about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,783 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in Ohio and the second variable is The number of bartenders in Ohio.  The chart goes from 2003 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The influx of Democrat voters stirred up a lot of spirits, creating a high demand for bartenders to keep the political discussions flowing. It seems like when it comes to mixing drinks, the Democrats really know how to shake things up in Ohio! Cheers to a legislative landscape that's never dry with excitement!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a futuristic, high-tech bar in Ohio where Democratic Senators celebrate their victory with supporters. The bar is packed with people, and the bartenders are seen using advanced cocktail-making equipment. The scene exudes a modern and dynamic vibe, capturing the energy and enthusiasm of the celebratory atmosphere. 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: Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and The number of bartenders in Ohio. 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: Low poly Glitch art a funny image macro Parallax art High-tech
ChatGPT: High-tech

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 Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and The number of bartenders in Ohio, in the following situation: The influx of Democrat voters stirred up a lot of spirits, creating a high demand for bartenders to keep the political discussions flowing. It seems like when it comes to mixing drinks, the Democrats really know how to shake things up in Ohio! Cheers to a legislative landscape that's never dry with excitement!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling bar in Ohio, the Democratic Senators celebrate their victory with supporters, raising their glasses in a toast. The bar is crowded with people, and the bartenders are busy shaking up cocktails and pouring drinks for the lively crowd. The sound of chatter and laughter fills the air as the political discussions flow freely, creating a vibrant and spirited atmosphere.

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: [ High-tech ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling bar in Ohio, the Democratic Senators celebrate their victory with supporters, raising their glasses in a toast. The bar is crowded with people, and the bartenders are busy shaking up cocktails and pouring drinks for the lively crowd. The sound of chatter and laughter fills the air as the political discussions flow freely, creating a vibrant and spirited atmosphere. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a futuristic, high-tech bar in Ohio where Democratic Senators celebrate their victory with supporters. The bar is packed with people, and the bartenders are seen using advanced cocktail-making equipment. The scene exudes a modern and dynamic vibe, capturing the energy and enthusiasm of the celebratory atmosphere.

*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 Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio caused The number of bartenders in Ohio to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Shaking Up the Political Brew: A Spirited Connection Between Democrat Votes and Bartenders in Ohio

Journal of Mixology and Political Science

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 witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and The number of bartenders in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Include a pun in the title.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and p < 0.05 for 2003 to 2018.

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]]
"Shaking Up the Political Brew: A Spirited Connection Between Democrat Votes and Bartenders in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the spirited realm of Ohio's Democratic voting patterns and its surprising association with the number of bartenders across the state. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we unleash the potential correlations that have been swirling beneath the surface. Our findings reveal a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and p < 0.05, spanning the years 2003 to 2018. Join us as we raise our glasses to this politically intoxicating brew of data, where the election polls and the cocktail party collide in unexpected ways.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and The number of bartenders in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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]]
"Shaking Up the Political Brew: A Spirited Connection Between Democrat Votes and Bartenders in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the spirited realm of Ohio's Democratic voting patterns and its surprising association with the number of bartenders across the state. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we unleash the potential correlations that have been swirling beneath the surface. Our findings reveal a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and p < 0.05, spanning the years 2003 to 2018. Join us as we raise our glasses to this politically intoxicating brew of data, where the election polls and the cocktail party collide in unexpected ways.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The political landscape of Ohio has always been a complex concoction, with a dash of competitiveness, a twist of surprises, and a hint of unpredictability. As the state plays a pivotal role in national elections, understanding the factors that influence the voting patterns of its constituents is crucial. One such intriguing and possibly unexpected factor that has recently captured the attention of researchers is the relationship between the number of bartenders in Ohio and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state.

In this paper, we embark on a journey to explore the intersection of mixology and political science by investigating the potential connection between the employment of bartenders and the voting behavior of Ohioans. While at first glance, this association may seem like the meeting of a dry martini and a slice of political analysis, our preliminary investigation suggests that there might be more to it than meets the eye.

No pun intended, but let’s pour out the facts: Ohio has been a battleground state in national elections, attracting a flurry of campaign activity and political maneuvering. In this context, understanding the demographic and economic influences on voter behavior becomes paramount. Bartenders, often perceived as the unsung heroes of the night, not only craft exquisite libations but also serve as barometers of social and economic dynamics. The scope and impact of their profession reach into various segments of Ohio’s society, making it an intriguing variable in the political equation.

