about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,455 · 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 Maine and the second variable is The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine.  The chart goes from 2003 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the Democrat votes for Senators in Maine increased, there was a proportional rise in demand for lobstocratic supporters. This led to a surge in the number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine, as they scrambled to cater to the crustacean cravings of the politically aligned populace. Lobster-themed menu items, such as the "Left-Wing Linguine with Lobster" and the "Bipartisan Lobster Bisque," became incredibly popular, prompting the need for more culinary professionals and dining establishments to shell out these delectable dishes. It seems like in Maine, when it comes to politics and food, it's all about making a splash in the pot-ical landscape!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Your detailed image generation prompt is as follows: [A photo-realistic image] An overhead view of the Capitol building in Maine, surrounded by a bustling scene of voters queuing up to cast their ballots for Democratic Senators. The air is filled with the scent of buttery lobster, as chefs hurry in and out of bustling institutions and cafeterias. The demand for lobster-themed dishes has caused a surge in culinary professionals and dining establishments, creating a vibrant and bustling atmosphere that makes Maine a hotspot for lobstocratic supporters to satisfy their crustacean cravings while showing political alignment. 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 Democratic Senators in Maine and The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine. 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: 3D Pixar Style Oragami Charcoal Cute cartoon A photo-realistic image
ChatGPT: A photo-realistic image

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 Democratic Senators in Maine and The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine, in the following situation: As the Democrat votes for Senators in Maine increased, there was a proportional rise in demand for lobstocratic supporters. This led to a surge in the number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine, as they scrambled to cater to the crustacean cravings of the politically aligned populace. Lobster-themed menu items, such as the "Left-Wing Linguine with Lobster" and the "Bipartisan Lobster Bisque," became incredibly popular, prompting the need for more culinary professionals and dining establishments to shell out these delectable dishes. It seems like in Maine, when it comes to politics and food, it's all about making a splash in the pot-ical landscape!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: The Capitol building in Maine bustles with activity as voters queue up to cast their ballots for Democratic Senators. Outside, the scent of buttery lobster wafts through the air as new cooks hustle in and out of bustling institutions and cafeterias. The demand for lobster-themed dishes has caused a surge in culinary professionals and dining establishments, making Maine a hotspot for lobstocratic supporters to satisfy their crustacean cravings while showing political alignment.

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: [ A photo-realistic image ] and depicting this scene: The Capitol building in Maine bustles with activity as voters queue up to cast their ballots for Democratic Senators. Outside, the scent of buttery lobster wafts through the air as new cooks hustle in and out of bustling institutions and cafeterias. The demand for lobster-themed dishes has caused a surge in culinary professionals and dining establishments, making Maine a hotspot for lobstocratic supporters to satisfy their crustacean cravings while showing political alignment. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Your detailed image generation prompt is as follows: [A photo-realistic image] An overhead view of the Capitol building in Maine, surrounded by a bustling scene of voters queuing up to cast their ballots for Democratic Senators. The air is filled with the scent of buttery lobster, as chefs hurry in and out of bustling institutions and cafeterias. The demand for lobster-themed dishes has caused a surge in culinary professionals and dining establishments, creating a vibrant and bustling atmosphere that makes Maine a hotspot for lobstocratic supporters to satisfy their crustacean cravings while showing political alignment.

*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 Maine caused The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine to increase. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Blueberry Pancakes and Blue Votes: Exploring the Correlation Between Democrat Senatorial Support in Maine and the Number of Cooks, Institutions, and Cafeterias

Journal of Culinary Politics

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 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 and p < 0.05 for 2003 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]]
"Blueberry Pancakes and Blue Votes: Exploring the Correlation Between Democrat Senatorial Support in Maine and the Number of Cooks, Institutions, and Cafeterias"

[[ABSTRACT]]
Many have mused over the connection between political preferences and culinary creations, but little research has delved into the empirical relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the abundance of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. This paper presents our findings from an in-depth analysis of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, covering the years 2003 to 2020. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 and statistical significance (p < 0.05), our study uncovers a compelling link between Democrat support in Maine and the culinary landscape. Our unexpected results may have you craving both a generous serving of data and a side of political intrigue.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Blueberry Pancakes and Blue Votes: Exploring the Correlation Between Democrat Senatorial Support in Maine and the Number of Cooks, Institutions, and Cafeterias"

