about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,966 · 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 North Carolina and the second variable is Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting.  The chart goes from 1978 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The extra blue wave energy short-circuited the car's inner Republican, leading to a glow of bipartisanship that was just too bright for the exterior lighting to handle.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: The image generation prompt is: "Create an image in the style of Cyber folk depicting a vibrant North Carolina neighborhood where a line of cars with bright exterior lights are parked outside polling stations. As Democrat voters cast their ballots, a burst of blue wave energy radiates from the polling station. The energy short-circuits the inner Republican component of a car, causing a glow of bipartisanship that is just too bright for the exterior lighting to handle. The lights flicker, unable to contain the sudden surge of energy, as the democratic votes for senators and the automotive recall for exterior lighting issues intertwine in this scene." 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 North Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting. 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: Celtic art Cyber folk Surrealism Minimalism Cybernetic art
ChatGPT: Cyber folk

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 North Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting, in the following situation: The extra blue wave energy short-circuited the car's inner Republican, leading to a glow of bipartisanship that was just too bright for the exterior lighting to handle.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a vibrant North Carolina neighborhood, a line of cars with bright exterior lights are parked outside polling stations. As the Democrat voters cast their ballots, a burst of blue wave energy radiates from the polling station. The energy short-circuits the inner Republican component of a car, causing a glow of bipartisanship that is just too bright for the exterior lighting to handle. The lights flicker, unable to contain the sudden surge of energy, as the democratic votes for senators and the automotive recall for exterior lighting issues intertwine in this scene.

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: [ Cyber folk ] and depicting this scene: In a vibrant North Carolina neighborhood, a line of cars with bright exterior lights are parked outside polling stations. As the Democrat voters cast their ballots, a burst of blue wave energy radiates from the polling station. The energy short-circuits the inner Republican component of a car, causing a glow of bipartisanship that is just too bright for the exterior lighting to handle. The lights flicker, unable to contain the sudden surge of energy, as the democratic votes for senators and the automotive recall for exterior lighting issues intertwine in this scene. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: The image generation prompt is: "Create an image in the style of Cyber folk depicting a vibrant North Carolina neighborhood where a line of cars with bright exterior lights are parked outside polling stations. As Democrat voters cast their ballots, a burst of blue wave energy radiates from the polling station. The energy short-circuits the inner Republican component of a car, causing a glow of bipartisanship that is just too bright for the exterior lighting to handle. The lights flicker, unable to contain the sudden surge of energy, as the democratic votes for senators and the automotive recall for exterior lighting issues intertwine in this scene."

*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 North Carolina caused Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Shedding Light on the Connection: Democrat Votes and Automotive Recalls for Exterior Lighting Issues in North Carolina

Journal of Political Automotive Safety Research

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 North Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and US DOT to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and p < 0.01 for 1978 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]]
Shedding Light on the Connection: Democrat Votes and Automotive Recalls for Exterior Lighting Issues in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we analyze the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. We delve into the data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT to answer the burning question: is there a connection between political preferences and vehicular visibility? Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and p < 0.01 for the years 1978 to 2020, highlighting a statistically significant association.

Much like replacing a light bulb, our study illuminates the unexpected link between political affiliations and automotive safety concerns. This unexpected relationship sheds light on the intricate interplay between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. We also explore the potential implications for policy makers, urging them to consider the enlightening interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls. With our findings, we aim to spark further discussions and brighten the understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety.

To keep things light, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why did the Democrat's car have trouble with its exterior lighting? Because it was seeing red!


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 North Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting. 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]]
Shedding Light on the Connection: Democrat Votes and Automotive Recalls for Exterior Lighting Issues in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we analyze the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. We delve into the data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT to answer the burning question: is there a connection between political preferences and vehicular visibility? Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and p < 0.01 for the years 1978 to 2020, highlighting a statistically significant association.

Much like replacing a light bulb, our study illuminates the unexpected link between political affiliations and automotive safety concerns. This unexpected relationship sheds light on the intricate interplay between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. We also explore the potential implications for policy makers, urging them to consider the enlightening interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls. With our findings, we aim to spark further discussions and brighten the understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety.

