about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,941 · 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 the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and the second variable is Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The Republican candidate's speeches were so hot, they inadvertently increased demand for LPG in Iraq as an unexpected side effect of their fiery rhetoric. You could say they really know how to fuel a campaign!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of two distinct scenes side by side: On the left, show a peaceful Alaskan landscape with a clear blue sky and light snow covering the ground. People are queued up outside the polling station, casting their votes. The sun is depicted as a leaping fiery being, symbolizing the heated political atmosphere caused by the Republican candidate's influence. On the right, depict a bustling market in Iraq with workers loading and unloading LPG tanks. The scene should be vibrant, with warm colors like oranges and reds to represent the fiery speeches of the candidate. Show the increasing demand for LPG with people eagerly purchasing and transporting the tanks, symbolizing the intensified political environment. 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: Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq. 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: Sci-fi fantacy Concept art A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s Scalar art Hyper-realistic
ChatGPT: Scalar art

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 Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq, in the following situation: The Republican candidate's speeches were so hot, they inadvertently increased demand for LPG in Iraq as an unexpected side effect of their fiery rhetoric. You could say they really know how to fuel a campaign!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Alaska, people line up outside the polling station under the bright sun, casting their votes for the Republican Presidential candidate. Meanwhile, in Iraq, workers at a bustling market are tending to numerous LPG tanks, with the demand increasing due to the candidate's fiery speeches heating up the political atmosphere, inadvertently fueling the demand for LPG.

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: [ Scalar art ] and depicting this scene: In Alaska, people line up outside the polling station under the bright sun, casting their votes for the Republican Presidential candidate. Meanwhile, in Iraq, workers at a bustling market are tending to numerous LPG tanks, with the demand increasing due to the candidate's fiery speeches heating up the political atmosphere, inadvertently fueling the demand for LPG. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of two distinct scenes side by side: On the left, show a peaceful Alaskan landscape with a clear blue sky and light snow covering the ground. People are queued up outside the polling station, casting their votes. The sun is depicted as a leaping fiery being, symbolizing the heated political atmosphere caused by the Republican candidate's influence. On the right, depict a bustling market in Iraq with workers loading and unloading LPG tanks. The scene should be vibrant, with warm colors like oranges and reds to represent the fiery speeches of the candidate. Show the increasing demand for LPG with people eagerly purchasing and transporting the tanks, symbolizing the intensified political environment.

*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 Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska caused Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Gasping for Votes: The Correlation Between Republican Presidential Votes in Alaska and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Consumption in Iraq

Journal of Political Quirkiness and Social Oddities

Jan 2024

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




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, just make it sound clever.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2020.

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]]
"Gasping for Votes: The Correlation Between Republican Presidential Votes in Alaska and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Consumption in Iraq"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The enigmatic relationship between voting patterns in Alaska for the Republican Presidential candidate and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq has long puzzled political and energy analysts alike. Our research team set out to address this conundrum by employing a robust econometric analysis utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The results of our study reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 and p < 0.01 for the time period spanning from 1980 to 2020, indicating a significantly strong association between these usually unrelated phenomena.

Intriguingly, our findings suggest that for every 1% increase in Republican votes in Alaska, there is a corresponding 0.9226735% rise in the consumption of LPG in Iraq. This surprising revelation calls for further investigation into the potentially intricate link between political preferences in the Last Frontier state and energy usage in the Middle East. As we delve into this complex web of connections, we invite readers to "gas"p at the implications of our research and ponder the "fuelishness" of this unexpected relationship.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Gasping for Votes: The Correlation Between Republican Presidential Votes in Alaska and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Consumption in Iraq"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The enigmatic relationship between voting patterns in Alaska for the Republican Presidential candidate and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq has long puzzled political and energy analysts alike. Our research team set out to address this conundrum by employing a robust econometric analysis utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The results of our study reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 and p < 0.01 for the time period spanning from 1980 to 2020, indicating a significantly strong association between these usually unrelated phenomena.

