about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,497 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Popularity of the first name Brooks and the second variable is Fossil fuel use in Burundi.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As more and more kids were named Brooks, it led to a surge in demand for trendy, personalized motorized scooters. These scooters became the must-have accessory, causing a nation-wide craze in Burundi. The sudden spike in scooter usage put pressure on the availability of fossil fuels, leading to an unexpected increase in consumption. It seems like the name Brooks was not only on everyone's lips, but also on everyone's scooter license plates in Burundi!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a vibrant marketplace in Burundi, featuring colorful stalls and shops selling traditional goods. A prominent sign bearing the name "Brooks" stands out. In the background, depict people bustling around while utilizing motorbikes and cars relying on fossil fuels for transportation. Capture the lively atmosphere of the market and the juxtaposition of traditional commerce and modern transportation. 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: Popularity of the first name Brooks and Fossil fuel use in Burundi. 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: Pop art A Discovery magazine cover image Woodblock painting Macabre Surrealism
ChatGPT: A Discovery magazine cover image

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 Popularity of the first name Brooks and Fossil fuel use in Burundi together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: A bustling marketplace in Burundi, with many stalls and shops selling traditional items, while a prominent sign displays the name "Brooks" in large letters. In the background, people are using motorbikes and cars that rely on fossil fuels for transportation.

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 Discovery magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: A bustling marketplace in Burundi, with many stalls and shops selling traditional items, while a prominent sign displays the name "Brooks" in large letters. In the background, people are using motorbikes and cars that rely on fossil fuels for transportation. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a vibrant marketplace in Burundi, featuring colorful stalls and shops selling traditional goods. A prominent sign bearing the name "Brooks" stands out. In the background, depict people bustling around while utilizing motorbikes and cars relying on fossil fuels for transportation. Capture the lively atmosphere of the market and the juxtaposition of traditional commerce and modern transportation.

*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.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
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 an increase in Popularity of the first name Brooks caused Fossil fuel use in Burundi to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Brooks and Burundi: Bizarre Buddies or Fossil Fuel Foes?

The Journal of Ecological Oddities

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name Brooks and Fossil fuel use in Burundi. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from US Social Security Administration and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2021.

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]]
Brooks and Burundi: Bizarre Buddies or Fossil Fuel Foes?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The intriguing correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in the African nation of Burundi has sparked both curiosity and skepticism. In this study, we delve into the unexpected link between a common first name and a nation's energy consumption.

Utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration, we examined the trend of the name "Brooks" in the US and the corresponding fossil fuel use in Burundi from 1980 to 2021. Our findings revealed a peculiar correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 and a jaw-dropping significance level of p < 0.01. This extraordinary statistical association left us scratching our heads and our fossil fuels burning!

Our research suggests a potentially influential role of the name "Brooks" in impacting energy decisions in Burundi. Could it be that the mellifluous sound of the name "Brooks" subconsciously nudges Burundians toward utilizing fossil fuels? This uncanny relationship certainly gives new meaning to the phrase "naming and shaming" – pun intended!

Despite the initial skepticism and chuckles from our colleagues, our robust statistical analysis stands as a testament to the surprising saga of "Brooks" and Burundi. This peculiar pairing invites further investigation into the intricate connections between names and global energy dynamics. Whether it's a coincidental quirk or a profound phenomenon, the influence of "Brooks" on Burundi's fossil fuel use is an amusing puzzle that warrants continued exploration.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name Brooks and Fossil fuel use in Burundi. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Brooks and Burundi: Bizarre Buddies or Fossil Fuel Foes?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The intriguing correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in the African nation of Burundi has sparked both curiosity and skepticism. In this study, we delve into the unexpected link between a common first name and a nation's energy consumption.

Utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration, we examined the trend of the name "Brooks" in the US and the corresponding fossil fuel use in Burundi from 1980 to 2021. Our findings revealed a peculiar correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 and a jaw-dropping significance level of p < 0.01. This extraordinary statistical association left us scratching our heads and our fossil fuels burning!

Our research suggests a potentially influential role of the name "Brooks" in impacting energy decisions in Burundi. Could it be that the mellifluous sound of the name "Brooks" subconsciously nudges Burundians toward utilizing fossil fuels? This uncanny relationship certainly gives new meaning to the phrase "naming and shaming" – pun intended!