To keep things light, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why did the Democrat's car have trouble with its exterior lighting? Because it was seeing red!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The relationship between politics and automotive safety has always been a topic of interest, and our study sheds new light on this connection by examining the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. This unexpected association brings to mind the age-old question: How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb? Well, apparently, it could be more than you'd think!

It has been widely acknowledged that political factors can influence various aspects of society, but the connection to automotive recalls for exterior lighting issues may come as a surprise. As we unravel the data and delve into this intriguing correlation, we aim to provide insight into these unanticipated ties, all the while ensuring to sprinkle some humor into the research. After all, who said academic research can't be illuminating and punny?

Our analysis draws from a comprehensive dataset obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US Department of Transportation, spanning the years 1978 to 2020. By meticulously examining the voting patterns and automotive recall records, our study illuminates a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This statistically significant association brings a new dimension to the old adage: Why was the Democrat's car recalled for exterior lighting issues? Because the statistics were too bright to ignore!

.
.
.


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 North Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting. 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 devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Shedding Light on the Connection: Democrat Votes and Automotive Recalls for Exterior Lighting Issues in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we analyze the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. We delve into the data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT to answer the burning question: is there a connection between political preferences and vehicular visibility? Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and p < 0.01 for the years 1978 to 2020, highlighting a statistically significant association.

Much like replacing a light bulb, our study illuminates the unexpected link between political affiliations and automotive safety concerns. This unexpected relationship sheds light on the intricate interplay between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. We also explore the potential implications for policy makers, urging them to consider the enlightening interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls. With our findings, we aim to spark further discussions and brighten the understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety.

To keep things light, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why did the Democrat's car have trouble with its exterior lighting? Because it was seeing red!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between politics and automotive safety has always been a topic of interest, and our study sheds new light on this connection by examining the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. This unexpected association brings to mind the age-old question: How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb? Well, apparently, it could be more than you'd think!
It has been widely acknowledged that political factors can influence various aspects of society, but the connection to automotive recalls for exterior lighting issues may come as a surprise. As we unravel the data and delve into this intriguing correlation, we aim to provide insight into these unanticipated ties, all the while ensuring to sprinkle some humor into the research. After all, who said academic research can't be illuminating and punny?
Our analysis draws from a comprehensive dataset obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US Department of Transportation, spanning the years 1978 to 2020. By meticulously examining the voting patterns and automotive recall records, our study illuminates a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This statistically significant association brings a new dimension to the old adage: Why was the Democrat's car recalled for exterior lighting issues? Because the statistics were too bright to ignore!
.
.
.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The literature surrounding the connection between political affiliations and automotive safety concerns is rather limited, as one might expect. However, the few existing studies present intriguing perspectives on the matter. Smith et al. (2015) delved into the interplay between political preferences and vehicle safety, revealing surprising correlations within the state of North Carolina. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2018) focused on the influence of political climate on automotive recalls, shedding light on the potential implications for public safety and policy considerations.

Turning to non-fiction literature, the works of “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us” by Daniel H. Pink and “Car Wars: The Rise, the Fall, and the Resurgence of the Electric Car” by John J. Fialka provide valuable insights into the automotive industry and the underlying societal factors shaping vehicle preferences and safety considerations.

In the realm of fiction, novels such as “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” by Hunter S. Thompson and “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert M. Pirsig touch upon the themes of transportation and human experiences, offering a more imaginative take on the intersection of politics and automotive concerns.

Taking a rather unconventional approach, the authors also indulged in a comprehensive review of the back labels of various automotive lighting products and political campaign paraphernalia. Surprisingly, the witty taglines and obscure product descriptions revealed little in the way of empirical evidence, but did provide some light entertainment during the research process.


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 North Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting. 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 US DOT . You used data from 1978 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]]
Shedding Light on the Connection: Democrat Votes and Automotive Recalls for Exterior Lighting Issues in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we analyze the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. We delve into the data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT to answer the burning question: is there a connection between political preferences and vehicular visibility? Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and p < 0.01 for the years 1978 to 2020, highlighting a statistically significant association.

Much like replacing a light bulb, our study illuminates the unexpected link between political affiliations and automotive safety concerns. This unexpected relationship sheds light on the intricate interplay between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. We also explore the potential implications for policy makers, urging them to consider the enlightening interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls. With our findings, we aim to spark further discussions and brighten the understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety.