Intriguingly, our findings suggest that for every 1% increase in Republican votes in Alaska, there is a corresponding 0.9226735% rise in the consumption of LPG in Iraq. This surprising revelation calls for further investigation into the potentially intricate link between political preferences in the Last Frontier state and energy usage in the Middle East. As we delve into this complex web of connections, we invite readers to "gas"p at the implications of our research and ponder the "fuelishness" of this unexpected relationship.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

As political analysts, we often find ourselves grappling with the complexities of voter behavior and the intriguing factors that influence geopolitical relationships. Little did we expect, however, to stumble upon a correlation that seems to stretch across continents and political landscapes. The connection between votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in the vast tundra of Alaska and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the scorching deserts of Iraq has left us both befuddled and amused. It's almost as if these two phenomena "voted" to form an unexpected coalition in the world of statistical relationships.

The path to uncovering this unlikely bond has been as winding and unpredictable as a moose sighted in downtown Anchorage. Initially, when our research team stumbled upon this peculiar correlation, we were left gasping for an explanation. After all, tying election results in a northern state to energy usage in a Middle Eastern country seemed about as likely as a polar bear sunbathing on an iceberg. But, as researchers, we're trained to "bear" with unexpected findings and "ice"olate the truth lurking beneath the surface.

Before delving into our empirical findings, it is imperative to acknowledge the humorous irony in the unexpected but significant connection between political inclinations in the American subarctic and energy consumption in a region known for its sizzling temperatures. Such unlikely bedfellows prompt us to reconsider the boundaries of political influence and energy entanglements on a global scale. As we embark on this scholarly journey, we encourage readers to join us in embracing the "cool"ly surprising blend of politics and energy dynamics, as we attempt to "ignite" a new perspective on this unlikely pairing.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Gasping for Votes: The Correlation Between Republican Presidential Votes in Alaska and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Consumption in Iraq"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The enigmatic relationship between voting patterns in Alaska for the Republican Presidential candidate and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq has long puzzled political and energy analysts alike. Our research team set out to address this conundrum by employing a robust econometric analysis utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The results of our study reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 and p < 0.01 for the time period spanning from 1980 to 2020, indicating a significantly strong association between these usually unrelated phenomena.

Intriguingly, our findings suggest that for every 1% increase in Republican votes in Alaska, there is a corresponding 0.9226735% rise in the consumption of LPG in Iraq. This surprising revelation calls for further investigation into the potentially intricate link between political preferences in the Last Frontier state and energy usage in the Middle East. As we delve into this complex web of connections, we invite readers to "gas"p at the implications of our research and ponder the "fuelishness" of this unexpected relationship.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As political analysts, we often find ourselves grappling with the complexities of voter behavior and the intriguing factors that influence geopolitical relationships. Little did we expect, however, to stumble upon a correlation that seems to stretch across continents and political landscapes. The connection between votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in the vast tundra of Alaska and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the scorching deserts of Iraq has left us both befuddled and amused. It's almost as if these two phenomena "voted" to form an unexpected coalition in the world of statistical relationships.
The path to uncovering this unlikely bond has been as winding and unpredictable as a moose sighted in downtown Anchorage. Initially, when our research team stumbled upon this peculiar correlation, we were left gasping for an explanation. After all, tying election results in a northern state to energy usage in a Middle Eastern country seemed about as likely as a polar bear sunbathing on an iceberg. But, as researchers, we're trained to "bear" with unexpected findings and "ice"olate the truth lurking beneath the surface.
Before delving into our empirical findings, it is imperative to acknowledge the humorous irony in the unexpected but significant connection between political inclinations in the American subarctic and energy consumption in a region known for its sizzling temperatures. Such unlikely bedfellows prompt us to reconsider the boundaries of political influence and energy entanglements on a global scale. As we embark on this scholarly journey, we encourage readers to join us in embracing the "cool"ly surprising blend of politics and energy dynamics, as we attempt to "ignite" a new perspective on this unlikely pairing.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In the course of our investigation into the correlation between Republican Presidential votes in Alaska and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq, we have scoured various scholarly works and empirical studies that shed light on the intricate web of factors at play. Smith (2015) conducted a comprehensive analysis of voter behavior in Alaskan counties, revealing intriguing patterns that seem unrelated to the energy sector – or so it seemed. However, little did Smith know, their findings were merely the tip of the iceberg in uncovering the "chilly" relationship we're about to unravel.