So, why should we care about this seemingly odd association between the number of bartenders and Democratic voting patterns? Well, as research often reminds us, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. However, uncovering such relationships can offer valuable insights into the interconnectedness of factors that influence voter behavior. By scrutinizing this unorthodox relationship, we might stir up a few surprises and glean insights that hold relevance beyond the Buckeye State.

While we do not aim to present a comprehensive theory of voter behavior based solely on the number of bartenders, our analysis endeavors to contribute to the evolving understanding of the intricate dynamics involved in political decision-making. So, let’s raise our glasses, but keep a sober mind, as we embark on this intellectually intoxicating journey through the brewpub of data analysis and political inquiry. Cheers to engaging with unexpected correlations and discovering where the cocktail of politics and employment data lead us.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and The number of bartenders in Ohio. 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 cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Shaking Up the Political Brew: A Spirited Connection Between Democrat Votes and Bartenders in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the spirited realm of Ohio's Democratic voting patterns and its surprising association with the number of bartenders across the state. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we unleash the potential correlations that have been swirling beneath the surface. Our findings reveal a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and p < 0.05, spanning the years 2003 to 2018. Join us as we raise our glasses to this politically intoxicating brew of data, where the election polls and the cocktail party collide in unexpected ways.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The political landscape of Ohio has always been a complex concoction, with a dash of competitiveness, a twist of surprises, and a hint of unpredictability. As the state plays a pivotal role in national elections, understanding the factors that influence the voting patterns of its constituents is crucial. One such intriguing and possibly unexpected factor that has recently captured the attention of researchers is the relationship between the number of bartenders in Ohio and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state.
In this paper, we embark on a journey to explore the intersection of mixology and political science by investigating the potential connection between the employment of bartenders and the voting behavior of Ohioans. While at first glance, this association may seem like the meeting of a dry martini and a slice of political analysis, our preliminary investigation suggests that there might be more to it than meets the eye.
No pun intended, but let’s pour out the facts: Ohio has been a battleground state in national elections, attracting a flurry of campaign activity and political maneuvering. In this context, understanding the demographic and economic influences on voter behavior becomes paramount. Bartenders, often perceived as the unsung heroes of the night, not only craft exquisite libations but also serve as barometers of social and economic dynamics. The scope and impact of their profession reach into various segments of Ohio’s society, making it an intriguing variable in the political equation.
So, why should we care about this seemingly odd association between the number of bartenders and Democratic voting patterns? Well, as research often reminds us, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. However, uncovering such relationships can offer valuable insights into the interconnectedness of factors that influence voter behavior. By scrutinizing this unorthodox relationship, we might stir up a few surprises and glean insights that hold relevance beyond the Buckeye State.
While we do not aim to present a comprehensive theory of voter behavior based solely on the number of bartenders, our analysis endeavors to contribute to the evolving understanding of the intricate dynamics involved in political decision-making. So, let’s raise our glasses, but keep a sober mind, as we embark on this intellectually intoxicating journey through the brewpub of data analysis and political inquiry. Cheers to engaging with unexpected correlations and discovering where the cocktail of politics and employment data lead us.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The relationship between political voting patterns and seemingly unrelated socio-economic factors has been a subject of scholarly inquiry for decades. Smith et al. (2017) highlight the importance of considering unorthodox variables in predicting election outcomes. However, as we venture into the spirited realm of Ohio's Democratic voting patterns and its surprising association with the number of bartenders across the state, we enter uncharted and, dare I say, intoxicating territory.

Doe's work on "The Economic Landscape of Ohio: A Glass Half Full?" sheds light on the nuanced interplay between employment trends and political behavior, setting the stage for our investigation into the peculiar connection between bartender numbers and voting preferences (Doe, 2015).

Jones' seminal study, "Ohio's Political Pendulum: A Swing State's Tale," underscores the significance of understanding the multifaceted factors that influence voting behavior. Little did they know, or perhaps they did, that this would encompass the frothy realm of mixology (Jones, 2019).

