about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,035 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is The number of logisticians in Idaho and the second variable is Google searches for 'who is alexa'.  The chart goes from 2007 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image

AI explanation

More logisticians in Idaho means more efficient transportation of Amazon Echo devices, leading to greater availability of Alexa.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: In a photorealistic style, depict a bustling distribution center in Idaho, with logisticians actively coordinating the movement of goods. Surround the distribution center with mountains in the background to capture the Idaho landscape. Simultaneously, show individuals on their break, engrossed in their phones, as they search for "who is Alexa," conveying their curiosity about efficient organization. Capture the scene in intricate detail, highlighting the meticulous coordination and the intrigue surrounding modern technology. 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: The number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. 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: Minimalism Steampunk A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s Oragami Photorealism
ChatGPT: Photorealism

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 The number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is alexa', in the following situation: Because as the number of logisticians in Idaho increases, there is a greater demand for efficient coordination and organization. This increased focus on logistics spills over into everyday life, causing people to seek out information on the most efficient and organized personal assistant, leading to an increase in Google searches for "who is Alexa.". Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Idaho, an increasing number of logisticians are seen working together at a bustling distribution center, meticulously coordinating the movement of goods. Meanwhile, on their break, people around them are using their phones to search "who is Alexa," intrigued by the idea of harnessing efficient organization in their own lives.

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: [ Photorealism ] and depicting this scene: In Idaho, an increasing number of logisticians are seen working together at a bustling distribution center, meticulously coordinating the movement of goods. Meanwhile, on their break, people around them are using their phones to search "who is Alexa," intrigued by the idea of harnessing efficient organization in their own lives. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: In a photorealistic style, depict a bustling distribution center in Idaho, with logisticians actively coordinating the movement of goods. Surround the distribution center with mountains in the background to capture the Idaho landscape. Simultaneously, show individuals on their break, engrossed in their phones, as they search for "who is Alexa," conveying their curiosity about efficient organization. Capture the scene in intricate detail, highlighting the meticulous coordination and the intrigue surrounding modern technology.

*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 The number of logisticians in Idaho caused who is alexa (Google searches for 'who is alexa') to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Logistics of Lexicographical Lunacy: A Lighthearted Look at Logisticians and 'Who is Alexa' Google Searches in Idaho

The Journal of Whimsical Linguistics

Jan 2024
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 goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9578362 and p < 0.01 for 2007 to 2022.

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]]
The Logistics of Lexicographical Lunacy: A Lighthearted Look at Logisticians and 'Who is Alexa' Google Searches in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
This whimsical research paper examines the surprising connection between the number of logisticians employed in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa'. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our team embarked on a journey into the quirky world of search engine curiosity. After rigorous data analysis, we uncovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9578362 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2007 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the peculiar relationship between the logistics industry and virtual assistants but also invite a whimsical discourse on the unexpected intersections of human behavior and professional expertise. Join us on this lighthearted expedition through the world of data, where correlations are as delightful as they are confounding!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Logistics of Lexicographical Lunacy: A Lighthearted Look at Logisticians and 'Who is Alexa' Google Searches in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
This whimsical research paper examines the surprising connection between the number of logisticians employed in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa'. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our team embarked on a journey into the quirky world of search engine curiosity. After rigorous data analysis, we uncovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9578362 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2007 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the peculiar relationship between the logistics industry and virtual assistants but also invite a whimsical discourse on the unexpected intersections of human behavior and professional expertise. Join us on this lighthearted expedition through the world of data, where correlations are as delightful as they are confounding!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
INTRODUCTION

In the ever-expanding universe of data analysis, where correlations are often elusive and statistical significance is the golden fleece, we often encounter unexpected and, dare I say, whimsical relationships. Our examination of the link between logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa' is a testament to the delightful surprises that await researchers in the realm of data exploration.

It is well-established that logisticians play a vital role in the efficient movement of goods and information, employing their strategic acumen to navigate the complex web of supply chains. Yet, in the midst of their logistical wizardry, we stumbled upon an enigmatic connection to the digital realm—a correlation that is as perplexing as it is captivating.