Doe (2018) examined energy consumption trends in the Middle East, with a particular focus on Iraq. The study offered valuable insights into the prevalent usage of LPG in the region, attributing it to various socio-economic factors. Yet, unbeknownst to Doe, their findings were priming the pump for the surprising linkage we're about to bring to light.

Jones (2016) delved into the nuances of Republican voting patterns, unveiling intriguing trends and shifts over time. Little did Jones imagine that these political preferences would "ignite" a connection with energy dynamics miles away.

Stepping outside the realm of academic journals, we turned our attention to non-fiction literature that might shed light on the unlikely link between Alaskan votes and Iraqi gas consumption. In "The Big Thirst: The Secret Life and Turbulent Future of Water" by Fishman (2011), we found parallels to our investigation, even though we were exploring a different, albeit "gas"-related liquid.

As we ventured into the realm of fiction, "The Martian" by Andy Weir (2014) emerged as an unexpected contender. While not directly related to our study, the protagonist's struggle with survival amid inhospitable conditions on Mars prompted us to ponder the resilience of energy dynamics in seemingly adverse environments.

In a surprising twist, the children's TV show "Paw Patrol" also made an appearance in our literature review. The show's episodes often led us to reflect on the diverse challenges faced by the canine characters, echoing the unexpected hurdles encountered in our own research journey. Who knew that a team of helpful pups could offer such insight?

On a final note, we're reminded of a classic dad joke related to our findings: "Why did the Republican voter bring LPG to the elections in Alaska? Because they wanted to ensure a 'gas'tly victory, but ended up 'fueling' unexpected connections instead."

Stay tuned for the survey data section, where we dig into the numbers behind this surprising correlation and uncover the grit behind the "grind" of political and energy entanglements.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 Energy Information Administration . You used data from 1980 to 2020

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]]
"Gasping for Votes: The Correlation Between Republican Presidential Votes in Alaska and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Consumption in Iraq"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The enigmatic relationship between voting patterns in Alaska for the Republican Presidential candidate and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq has long puzzled political and energy analysts alike. Our research team set out to address this conundrum by employing a robust econometric analysis utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The results of our study reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 and p < 0.01 for the time period spanning from 1980 to 2020, indicating a significantly strong association between these usually unrelated phenomena.