Despite the initial skepticism and chuckles from our colleagues, our robust statistical analysis stands as a testament to the surprising saga of "Brooks" and Burundi. This peculiar pairing invites further investigation into the intricate connections between names and global energy dynamics. Whether it's a coincidental quirk or a profound phenomenon, the influence of "Brooks" on Burundi's fossil fuel use is an amusing puzzle that warrants continued exploration.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The intersection of personal nomenclature and national energy consumption may seem like the premise of an unconventional sitcom, but the linkage between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in Burundi has proven to be a captivating and confounding enigma. It's as if these two seemingly incongruous entities stumbled upon each other at a quirky cosmic mixer and struck up an unexpected conversation about carbon emissions and baby names.

The correlation between "Brooks" and fossil fuels in Burundi has captured the attention of researchers searching for novel connections in an interconnected world. This correlation has spurred analyses leading to perhaps the most surprising case of "name-dropping" in academic literature, a phrase that takes on a whole new meaning in this context!

This study explores the intricate dance between the eponymous name "Brooks" and the unassuming energy landscape of Burundi. It unravels the intriguing tale of how the moniker "Brooks" from across the Atlantic could, in its own unique way, be whispering suggestions to the Burundian populace about their fuel choices. It's as if the name "Brooks" has joined the ranks of influential factors that shape society, standing shoulder to shoulder with economic policies, technological advancements, and sudden surges in dad jokes at academic conferences.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name Brooks and Fossil fuel use in Burundi. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 name some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Brooks and Burundi: Bizarre Buddies or Fossil Fuel Foes?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The intriguing correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in the African nation of Burundi has sparked both curiosity and skepticism. In this study, we delve into the unexpected link between a common first name and a nation's energy consumption.

Utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration, we examined the trend of the name "Brooks" in the US and the corresponding fossil fuel use in Burundi from 1980 to 2021. Our findings revealed a peculiar correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 and a jaw-dropping significance level of p < 0.01. This extraordinary statistical association left us scratching our heads and our fossil fuels burning!

Our research suggests a potentially influential role of the name "Brooks" in impacting energy decisions in Burundi. Could it be that the mellifluous sound of the name "Brooks" subconsciously nudges Burundians toward utilizing fossil fuels? This uncanny relationship certainly gives new meaning to the phrase "naming and shaming" – pun intended!

Despite the initial skepticism and chuckles from our colleagues, our robust statistical analysis stands as a testament to the surprising saga of "Brooks" and Burundi. This peculiar pairing invites further investigation into the intricate connections between names and global energy dynamics. Whether it's a coincidental quirk or a profound phenomenon, the influence of "Brooks" on Burundi's fossil fuel use is an amusing puzzle that warrants continued exploration.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of personal nomenclature and national energy consumption may seem like the premise of an unconventional sitcom, but the linkage between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in Burundi has proven to be a captivating and confounding enigma. It's as if these two seemingly incongruous entities stumbled upon each other at a quirky cosmic mixer and struck up an unexpected conversation about carbon emissions and baby names.
The correlation between "Brooks" and fossil fuels in Burundi has captured the attention of researchers searching for novel connections in an interconnected world. This correlation has spurred analyses leading to perhaps the most surprising case of "name-dropping" in academic literature, a phrase that takes on a whole new meaning in this context!
This study explores the intricate dance between the eponymous name "Brooks" and the unassuming energy landscape of Burundi. It unravels the intriguing tale of how the moniker "Brooks" from across the Atlantic could, in its own unique way, be whispering suggestions to the Burundian populace about their fuel choices. It's as if the name "Brooks" has joined the ranks of influential factors that shape society, standing shoulder to shoulder with economic policies, technological advancements, and sudden surges in dad jokes at academic conferences.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The exploration of the connection between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" and fossil fuel use in Burundi has captivated the imaginations of researchers, baffled statisticians, and raised more than a few eyebrows. Smith (2015) first alluded to this unexpected correlation in a passing footnote, sparking curiosity and prompting a surge of scholarly interest in the intersection of personal names and national energy dynamics. Doe and Jones (2018) further examined this phenomenon and proposed that there might be an unconscious yet palpable influence of the name "Brooks" on the energy decisions of the Burundian populace.

In "The Name Game: Unveiling Puzzles of Personal Nomenclature," the authors present a whimsical yet thought-provoking analysis of the impact of personal names on societal norms and behavior. Smith's (2016) "Energy Matters: A Global Overview" offers a comprehensive exploration of energy consumption patterns across nations, inadvertently setting the stage for the serendipitous discovery of the "Brooks-Burundi" relationship. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones' (2017) "Names and Numbers: Unconventional Correlations" provides a framework for investigating anomalous connections between seemingly disparate variables, shedding light on the unanticipated ties between a popular American name and an African nation's energy choices.

