Report an error
The number of fine artists in Pennsylvania correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Bloomberg Money Stuff articles about crypto | r=0.96 | 7yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'floss dance' meme | r=0.93 | 15yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'hard pills to swallow' meme | r=0.9 | 15yrs | No |
Divorce rates in the United Kingdom | r=0.89 | 10yrs | No |
Popularity of the 'weird flex but ok' meme | r=0.89 | 15yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Courteney | r=0.85 | 6yrs | No |
Car crashes in the US | r=0.77 | 12yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Shaniqua | r=0.75 | 8yrs | No |
Jet fuel used in Iceland | r=0.66 | 18yrs | Yes! |
Drenching rain in Philadelphia | r=0.62 | 15yrs | No |
Number of public school students in 6th grade | r=0.59 | 18yrs | No |
The number of fine artists in Pennsylvania 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.)