Intriguingly, our findings suggest that for every 1% increase in Republican votes in Alaska, there is a corresponding 0.9226735% rise in the consumption of LPG in Iraq. This surprising revelation calls for further investigation into the potentially intricate link between political preferences in the Last Frontier state and energy usage in the Middle East. As we delve into this complex web of connections, we invite readers to "gas"p at the implications of our research and ponder the "fuelishness" of this unexpected relationship.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
As political analysts, we often find ourselves grappling with the complexities of voter behavior and the intriguing factors that influence geopolitical relationships. Little did we expect, however, to stumble upon a correlation that seems to stretch across continents and political landscapes. The connection between votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in the vast tundra of Alaska and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the scorching deserts of Iraq has left us both befuddled and amused. It's almost as if these two phenomena "voted" to form an unexpected coalition in the world of statistical relationships.
The path to uncovering this unlikely bond has been as winding and unpredictable as a moose sighted in downtown Anchorage. Initially, when our research team stumbled upon this peculiar correlation, we were left gasping for an explanation. After all, tying election results in a northern state to energy usage in a Middle Eastern country seemed about as likely as a polar bear sunbathing on an iceberg. But, as researchers, we're trained to "bear" with unexpected findings and "ice"olate the truth lurking beneath the surface.
Before delving into our empirical findings, it is imperative to acknowledge the humorous irony in the unexpected but significant connection between political inclinations in the American subarctic and energy consumption in a region known for its sizzling temperatures. Such unlikely bedfellows prompt us to reconsider the boundaries of political influence and energy entanglements on a global scale. As we embark on this scholarly journey, we encourage readers to join us in embracing the "cool"ly surprising blend of politics and energy dynamics, as we attempt to "ignite" a new perspective on this unlikely pairing.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To untangle the mysterious link between Republican Presidential votes in Alaska and LPG consumption in Iraq, our research team employed a combination of quantitative analysis and whimsical pondering. We gathered data from reliable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, making sure to verify the accuracy of our datasets as diligently as a mama bear checks on her cubs.

To quantify the enigmatic relationship, we utilized an array of Econometric models, including the classic Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression, as well as robust tests such as the White heteroskedasticity test and Durbin-Watson statistic. Our methods were as robust as a solid Alaskan log cabin, ensuring that our findings withstood the tempestuous winds of statistical skepticism.

In addition to navigating the labyrinth of statistical analysis, we engaged in a series of thought experiments that would make even the Mad Hatter envious. These mental acrobatics and twists of logic allowed us to ponder potential causality, drawing links between political preferences and energy usage with the same finesse as an artisanal Alaskan net weaver.

We also conducted extensive literature reviews, scouring both serious academic publications and light-hearted joke books in an attempt to "lighten" the serious nature of our inquiries. After all, what's a complex research endeavor without a sprinkle of levity reminiscent of a Northern Lights display?

Finally, in recognition of the gravity of our findings and the ripple effects they may have on our understanding of global interconnections, we sought the counsel of seasoned political scientists, energy analysts, and comedians. Yes, you read that correctly – we enlisted the wisdom of humorists to add an unexpected twist to our thought process and illuminate potential parallels between political "gas" and LPG consumption.

In summary, our methodology combined the precision of statistical analysis with the creativity of abstract pondering, all laced with a generous dose of humor to make the unexpected findings easier to "bear". The result? An approach as unique and captivating as discovering a snowman selling ice in the Arctic.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 Energy Information Administration .

For the time period 1980 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9226735, r-squared of 0.8513265, 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]]
"Gasping for Votes: The Correlation Between Republican Presidential Votes in Alaska and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Consumption in Iraq"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The enigmatic relationship between voting patterns in Alaska for the Republican Presidential candidate and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq has long puzzled political and energy analysts alike. Our research team set out to address this conundrum by employing a robust econometric analysis utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The results of our study reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 and p < 0.01 for the time period spanning from 1980 to 2020, indicating a significantly strong association between these usually unrelated phenomena.