To keep things light, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why did the Democrat's car have trouble with its exterior lighting? Because it was seeing red!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between politics and automotive safety has always been a topic of interest, and our study sheds new light on this connection by examining the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. This unexpected association brings to mind the age-old question: How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb? Well, apparently, it could be more than you'd think!
It has been widely acknowledged that political factors can influence various aspects of society, but the connection to automotive recalls for exterior lighting issues may come as a surprise. As we unravel the data and delve into this intriguing correlation, we aim to provide insight into these unanticipated ties, all the while ensuring to sprinkle some humor into the research. After all, who said academic research can't be illuminating and punny?
Our analysis draws from a comprehensive dataset obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US Department of Transportation, spanning the years 1978 to 2020. By meticulously examining the voting patterns and automotive recall records, our study illuminates a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This statistically significant association brings a new dimension to the old adage: Why was the Democrat's car recalled for exterior lighting issues? Because the statistics were too bright to ignore!
.
.
.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To tackle the seemingly unrelated yet tantalizingly connected realms of political voting behavior and automotive safety, our research team employed a methodological approach as intricate as soldering a faulty wiring harness. First, we meticulously gathered and curated data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US Department of Transportation, putting the "net" in Internet to cast a wide data-collection "web."

Once we caught our data "fish," we employed a novel approach jokily named the "Democrat-Dipped Visual Inspection" method, where we scrutinized the voting patterns, election results, and automotive recall records with a keen eye for detail, akin to a Democratic eagle hunting for statistical rodents.

Then, to ensure a robust analysis, we used a statistical model as reliable as a well-maintained headlight aiming system, employing a combination of correlation and regression analyses to shed light on any potential associations between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting.

With the rigor of a mechanic inspecting a flickering headlamp, we carried out a multivariate analysis, controlling for various factors such as population density, vehicle age, and manufacturing recalls, ensuring that our findings were as reliable and steady as a Democratic voter in a swing state.

Finally, in our statistical interpretation, we employed a hypothesis testing procedures as rigorous as testing a brake light's resilience for statistical outliers and severe deviations, ensuring that our findings were as robust and credible as a well-grounded political campaign.

In the spirit of our methodology, here's a dad joke: Why did the Democratic car bring a flashlight to the election? Because it wanted to shed some light on the issues!


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 North Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting. 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 US DOT .

For the time period 1978 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8770054, r-squared of 0.7691385, 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]]
Shedding Light on the Connection: Democrat Votes and Automotive Recalls for Exterior Lighting Issues in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we analyze the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. We delve into the data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT to answer the burning question: is there a connection between political preferences and vehicular visibility? Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and p < 0.01 for the years 1978 to 2020, highlighting a statistically significant association.

Much like replacing a light bulb, our study illuminates the unexpected link between political affiliations and automotive safety concerns. This unexpected relationship sheds light on the intricate interplay between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. We also explore the potential implications for policy makers, urging them to consider the enlightening interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls. With our findings, we aim to spark further discussions and brighten the understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety.

To keep things light, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why did the Democrat's car have trouble with its exterior lighting? Because it was seeing red!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The relationship between politics and automotive safety has always been a topic of interest, and our study sheds new light on this connection by examining the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. This unexpected association brings to mind the age-old question: How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb? Well, apparently, it could be more than you'd think!
It has been widely acknowledged that political factors can influence various aspects of society, but the connection to automotive recalls for exterior lighting issues may come as a surprise. As we unravel the data and delve into this intriguing correlation, we aim to provide insight into these unanticipated ties, all the while ensuring to sprinkle some humor into the research. After all, who said academic research can't be illuminating and punny?
Our analysis draws from a comprehensive dataset obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US Department of Transportation, spanning the years 1978 to 2020. By meticulously examining the voting patterns and automotive recall records, our study illuminates a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This statistically significant association brings a new dimension to the old adage: Why was the Democrat's car recalled for exterior lighting issues? Because the statistics were too bright to ignore!
.
.
.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our research indicate a strong and statistically significant correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. Our study produced a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and an r-squared value of 0.7691385 for the time period of 1978 to 2020. Additionally, the p-value was found to be less than 0.01, signifying a highly significant relationship between these variables.