Turning to non-fiction literature, the works of "The Bartender's Guide to Ohio's Political Potpourri" and "Shaken, Not Stirred: A Statistical Analysis of Democrat Votes and Bartender Density in Ohio" provide intriguing insights into the confluence of political engagement and spirits expertise. Let’s raise a toast to the unsung heroes of this captivating saga - the bartenders who shake, stir, and possibly sway the political brew in Ohio.

In a fascinating turn, the fictional realm also presents us with narratives that seem to serendipitously intersect with our unconventional inquiry. Books such as "Cocktails and Congress: A Novel Approach to Political Analysis" and "The Mixologist's Manifesto: Pouring Over Political Polls" beckon us into a world where the election polls and the cocktail shakers collide - a collision that is all too real in the context of our study.

In the age of social media, where every topic under the sun finds its corner of discussion, we stumbled upon a tweet by @SpiritedStats, a pseudonymous account known for its quirky take on statistical analyses. In a tweet that caught our attention, the user postulated, "The proof is in the pour: more bartenders, more Democrat votes. Ohio's mixological microcosm is the key to unlocking political predilections. #StirredNotShaken #CheersToCorrelations."

In summary, the interdisciplinary intersections between political science, economics, and mixology offer a heady brew of possibilities in unraveling the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and the number of bartenders across the state. As we embark on this spirited journey, let’s keep our statistical glasses half full and toast to the unexpected correlations that await our analysis. Cheers to mixing politics with a twist!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and The number of bartenders in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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 MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2003 to 2018

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]]
"Shaking Up the Political Brew: A Spirited Connection Between Democrat Votes and Bartenders in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the spirited realm of Ohio's Democratic voting patterns and its surprising association with the number of bartenders across the state. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we unleash the potential correlations that have been swirling beneath the surface. Our findings reveal a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and p < 0.05, spanning the years 2003 to 2018. Join us as we raise our glasses to this politically intoxicating brew of data, where the election polls and the cocktail party collide in unexpected ways.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The political landscape of Ohio has always been a complex concoction, with a dash of competitiveness, a twist of surprises, and a hint of unpredictability. As the state plays a pivotal role in national elections, understanding the factors that influence the voting patterns of its constituents is crucial. One such intriguing and possibly unexpected factor that has recently captured the attention of researchers is the relationship between the number of bartenders in Ohio and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state.
In this paper, we embark on a journey to explore the intersection of mixology and political science by investigating the potential connection between the employment of bartenders and the voting behavior of Ohioans. While at first glance, this association may seem like the meeting of a dry martini and a slice of political analysis, our preliminary investigation suggests that there might be more to it than meets the eye.
No pun intended, but let’s pour out the facts: Ohio has been a battleground state in national elections, attracting a flurry of campaign activity and political maneuvering. In this context, understanding the demographic and economic influences on voter behavior becomes paramount. Bartenders, often perceived as the unsung heroes of the night, not only craft exquisite libations but also serve as barometers of social and economic dynamics. The scope and impact of their profession reach into various segments of Ohio’s society, making it an intriguing variable in the political equation.
So, why should we care about this seemingly odd association between the number of bartenders and Democratic voting patterns? Well, as research often reminds us, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. However, uncovering such relationships can offer valuable insights into the interconnectedness of factors that influence voter behavior. By scrutinizing this unorthodox relationship, we might stir up a few surprises and glean insights that hold relevance beyond the Buckeye State.
While we do not aim to present a comprehensive theory of voter behavior based solely on the number of bartenders, our analysis endeavors to contribute to the evolving understanding of the intricate dynamics involved in political decision-making. So, let’s raise our glasses, but keep a sober mind, as we embark on this intellectually intoxicating journey through the brewpub of data analysis and political inquiry. Cheers to engaging with unexpected correlations and discovering where the cocktail of politics and employment data lead us.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To conduce this spirited exploration of the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of bartenders in Ohio, we employed a multifaceted approach that blended statistical analysis with a splash of creativity. The data utilized in this study was primarily sourced from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The time frame for our analysis spanned the years 2003 to 2018, allowing us to capture the ebbs and flows of both political preferences and employment trends in the state.

Initially, we stirred the pot by collecting information on the number of bartenders employed in Ohio across the designated time period. This data, acquired from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, provided us with a measure of the employment status in the esteemed profession of cocktail crafting. We complemented this with robust datasets outlining the Democratic votes for Senators in Ohio, sourced from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse. These datasets allowed us to aggregate the voting preferences across different counties and precincts, enabling a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between the number of bartenders and political inclinations.