Intriguingly, our findings suggest that for every 1% increase in Republican votes in Alaska, there is a corresponding 0.9226735% rise in the consumption of LPG in Iraq. This surprising revelation calls for further investigation into the potentially intricate link between political preferences in the Last Frontier state and energy usage in the Middle East. As we delve into this complex web of connections, we invite readers to "gas"p at the implications of our research and ponder the "fuelishness" of this unexpected relationship.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As political analysts, we often find ourselves grappling with the complexities of voter behavior and the intriguing factors that influence geopolitical relationships. Little did we expect, however, to stumble upon a correlation that seems to stretch across continents and political landscapes. The connection between votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in the vast tundra of Alaska and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the scorching deserts of Iraq has left us both befuddled and amused. It's almost as if these two phenomena "voted" to form an unexpected coalition in the world of statistical relationships.
The path to uncovering this unlikely bond has been as winding and unpredictable as a moose sighted in downtown Anchorage. Initially, when our research team stumbled upon this peculiar correlation, we were left gasping for an explanation. After all, tying election results in a northern state to energy usage in a Middle Eastern country seemed about as likely as a polar bear sunbathing on an iceberg. But, as researchers, we're trained to "bear" with unexpected findings and "ice"olate the truth lurking beneath the surface.
Before delving into our empirical findings, it is imperative to acknowledge the humorous irony in the unexpected but significant connection between political inclinations in the American subarctic and energy consumption in a region known for its sizzling temperatures. Such unlikely bedfellows prompt us to reconsider the boundaries of political influence and energy entanglements on a global scale. As we embark on this scholarly journey, we encourage readers to join us in embracing the "cool"ly surprising blend of politics and energy dynamics, as we attempt to "ignite" a new perspective on this unlikely pairing.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Upon conducting a robust analysis of the data, our study revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 between votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq. This correlation, coupled with an r-squared value of 0.8513265 and a p-value of less than 0.01, suggests a highly significant relationship that defies conventional wisdom and political boundaries.

Fig. 1 illustrates the clear relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, showing a strong upward trend as LPG consumption in Iraq corresponds with the percentage of votes for the Republican candidate in Alaska. It's almost as if Alaska's "red" determination is lighting the fire for energy utilization in the Middle East. Talk about a sizzling connection!

Diving into the statistical "abyss", we found that for every 1% increase in Republican votes in Alaska, there is an astounding 0.9226735% increase in the consumption of LPG in Iraq. This unexpected relationship had us scratching our heads and pointing to the intriguing power of statistical analysis in uncovering "oxi-dad-ative" connections.

It's clear that there's more to this correlation than meets the eye, and our findings call for subsequent research to explore the underlying mechanisms behind this unexpected kinship. As we contemplate the implications of this study, we invite our readers to "propane" themselves for an era of unanticipated revelations, reminding us that when it comes to statistical analysis, there's always more than "meets the ICE."


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
"Gasping for Votes: The Correlation Between Republican Presidential Votes in Alaska and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Consumption in Iraq"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The enigmatic relationship between voting patterns in Alaska for the Republican Presidential candidate and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq has long puzzled political and energy analysts alike. Our research team set out to address this conundrum by employing a robust econometric analysis utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The results of our study reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 and p < 0.01 for the time period spanning from 1980 to 2020, indicating a significantly strong association between these usually unrelated phenomena.

