whimsy to the typically serious realm of statistical research.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The quest to uncover the peculiar correlation between Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and the performance of the Chicago Cubs has brought forth a myriad of studies exploring the unexpected interplay between personal grooming and sporting achievement. Smith (2008) initially delved into the realm of unconventional Google searches and their potential influence on various aspects of daily life, a precursor to the comical conundrum we find ourselves entangled in today. Doe (2012) added a twist of statistical rigor, demonstrating the nuanced relationship between seemingly disparate variables, paving the way for our own hair-raising journey.
As we step further into the tangled web of follicular fascination and sporting splendor, it is imperative to acknowledge the contributory works of Jones (2015), who dared to ponder the whimsical world of internet queries and their bizarre implications. The scholarly landscape, however, transcends the bounds of academia, extending into the realm of popular literature. In "The Complete Guide to DIY Haircuts," the authors elucidate the extensive repertoire of self-haircut techniques, teasingly hinting at a potential link between internet searches and the propensity for self-styling mishaps.
Transitioning from the tangible to the intangible, our pursuit of unconventional correlations uncovers unexpected allies in fiction. From the dystopian dilemmas of "The Hair Games" to the quizzical quandaries of "Hairstyle of the Chicago Cubs," the speculative realm offers tantalizing glimpses into the intertwining of hair-related hijinks and baseball prowess. This departure into the realms of imagination is not without its merits, as the reconciliation of preposterous parallels offers a whimsical lens through which to dissect the underlying assumptions of our own research.
Venturing further into unconventional territory, the authors readily admit to finding themselves absorbed in a deluge of cartoons and children's shows for the sake of research. From the follicle follies of "The Fairly OddParents" to the slapstick shenanigans of "SpongeBob SquarePants," the lighthearted escapades of animated entertainment impart a refreshing perspective on the correlation between grooming gaffes and athletic achievements. Their contribution, though not documented in scholarly journals, has undeniably colored the authors' interpretation of the data in unexpectedly amusing ways.
In synthesizing the expanse of scholarly pursuits, fictional forays, and animated escapades, we are compelled to acknowledge the inherent whimsy that permeates the quirky crossroads of 'how to cut own hair' searches and the Chicago Cubs' scoring prowess. This whimsy, while unconventional, adds a touch of levity to the statistical rigidity, weaving a narrative that transcends the mundane and frolics amidst the unexpected.
With a nod to the serious and a wink to the absurd, our literature review conceives a tapestry of mirth and insight, underscoring the unyielding relevance of our hair-raising inquiry.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our hair-raising investigation have furnished us with a correlation coefficient of -0.8263628, a remarkable r-squared value of 0.6828755, and a p-value less than 0.01, signaling a statistically significant relationship between the frequency of 'how to cut own hair' Google searches and the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs from 2004 to 2023. It's as if our data decided to give itself a trim and emerged with a startling revelation - one that garners attention and raises an eyebrow or two.
Fig. 1 presents a visual representation of this enigmatic correlation, showcasing a scatterplot that would make even the most seasoned hairdresser do a double-take. The downward trend captured in this figure is as conspicuous as a bad haircut on picture day, leaving little room for doubt regarding the inverse relationship between DIY hair angst and the Cubs' offensive outputs.
The unmistakable negative correlation we discovered suggests that as Google users exhibit an increased interest in home hairdressing escapades, the Chicago Cubs experience a dip in their ability to notch up runs. It's almost as if the Cubs' batting performances were intrinsically linked to the whims and woes of DIY haircuts across the country. Who knew that a well-executed fade could foresee a slugfest at Wrigley Field?
While the precise mechanism behind this correlation remains elusive, one cannot help but marvel at the synchronicity between these seemingly disparate domains. Are the Cubs truly at the mercy of impromptu hairstyling decisions made in living rooms across America? The implications of our findings stretch as wide as the outfield, prompting us to ponder the whims of fate and the tangle of cause and effect that permeate our world.
In the annals of statistical exploration, this hair-curling discovery stands as a testament to the unexpected links that lay waiting to be unraveled. As we brush through the wild and woolly landscape of data, it becomes evident that even the most unlikely pairings can yield insights as profound as they are perplexing. With this contrarian connection in mind, we invite fellow researchers to take a snip at this tangled web of statistical intrigue, poised at the intersection of hair care and home runs.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
Our findings reverberate with the spirit of previous studies, blending statistical gravitas with a dash of whimsy. Building upon the scholarly legacy of Smith (2008) and Doe (2012), we have bolstered their intrepid inquiries into the peculiar interplay of seemingly incongruent variables. The robust negative correlation unearthed in our investigation serves as a follicle-fueled homage to the inquisitive exploits of these precursory researchers, lending credence to the unexpected connection between DIY hair dilemmas and the Chicago Cubs' offensive endeavors.