Turning to the more unconventional avenues of literature, the fiction novel "Fossil Frenzy" by Green (2019) plants the seeds of curiosity with its whimsical tale of a time-traveling geologist who inadvertently alters historical energy trends with the power of a single name. "Brooks and Beyond: An Unlikely Saga" by Red (2020), though a work of fiction, casts a playful yet intriguing pall over the potential influence of the name "Brooks" on global energy patterns, proving that truth may indeed be stranger than fiction.

Not to be outdone, the realm of animated entertainment has also left its indelible mark on this curious correlation. The enduring cartoon "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" highlights the valiant efforts of environmental protection, inadvertently introducing the idea that perhaps even the forces of nature are not immune to the subtle sway of a popular name. Meanwhile, the lively children's show "The Magic School Bus" takes young viewers on a whirlwind adventure through the realms of science, planting the seed that perhaps the molecular makeup of names and energy choices is an exploration yet to be uncovered.

As this whimsical journey through literature reveals, the connection between the popularity of the name "Brooks" and fossil fuel use in Burundi is as confounding as it is captivating, infusing a sense of wonder into the realm of statistical analysis and academic exploration. In the spirit of this unexpected correlation, it seems that even in the world of scholarly research, there's always room for a good dad joke—after all, it's only fitting to add a bit of humor to the statistical "Brookstics"!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name Brooks and Fossil fuel use in Burundi. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 US Social Security Administration and Energy Information Administration . You used data from 1980 to 2021

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]]
Brooks and Burundi: Bizarre Buddies or Fossil Fuel Foes?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The intriguing correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in the African nation of Burundi has sparked both curiosity and skepticism. In this study, we delve into the unexpected link between a common first name and a nation's energy consumption.

Utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration, we examined the trend of the name "Brooks" in the US and the corresponding fossil fuel use in Burundi from 1980 to 2021. Our findings revealed a peculiar correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 and a jaw-dropping significance level of p < 0.01. This extraordinary statistical association left us scratching our heads and our fossil fuels burning!

Our research suggests a potentially influential role of the name "Brooks" in impacting energy decisions in Burundi. Could it be that the mellifluous sound of the name "Brooks" subconsciously nudges Burundians toward utilizing fossil fuels? This uncanny relationship certainly gives new meaning to the phrase "naming and shaming" – pun intended!

Despite the initial skepticism and chuckles from our colleagues, our robust statistical analysis stands as a testament to the surprising saga of "Brooks" and Burundi. This peculiar pairing invites further investigation into the intricate connections between names and global energy dynamics. Whether it's a coincidental quirk or a profound phenomenon, the influence of "Brooks" on Burundi's fossil fuel use is an amusing puzzle that warrants continued exploration.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of personal nomenclature and national energy consumption may seem like the premise of an unconventional sitcom, but the linkage between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in Burundi has proven to be a captivating and confounding enigma. It's as if these two seemingly incongruous entities stumbled upon each other at a quirky cosmic mixer and struck up an unexpected conversation about carbon emissions and baby names.
The correlation between "Brooks" and fossil fuels in Burundi has captured the attention of researchers searching for novel connections in an interconnected world. This correlation has spurred analyses leading to perhaps the most surprising case of "name-dropping" in academic literature, a phrase that takes on a whole new meaning in this context!
This study explores the intricate dance between the eponymous name "Brooks" and the unassuming energy landscape of Burundi. It unravels the intriguing tale of how the moniker "Brooks" from across the Atlantic could, in its own unique way, be whispering suggestions to the Burundian populace about their fuel choices. It's as if the name "Brooks" has joined the ranks of influential factors that shape society, standing shoulder to shoulder with economic policies, technological advancements, and sudden surges in dad jokes at academic conferences.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To elucidate the perplexing relationship between the popularity of the moniker "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel consumption in Burundi, our research team conducted a thorough and occasionally wacky analysis. Our data were drawn from two primary sources: the US Social Security Administration for information on the prevalence of the first name "Brooks" and the Energy Information Administration for detailed statistics on fossil fuel use in Burundi.

The first step involved harmonizing these disparate datasets, a process akin to coaxing a jazz band and a heavy metal ensemble to perform a symphony together – a truly harmonious feat! Once the data were aligned, we utilized advanced statistical techniques, including time-series analysis and cross-correlation functions, to scrutinize the trends and interactions between "Brooks" and fossil fuel consumption over the 41-year period. It was like a complex sudoku puzzle with numbers that spelled out "Brooks" and "Burundi."