Now, before you conjure images of logisticians conducting Google searches while pondering the intricacies of virtual assistants, let us assure you that the nexus of our investigation is as amusing as it sounds. With the straightest of faces, we embarked on a journey to unravel the mystery behind why the number of logisticians in Idaho might be intertwined with the populace's curiosity about the enigmatic entity known as Alexa.

As we tiptoed through the labyrinthine corridors of data and statistics, armed with p-values and regression models, we were driven not only by scholarly curiosity but also by a desire to unravel the quirky nuances of human behavior. And oh, what a delightful journey it has been!

So, dear reader, fasten your seatbelts and prepare to marvel at the serendipitous connections our research has unveiled. For in the charming world of academic inquiry, where serious faces meet whimsy, it's not just about the correlations, but also about the delightfully confounding twists and turns that await us. Let us embark on this lighthearted escapade together, where the lines between the serious and the playful are blissfully blurred!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Logistics of Lexicographical Lunacy: A Lighthearted Look at Logisticians and 'Who is Alexa' Google Searches in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
This whimsical research paper examines the surprising connection between the number of logisticians employed in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa'. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our team embarked on a journey into the quirky world of search engine curiosity. After rigorous data analysis, we uncovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9578362 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2007 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the peculiar relationship between the logistics industry and virtual assistants but also invite a whimsical discourse on the unexpected intersections of human behavior and professional expertise. Join us on this lighthearted expedition through the world of data, where correlations are as delightful as they are confounding!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In the ever-expanding universe of data analysis, where correlations are often elusive and statistical significance is the golden fleece, we often encounter unexpected and, dare I say, whimsical relationships. Our examination of the link between logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa' is a testament to the delightful surprises that await researchers in the realm of data exploration.
It is well-established that logisticians play a vital role in the efficient movement of goods and information, employing their strategic acumen to navigate the complex web of supply chains. Yet, in the midst of their logistical wizardry, we stumbled upon an enigmatic connection to the digital realm—a correlation that is as perplexing as it is captivating.
Now, before you conjure images of logisticians conducting Google searches while pondering the intricacies of virtual assistants, let us assure you that the nexus of our investigation is as amusing as it sounds. With the straightest of faces, we embarked on a journey to unravel the mystery behind why the number of logisticians in Idaho might be intertwined with the populace's curiosity about the enigmatic entity known as Alexa.
As we tiptoed through the labyrinthine corridors of data and statistics, armed with p-values and regression models, we were driven not only by scholarly curiosity but also by a desire to unravel the quirky nuances of human behavior. And oh, what a delightful journey it has been!
So, dear reader, fasten your seatbelts and prepare to marvel at the serendipitous connections our research has unveiled. For in the charming world of academic inquiry, where serious faces meet whimsy, it's not just about the correlations, but also about the delightfully confounding twists and turns that await us. Let us embark on this lighthearted escapade together, where the lines between the serious and the playful are blissfully blurred!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
LITERATURE REVIEW

In "Logistical Musings: A Comprehensive Study of the Logistics Industry" by Smith et al., the authors find that the field of logistics encompasses a wide range of roles, from transportation and warehousing to inventory management and procurement. The study delves into the intricate strategies employed by logisticians to streamline the movement of goods and materials, painting a comprehensive picture of the industry's multifaceted operations.

Building on this foundation, Doe and Jones, in "Navigating the Supply Chain: A Modern Approach to Logistics," emphasize the indispensable role of logisticians in optimizing supply chain processes. Their work underscores the strategic prowess required for efficient coordination and distribution, highlighting the dynamic nature of the logistics field in an increasingly interconnected world.

As we venture into the hallowed halls of literature pertinent to our peculiar investigation, it is essential to draw inspiration from non-fiction works such as "The Evolution of Logistics" by David Walters and "Supply Chain Management for Dummies" by Daniel Stanton. These scholarly works provide insights into the evolution and intricacies of logistics, offering a grounding in the fundamental concepts that underpin our inquiry.