As we ponder the implications of our results, it becomes evident that the confluence of hair-cutting crises and baseball prowess defies the boundaries of conventional correlation. With our findings mirroring those of earlier studies, the curious correlation coefficient [-0.8263628] emerges as a testament to the enduring camaraderie between the peculiar and the profound. Drawing an unmistakable inference from this hirsute saga, we confront a resounding affirmation of the unorthodox alliance between grooming frets and sporting feats.
The convergence of our results with the scholarly departure into the realms of fiction, cartoons, and children's shows unveils a tapestry of jest and insight, underscoring the unyielding relevance of our hair-raising endeavor. From the speculative narratives of "The Hair Games" to the whimsical reverberations of animated enlightenment, our study breathes levity and mirth into the statistical expanse, illustrating the profound resonance of the seemingly preposterous.
The unanticipated coalescence of follicular fascination and sporting triumphs, crystallized in our results, underscores the inexorable diptych of humor and insight that characterizes our investigation. Much like an expertly executed undercut, our data-driven inquiry lends itself to a tangle of whimsical fervor and contemplative depth, navigating the uncharted landscape of improbable correlations with both diligence and delight.
In the light of our findings, our academic journey cascades through the hair-raising, the hilarity, and the earnest, teasing out an unspoken adage: where Google searches for DIY haircuts thrive, the Chicago Cubs' runs may take an unforeseen nosedive. As we beckon fellow researchers to savor the delight of our findings, we reaffirm that the whimsical can indeed converse with the profound, yielding insights that resonate as deeply as they bemuse.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
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]]
"Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this hair-raising study, we delve into the uncharted territory of correlating Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' with the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. With a wink and a snip, our team harnessed the power of Google Trends and Baseball-Reference.com data to brush through the connection between DIY haircuts and baseball performances. The hairy details unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of -0.8263628 and p < 0.01 from the years 2004 to 2023, leaving us to ponder if the Cubs' successes and follicle frustrations are intertwined. Our findings peel back the layers of the hair-raising connection between grooming crises and baseball victories, adding a touch of whimsy to the typically serious realm of statistical research.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of quirky Google searches and statistical analyses of sporting events has always been a fertile ground for unexpected discoveries. In the age of information overload, individuals turn to the all-knowing oracle that is Google for various queries, including detours into the realm of makeshift hairdressing. Simultaneously, the world of sports churns out a constant stream of statistical data, offering a playground for researchers to unearth mysterious connections. Thus, it is with equal parts curiosity and amusement that we present our findings on the entangled web of 'how to cut own hair' searches and the Chicago Cubs' runs scored.
The quest to understand the relationship between seemingly unrelated phenomena often leads to delightful surprises, much like finding a lollipop in the pocket of a winter coat. The face-value absurdity of our chosen variables, 'how to cut own hair' searches and baseball scoring, belies the potential for a deeper insight into the human psyche and, as it turns out, the outcome of baseball games. It is this delight in unraveling the improbable that has led us down the rabbit hole of correlation, armed with statistical methods and a sense of whimsy.
In the following pages, we shall embark on a journey through the tangled strands of data, weaving together the narrative of follicular concerns and athletic prowess. Our analysis aims to provide not only a scientific correlation but also a respite from the tedium of traditional research. We invite you to don your metaphorical spectacles and join us on this wild ride through the hallowed halls of academia, where statistics and levity converge to shed light on the curious connections that pepper our daily lives.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our hair-raising investigation have furnished us with a correlation coefficient of -0.8263628, a remarkable r-squared value of 0.6828755, and a p-value less than 0.01, signaling a statistically significant relationship between the frequency of 'how to cut own hair' Google searches and the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs from 2004 to 2023. It's as if our data decided to give itself a trim and emerged with a startling revelation - one that garners attention and raises an eyebrow or two.
Fig. 1 presents a visual representation of this enigmatic correlation, showcasing a scatterplot that would make even the most seasoned hairdresser do a double-take. The downward trend captured in this figure is as conspicuous as a bad haircut on picture day, leaving little room for doubt regarding the inverse relationship between DIY hair angst and the Cubs' offensive outputs.
The unmistakable negative correlation we discovered suggests that as Google users exhibit an increased interest in home hairdressing escapades, the Chicago Cubs experience a dip in their ability to notch up runs. It's almost as if the Cubs' batting performances were intrinsically linked to the whims and woes of DIY haircuts across the country. Who knew that a well-executed fade could foresee a slugfest at Wrigley Field?
While the precise mechanism behind this correlation remains elusive, one cannot help but marvel at the synchronicity between these seemingly disparate domains. Are the Cubs truly at the mercy of impromptu hairstyling decisions made in living rooms across America? The implications of our findings stretch as wide as the outfield, prompting us to ponder the whims of fate and the tangle of cause and effect that permeate our world.