Subsequently, we employed a suite of regression models to explore the potential causal links and hidden patterns hiding within the data. We created models so intricate that they rivaled the convoluted plots of mystery novels – a real whodunit in the realm of "Brooks" and Burundi's fuel choices. In addition, we conducted robustness checks and sensitivity analyses to ensure that our findings were as sturdy as a trusty old timepiece, albeit with a few unexpected cogs and gears.

To account for potential confounding factors such as socio-economic trends, geopolitical events, and the occasional surge in the popularity of alternative energy sources, we employed sophisticated statistical controls and sensitivity tests. These measures ensured that our findings were as robust as a panda's digestion of bamboo – resilient and fortified against spurious associations.

At various stages of our analysis, we paused to ponder the whimsical nature of our investigation. The journey between baby names in the US and fuel consumption in Burundi was as meandering as a lost puppy chasing its tail. Yet, through this delightful and unexpected journey, we unraveled the hidden threads connecting "Brooks" and Burundi's energy landscape, shedding light on a peculiar saga that defies conventional wisdom and tickles the intellect.

Overall, our methodology was a harmonious blend of rigorous statistical analysis and occasional levity, reflecting the extraordinary intersection of data-driven research and the whimsical world of "Brooks" and Burundi. This methodological concoction gave rise to insightful findings that challenge traditional paradigms and spark a chuckle or two along the way – just like a good dad joke at a dry academic conference!

Just like a piece of music, our analysis danced through the data, revealing surprising correlations, amusing anomalies, and a thought-provoking narrative that invites further exploration. In the end, our methodology became a symphony of statistical rigor and unexpected delight, offering a lighthearted twist to the staid realm of academic research.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name Brooks and Fossil fuel use in Burundi. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 US Social Security Administration and Energy Information Administration .

For the time period 1980 to 2021, you found a correlation 0.9658639, r-squared of 0.9328930, 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]]
Brooks and Burundi: Bizarre Buddies or Fossil Fuel Foes?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The intriguing correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in the African nation of Burundi has sparked both curiosity and skepticism. In this study, we delve into the unexpected link between a common first name and a nation's energy consumption.

Utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration, we examined the trend of the name "Brooks" in the US and the corresponding fossil fuel use in Burundi from 1980 to 2021. Our findings revealed a peculiar correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 and a jaw-dropping significance level of p < 0.01. This extraordinary statistical association left us scratching our heads and our fossil fuels burning!

Our research suggests a potentially influential role of the name "Brooks" in impacting energy decisions in Burundi. Could it be that the mellifluous sound of the name "Brooks" subconsciously nudges Burundians toward utilizing fossil fuels? This uncanny relationship certainly gives new meaning to the phrase "naming and shaming" – pun intended!

Despite the initial skepticism and chuckles from our colleagues, our robust statistical analysis stands as a testament to the surprising saga of "Brooks" and Burundi. This peculiar pairing invites further investigation into the intricate connections between names and global energy dynamics. Whether it's a coincidental quirk or a profound phenomenon, the influence of "Brooks" on Burundi's fossil fuel use is an amusing puzzle that warrants continued exploration.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of personal nomenclature and national energy consumption may seem like the premise of an unconventional sitcom, but the linkage between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in Burundi has proven to be a captivating and confounding enigma. It's as if these two seemingly incongruous entities stumbled upon each other at a quirky cosmic mixer and struck up an unexpected conversation about carbon emissions and baby names.
The correlation between "Brooks" and fossil fuels in Burundi has captured the attention of researchers searching for novel connections in an interconnected world. This correlation has spurred analyses leading to perhaps the most surprising case of "name-dropping" in academic literature, a phrase that takes on a whole new meaning in this context!
This study explores the intricate dance between the eponymous name "Brooks" and the unassuming energy landscape of Burundi. It unravels the intriguing tale of how the moniker "Brooks" from across the Atlantic could, in its own unique way, be whispering suggestions to the Burundian populace about their fuel choices. It's as if the name "Brooks" has joined the ranks of influential factors that shape society, standing shoulder to shoulder with economic policies, technological advancements, and sudden surges in dad jokes at academic conferences.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data spanning from 1980 to 2021 revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and the consumption of fossil fuels in Burundi. The correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 indicates an incredibly robust positive relationship, suggesting that as the occurrence of the name "Brooks" climbed in the US, so did Burundi's reliance on fossil fuels. It's a correlation so strong, it's as if "Brooks" and Burundi were destined to be energy soulmates!

The r-squared value of 0.9328930 further underscores the tight fit of the correlation, indicating that a staggering 93.29% of the variation in Burundi's fossil fuel use can be explained by the popularity of the name "Brooks" in the United States. Quite the influential name, indeed – who would've thought a harmless moniker could hold such sway over a nation's energy choices?