In concocting our analysis, we skillfully blended statistical techniques to discern the potential connections between these seemingly disparate variables. In particular, we employed a correlation analysis to elucidate the strength and direction of the relationship between the number of bartenders and Democrat votes. To ensure the robustness of our findings, we investigated the correlation coefficient and its associated significance level, employing a threshold of p < 0.05 to uncover statistically significant associations. Furthermore, we conducted a time series analysis to capture the temporal dynamics of these interactions and perceive any evolving patterns that might add flavor to our conclusions.

While we acknowledge that peering into the political potpourri with the lens of bartenders and voter behavior may appear whimsical, we approached our analysis with the diligence and rigor befitting scholarly inquiry. Our methodology prioritized a comprehensive examination of the data, with due consideration given to the limitations and nuances inherent in statistical analysis. Through this approach, we aimed to distill meaningful insights from the amalgamation of election data and employment statistics, staying true to the ethos of empirical inquiry while embracing the unconventional nature of our subject matter.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and The number of bartenders in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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 MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics .

For the time period 2003 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.8527399, r-squared of 0.7271653, and p < 0.05.

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]]
"Shaking Up the Political Brew: A Spirited Connection Between Democrat Votes and Bartenders in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the spirited realm of Ohio's Democratic voting patterns and its surprising association with the number of bartenders across the state. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we unleash the potential correlations that have been swirling beneath the surface. Our findings reveal a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and p < 0.05, spanning the years 2003 to 2018. Join us as we raise our glasses to this politically intoxicating brew of data, where the election polls and the cocktail party collide in unexpected ways.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The political landscape of Ohio has always been a complex concoction, with a dash of competitiveness, a twist of surprises, and a hint of unpredictability. As the state plays a pivotal role in national elections, understanding the factors that influence the voting patterns of its constituents is crucial. One such intriguing and possibly unexpected factor that has recently captured the attention of researchers is the relationship between the number of bartenders in Ohio and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state.
In this paper, we embark on a journey to explore the intersection of mixology and political science by investigating the potential connection between the employment of bartenders and the voting behavior of Ohioans. While at first glance, this association may seem like the meeting of a dry martini and a slice of political analysis, our preliminary investigation suggests that there might be more to it than meets the eye.
No pun intended, but let’s pour out the facts: Ohio has been a battleground state in national elections, attracting a flurry of campaign activity and political maneuvering. In this context, understanding the demographic and economic influences on voter behavior becomes paramount. Bartenders, often perceived as the unsung heroes of the night, not only craft exquisite libations but also serve as barometers of social and economic dynamics. The scope and impact of their profession reach into various segments of Ohio’s society, making it an intriguing variable in the political equation.
So, why should we care about this seemingly odd association between the number of bartenders and Democratic voting patterns? Well, as research often reminds us, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. However, uncovering such relationships can offer valuable insights into the interconnectedness of factors that influence voter behavior. By scrutinizing this unorthodox relationship, we might stir up a few surprises and glean insights that hold relevance beyond the Buckeye State.
While we do not aim to present a comprehensive theory of voter behavior based solely on the number of bartenders, our analysis endeavors to contribute to the evolving understanding of the intricate dynamics involved in political decision-making. So, let’s raise our glasses, but keep a sober mind, as we embark on this intellectually intoxicating journey through the brewpub of data analysis and political inquiry. Cheers to engaging with unexpected correlations and discovering where the cocktail of politics and employment data lead us.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our investigation into the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and the employment of bartenders across the state has yielded intriguing findings. Over the period 2003 to 2018, we observed a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and an r-squared value of 0.7271653. The p-value of less than 0.05 further emphasizes the robustness of the correlation.

As seen in Fig. 1, our scatterplot graphically illustrates the strong positive correlation between the number of bartenders in Ohio and the Democratic votes for Senators. The trend line in the plot accentuates the upward trajectory, indicating that as the number of bartenders in Ohio increased, so did the Democratic votes for Senators, and vice versa. It’s almost as if the bartenders were mixing a potion that enchanted voters with blue persuasion.

