Report an error
Popularity of the first name Lisa correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| The marriage rate in Tennessee | r=0.99 | 23yrs | No |
| The number of typists in Iowa | r=0.98 | 20yrs | No |
| Carjackings in the US | r=0.97 | 27yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'panama canal' | r=0.97 | 19yrs | No |
| Burglaries in Colorado | r=0.96 | 38yrs | No |
| Arson in New York | r=0.96 | 38yrs | No |
| Average number of milk cows in the United States | r=0.95 | 43yrs | No |
| Jet fuel used in Ukraine | r=0.95 | 30yrs | No |
| US household spending on clothing | r=0.94 | 23yrs | No |
| US birth rates of triplets or more | r=0.94 | 20yrs | No |
| Kerosene used in Portugal | r=0.93 | 43yrs | No |
| Air pollution in Portland, Oregon | r=0.84 | 43yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Lisa 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.)