Taking an unconventional leap, our intellectual expedition leads us to fictional realms that, while not directly related to logistics, beckon us with their tantalizing titles. In the whimsical land of fiction, "The Curious Incident of the Logistician in the Night-Time" by Mark Haddon and "Logistics and Prejudice" by Jane Austen (in an alternate reality, of course) invite us to suspend disbelief and indulge in the fantastical possibilities of intersections between logisticians and enigmatic inquiries.

But wait, dear reader, our journey takes a delightful turn as we deviate from the trodden path of scholarly tomes and meander into the offbeat alleys of unconventional research sources. Our foray into the annals of unconventional literature leads us to none other than the backs of shampoo bottles—yes, you read that right. A meticulous perusal of the fine print on shampoo bottles, with their intriguing ingredient lists and minimalist usage instructions, offers a quirky lens through which to contemplate the parallels between logistical expertise and queries about virtual assistants. After all, who knew that the secret to unraveling this enigma lay in the unlikeliest of places?

Embracing the eclectic and the unexpected, we set the stage for a literature review that celebrates the delightful juxtaposition of scholarly rigor and whimsical exploration. Join us, fellow revelers in the academic carnival, as we unravel the unfathomable connections that await us in the lighthearted realm of data analysis and inquiry!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends . You used data from 2007 to 2022

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]]
The Logistics of Lexicographical Lunacy: A Lighthearted Look at Logisticians and 'Who is Alexa' Google Searches in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
This whimsical research paper examines the surprising connection between the number of logisticians employed in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa'. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our team embarked on a journey into the quirky world of search engine curiosity. After rigorous data analysis, we uncovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9578362 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2007 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the peculiar relationship between the logistics industry and virtual assistants but also invite a whimsical discourse on the unexpected intersections of human behavior and professional expertise. Join us on this lighthearted expedition through the world of data, where correlations are as delightful as they are confounding!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In the ever-expanding universe of data analysis, where correlations are often elusive and statistical significance is the golden fleece, we often encounter unexpected and, dare I say, whimsical relationships. Our examination of the link between logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa' is a testament to the delightful surprises that await researchers in the realm of data exploration.
It is well-established that logisticians play a vital role in the efficient movement of goods and information, employing their strategic acumen to navigate the complex web of supply chains. Yet, in the midst of their logistical wizardry, we stumbled upon an enigmatic connection to the digital realm—a correlation that is as perplexing as it is captivating.
Now, before you conjure images of logisticians conducting Google searches while pondering the intricacies of virtual assistants, let us assure you that the nexus of our investigation is as amusing as it sounds. With the straightest of faces, we embarked on a journey to unravel the mystery behind why the number of logisticians in Idaho might be intertwined with the populace's curiosity about the enigmatic entity known as Alexa.
As we tiptoed through the labyrinthine corridors of data and statistics, armed with p-values and regression models, we were driven not only by scholarly curiosity but also by a desire to unravel the quirky nuances of human behavior. And oh, what a delightful journey it has been!
So, dear reader, fasten your seatbelts and prepare to marvel at the serendipitous connections our research has unveiled. For in the charming world of academic inquiry, where serious faces meet whimsy, it's not just about the correlations, but also about the delightfully confounding twists and turns that await us. Let us embark on this lighthearted escapade together, where the lines between the serious and the playful are blissfully blurred!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

**METHODOLOGY**

In order to unravel the mystifying relationship between the number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa', our research team employed a mix of conventional statistical methods and a touch of whimsy to navigate the labyrinth of data analysis.

**Data Collection**
Our data collection process involved casting a wide net across the electronic waves of the internet, harnessing the power of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends. We meticulously combed through employment figures for logisticians in Idaho, extracting nuggets of numerical wisdom that depicted the ebb and flow of this enigmatic workforce. Additionally, we tapped into the cultural zeitgeist by sifting through Google search trends for the elusive query 'who is Alexa'. It's worth noting that while we dived deep into the digital ocean of data, we also kept a vigilant eye out for mermaids of statistical significance and the occasional sea monster of confounding variables.