[[ABSTRACT]]
Many have mused over the connection between political preferences and culinary creations, but little research has delved into the empirical relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the abundance of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. This paper presents our findings from an in-depth analysis of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, covering the years 2003 to 2020. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 and statistical significance (p < 0.05), our study uncovers a compelling link between Democrat support in Maine and the culinary landscape. Our unexpected results may have you craving both a generous serving of data and a side of political intrigue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Ladies and gentlemen, foodies and politics enthusiasts, welcome to a research paper that promises to serve up a delectable blend of statistical analysis and culinary curiosities. In the world of empirical investigations, we often find ourselves grumbling and growling over dry data sets and tasteless variables, but fear not, for today we embark on a flavorful journey through the state of Maine, where Democrat votes for Senators mix and mingle with the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in a recipe for political and gastronomic intrigue.

It is no secret that Maine is a haven for delectable blueberries, succulent lobsters, and breathtaking landscapes, but what if I told you that behind the scenes, there exists a savory link between the political climate and the culinary domain? Our study sets out to enlighten you on the extraordinary connection between Democrat support for Senators in Maine and the abundance of culinary professionals and establishments. So buckle up, folks, as we dive into a hot pot of regression analysis, scatter plots, and a dash of political seasoning.

You may have pondered the pressing questions of our time, such as "Does more clam chowder lead to left-leaning views?" or "Are blueberries the key to unlocking the Democrat vote?" Well, fear not, for we have embarked on a scientific journey to answer these burning questions and perhaps unearth a few unexpected culinary and political spices along the way.

In this paper, we present the culmination of our culinary and statistical escapades, where we have employed data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to stir up a potent concoction of numbers, trends, and some good old-fashioned lobstah wisdom. So sit back, relax, and prepare your taste buds for a whirlwind of findings that will leave you craving not only a juicy political debate but also a sumptuous spread of scientific discovery. Let's dig in!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Blueberry Pancakes and Blue Votes: Exploring the Correlation Between Democrat Senatorial Support in Maine and the Number of Cooks, Institutions, and Cafeterias"

[[ABSTRACT]]
Many have mused over the connection between political preferences and culinary creations, but little research has delved into the empirical relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the abundance of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. This paper presents our findings from an in-depth analysis of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, covering the years 2003 to 2020. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 and statistical significance (p < 0.05), our study uncovers a compelling link between Democrat support in Maine and the culinary landscape. Our unexpected results may have you craving both a generous serving of data and a side of political intrigue.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ladies and gentlemen, foodies and politics enthusiasts, welcome to a research paper that promises to serve up a delectable blend of statistical analysis and culinary curiosities. In the world of empirical investigations, we often find ourselves grumbling and growling over dry data sets and tasteless variables, but fear not, for today we embark on a flavorful journey through the state of Maine, where Democrat votes for Senators mix and mingle with the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in a recipe for political and gastronomic intrigue.
It is no secret that Maine is a haven for delectable blueberries, succulent lobsters, and breathtaking landscapes, but what if I told you that behind the scenes, there exists a savory link between the political climate and the culinary domain? Our study sets out to enlighten you on the extraordinary connection between Democrat support for Senators in Maine and the abundance of culinary professionals and establishments. So buckle up, folks, as we dive into a hot pot of regression analysis, scatter plots, and a dash of political seasoning.
You may have pondered the pressing questions of our time, such as "Does more clam chowder lead to left-leaning views?" or "Are blueberries the key to unlocking the Democrat vote?" Well, fear not, for we have embarked on a scientific journey to answer these burning questions and perhaps unearth a few unexpected culinary and political spices along the way.
In this paper, we present the culmination of our culinary and statistical escapades, where we have employed data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to stir up a potent concoction of numbers, trends, and some good old-fashioned lobstah wisdom. So sit back, relax, and prepare your taste buds for a whirlwind of findings that will leave you craving not only a juicy political debate but also a sumptuous spread of scientific discovery. Let's dig in!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "Maine and Politics: A Culinary Perspective" by Smith, the authors find that Maine's political landscape is as varied as its culinary delights. The study delves into the Democrat votes for Senators and their potential connection to the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias. Similarly, in "Blueberries and Ballot Boxes: Exploring Maine's Political Palette" by Doe, the authors explore the relationship between culinary infrastructure and political leanings, shedding light on the fascinating interplay of food and politics in the state.

