Report an error
Associates degrees awarded in Social sciences and history correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Ross Stores' stock price (ROST) | r=0.99 | 11yrs | Yes! |
| Nasdaq's stock price (NDAQ) | r=0.97 | 11yrs | No |
| The Coca-Cola Company's stock price (KO) | r=0.96 | 11yrs | No |
| Unilever's stock price (UL) | r=0.96 | 11yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'how to move to europe' | r=0.95 | 11yrs | Yes! |
| Merck & Co.'s stock price (MRK) | r=0.95 | 11yrs | No |
| Total likes of Tom Scott's YouTube videos | r=0.95 | 11yrs | Yes! |
| Google searches for 'adopt a cat' | r=0.91 | 11yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'how to immigrate to switzerland' | r=0.83 | 11yrs | No |
Associates degrees awarded in Social sciences and history also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)