**Data Analysis**
Armed with our trusty statistical software and a hefty supply of caffeinated beverages, we subjected the collected data to a series of analyses that would make even the most seasoned mathematician do a double take. We ventured into the world of correlation coefficients, where we unraveled the dance of numbers and deduced the strength of the relationship between logisticians and Alexa searches. By gracing regression models with our scholarly touch, we endeavored to tease out the nuances of this peculiar connection, all the while making sure to sprinkle our models with a dash of fairy dust for good measure.

**Statistical Rigor and Whimsical Interpretations**
As any respectable academic inquiry demands, we rigorously ensured the statistical significance of our findings. We diligently calculated p-values, cross-checked our results, and even consulted the ancient scrolls of statistical theory to validate our discoveries. But let's not forget the whimsy! Alongside our earnest quest for statistical truths, we embraced the unpredictable nature of our research topic with open arms, infusing our interpretations with a healthy dose of levity and just a hint of absurdity, because, after all, what is academia without a bit of playful curiosity?

So, with the gravitas of statistical analysis and the mirth of whimsical interpretation, we navigated the treacherous waters of data analysis, emerging victorious with insights as delightful as they are confounding.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends .

For the time period 2007 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9578362, r-squared of 0.9174501, 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]]
The Logistics of Lexicographical Lunacy: A Lighthearted Look at Logisticians and 'Who is Alexa' Google Searches in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
This whimsical research paper examines the surprising connection between the number of logisticians employed in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa'. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our team embarked on a journey into the quirky world of search engine curiosity. After rigorous data analysis, we uncovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9578362 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2007 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the peculiar relationship between the logistics industry and virtual assistants but also invite a whimsical discourse on the unexpected intersections of human behavior and professional expertise. Join us on this lighthearted expedition through the world of data, where correlations are as delightful as they are confounding!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
In the ever-expanding universe of data analysis, where correlations are often elusive and statistical significance is the golden fleece, we often encounter unexpected and, dare I say, whimsical relationships. Our examination of the link between logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa' is a testament to the delightful surprises that await researchers in the realm of data exploration.
It is well-established that logisticians play a vital role in the efficient movement of goods and information, employing their strategic acumen to navigate the complex web of supply chains. Yet, in the midst of their logistical wizardry, we stumbled upon an enigmatic connection to the digital realm—a correlation that is as perplexing as it is captivating.
Now, before you conjure images of logisticians conducting Google searches while pondering the intricacies of virtual assistants, let us assure you that the nexus of our investigation is as amusing as it sounds. With the straightest of faces, we embarked on a journey to unravel the mystery behind why the number of logisticians in Idaho might be intertwined with the populace's curiosity about the enigmatic entity known as Alexa.
As we tiptoed through the labyrinthine corridors of data and statistics, armed with p-values and regression models, we were driven not only by scholarly curiosity but also by a desire to unravel the quirky nuances of human behavior. And oh, what a delightful journey it has been!
So, dear reader, fasten your seatbelts and prepare to marvel at the serendipitous connections our research has unveiled. For in the charming world of academic inquiry, where serious faces meet whimsy, it's not just about the correlations, but also about the delightfully confounding twists and turns that await us. Let us embark on this lighthearted escapade together, where the lines between the serious and the playful are blissfully blurred!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our investigation into the fascinating link between the number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa' have left us equal parts puzzled and amused. After subjecting the data to rigorous analysis, we uncovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9578362, indicating a striking relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. This finding points to a connection that is as perplexing as it is delightful, inviting us to contemplate the whimsical interplay of professional expertise and virtual curiosity.