In addition, the p-value of less than 0.01 confirms the statistical significance of the relationship, debunking any notions that this correlation is purely a cosmic coincidence. It seems that the name "Brooks" and Burundi's fossil fuel usage are in cahoots, even if it's just a quirky cosmic conspiracy playing out in the realms of statistical analysis.

Figure 1 showcases the salient findings with a scatterplot displaying the unmistakable upward trend between the frequency of the name "Brooks" in the US and Burundi's fossil fuel use. This correlation is so rock-solid, one might say it's as strong as the bonds holding together the molecules of those fossil fuels!

It is evident from these results that the connection between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" and fossil fuel consumption in Burundi is not to be glossed over. This unexpected correlation challenges conventional wisdom and opens the door to a whole new realm of exploration at the intersection of nomenclature and energy dynamics. And who knows, maybe one day we'll be asking, "What's in a name?" and getting a response that includes energy trends and fossil fuel usage!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name Brooks and Fossil fuel use in Burundi. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Brooks and Burundi: Bizarre Buddies or Fossil Fuel Foes?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The intriguing correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in the African nation of Burundi has sparked both curiosity and skepticism. In this study, we delve into the unexpected link between a common first name and a nation's energy consumption.

Utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration, we examined the trend of the name "Brooks" in the US and the corresponding fossil fuel use in Burundi from 1980 to 2021. Our findings revealed a peculiar correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 and a jaw-dropping significance level of p < 0.01. This extraordinary statistical association left us scratching our heads and our fossil fuels burning!

Our research suggests a potentially influential role of the name "Brooks" in impacting energy decisions in Burundi. Could it be that the mellifluous sound of the name "Brooks" subconsciously nudges Burundians toward utilizing fossil fuels? This uncanny relationship certainly gives new meaning to the phrase "naming and shaming" – pun intended!

Despite the initial skepticism and chuckles from our colleagues, our robust statistical analysis stands as a testament to the surprising saga of "Brooks" and Burundi. This peculiar pairing invites further investigation into the intricate connections between names and global energy dynamics. Whether it's a coincidental quirk or a profound phenomenon, the influence of "Brooks" on Burundi's fossil fuel use is an amusing puzzle that warrants continued exploration.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The exploration of the connection between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" and fossil fuel use in Burundi has captivated the imaginations of researchers, baffled statisticians, and raised more than a few eyebrows. Smith (2015) first alluded to this unexpected correlation in a passing footnote, sparking curiosity and prompting a surge of scholarly interest in the intersection of personal names and national energy dynamics. Doe and Jones (2018) further examined this phenomenon and proposed that there might be an unconscious yet palpable influence of the name "Brooks" on the energy decisions of the Burundian populace.
In "The Name Game: Unveiling Puzzles of Personal Nomenclature," the authors present a whimsical yet thought-provoking analysis of the impact of personal names on societal norms and behavior. Smith's (2016) "Energy Matters: A Global Overview" offers a comprehensive exploration of energy consumption patterns across nations, inadvertently setting the stage for the serendipitous discovery of the "Brooks-Burundi" relationship. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones' (2017) "Names and Numbers: Unconventional Correlations" provides a framework for investigating anomalous connections between seemingly disparate variables, shedding light on the unanticipated ties between a popular American name and an African nation's energy choices.
Turning to the more unconventional avenues of literature, the fiction novel "Fossil Frenzy" by Green (2019) plants the seeds of curiosity with its whimsical tale of a time-traveling geologist who inadvertently alters historical energy trends with the power of a single name. "Brooks and Beyond: An Unlikely Saga" by Red (2020), though a work of fiction, casts a playful yet intriguing pall over the potential influence of the name "Brooks" on global energy patterns, proving that truth may indeed be stranger than fiction.
Not to be outdone, the realm of animated entertainment has also left its indelible mark on this curious correlation. The enduring cartoon "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" highlights the valiant efforts of environmental protection, inadvertently introducing the idea that perhaps even the forces of nature are not immune to the subtle sway of a popular name. Meanwhile, the lively children's show "The Magic School Bus" takes young viewers on a whirlwind adventure through the realms of science, planting the seed that perhaps the molecular makeup of names and energy choices is an exploration yet to be uncovered.
As this whimsical journey through literature reveals, the connection between the popularity of the name "Brooks" and fossil fuel use in Burundi is as confounding as it is captivating, infusing a sense of wonder into the realm of statistical analysis and academic exploration. In the spirit of this unexpected correlation, it seems that even in the world of scholarly research, there's always room for a good dad joke—after all, it's only fitting to add a bit of humor to the statistical "Brookstics"!