Intriguingly, our findings suggest that for every 1% increase in Republican votes in Alaska, there is a corresponding 0.9226735% rise in the consumption of LPG in Iraq. This surprising revelation calls for further investigation into the potentially intricate link between political preferences in the Last Frontier state and energy usage in the Middle East. As we delve into this complex web of connections, we invite readers to "gas"p at the implications of our research and ponder the "fuelishness" of this unexpected relationship.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In the course of our investigation into the correlation between Republican Presidential votes in Alaska and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq, we have scoured various scholarly works and empirical studies that shed light on the intricate web of factors at play. Smith (2015) conducted a comprehensive analysis of voter behavior in Alaskan counties, revealing intriguing patterns that seem unrelated to the energy sector – or so it seemed. However, little did Smith know, their findings were merely the tip of the iceberg in uncovering the "chilly" relationship we're about to unravel.
Doe (2018) examined energy consumption trends in the Middle East, with a particular focus on Iraq. The study offered valuable insights into the prevalent usage of LPG in the region, attributing it to various socio-economic factors. Yet, unbeknownst to Doe, their findings were priming the pump for the surprising linkage we're about to bring to light.
Jones (2016) delved into the nuances of Republican voting patterns, unveiling intriguing trends and shifts over time. Little did Jones imagine that these political preferences would "ignite" a connection with energy dynamics miles away.
Stepping outside the realm of academic journals, we turned our attention to non-fiction literature that might shed light on the unlikely link between Alaskan votes and Iraqi gas consumption. In "The Big Thirst: The Secret Life and Turbulent Future of Water" by Fishman (2011), we found parallels to our investigation, even though we were exploring a different, albeit "gas"-related liquid.
As we ventured into the realm of fiction, "The Martian" by Andy Weir (2014) emerged as an unexpected contender. While not directly related to our study, the protagonist's struggle with survival amid inhospitable conditions on Mars prompted us to ponder the resilience of energy dynamics in seemingly adverse environments.
In a surprising twist, the children's TV show "Paw Patrol" also made an appearance in our literature review. The show's episodes often led us to reflect on the diverse challenges faced by the canine characters, echoing the unexpected hurdles encountered in our own research journey. Who knew that a team of helpful pups could offer such insight?
On a final note, we're reminded of a classic dad joke related to our findings: "Why did the Republican voter bring LPG to the elections in Alaska? Because they wanted to ensure a 'gas'tly victory, but ended up 'fueling' unexpected connections instead."
Stay tuned for the survey data section, where we dig into the numbers behind this surprising correlation and uncover the grit behind the "grind" of political and energy entanglements.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon conducting a robust analysis of the data, our study revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 between votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq. This correlation, coupled with an r-squared value of 0.8513265 and a p-value of less than 0.01, suggests a highly significant relationship that defies conventional wisdom and political boundaries.
Fig. 1 illustrates the clear relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, showing a strong upward trend as LPG consumption in Iraq corresponds with the percentage of votes for the Republican candidate in Alaska. It's almost as if Alaska's "red" determination is lighting the fire for energy utilization in the Middle East. Talk about a sizzling connection!
Diving into the statistical "abyss", we found that for every 1% increase in Republican votes in Alaska, there is an astounding 0.9226735% increase in the consumption of LPG in Iraq. This unexpected relationship had us scratching our heads and pointing to the intriguing power of statistical analysis in uncovering "oxi-dad-ative" connections.
It's clear that there's more to this correlation than meets the eye, and our findings call for subsequent research to explore the underlying mechanisms behind this unexpected kinship. As we contemplate the implications of this study, we invite our readers to "propane" themselves for an era of unanticipated revelations, reminding us that when it comes to statistical analysis, there's always more than "meets the ICE."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The striking correlation between Republican Presidential votes in Alaska and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq, as unveiled in our study, has left us "fired" up with curiosity. Our findings align with previous research by Smith (2015) on voter behavior in Alaskan counties, albeit with a surprising twist, leading to the "chilly" realization that political preferences can have unexpectedly "hot" consequences on global energy dynamics.

Additionally, our results are in line with Doe's (2018) examination of energy consumption in Iraq, serving as a "fuel" for thought as we uncover the unpredictable interplay between seemingly distanced phenomena. The trend observed in Jones' (2016) analysis of Republican voting patterns has ignited a "spark" of understanding, revealing that political allegiances may have wider ramifications than previously anticipated.

Our study builds on these foundations, underscoring the "gassy" yet robust nature of the relationship between Republican votes in Alaska and LPG consumption in Iraq. The correlation coefficient and significant p-value further reinforce the unexpected and "fuelish" association between political voting patterns and energy usage, prompting a reevaluation of the dynamics at play in the global energy market.

Emerging from our literature review, the "Paw Patrol" reference takes on unexpected relevance, encapsulating the unforeseen hurdles encountered in unraveling this connection. It seems that just as the canine characters adeptly navigate challenges, so too have we navigated the intricacies of this unlikely correlation, 'paws'ing to reflect on the unanticipated insights gained.

Our results invite further inquiry into the deeper mechanisms underpinning this unexpected relationship. As we "propane" ourselves for this next phase of exploration, we recognize the potential for uncovering hitherto unnoticed patterns in political and energy dynamics. Just as in the beloved children's TV show, we're reminded that unexpected discoveries often lie beneath the surface, waiting to be unearthed.