The r-squared value of 0.9174501 further reinforces the robustness of the connection, offering a glimpse into the extent to which the number of logisticians in Idaho may influence the collective interest in Alexa. The statistical significance of our findings, with a p-value of less than 0.01, firmly establishes the strength of this correlation and dismisses any doubts about the legitimacy of our perplexing discovery. It appears that the idiosyncratic dance between logistical acumen and digital inquisitiveness is not merely a figment of our imaginations but a tangible phenomenon worthy of scholarly mirth.

Fig. 1 (To be inserted) presents a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the pronounced relationship between the number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa'. Behold, dear reader, as the data points prance merrily across the plot, painting a picture of correlation that transcends the mundane and delves into the realm of delightful absurdity. For in the whimsical world of academic inquiry, where serious faces meet playful data, our findings stand as a testament to the confounding caprice of human behavior and statistical serendipity.

In summary, our research has unearthed a striking correlation between logisticians in Idaho and the populace's curiosity about Alexa, inviting scholars and enthusiasts alike to revel in the splendid curiosities that data analysis can unveil. The ludicrous connections we stumble upon in the labyrinth of regression models and coefficient calculations serve as a heartwarming reminder that, in the midst of scholarly rigidity, a touch of whimsy can turn the dry pursuit of knowledge into a delightful romp through the capricious wonderland of correlations.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
The Logistics of Lexicographical Lunacy: A Lighthearted Look at Logisticians and 'Who is Alexa' Google Searches in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
This whimsical research paper examines the surprising connection between the number of logisticians employed in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa'. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our team embarked on a journey into the quirky world of search engine curiosity. After rigorous data analysis, we uncovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9578362 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2007 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the peculiar relationship between the logistics industry and virtual assistants but also invite a whimsical discourse on the unexpected intersections of human behavior and professional expertise. Join us on this lighthearted expedition through the world of data, where correlations are as delightful as they are confounding!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
LITERATURE REVIEW
In "Logistical Musings: A Comprehensive Study of the Logistics Industry" by Smith et al., the authors find that the field of logistics encompasses a wide range of roles, from transportation and warehousing to inventory management and procurement. The study delves into the intricate strategies employed by logisticians to streamline the movement of goods and materials, painting a comprehensive picture of the industry's multifaceted operations.
Building on this foundation, Doe and Jones, in "Navigating the Supply Chain: A Modern Approach to Logistics," emphasize the indispensable role of logisticians in optimizing supply chain processes. Their work underscores the strategic prowess required for efficient coordination and distribution, highlighting the dynamic nature of the logistics field in an increasingly interconnected world.
As we venture into the hallowed halls of literature pertinent to our peculiar investigation, it is essential to draw inspiration from non-fiction works such as "The Evolution of Logistics" by David Walters and "Supply Chain Management for Dummies" by Daniel Stanton. These scholarly works provide insights into the evolution and intricacies of logistics, offering a grounding in the fundamental concepts that underpin our inquiry.
Taking an unconventional leap, our intellectual expedition leads us to fictional realms that, while not directly related to logistics, beckon us with their tantalizing titles. In the whimsical land of fiction, "The Curious Incident of the Logistician in the Night-Time" by Mark Haddon and "Logistics and Prejudice" by Jane Austen (in an alternate reality, of course) invite us to suspend disbelief and indulge in the fantastical possibilities of intersections between logisticians and enigmatic inquiries.
But wait, dear reader, our journey takes a delightful turn as we deviate from the trodden path of scholarly tomes and meander into the offbeat alleys of unconventional research sources. Our foray into the annals of unconventional literature leads us to none other than the backs of shampoo bottles—yes, you read that right. A meticulous perusal of the fine print on shampoo bottles, with their intriguing ingredient lists and minimalist usage instructions, offers a quirky lens through which to contemplate the parallels between logistical expertise and queries about virtual assistants. After all, who knew that the secret to unraveling this enigma lay in the unlikeliest of places?
Embracing the eclectic and the unexpected, we set the stage for a literature review that celebrates the delightful juxtaposition of scholarly rigor and whimsical exploration. Join us, fellow revelers in the academic carnival, as we unravel the unfathomable connections that await us in the lighthearted realm of data analysis and inquiry!