In the spirit of statistical rigor, we conducted a thorough analysis to ensure the robustness of our findings. The strong correlation coefficient underscores the degree to which the two variables move in tandem, almost as if they were dancing to the rhythm of a political symphony. The r-squared value of 0.7271653 suggests that approximately 72.7% of the variability in Democratic votes for Senators can be explained by the variation in the number of bartenders in Ohio. One might say that bartenders have become the mixologists of Ohio’s political landscape, using their cocktail shakers to shake up the political preferences of the state’s constituents.

While correlation does not imply causation, our findings raise thought-provoking questions about the potential influences of social dynamics in the realm of political decision-making. It’s as if the voters were looking for a certain spirit, not just in their preferred libations, but also in their preferred political representatives.

The statistical significance of this correlation invites a myriad of interpretations. Could it be that the convivial atmosphere fostered by bartenders plays a role in shaping the political inclinations of Ohioans, resulting in a more liberal-leaning preference? Or is it a case of bartenders being adept at perceiving and responding to shifts in public sentiment, thereby reflecting the evolving political preferences of the state? It’s a concoction of questions that leaves room for spirited discussions and spirited beverages.

That our research into the surprising relationship between Democrat votes and the number of bartenders in Ohio has unveiled a substantial correlation serves as a reminder of the unexpected and delightful flavors that empirical investigations often yield. It’s akin to stumbling upon an unexpected ingredient that enhances the overall taste of a dish—a curious revelation that adds depth and character to the political menu.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and The number of bartenders in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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]]
"Shaking Up the Political Brew: A Spirited Connection Between Democrat Votes and Bartenders in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the spirited realm of Ohio's Democratic voting patterns and its surprising association with the number of bartenders across the state. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we unleash the potential correlations that have been swirling beneath the surface. Our findings reveal a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and p < 0.05, spanning the years 2003 to 2018. Join us as we raise our glasses to this politically intoxicating brew of data, where the election polls and the cocktail party collide in unexpected ways.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The relationship between political voting patterns and seemingly unrelated socio-economic factors has been a subject of scholarly inquiry for decades. Smith et al. (2017) highlight the importance of considering unorthodox variables in predicting election outcomes. However, as we venture into the spirited realm of Ohio's Democratic voting patterns and its surprising association with the number of bartenders across the state, we enter uncharted and, dare I say, intoxicating territory.
Doe's work on "The Economic Landscape of Ohio: A Glass Half Full?" sheds light on the nuanced interplay between employment trends and political behavior, setting the stage for our investigation into the peculiar connection between bartender numbers and voting preferences (Doe, 2015).
Jones' seminal study, "Ohio's Political Pendulum: A Swing State's Tale," underscores the significance of understanding the multifaceted factors that influence voting behavior. Little did they know, or perhaps they did, that this would encompass the frothy realm of mixology (Jones, 2019).
Turning to non-fiction literature, the works of "The Bartender's Guide to Ohio's Political Potpourri" and "Shaken, Not Stirred: A Statistical Analysis of Democrat Votes and Bartender Density in Ohio" provide intriguing insights into the confluence of political engagement and spirits expertise. Let’s raise a toast to the unsung heroes of this captivating saga - the bartenders who shake, stir, and possibly sway the political brew in Ohio.
In a fascinating turn, the fictional realm also presents us with narratives that seem to serendipitously intersect with our unconventional inquiry. Books such as "Cocktails and Congress: A Novel Approach to Political Analysis" and "The Mixologist's Manifesto: Pouring Over Political Polls" beckon us into a world where the election polls and the cocktail shakers collide - a collision that is all too real in the context of our study.
In the age of social media, where every topic under the sun finds its corner of discussion, we stumbled upon a tweet by @SpiritedStats, a pseudonymous account known for its quirky take on statistical analyses. In a tweet that caught our attention, the user postulated, "The proof is in the pour: more bartenders, more Democrat votes. Ohio's mixological microcosm is the key to unlocking political predilections. #StirredNotShaken #CheersToCorrelations."
In summary, the interdisciplinary intersections between political science, economics, and mixology offer a heady brew of possibilities in unraveling the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and the number of bartenders across the state. As we embark on this spirited journey, let’s keep our statistical glasses half full and toast to the unexpected correlations that await our analysis. Cheers to mixing politics with a twist!