In the figurative words of Mark Twain, "The reports of the demise of unexpected correlations have been greatly exaggerated." Our findings affirm the need for scholarly curiosity in delving into the uncharted territories of connections apparently unrelated. Now, as we embark on further research, we prepare to "ignite" a new wave of inquiry, uncovering the "combustible" secrets underlying this intriguing relationship.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
"Gasping for Votes: The Correlation Between Republican Presidential Votes in Alaska and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Consumption in Iraq"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The enigmatic relationship between voting patterns in Alaska for the Republican Presidential candidate and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq has long puzzled political and energy analysts alike. Our research team set out to address this conundrum by employing a robust econometric analysis utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The results of our study reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 and p < 0.01 for the time period spanning from 1980 to 2020, indicating a significantly strong association between these usually unrelated phenomena.

Intriguingly, our findings suggest that for every 1% increase in Republican votes in Alaska, there is a corresponding 0.9226735% rise in the consumption of LPG in Iraq. This surprising revelation calls for further investigation into the potentially intricate link between political preferences in the Last Frontier state and energy usage in the Middle East. As we delve into this complex web of connections, we invite readers to "gas"p at the implications of our research and ponder the "fuelishness" of this unexpected relationship.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
As political analysts, we often find ourselves grappling with the complexities of voter behavior and the intriguing factors that influence geopolitical relationships. Little did we expect, however, to stumble upon a correlation that seems to stretch across continents and political landscapes. The connection between votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in the vast tundra of Alaska and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the scorching deserts of Iraq has left us both befuddled and amused. It's almost as if these two phenomena "voted" to form an unexpected coalition in the world of statistical relationships.
The path to uncovering this unlikely bond has been as winding and unpredictable as a moose sighted in downtown Anchorage. Initially, when our research team stumbled upon this peculiar correlation, we were left gasping for an explanation. After all, tying election results in a northern state to energy usage in a Middle Eastern country seemed about as likely as a polar bear sunbathing on an iceberg. But, as researchers, we're trained to "bear" with unexpected findings and "ice"olate the truth lurking beneath the surface.
Before delving into our empirical findings, it is imperative to acknowledge the humorous irony in the unexpected but significant connection between political inclinations in the American subarctic and energy consumption in a region known for its sizzling temperatures. Such unlikely bedfellows prompt us to reconsider the boundaries of political influence and energy entanglements on a global scale. As we embark on this scholarly journey, we encourage readers to join us in embracing the "cool"ly surprising blend of politics and energy dynamics, as we attempt to "ignite" a new perspective on this unlikely pairing.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon conducting a robust analysis of the data, our study revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 between votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq. This correlation, coupled with an r-squared value of 0.8513265 and a p-value of less than 0.01, suggests a highly significant relationship that defies conventional wisdom and political boundaries.
Fig. 1 illustrates the clear relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, showing a strong upward trend as LPG consumption in Iraq corresponds with the percentage of votes for the Republican candidate in Alaska. It's almost as if Alaska's "red" determination is lighting the fire for energy utilization in the Middle East. Talk about a sizzling connection!
Diving into the statistical "abyss", we found that for every 1% increase in Republican votes in Alaska, there is an astounding 0.9226735% increase in the consumption of LPG in Iraq. This unexpected relationship had us scratching our heads and pointing to the intriguing power of statistical analysis in uncovering "oxi-dad-ative" connections.
It's clear that there's more to this correlation than meets the eye, and our findings call for subsequent research to explore the underlying mechanisms behind this unexpected kinship. As we contemplate the implications of this study, we invite our readers to "propane" themselves for an era of unanticipated revelations, reminding us that when it comes to statistical analysis, there's always more than "meets the ICE."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has unearthed a surprising and robust correlation between votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) consumption in Iraq. It appears that Alaska's political inclinations are "fueling" more than just debates, as they seem to have a direct impact on energy dynamics in a far-off land. This unexpected connection calls for a reevaluation of the conventional understanding of political influence and its far-reaching implications on global energy trends.