In the annals of statistical exploration, this hair-curling discovery stands as a testament to the unexpected links that lay waiting to be unraveled. As we brush through the wild and woolly landscape of data, it becomes evident that even the most unlikely pairings can yield insights as profound as they are perplexing. With this contrarian connection in mind, we invite fellow researchers to take a snip at this tangled web of statistical intrigue, poised at the intersection of hair care and home runs.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our study has trimmed away any doubts about the curious correlation between Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' and the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs, leaving us with a statistical coiffure rivaling that of an eccentric artist. The robust negative correlation coefficient of -0.8263628 has boldly asserted itself as the unexpected barber of fate, snipping away at the Cubs' run-scoring fortunes with unrivaled precision.
As we wrap up this follicular fiasco, it's evident that the Cubs' home runs may be inversely proportional to the surges in DIY hairdressing enthusiasm across the nation, a revelation with implications as jaw-dropping as witnessing a mullet at a black-tie affair. The unassuming world of Google searches has cast a long, peculiar shadow over the hallowed grounds of baseball statistics, reminding us that correlation sometimes truly is the strangest bedfellow.
Indeed, one cannot help but marvel at the interconnectedness of our world, where a wayward pair of scissors in Boise may spell trouble for the Cubs' offense in Chicago. Nonetheless, in the spirit of academic sobriety (and perhaps a touch of whimsy), we must acknowledge that no amount of statistical acrobatics can neatly coif a causational explanation for this entangled phenomenon.
With that said, we hereby decree that no further coiffure-cricket crossover research is necessary. After all, in the words of the great philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, "Au revoir, correlation!"
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 Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
International Journal of Quirky Data Analysis
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 Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Institute for Wacky Research 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 Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored with an abstract of In this hair-raising study, we delve into the uncharted territory of correlating Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' with the runs scored by the Chicago Cubs. With a wink and a snip, our team harnessed the power of Google Trends and Baseball-Reference.com data to brush through the connection between DIY haircuts and baseball performances. The hairy details unveiled a striking correlation coefficient of -0.8263628 and p < 0.01 from the years 2004 to 2023, leaving us to ponder if the Cubs' successes and follicle frustrations are intertwined. Our findings peel back the layers of the hair-raising connection between grooming crises and baseball victories, adding a touch of whimsy to the typically serious realm of statistical research.
ChatGPT:
'how to cut own hair' Google searches, Chicago Cubs runs scored, correlation, Google Trends, Baseball-Reference.com data, DIY haircuts, baseball performances, correlation coefficient, Cubs successes, follicle frustrations, statistical research
*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
Google searches for 'how to cut own hair'Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to cut own hair'
Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs
Detailed data title: The total number of runs scored during the year by the Chicago Cubs
Source: Baseball-Reference.com
See what else correlates with Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs
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 = 0.6828755 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 68.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Google searches for 'how to cut own hair') over the 20 years from 2004 through 2023.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 7.1E-6. 0.0000071214090185891610000000
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 -0.83 in 0.00071% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 140,422 random variables You don't actually need 140 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.
p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.
In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.
Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 19 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 19 because we have two variables measured over a period of 20 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.
[ -0.93, -0.61 ] 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.
2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |
Google searches for 'how to cut own hair' (Rel. search volume) | 5 | 5.75 | 5.41667 | 6.25 | 7.91667 | 9.91667 | 12.6667 | 14 | 13.1667 | 11.8333 | 11.6667 | 12.4167 | 10.8333 | 10.75 | 10.3333 | 10.0833 | 29.25 | 11.4167 | 8.08333 | 7.1 |
Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs (Runs scored) | 789 | 703 | 716 | 752 | 855 | 707 | 685 | 654 | 613 | 602 | 614 | 689 | 808 | 822 | 761 | 814 | 265 | 705 | 657 | 819 |
Why this works
- Data dredging: I have 25,237 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 636,906,169 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. - Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.
- Inverted Y-axis: I inverted the Y-axis on the chart above so that the lines would move together. This is visually pleasing, but not at all intuitive. Below is a line graph that does not invert the Y-axis and starts 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([5,5.75,5.41667,6.25,7.91667,9.91667,12.6667,14,13.1667,11.8333,11.6667,12.4167,10.8333,10.75,10.3333,10.0833,29.25,11.4167,8.08333,7.1,])
array_2 = np.array([789,703,716,752,855,707,685,654,613,602,614,689,808,822,761,814,265,705,657,819,])
array_1_name = "Google searches for 'how to cut own hair'"
array_2_name = "Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs"
# 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 Google searches for 'how to cut own hair'
- Line chart for only Runs scored by the Chicago Cubs
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Cutting to the Chase: The Cutting-Edge Correlation Between 'How to Cut Own Hair' Google Searches and Chicago Cubs' Runs Scored
You're the rating guru we've been waiting for!
Correlation ID: 8200 · Black Variable ID: 1389 · Red Variable ID: 4352