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and the employment of bartenders across the state has yielded intriguing findings. Over the period 2003 to 2018, we observed a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and an r-squared value of 0.7271653. The p-value of less than 0.05 further emphasizes the robustness of the correlation.
As seen in Fig. 1, our scatterplot graphically illustrates the strong positive correlation between the number of bartenders in Ohio and the Democratic votes for Senators. The trend line in the plot accentuates the upward trajectory, indicating that as the number of bartenders in Ohio increased, so did the Democratic votes for Senators, and vice versa. It’s almost as if the bartenders were mixing a potion that enchanted voters with blue persuasion.
In the spirit of statistical rigor, we conducted a thorough analysis to ensure the robustness of our findings. The strong correlation coefficient underscores the degree to which the two variables move in tandem, almost as if they were dancing to the rhythm of a political symphony. The r-squared value of 0.7271653 suggests that approximately 72.7% of the variability in Democratic votes for Senators can be explained by the variation in the number of bartenders in Ohio. One might say that bartenders have become the mixologists of Ohio’s political landscape, using their cocktail shakers to shake up the political preferences of the state’s constituents.
While correlation does not imply causation, our findings raise thought-provoking questions about the potential influences of social dynamics in the realm of political decision-making. It’s as if the voters were looking for a certain spirit, not just in their preferred libations, but also in their preferred political representatives.
The statistical significance of this correlation invites a myriad of interpretations. Could it be that the convivial atmosphere fostered by bartenders plays a role in shaping the political inclinations of Ohioans, resulting in a more liberal-leaning preference? Or is it a case of bartenders being adept at perceiving and responding to shifts in public sentiment, thereby reflecting the evolving political preferences of the state? It’s a concoction of questions that leaves room for spirited discussions and spirited beverages.
That our research into the surprising relationship between Democrat votes and the number of bartenders in Ohio has unveiled a substantial correlation serves as a reminder of the unexpected and delightful flavors that empirical investigations often yield. It’s akin to stumbling upon an unexpected ingredient that enhances the overall taste of a dish—a curious revelation that adds depth and character to the political menu.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our investigation into the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and the number of bartenders across the state has uncovered a rather spirited confluence of factors. Drawing from the scholastic cocktail of prior research, our findings substantiate and fortify the peculiar premise put forth by Smith et al. (2017), who emphasized the importance of considering unorthodox variables in predicting election outcomes. While their work may not have explicitly referenced the possibility of an intoxicating link between Democrat votes and bartenders, our study lends credence to their assertion by highlighting the statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399, revealing a robust relationship that reverberates with statistical harmony.

Doe's (2015) comprehensive assessment of the economic landscape of Ohio, while not explicitly addressing the phenomenon at hand, laid the foundation for our exploration into the unexpected nexus between bartender numbers and voting preferences. As our results spotlight a strong positive correlation, we can't help but raise a glass to the intricate interplay between employment trends and political behavior. It seems the glass was not just half full, but full to the brim with statistical potential.

In a similar vein, Jones's (2019) investigation into Ohio's political pendulum urged the consideration of multifaceted factors influencing voting behavior, providing a metaphorical canvas for the frothy realm of mixology to be painted upon. Indeed, our study unveils the veracity of this plea by presenting a correlation so substantial that it appears to sway in tandem with the political pendulum itself.

Delving into non-fiction literature, "The Bartender's Guide to Ohio's Political Potpourri" and "Shaken, Not Stirred: A Statistical Analysis of Democrat Votes and Bartender Density in Ohio" offer prescient glimpses into the intriguing confluence of political engagement and spirits expertise. Our findings not only confirm but also enhance the intriguing insights put forth in these publications, reinvigorating the scholarly discourse with a twist that even the most discerning mixologist would find palatable.

Perhaps the most unexpected validation of our results emerges from the fictional realm, with narratives such as "Cocktails and Congress: A Novel Approach to Political Analysis" and "The Mixologist's Manifesto: Pouring Over Political Polls" providing a whimsical yet surprisingly prescient backdrop to our empirical inquiry. These works, rather than being literary flights of fancy, seem to provide an inadvertent glimpse into the intoxicating intersection of election polls and the clinking of cocktail glasses.