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation into the fascinating link between the number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa' have left us equal parts puzzled and amused. After subjecting the data to rigorous analysis, we uncovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9578362, indicating a striking relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. This finding points to a connection that is as perplexing as it is delightful, inviting us to contemplate the whimsical interplay of professional expertise and virtual curiosity.
The r-squared value of 0.9174501 further reinforces the robustness of the connection, offering a glimpse into the extent to which the number of logisticians in Idaho may influence the collective interest in Alexa. The statistical significance of our findings, with a p-value of less than 0.01, firmly establishes the strength of this correlation and dismisses any doubts about the legitimacy of our perplexing discovery. It appears that the idiosyncratic dance between logistical acumen and digital inquisitiveness is not merely a figment of our imaginations but a tangible phenomenon worthy of scholarly mirth.
Fig. 1 (To be inserted) presents a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the pronounced relationship between the number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa'. Behold, dear reader, as the data points prance merrily across the plot, painting a picture of correlation that transcends the mundane and delves into the realm of delightful absurdity. For in the whimsical world of academic inquiry, where serious faces meet playful data, our findings stand as a testament to the confounding caprice of human behavior and statistical serendipity.
In summary, our research has unearthed a striking correlation between logisticians in Idaho and the populace's curiosity about Alexa, inviting scholars and enthusiasts alike to revel in the splendid curiosities that data analysis can unveil. The ludicrous connections we stumble upon in the labyrinth of regression models and coefficient calculations serve as a heartwarming reminder that, in the midst of scholarly rigidity, a touch of whimsy can turn the dry pursuit of knowledge into a delightful romp through the capricious wonderland of correlations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The profoundly perplexing relationship between the number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa' unearthed in our study has sparked an animated convolution of speculation and whimsy. In taking the trivially consequential plunge into this delightful quagmire of statistical shenanigans, one can't help but reminisce about the unconventional inspirations from our literature review. It was in the midst of fictional novelties and the ostensibly unrelated susurrations of shampoo bottle revelations that we found the seeds of this peculiar inquiry. But oh, how joyously surprised we were to see our findings align with the scholarly musings of Smith et al. and Doe and Jones, whose works trumpeted the strategic prowess and multifaceted operations of the logistics industry!

Our results echo the jocular implications of our literature review, where the unexpectedly spirited correlation coefficient of 0.9578362 dances joyously in agreement with the established discourse on the indispensable role of logisticians in supply chain optimization. The r-squared value of 0.9174501 further reinforces the robustness of our findings, akin to a merry jig in the convivial halls of statistical significance. The statistical significance, with a p-value of less than 0.01, serves as an exuberant affirmation of the boisterous link between logistical acumen and digital inquisitiveness.

Fig. 1 (To be inserted) will visually encapsulate this delightful dance of data, holding a mirror to the mirthful cavorting of logisticians and virtual assistant curiosity. As the scatterplot unfolds, one can almost imagine the jaunty capers of diligent logisticians mingling harmoniously with the whimsical queries about Alexa, transcending the humdrum confines of traditional research plots and veering into the realm of delightful absurdity.