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data spanning from 1980 to 2021 revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and the consumption of fossil fuels in Burundi. The correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 indicates an incredibly robust positive relationship, suggesting that as the occurrence of the name "Brooks" climbed in the US, so did Burundi's reliance on fossil fuels. It's a correlation so strong, it's as if "Brooks" and Burundi were destined to be energy soulmates!
The r-squared value of 0.9328930 further underscores the tight fit of the correlation, indicating that a staggering 93.29% of the variation in Burundi's fossil fuel use can be explained by the popularity of the name "Brooks" in the United States. Quite the influential name, indeed – who would've thought a harmless moniker could hold such sway over a nation's energy choices?
In addition, the p-value of less than 0.01 confirms the statistical significance of the relationship, debunking any notions that this correlation is purely a cosmic coincidence. It seems that the name "Brooks" and Burundi's fossil fuel usage are in cahoots, even if it's just a quirky cosmic conspiracy playing out in the realms of statistical analysis.
Figure 1 showcases the salient findings with a scatterplot displaying the unmistakable upward trend between the frequency of the name "Brooks" in the US and Burundi's fossil fuel use. This correlation is so rock-solid, one might say it's as strong as the bonds holding together the molecules of those fossil fuels!
It is evident from these results that the connection between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" and fossil fuel consumption in Burundi is not to be glossed over. This unexpected correlation challenges conventional wisdom and opens the door to a whole new realm of exploration at the intersection of nomenclature and energy dynamics. And who knows, maybe one day we'll be asking, "What's in a name?" and getting a response that includes energy trends and fossil fuel usage!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of the present study have unveiled a fascinating and seemingly preposterous correlation between the frequency of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel consumption in Burundi. While the notion of a name exerting influence over a nation's energy decisions might initially sound like the setup for a dad joke, the statistical findings unequivocally support the prior research that hinted at this peculiar relationship.

Connecting the dots between the literature review and our results, it becomes apparent that the unexpected correlation between the popularity of the name "Brooks" and Burundi's fossil fuel use is no laughing matter. Although introduced through an unconventional and often whimsical lens, the scholarly works of Smith (2015), Doe and Jones (2018) – as well as the more light-hearted contributions of Green (2019) and Red (2020) – collectively paved the way for the serendipitous discovery and robust confirmation of this perplexing correlation.

Despite the initial skepticism and eye-rolls at the improbable connection between a name and a nation's energy choices, our statistical analysis has established a compelling link between the two. With a correlation coefficient bordering on unity and a p-value so minuscule it could fit into a dad's favorite dad joke, the findings render this "Brooks-Burundi" liaison anything but a mere fluke.

Furthermore, the extensively robust r-squared value underscores the striking influence that the name "Brooks" wields over Burundi's fossil fuel consumption, providing a numerical punchline that even the most stoic statisticians couldn't help but crack a smile at. This unexpected correlation challenges the traditional view of nomenclature's impact and demands further exploration, effectively turning the phrase "What's in a name?" into a serious inquiry for the energy dynamics of nations.

Moreover, as revealed in Figure 1, the scatterplot presents an unambiguous illustration of the compelling association between the frequency of the name "Brooks" in the US and Burundi's fossil fuel use, painting the picture of an energy saga that could rival the most gripping of fictional narratives. The unexpected partnership between a commonplace name and a nation's energy choices adds an element of intrigue to the realm of statistical analysis, demonstrating that truth can indeed be stranger than fiction, especially when it comes to the "Brooks-Burundi" affair.

In conclusion, our findings stand as a testament to the intricate and often concealed connections between personal names and global energy dynamics. Whether it's a cosmic coincidence or a case of subtle influence, the uncanny association between the popularity of the name "Brooks" and Burundi's reliance on fossil fuels presents a compelling puzzle that beckons further exploration – and maybe even a few more dad jokes along the way!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Popularity of the first name Brooks and Fossil fuel use in Burundi. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Brooks and Burundi: Bizarre Buddies or Fossil Fuel Foes?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The intriguing correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in the African nation of Burundi has sparked both curiosity and skepticism. In this study, we delve into the unexpected link between a common first name and a nation's energy consumption.

Utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration, we examined the trend of the name "Brooks" in the US and the corresponding fossil fuel use in Burundi from 1980 to 2021. Our findings revealed a peculiar correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 and a jaw-dropping significance level of p < 0.01. This extraordinary statistical association left us scratching our heads and our fossil fuels burning!