Turning to the data brought to light this surprising link between political voting patterns and automotive safety concerns. The statistically significant correlation obtained in our study shines a spotlight on the unanticipated connection between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. It's as if the universe is telling us, "Let there be light, and let it be correlated with political votes!"

Fig. 1, a scatterplot displaying the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for exterior lighting issues, visually illustrates the strength and direction of the relationship. The plot resembles a constellation of data points, forming a pattern that is more striking than a tail light in the dark.

Our analysis has brought about an enlightening discovery, shedding light on the intricate interplay between political preferences and automotive safety. It's clear that this relationship is not merely a flicker; rather, it beams with statistical significance. Our findings prompt us to consider the broader implications of this unexpected association and urge policymakers to address this illuminating interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls.

Speaking of illuminating, here's a relevant dad joke: What's a Democrat's favorite type of car? A Voltswagen. After all, they do love something with a positive charge!

Our research adds an enlightening perspective to the discourse on the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety, and we hope that it sparks further discussions and brightens the understanding of this unexpected yet statistically robust association.


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 North Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting. 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]]
Shedding Light on the Connection: Democrat Votes and Automotive Recalls for Exterior Lighting Issues in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we analyze the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. We delve into the data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT to answer the burning question: is there a connection between political preferences and vehicular visibility? Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and p < 0.01 for the years 1978 to 2020, highlighting a statistically significant association.

Much like replacing a light bulb, our study illuminates the unexpected link between political affiliations and automotive safety concerns. This unexpected relationship sheds light on the intricate interplay between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. We also explore the potential implications for policy makers, urging them to consider the enlightening interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls. With our findings, we aim to spark further discussions and brighten the understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety.

To keep things light, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why did the Democrat's car have trouble with its exterior lighting? Because it was seeing red!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The literature surrounding the connection between political affiliations and automotive safety concerns is rather limited, as one might expect. However, the few existing studies present intriguing perspectives on the matter. Smith et al. (2015) delved into the interplay between political preferences and vehicle safety, revealing surprising correlations within the state of North Carolina. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2018) focused on the influence of political climate on automotive recalls, shedding light on the potential implications for public safety and policy considerations.
Turning to non-fiction literature, the works of “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us” by Daniel H. Pink and “Car Wars: The Rise, the Fall, and the Resurgence of the Electric Car” by John J. Fialka provide valuable insights into the automotive industry and the underlying societal factors shaping vehicle preferences and safety considerations.
In the realm of fiction, novels such as “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” by Hunter S. Thompson and “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert M. Pirsig touch upon the themes of transportation and human experiences, offering a more imaginative take on the intersection of politics and automotive concerns.
Taking a rather unconventional approach, the authors also indulged in a comprehensive review of the back labels of various automotive lighting products and political campaign paraphernalia. Surprisingly, the witty taglines and obscure product descriptions revealed little in the way of empirical evidence, but did provide some light entertainment during the research process.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our research indicate a strong and statistically significant correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. Our study produced a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and an r-squared value of 0.7691385 for the time period of 1978 to 2020. Additionally, the p-value was found to be less than 0.01, signifying a highly significant relationship between these variables.
Turning to the data brought to light this surprising link between political voting patterns and automotive safety concerns. The statistically significant correlation obtained in our study shines a spotlight on the unanticipated connection between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. It's as if the universe is telling us, "Let there be light, and let it be correlated with political votes!"
Fig. 1, a scatterplot displaying the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for exterior lighting issues, visually illustrates the strength and direction of the relationship. The plot resembles a constellation of data points, forming a pattern that is more striking than a tail light in the dark.
Our analysis has brought about an enlightening discovery, shedding light on the intricate interplay between political preferences and automotive safety. It's clear that this relationship is not merely a flicker; rather, it beams with statistical significance. Our findings prompt us to consider the broader implications of this unexpected association and urge policymakers to address this illuminating interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls.
Speaking of illuminating, here's a relevant dad joke: What's a Democrat's favorite type of car? A Voltswagen. After all, they do love something with a positive charge!
Our research adds an enlightening perspective to the discourse on the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety, and we hope that it sparks further discussions and brightens the understanding of this unexpected yet statistically robust association.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study not only confirm but also reinforce the surprising connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. This unexpected association, akin to finding political ideology in the trunk of a car, raises intriguing questions about the interplay between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. Our findings align with the prior research conducted by Smith et al. (2015) and Doe and Jones (2018) and buoy the existing literature's argument about the intricate relationship between political preferences and automotive safety concerns within the state of North Carolina.

The statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 suggests a strong positive relationship between Democrat votes for Senators and automotive recalls for exterior lighting issues. It's as if the political climate is casting a glow on vehicular safety, emphasizing the need for a bipartisan effort towards illumination. The r-squared value of 0.7691385 further solidifies the persuasive nature of this connection. It's as if the correlation is shining a bright light on the co-dependence of political choices and automotive safety.

Our findings have illuminated the previously dimly lit discourse, bringing it to the forefront of academic attention. This discovery, much like a well-lit highway at night, prompts us to consider the broader implications of this unexpected association. It's clear that the connection between Democrat votes and automotive recalls is not merely a flicker; rather, it beams with statistical significance. One might even say it's like a high-beam headlight, impossible to ignore!

Fig. 1 visually encapsulates the strength and direction of the relationship, displaying a pattern that is more striking than a tail light in the dark. The scatterplot accentuates the cohesiveness of the data points, affirming the robustness of this newfound connection. It's as if the data itself is saying, "vote Democrat, and let there be light on automotive safety concerns!"

In a light-hearted spirit, here's a relevant dad joke: How does a Democrat signal a left turn? By using their blinker, of course, because they certainly wouldn't want to be recalled for issues with exterior lighting!

Our research has brought a luminescent perspective to the discourse on the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety, and we hope that it ignites further deliberations and brightens the understanding of this unexpected yet statistically robust association. With these intriguing findings, our study underscores the need to bridge the gap between political engagement and vehicular safety, creating a brighter future for both realms.


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 North Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting. 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]]
Shedding Light on the Connection: Democrat Votes and Automotive Recalls for Exterior Lighting Issues in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we analyze the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. We delve into the data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT to answer the burning question: is there a connection between political preferences and vehicular visibility? Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and p < 0.01 for the years 1978 to 2020, highlighting a statistically significant association.

Much like replacing a light bulb, our study illuminates the unexpected link between political affiliations and automotive safety concerns. This unexpected relationship sheds light on the intricate interplay between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. We also explore the potential implications for policy makers, urging them to consider the enlightening interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls. With our findings, we aim to spark further discussions and brighten the understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety.

To keep things light, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why did the Democrat's car have trouble with its exterior lighting? Because it was seeing red!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The relationship between politics and automotive safety has always been a topic of interest, and our study sheds new light on this connection by examining the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. This unexpected association brings to mind the age-old question: How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb? Well, apparently, it could be more than you'd think!
It has been widely acknowledged that political factors can influence various aspects of society, but the connection to automotive recalls for exterior lighting issues may come as a surprise. As we unravel the data and delve into this intriguing correlation, we aim to provide insight into these unanticipated ties, all the while ensuring to sprinkle some humor into the research. After all, who said academic research can't be illuminating and punny?
Our analysis draws from a comprehensive dataset obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US Department of Transportation, spanning the years 1978 to 2020. By meticulously examining the voting patterns and automotive recall records, our study illuminates a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This statistically significant association brings a new dimension to the old adage: Why was the Democrat's car recalled for exterior lighting issues? Because the statistics were too bright to ignore!
.
.
.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our research indicate a strong and statistically significant correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. Our study produced a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and an r-squared value of 0.7691385 for the time period of 1978 to 2020. Additionally, the p-value was found to be less than 0.01, signifying a highly significant relationship between these variables.
Turning to the data brought to light this surprising link between political voting patterns and automotive safety concerns. The statistically significant correlation obtained in our study shines a spotlight on the unanticipated connection between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. It's as if the universe is telling us, "Let there be light, and let it be correlated with political votes!"
Fig. 1, a scatterplot displaying the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for exterior lighting issues, visually illustrates the strength and direction of the relationship. The plot resembles a constellation of data points, forming a pattern that is more striking than a tail light in the dark.
Our analysis has brought about an enlightening discovery, shedding light on the intricate interplay between political preferences and automotive safety. It's clear that this relationship is not merely a flicker; rather, it beams with statistical significance. Our findings prompt us to consider the broader implications of this unexpected association and urge policymakers to address this illuminating interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls.
Speaking of illuminating, here's a relevant dad joke: What's a Democrat's favorite type of car? A Voltswagen. After all, they do love something with a positive charge!
Our research adds an enlightening perspective to the discourse on the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety, and we hope that it sparks further discussions and brightens the understanding of this unexpected yet statistically robust association.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has shone a spotlight on the unanticipated yet statistically significant correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. Our study not only illuminates this intriguing relationship but also adds a touch of humor to the discourse. It seems that in the realm of political affiliations and vehicular visibility, there's more than meets the eye – or should we say, the headlight!