In traversing the labyrinth of statistical serendipity, our findings invite the scholarly community to revel in the glorious caprices of correlation, where the seemingly incongruous can converge in a merry confluence of data. The tongue-in-cheek nuances of our investigation, intertwined with the robustness of statistical significance, beckon us to partake in this jocund romp through the capricious wonderland of correlations. After all, in the grand tapestry of academic pursuits, a touch of whimsy can transform the staid pursuit of knowledge into a delightful escapade through the realms of unexpected connections.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 The number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is alexa'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
The Logistics of Lexicographical Lunacy: A Lighthearted Look at Logisticians and 'Who is Alexa' Google Searches in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
This whimsical research paper examines the surprising connection between the number of logisticians employed in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa'. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our team embarked on a journey into the quirky world of search engine curiosity. After rigorous data analysis, we uncovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9578362 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2007 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the peculiar relationship between the logistics industry and virtual assistants but also invite a whimsical discourse on the unexpected intersections of human behavior and professional expertise. Join us on this lighthearted expedition through the world of data, where correlations are as delightful as they are confounding!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In the ever-expanding universe of data analysis, where correlations are often elusive and statistical significance is the golden fleece, we often encounter unexpected and, dare I say, whimsical relationships. Our examination of the link between logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa' is a testament to the delightful surprises that await researchers in the realm of data exploration.
It is well-established that logisticians play a vital role in the efficient movement of goods and information, employing their strategic acumen to navigate the complex web of supply chains. Yet, in the midst of their logistical wizardry, we stumbled upon an enigmatic connection to the digital realm—a correlation that is as perplexing as it is captivating.
Now, before you conjure images of logisticians conducting Google searches while pondering the intricacies of virtual assistants, let us assure you that the nexus of our investigation is as amusing as it sounds. With the straightest of faces, we embarked on a journey to unravel the mystery behind why the number of logisticians in Idaho might be intertwined with the populace's curiosity about the enigmatic entity known as Alexa.
As we tiptoed through the labyrinthine corridors of data and statistics, armed with p-values and regression models, we were driven not only by scholarly curiosity but also by a desire to unravel the quirky nuances of human behavior. And oh, what a delightful journey it has been!
So, dear reader, fasten your seatbelts and prepare to marvel at the serendipitous connections our research has unveiled. For in the charming world of academic inquiry, where serious faces meet whimsy, it's not just about the correlations, but also about the delightfully confounding twists and turns that await us. Let us embark on this lighthearted escapade together, where the lines between the serious and the playful are blissfully blurred!

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation into the fascinating link between the number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa' have left us equal parts puzzled and amused. After subjecting the data to rigorous analysis, we uncovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9578362, indicating a striking relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. This finding points to a connection that is as perplexing as it is delightful, inviting us to contemplate the whimsical interplay of professional expertise and virtual curiosity.
The r-squared value of 0.9174501 further reinforces the robustness of the connection, offering a glimpse into the extent to which the number of logisticians in Idaho may influence the collective interest in Alexa. The statistical significance of our findings, with a p-value of less than 0.01, firmly establishes the strength of this correlation and dismisses any doubts about the legitimacy of our perplexing discovery. It appears that the idiosyncratic dance between logistical acumen and digital inquisitiveness is not merely a figment of our imaginations but a tangible phenomenon worthy of scholarly mirth.
Fig. 1 (To be inserted) presents a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the pronounced relationship between the number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa'. Behold, dear reader, as the data points prance merrily across the plot, painting a picture of correlation that transcends the mundane and delves into the realm of delightful absurdity. For in the whimsical world of academic inquiry, where serious faces meet playful data, our findings stand as a testament to the confounding caprice of human behavior and statistical serendipity.
In summary, our research has unearthed a striking correlation between logisticians in Idaho and the populace's curiosity about Alexa, inviting scholars and enthusiasts alike to revel in the splendid curiosities that data analysis can unveil. The ludicrous connections we stumble upon in the labyrinth of regression models and coefficient calculations serve as a heartwarming reminder that, in the midst of scholarly rigidity, a touch of whimsy can turn the dry pursuit of knowledge into a delightful romp through the capricious wonderland of correlations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our foray into the eccentric realm of data analysis has not only illuminated the remarkably robust correlation between the number of logisticians in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa' but has also invited us to revel in the whimsical nuances of human curiosity and professional intrigue. As we traverse through the whimsical landscape of correlation coefficients and scatterplots, we are reminded that scholarly inquiry, much like a circus of data, is brimming with unexpected acrobatics and levity.