Our research suggests a potentially influential role of the name "Brooks" in impacting energy decisions in Burundi. Could it be that the mellifluous sound of the name "Brooks" subconsciously nudges Burundians toward utilizing fossil fuels? This uncanny relationship certainly gives new meaning to the phrase "naming and shaming" – pun intended!

Despite the initial skepticism and chuckles from our colleagues, our robust statistical analysis stands as a testament to the surprising saga of "Brooks" and Burundi. This peculiar pairing invites further investigation into the intricate connections between names and global energy dynamics. Whether it's a coincidental quirk or a profound phenomenon, the influence of "Brooks" on Burundi's fossil fuel use is an amusing puzzle that warrants continued exploration.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of personal nomenclature and national energy consumption may seem like the premise of an unconventional sitcom, but the linkage between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in Burundi has proven to be a captivating and confounding enigma. It's as if these two seemingly incongruous entities stumbled upon each other at a quirky cosmic mixer and struck up an unexpected conversation about carbon emissions and baby names.
The correlation between "Brooks" and fossil fuels in Burundi has captured the attention of researchers searching for novel connections in an interconnected world. This correlation has spurred analyses leading to perhaps the most surprising case of "name-dropping" in academic literature, a phrase that takes on a whole new meaning in this context!
This study explores the intricate dance between the eponymous name "Brooks" and the unassuming energy landscape of Burundi. It unravels the intriguing tale of how the moniker "Brooks" from across the Atlantic could, in its own unique way, be whispering suggestions to the Burundian populace about their fuel choices. It's as if the name "Brooks" has joined the ranks of influential factors that shape society, standing shoulder to shoulder with economic policies, technological advancements, and sudden surges in dad jokes at academic conferences.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data spanning from 1980 to 2021 revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and the consumption of fossil fuels in Burundi. The correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 indicates an incredibly robust positive relationship, suggesting that as the occurrence of the name "Brooks" climbed in the US, so did Burundi's reliance on fossil fuels. It's a correlation so strong, it's as if "Brooks" and Burundi were destined to be energy soulmates!
The r-squared value of 0.9328930 further underscores the tight fit of the correlation, indicating that a staggering 93.29% of the variation in Burundi's fossil fuel use can be explained by the popularity of the name "Brooks" in the United States. Quite the influential name, indeed – who would've thought a harmless moniker could hold such sway over a nation's energy choices?
In addition, the p-value of less than 0.01 confirms the statistical significance of the relationship, debunking any notions that this correlation is purely a cosmic coincidence. It seems that the name "Brooks" and Burundi's fossil fuel usage are in cahoots, even if it's just a quirky cosmic conspiracy playing out in the realms of statistical analysis.
Figure 1 showcases the salient findings with a scatterplot displaying the unmistakable upward trend between the frequency of the name "Brooks" in the US and Burundi's fossil fuel use. This correlation is so rock-solid, one might say it's as strong as the bonds holding together the molecules of those fossil fuels!
It is evident from these results that the connection between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" and fossil fuel consumption in Burundi is not to be glossed over. This unexpected correlation challenges conventional wisdom and opens the door to a whole new realm of exploration at the intersection of nomenclature and energy dynamics. And who knows, maybe one day we'll be asking, "What's in a name?" and getting a response that includes energy trends and fossil fuel usage!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, the unexpected correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in Burundi has left us with more questions than answers. While our findings reveal a startling statistical association between the frequency of the name "Brooks" in the US and Burundi's reliance on fossil fuels, the underlying mechanisms at play remain shrouded in mystery. It's as if the universe is playing a cosmic joke on us, leaving us to ponder the enigmatic connection between nomenclature and energy dynamics.

Our research points to a potential role of the name "Brooks" in influencing energy decisions in Burundi, but it also raises eyebrow-raising queries. Could it be that the mellifluous sound of "Brooks" has an uncanny power to shape the energy landscape of a nation? Perhaps it's time to consider the potential influence of other names – who knows, maybe "Wendy" is secretly sparking wind energy revolutions!

The robust statistical findings and the comical trajectory of our investigation encourage us to embrace the whimsical side of academic exploration. It's a reminder that even the most unexpected correlations can lead to valuable insights and a good laugh – who knew research could be this entertaining?

In the grand tradition of dad jokes at academic conferences, we can't help but wonder if there's a "fuelish" reason behind the connection between "Brooks" and Burundi's fossil fuel use. It seems that the power of a name knows no bounds, and perhaps we ought to pay closer attention to the whispers of monikers in shaping global dynamics, from energy choices to economic trends.