Moving from the serious to the somewhat whimsical, "The Lobster Chronicles" by Greenlaw, offers insights into the captivating world of Maine's coastal life, with anecdotes that may leave one wondering if the crustaceans hold the key to understanding political shifts. Furthermore, "Blueberry Muffin Murder" by Fluke, while a work of fiction, beautifully captures the essence of Maine's culinary offerings and may provide some unexpected inspiration for understanding Democrat votes.

Taking a turn towards the hilariously unexpected, the authors of this paper also conducted an exhaustive review of unconventional sources, including but not limited to the backs of blueberry syrup bottles, the labels of lobster-themed kitchen aprons, and the packaging of New England clam chowder cans. While these sources may not be conventional scholarly material, they did provide some food for thought, quite literally, in unraveling the delicious mystery of the Democrat Senatorial support in Maine and its ties to the culinary world. Our rigorous approach to literature review leaves no stone unturned, not even the metaphorical ones found in lobster bisque.

In combining these varied sources, our literature review aims to present a comprehensive understanding of the multidimensional relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the culinary landscape, demonstrating that the territory of scholarly inquiry can often be as delightful as it is enlightening.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2003 to 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]]
"Blueberry Pancakes and Blue Votes: Exploring the Correlation Between Democrat Senatorial Support in Maine and the Number of Cooks, Institutions, and Cafeterias"

[[ABSTRACT]]
Many have mused over the connection between political preferences and culinary creations, but little research has delved into the empirical relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the abundance of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. This paper presents our findings from an in-depth analysis of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, covering the years 2003 to 2020. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 and statistical significance (p < 0.05), our study uncovers a compelling link between Democrat support in Maine and the culinary landscape. Our unexpected results may have you craving both a generous serving of data and a side of political intrigue.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ladies and gentlemen, foodies and politics enthusiasts, welcome to a research paper that promises to serve up a delectable blend of statistical analysis and culinary curiosities. In the world of empirical investigations, we often find ourselves grumbling and growling over dry data sets and tasteless variables, but fear not, for today we embark on a flavorful journey through the state of Maine, where Democrat votes for Senators mix and mingle with the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in a recipe for political and gastronomic intrigue.
It is no secret that Maine is a haven for delectable blueberries, succulent lobsters, and breathtaking landscapes, but what if I told you that behind the scenes, there exists a savory link between the political climate and the culinary domain? Our study sets out to enlighten you on the extraordinary connection between Democrat support for Senators in Maine and the abundance of culinary professionals and establishments. So buckle up, folks, as we dive into a hot pot of regression analysis, scatter plots, and a dash of political seasoning.
You may have pondered the pressing questions of our time, such as "Does more clam chowder lead to left-leaning views?" or "Are blueberries the key to unlocking the Democrat vote?" Well, fear not, for we have embarked on a scientific journey to answer these burning questions and perhaps unearth a few unexpected culinary and political spices along the way.
In this paper, we present the culmination of our culinary and statistical escapades, where we have employed data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to stir up a potent concoction of numbers, trends, and some good old-fashioned lobstah wisdom. So sit back, relax, and prepare your taste buds for a whirlwind of findings that will leave you craving not only a juicy political debate but also a sumptuous spread of scientific discovery. Let's dig in!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Now, let's dig into the pot of methodological mischief that brewed up our flavorful findings. Our data excavation process began with a deliciously comprehensive search across the internet, scouring MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the juiciest morsels of information. We wanted to ensure our data buffet was robust, leaving no stone unturned or taste bud unsatisfied.

Our first course of action was to gather data on Democrat votes for Senators in Maine across the years 2003 to 2020, sifting through the complexities of political statistics like eager culinary enthusiasts sifting through blueberry pie recipes. Next, we sautéed our investigation by obtaining data on the number of cooks, culinary institutions, and cafeterias in the majestic state of Maine. This involved plucking through the harvest of information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, extracting the ripest numbers for our flavorful analysis.

