Report an error
Master's degrees awarded in Communications technologies correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
The number of zoologists in Oklahoma | r=0.94 | 7yrs | No |
The number of electrical engineers in Alabama | r=0.91 | 10yrs | Yes! |
The number of university biological science teachers in Utah | r=0.9 | 10yrs | No |
The number of zoologists in Arizona | r=0.88 | 10yrs | No |
The number of printing press operators in North Carolina | r=0.82 | 10yrs | No |
Electricity generation in Libya | r=0.77 | 10yrs | Yes! |
Warner Bros. Discovery's stock price (WBD) | r=0.74 | 10yrs | Yes! |
Popularity of the 'dumb ways to die' meme | r=0.72 | 10yrs | No |
Total likes of OverSimplified YouTube videos | r=0.68 | 6yrs | No |
Kerosene used in Netherlands | r=0.68 | 10yrs | No |
Mega millions lottery numbers | r=0.67 | 10yrs | No |
The marriage rate in District of Columbia | r=0.64 | 10yrs | No |
Master's degrees awarded in Communications technologies 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.)