As bewildering as this correlation may be, it is a testament to the intricate and often inexplicable interplay between seemingly unrelated phenomena. It's almost as if political preferences and energy consumption have joined forces to create an "unlikely alliance," reminiscent of a superhero duo from a comic book, only in this case, it's a statistical phenomenon. We might even say that the Republican votes in Alaska are "Exxon-erating" themselves by establishing a connection with LPG consumption in Iraq.

Despite the "gas-tly" nature of this correlation, our findings emphasize the importance of delving into unusual relationships in the world of data analysis. While the idea of a direct link between Alaska's voting patterns and Iraq's energy usage may seem as far-fetched as a snowman building sandcastles in the desert, our research highlights the unpredictability of statistical relationships and the potential for unconventional discoveries.

With that said, we assert that further research in this vein is unnecessary - like trying to find a needle in a haystack, or as they say in Alaska, attempting to find a polar bear in a snowstorm. This study, however, stands as a testament to the amusing quirks of statistical analysis and the "gaseous" surprises that await those willing to uncover unexpected correlations.



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 Gasping for Votes: The Correlation Between Republican Presidential Votes in Alaska and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Consumption in Iraq. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Political Quirkiness and Social Oddities


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Gasping for Votes: The Correlation Between Republican Presidential Votes in Alaska and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Consumption in Iraq. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Comparative Energy Consumption Research (ICER)


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 Gasping for Votes: The Correlation Between Republican Presidential Votes in Alaska and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Consumption in Iraq with an abstract of The enigmatic relationship between voting patterns in Alaska for the Republican Presidential candidate and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Iraq has long puzzled political and energy analysts alike. Our research team set out to address this conundrum by employing a robust econometric analysis utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The results of our study reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9226735 and p < 0.01 for the time period spanning from 1980 to 2020, indicating a significantly strong association between these usually unrelated phenomena.
Intriguingly, our findings suggest that for every 1% increase in Republican votes in Alaska, there is a corresponding 0.9226735% rise in the consumption of LPG in Iraq. This surprising revelation calls for further investigation into the potentially intricate link between political preferences in the Last Frontier state and energy usage in the Middle East. As we delve into this complex web of connections, we invite readers to "gas"p at the implications of our research and ponder the "fuelishness" of this unexpected relationship.

ChatGPT:

Republican votes Alaska, LPG consumption Iraq, correlation, econometric analysis, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Energy Information Administration, political preferences, energy usage, Last Frontier state, Middle East, voting patterns, liquefied petroleum gas, fuel consumption

*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 the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska
Detailed data title: Total votes cast for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska

Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq
Detailed data title: Volume of liquefied petroleum gas used consumed in Iraq in millions of barrels per day
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq

Correlation r = 0.9226735 (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 = 0.8513265 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 85.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska) over the 11 years from 1980 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 5.2E-5. 0.0000520115163791826100000000
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 0.92 in 0.0052% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 19,227 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 10 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 10 because we have two variables measured over a period of 11 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.

[ 0.72, 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.
19801984198819921996200020042008201220162020
Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska (Total votes)86112138377119251102000122746167398190889193841164676163387189951
Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq (Million Barrels/Day)12.444413.763422121750.995663.641571.0262575351.1989




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([86112,138377,119251,102000,122746,167398,190889,193841,164676,163387,189951,])
array_2 = np.array([12.4444,13.7634,22,12,17,50.9956,63.6415,71.0262,57,53,51.1989,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Alaska"
array_2_name = "Liquefied petroleum gas used in Iraq"

# 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?

Big thanks for reviewing!


Correlation ID: 4941 · Black Variable ID: 25949 · Red Variable ID: 24553
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0