Lastly, the tweet by @SpiritedStats, while initially appearing as a playful musing, resonates with our findings in a manner that is as unanticipated as it is significant. While the user's postulation might have been met with an arched eyebrow in conventional scholarly circles, our study underscores the pertinence of their assertion. It seems that the proof is indeed in the pour, and Ohio's mixological microcosm holds the key to unlocking political predilections.

In conclusion, our research has stirred up a spirited discussion on the unexpected correlations between Democrat votes and the number of bartenders in Ohio. From a statistical perspective, our findings serve as a reminder of the delightfully unexpected flavors that empirical investigations often yield. The revelations borne from this study are a testament to the potential of unorthodox variables to enrich our understanding of political behavior, illustrating that, as in the art of mixology, the most unexpected ingredients can often yield the most intriguing concoctions. After all, in the world of statistics, it's not just about crunching numbers but also about stirring curiosity and shaking up conventions. Cheers to mixing politics with a twist!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and The number of bartenders in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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]]
"Shaking Up the Political Brew: A Spirited Connection Between Democrat Votes and Bartenders in Ohio"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the spirited realm of Ohio's Democratic voting patterns and its surprising association with the number of bartenders across the state. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we unleash the potential correlations that have been swirling beneath the surface. Our findings reveal a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and p < 0.05, spanning the years 2003 to 2018. Join us as we raise our glasses to this politically intoxicating brew of data, where the election polls and the cocktail party collide in unexpected ways.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The political landscape of Ohio has always been a complex concoction, with a dash of competitiveness, a twist of surprises, and a hint of unpredictability. As the state plays a pivotal role in national elections, understanding the factors that influence the voting patterns of its constituents is crucial. One such intriguing and possibly unexpected factor that has recently captured the attention of researchers is the relationship between the number of bartenders in Ohio and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state.
In this paper, we embark on a journey to explore the intersection of mixology and political science by investigating the potential connection between the employment of bartenders and the voting behavior of Ohioans. While at first glance, this association may seem like the meeting of a dry martini and a slice of political analysis, our preliminary investigation suggests that there might be more to it than meets the eye.
No pun intended, but let’s pour out the facts: Ohio has been a battleground state in national elections, attracting a flurry of campaign activity and political maneuvering. In this context, understanding the demographic and economic influences on voter behavior becomes paramount. Bartenders, often perceived as the unsung heroes of the night, not only craft exquisite libations but also serve as barometers of social and economic dynamics. The scope and impact of their profession reach into various segments of Ohio’s society, making it an intriguing variable in the political equation.
So, why should we care about this seemingly odd association between the number of bartenders and Democratic voting patterns? Well, as research often reminds us, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. However, uncovering such relationships can offer valuable insights into the interconnectedness of factors that influence voter behavior. By scrutinizing this unorthodox relationship, we might stir up a few surprises and glean insights that hold relevance beyond the Buckeye State.
While we do not aim to present a comprehensive theory of voter behavior based solely on the number of bartenders, our analysis endeavors to contribute to the evolving understanding of the intricate dynamics involved in political decision-making. So, let’s raise our glasses, but keep a sober mind, as we embark on this intellectually intoxicating journey through the brewpub of data analysis and political inquiry. Cheers to engaging with unexpected correlations and discovering where the cocktail of politics and employment data lead us.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Ohio and the employment of bartenders across the state has yielded intriguing findings. Over the period 2003 to 2018, we observed a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and an r-squared value of 0.7271653. The p-value of less than 0.05 further emphasizes the robustness of the correlation.
As seen in Fig. 1, our scatterplot graphically illustrates the strong positive correlation between the number of bartenders in Ohio and the Democratic votes for Senators. The trend line in the plot accentuates the upward trajectory, indicating that as the number of bartenders in Ohio increased, so did the Democratic votes for Senators, and vice versa. It’s almost as if the bartenders were mixing a potion that enchanted voters with blue persuasion.
In the spirit of statistical rigor, we conducted a thorough analysis to ensure the robustness of our findings. The strong correlation coefficient underscores the degree to which the two variables move in tandem, almost as if they were dancing to the rhythm of a political symphony. The r-squared value of 0.7271653 suggests that approximately 72.7% of the variability in Democratic votes for Senators can be explained by the variation in the number of bartenders in Ohio. One might say that bartenders have become the mixologists of Ohio’s political landscape, using their cocktail shakers to shake up the political preferences of the state’s constituents.
While correlation does not imply causation, our findings raise thought-provoking questions about the potential influences of social dynamics in the realm of political decision-making. It’s as if the voters were looking for a certain spirit, not just in their preferred libations, but also in their preferred political representatives.
The statistical significance of this correlation invites a myriad of interpretations. Could it be that the convivial atmosphere fostered by bartenders plays a role in shaping the political inclinations of Ohioans, resulting in a more liberal-leaning preference? Or is it a case of bartenders being adept at perceiving and responding to shifts in public sentiment, thereby reflecting the evolving political preferences of the state? It’s a concoction of questions that leaves room for spirited discussions and spirited beverages.
That our research into the surprising relationship between Democrat votes and the number of bartenders in Ohio has unveiled a substantial correlation serves as a reminder of the unexpected and delightful flavors that empirical investigations often yield. It’s akin to stumbling upon an unexpected ingredient that enhances the overall taste of a dish—a curious revelation that adds depth and character to the political menu.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our findings illuminate a fascinating connection between the employment of bartenders and Democratic voting patterns in Ohio. The statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and the robustness of the r-squared value of 0.7271653 highlight the strong association between these seemingly unrelated variables. It's as if the voters were getting a double shot of political persuasion with their favorite cocktails!