As much as we're tempted to continue unraveling this amusing mystery, it's time to acknowledge that the saga of "Brooks" and Burundi may be a tale best left as an amusing anomaly in the annals of scholarly pursuits. Who would've thought that a simple name could hold such captivating sway over a nation's energy choices? It's clear that no more research is needed in this area – sometimes, it's okay to leave the cosmic sitcom playing without trying to decode every punchline!


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 Brooks and Burundi: Bizarre Buddies or Fossil Fuel Foes?. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Ecological Oddities


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 Brooks and Burundi: Bizarre Buddies or Fossil Fuel Foes?. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Zoological Quirks and Relationships


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 Brooks and Burundi: Bizarre Buddies or Fossil Fuel Foes? with an abstract of The intriguing correlation between the popularity of the first name "Brooks" in the United States and fossil fuel use in the African nation of Burundi has sparked both curiosity and skepticism. In this study, we delve into the unexpected link between a common first name and a nation's energy consumption.
Utilizing data from the US Social Security Administration and the Energy Information Administration, we examined the trend of the name "Brooks" in the US and the corresponding fossil fuel use in Burundi from 1980 to 2021. Our findings revealed a peculiar correlation coefficient of 0.9658639 and a jaw-dropping significance level of p < 0.01. This extraordinary statistical association left us scratching our heads and our fossil fuels burning!
Our research suggests a potentially influential role of the name "Brooks" in impacting energy decisions in Burundi. Could it be that the mellifluous sound of the name "Brooks" subconsciously nudges Burundians toward utilizing fossil fuels? This uncanny relationship certainly gives new meaning to the phrase "naming and shaming" – pun intended!
Despite the initial skepticism and chuckles from our colleagues, our robust statistical analysis stands as a testament to the surprising saga of "Brooks" and Burundi. This peculiar pairing invites further investigation into the intricate connections between names and global energy dynamics. Whether it's a coincidental quirk or a profound phenomenon, the influence of "Brooks" on Burundi's fossil fuel use is an amusing puzzle that warrants continued exploration.

ChatGPT:

Brooks, Burundi, correlation, fossil fuel, energy consumption, first name, US Social Security Administration, Energy Information Administration, statistical analysis, naming, global energy dynamics

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Popularity of the first name Brooks
Detailed data title: Babies of all sexes born in the US named Brooks
Source: US Social Security Administration
See what else correlates with Popularity of the first name Brooks

Fossil fuel use in Burundi
Detailed data title: Total fossil fuel use in Burundi in billion kWh
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Fossil fuel use in Burundi

Correlation r = 0.9658639 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
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 = 0.9328930 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 93.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Fossil fuel use in Burundi) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Popularity of the first name Brooks) over the 42 years from 1980 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 4.4E-25. 0.0000000000000000000000004445
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 0.97 in 4.4E-23% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 2,249,718,785,151,855,904,161,792 random variables You don't actually need 2 septillion 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 41 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 41 because we have two variables measured over a period of 42 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.

[ 0.94, 0.98 ] 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.
198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
Popularity of the first name Brooks (Babies born)348448478331281315248248214227230226259258280275260264243243259246250276340356422493430571723896877118215471685170119512423355439394498
Fossil fuel use in Burundi (Billion kWh)0.0010.0020.0020.0020.0020.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0010.0010.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0020.0120.0030.0260.0370.0330.0290.0790.105090.1229460.1167330.124204




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Outlandish outliers: There are "outliers" in this data. In concept, "outlier" just means "way different than the rest of your dataset." When calculating a correlation like this, they are particularly impactful because a single outlier can substantially increase your correlation.

    For the purposes of this project, I counted a point as an outlier if it the residual was two standard deviations from the mean.

    (This bullet point only shows up in the details page on charts that do, in fact, have outliers.)
    They stand out on the scatterplot above: notice the dots that are far away from any other dots. I intentionally mishandeled outliers, which makes the correlation look extra strong.




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([348,448,478,331,281,315,248,248,214,227,230,226,259,258,280,275,260,264,243,243,259,246,250,276,340,356,422,493,430,571,723,896,877,1182,1547,1685,1701,1951,2423,3554,3939,4498,])
array_2 = np.array([0.001,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.001,0.001,0.001,0.001,0.001,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.001,0.001,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.002,0.012,0.003,0.026,0.037,0.033,0.029,0.079,0.10509,0.122946,0.116733,0.124204,])
array_1_name = "Popularity of the first name Brooks"
array_2_name = "Fossil fuel use in Burundi"

# 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:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your correlation rating is out of this world!


Correlation ID: 1497 · Black Variable ID: 3386 · Red Variable ID: 23561
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0