Our findings, with a correlation coefficient soaring as high as a trapeze artist and a statistically significant p-value that would make the statistical community gasp in awe, stand as a testament to the confounding yet delightful dance between logistics and lexicon. It appears that the idiosyncratic liaison between the logistical expertise and virtual insatiable inquisitiveness casts a spell that not even the most astute statisticians can decipher without a chuckle.

As we reflect on the lighthearted embrace between the serious business of logistics and the whimsical inquiries about Alexa, we are left with a profound sense of wonderment — for in the delightful domain of data analysis, where serious research meets scholarly whimsy, there lies an adventure that would make even the most ardent academic smirk with amusement.

Therefore, we assert with unwavering conviction that no more research in earnest is needed in this area. The connection between logisticians in Idaho and 'who is Alexa' Google searches stands as a peculiar yet endearing enigma that shall remain a testament to the capricious wonderland of correlations, where the solemn rules of academic research are joyfully bent into mirthful contortions.

Now, let us bid adieu to this delightful romp through the confounding caprice of human behavior and statistical serendipity, with laughter lingering in our hearts and a glint of scholarly mischief in our eyes. For in the intersection of logistics and lexicon, lies a whimsy that evokes a chuckle, a smile, and a newfound appreciation for the whimsical dance of data.

And with this, we leave you, dear reader, to ponder the peculiar connections that await in the convoluted corridors of statistical exploration, where the heart of data analysis beats with the irrepressible rhythm of scholarly hilarity.


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 The Logistics of Lexicographical Lunacy: A Lighthearted Look at Logisticians and 'Who is Alexa' Google Searches in Idaho. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Whimsical Linguistics


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 The Logistics of Lexicographical Lunacy: A Lighthearted Look at Logisticians and 'Who is Alexa' Google Searches in Idaho. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Quirky Linguistic Studies


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 The Logistics of Lexicographical Lunacy: A Lighthearted Look at Logisticians and 'Who is Alexa' Google Searches in Idaho with an abstract of This whimsical research paper examines the surprising connection between the number of logisticians employed in Idaho and Google searches for 'who is Alexa'. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, our team embarked on a journey into the quirky world of search engine curiosity. After rigorous data analysis, we uncovered a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9578362 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2007 to 2022. Our findings not only shed light on the peculiar relationship between the logistics industry and virtual assistants but also invite a whimsical discourse on the unexpected intersections of human behavior and professional expertise. Join us on this lighthearted expedition through the world of data, where correlations are as delightful as they are confounding!

ChatGPT:

logistics, lexicographical lunacy, logisticians, Idaho, Google searches, "who is Alexa", data analysis, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Google Trends, virtual assistants, human behavior, professional expertise

*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

The number of logisticians in Idaho
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of logisticians in Idaho
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of logisticians in Idaho

Google searches for 'who is alexa'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'who is alexa' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'who is alexa'

Correlation r = 0.9578362 (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 = 0.9174501 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 91.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'who is alexa') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of logisticians in Idaho) over the 16 years from 2007 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 5.7E-9. 0.0000000056811819693088300000
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 0.96 in 5.7E-7% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 176,019,710 random variables You don't actually need 176 million 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 15 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 15 because we have two variables measured over a period of 16 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.

[ 0.88, 0.99 ] 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.
2007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
The number of logisticians in Idaho (Logisticians)360350280290320320340280380410500560560900750820
Google searches for 'who is alexa' (Rel. search volume)6.583336.512.083312.583314.083314.083313.333313.7518.2513.916726.833345.416749.2567.333367.577.0833




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.




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([360,350,280,290,320,320,340,280,380,410,500,560,560,900,750,820,])
array_2 = np.array([6.58333,6.5,12.0833,12.5833,14.0833,14.0833,13.3333,13.75,18.25,13.9167,26.8333,45.4167,49.25,67.3333,67.5,77.0833,])
array_1_name = "The number of logisticians in Idaho"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'who is alexa'"

# 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?

You're the correlation whisperer we needed!


Correlation ID: 4035 · Black Variable ID: 17007 · Red Variable ID: 1461
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0