The thing about my way of teaching stats is that my cool, novel examples get old really fast. Like, pop culture is on a thirty-day cycle. Anyway, YEARS ago, 2014 to be exact, I blogged about illustrating bimodal data distributions using baby name data from the Social Security Administration. Specifically, when an older name comes back into vogue, it has a bimodal distribution when you plot time on the X axis. I stand by this example. However, all of the data illustrations come from 2014. When our traditionally aged college students were 6 or 7. Which makes this example feel a little stale. However, here is some data, courtesy of Redditor fevaah , showing old names that are back in vogue through 2025 ! And Eleanor, Violet, Nora, and Hazel are here, illustrating bimodal distributions for a new generation. If you used my old baby-name data, this is a quick, easy refresh for your lectures (or a fun new addition if you didn't). If this idea was help...
IG users antiart et al. (2026) inadvertently created a great example of a non-significant correlation and/or regression for you to use this fall when they created a scatter plot that illustrates a celebrity's nepo baby (or old money) privilege vs. their career accomplishments. https://www.instagram.com/p/DXKWBlHCicc/ It is funny, right, but it does get to the guts of linear relationships. Some nepo babies are talented, like Miley Cyrus. Some have not (poor Chet Hanks). You also have folks who have done much despite humble beginnings, like Eminem and Obama. Hence, non-significance/non-predictive linear relationship. Also, sometimes I think stats teachers (myself included) lean too far towards only sharing statistically significant/medium-to-large effect sizes, but they need to see all types of results. Also, I can't identify half of these people, but I bet your students can. If this idea was helpful, you'll probably enjoy my textbook, Psychological Statistic...