This unexpected correlation invites a variety of interpretations and opens the door to spirited discussions about the role of bartenders in shaping the political flavors of Ohio. The implications of our research extend beyond statistical significance; they reach into the very heart of Ohio's political landscape, stirring up questions about the social dynamics and influences that underpin voter behavior. It's like a grand cocktail party where the guests are the voters, and the bartenders are the mixologists of the political persuasion.

While we have uncovered a robust correlation, we must remember that causation is a different cocktail altogether. Further research may explore the mechanisms behind this intriguing relationship. However, as the saying goes, "All good things must come to an end," and it seems that our exploration of the spirited connection between Democrat votes and bartenders in Ohio has reached its satisfying conclusion. No more research is needed in this area; it's time to raise a glass to the surprising correlation we've uncovered and toast to the colorful and flavorful world of political inquiry. Cheers to the unexpected mixology of data and political dynamics!


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 Shaking Up the Political Brew: A Spirited Connection Between Democrat Votes and Bartenders in Ohio. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Mixology and Political Science


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 Shaking Up the Political Brew: A Spirited Connection Between Democrat Votes and Bartenders in Ohio. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Electoral Libations and Social Science 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 Shaking Up the Political Brew: A Spirited Connection Between Democrat Votes and Bartenders in Ohio with an abstract of This research delves into the spirited realm of Ohio's Democratic voting patterns and its surprising association with the number of bartenders across the state. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we unleash the potential correlations that have been swirling beneath the surface. Our findings reveal a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8527399 and p < 0.05, spanning the years 2003 to 2018. Join us as we raise our glasses to this politically intoxicating brew of data, where the election polls and the cocktail party collide in unexpected ways.

ChatGPT:

Ohio Democratic voting patterns, bartenders in Ohio, Ohio election data, correlation between bartenders and Democrat votes, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Bureau of Labor Statistics, political correlations, Ohio political patterns

*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

Votes for Democratic Senators in Ohio
Detailed data title: Percentage of votes cast for Federal Democrat Senate candidates in Ohio
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for Democratic Senators in Ohio

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

Correlation r = 0.8527399 (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 = 0.7271653 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 72.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of bartenders in Ohio) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Ohio) over the 6 years from 2003 through 2018.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0309. 0.0309316169303020740000000000
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 0.85 in 3.09% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 32 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 5 because we have two variables measured over a period of 6 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.

[ 0.13, 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.
200420062010201220162018
Votes for Democratic Senators in Ohio (Percentage of votes)36.145156.164139.403950.700737.157653.4114
The number of bartenders in Ohio (Bartenders)198402462021550241702295023980




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. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.




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([36.1451,56.1641,39.4039,50.7007,37.1576,53.4114,])
array_2 = np.array([19840,24620,21550,24170,22950,23980,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Ohio"
array_2_name = "The number of bartenders in Ohio"

# 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 rating is stellar!


Correlation ID: 4783 · Black Variable ID: 26443 · Red Variable ID: 12888
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0