By shedding light on this unexpected connection, we hope to inspire further exploration into the interplay between civic engagement and automotive safety. The statistical significance of our findings is as clear as day, prompting us to exclaim, "Why did the Democrat's car have trouble with its exterior lighting? Because it couldn't see the republicans!" A little political humor never hurt anyone, right?

It's evident from our research that this association is not just a fleeting flash; rather, it beams with importance. The implications for policymakers are as glaring as a high beam in a rear-view mirror, urging them to consider the enlightening interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls. It's almost as if the universe is urging us to take a closer look – or should we say, a brighter look – at the intertwining of politics and automotive safety.

At this point, it's safe to say that no more research is needed on the subject – we've already shed enough light on this unexpected relationship!


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 Shedding Light on the Connection: Democrat Votes and Automotive Recalls for Exterior Lighting Issues in North Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Political Automotive Safety Research


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 Shedding Light on the Connection: Democrat Votes and Automotive Recalls for Exterior Lighting Issues in North Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Southern Automotive 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 Shedding Light on the Connection: Democrat Votes and Automotive Recalls for Exterior Lighting Issues in North Carolina with an abstract of In this research paper, we analyze the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and automotive recalls for issues with exterior lighting. We delve into the data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT to answer the burning question: is there a connection between political preferences and vehicular visibility? Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8770054 and p < 0.01 for the years 1978 to 2020, highlighting a statistically significant association.
Much like replacing a light bulb, our study illuminates the unexpected link between political affiliations and automotive safety concerns. This unexpected relationship sheds light on the intricate interplay between civic engagement and vehicular reliability. We also explore the potential implications for policy makers, urging them to consider the enlightening interdependence between democratic votes and automotive recalls. With our findings, we aim to spark further discussions and brighten the understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing automotive safety.
To keep things light, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why did the Democrat's car have trouble with its exterior lighting? Because it was seeing red!

ChatGPT:

Democrat votes, automotive recalls, exterior lighting issues, North Carolina, political preferences, vehicular visibility, correlation coefficient, civic engagement, automotive safety concerns, policy implications, democratic votes, policy makers, vehicle reliability, North Carolina Senators, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, US DOT, statistical association, policy discussions, automotive safety factors

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

Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting
Source: US DOT
See what else correlates with Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting

Correlation r = 0.8770054 (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 = 0.7691385 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 76.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina) over the 15 years from 1978 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.8E-5. 0.0000176629788165813940000000
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 0.88 in 0.0018% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 56,616 random variables You don't actually need 56 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 14 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 14 because we have two variables measured over a period of 15 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.

[ 0.66, 0.96 ] 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.
197819801984198619901992199619982002200420082010201420162020
Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina (Total votes)51666388765310704907809679815731194020117388010292401047980163253022493101145070137765021281602569960
Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting (Recalls)69814108121815393320263440




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.




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([516663,887653,1070490,780967,981573,1194020,1173880,1029240,1047980,1632530,2249310,1145070,1377650,2128160,2569960,])
array_2 = np.array([6,9,8,14,10,8,12,18,15,39,33,20,26,34,40,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina"
array_2_name = "Automotive recalls for issues with Exterior Lighting"

# 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 much appreciated!


Correlation ID: 4966 · Black Variable ID: 26290 · Red Variable ID: 1101
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0