Once our ingredients were meticulously collected, we chopped, mixed, and seasoned our data with an assortment of statistical tools. We tossed our datasets into the sizzling cauldron of linear regression, allowing the flavors of correlation coefficients and p-values to infuse our analysis with that extra dash of authenticity. We then garnished our study with scatter plots, whisking together visual representations of the relationship between Democrat support and the abundance of culinary resources.

To ensure our findings weren't just a flash in the pan, we conducted robustness tests, simmering our results over the scientific flame of sensitivity analysis and alternative model specifications. This ensured that our conclusions had the robustness of a well-seasoned lobster bisque, resisting the temptations of spurious correlations and untamed confounding variables.

After this culinary concoction of statistical analyses, we garnished our methodology with a pinch of humility, acknowledging the limitations of our study like a cautious chef recognizing the delicate balance of flavors in a complex dish. We recognized the potential for omitted variable bias and the seasoning of causal inference challenges, urging readers to savor our findings with a grain of statistical salt.

In this manner, our research journey unfolded like a savory recipe, where the careful selection of ingredients, meticulous blending of flavors, and the occasional unexpected spice led us to the tantalizing dish of correlation between Democrat Senatorial support in Maine and the bounty of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias. So, dear reader, pull up a chair and feast your minds on the delectable delicacies of our methodological escapade!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics .

For the time period 2003 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8445917, r-squared of 0.7133352, and p < 0.05.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Blueberry Pancakes and Blue Votes: Exploring the Correlation Between Democrat Senatorial Support in Maine and the Number of Cooks, Institutions, and Cafeterias"

[[ABSTRACT]]
Many have mused over the connection between political preferences and culinary creations, but little research has delved into the empirical relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the abundance of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. This paper presents our findings from an in-depth analysis of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, covering the years 2003 to 2020. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 and statistical significance (p < 0.05), our study uncovers a compelling link between Democrat support in Maine and the culinary landscape. Our unexpected results may have you craving both a generous serving of data and a side of political intrigue.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Ladies and gentlemen, foodies and politics enthusiasts, welcome to a research paper that promises to serve up a delectable blend of statistical analysis and culinary curiosities. In the world of empirical investigations, we often find ourselves grumbling and growling over dry data sets and tasteless variables, but fear not, for today we embark on a flavorful journey through the state of Maine, where Democrat votes for Senators mix and mingle with the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in a recipe for political and gastronomic intrigue.
It is no secret that Maine is a haven for delectable blueberries, succulent lobsters, and breathtaking landscapes, but what if I told you that behind the scenes, there exists a savory link between the political climate and the culinary domain? Our study sets out to enlighten you on the extraordinary connection between Democrat support for Senators in Maine and the abundance of culinary professionals and establishments. So buckle up, folks, as we dive into a hot pot of regression analysis, scatter plots, and a dash of political seasoning.
You may have pondered the pressing questions of our time, such as "Does more clam chowder lead to left-leaning views?" or "Are blueberries the key to unlocking the Democrat vote?" Well, fear not, for we have embarked on a scientific journey to answer these burning questions and perhaps unearth a few unexpected culinary and political spices along the way.
In this paper, we present the culmination of our culinary and statistical escapades, where we have employed data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to stir up a potent concoction of numbers, trends, and some good old-fashioned lobstah wisdom. So sit back, relax, and prepare your taste buds for a whirlwind of findings that will leave you craving not only a juicy political debate but also a sumptuous spread of scientific discovery. Let's dig in!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our investigation into the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias has revealed some truly delectable findings. After analyzing data from the years 2003 to 2020 with a level of scrutiny fit for a Michelin-starred restaurant, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 between these two seemingly unrelated variables. This strong correlation indicates a substantial link between the political palate in Maine and the culinary landscape, leaving us with a statistical flavor that is both robust and savory.

In the realm of statistics, our results are as satisfying as a perfectly cooked lobster: the r-squared value of 0.7133352 demonstrates that a significant portion of the variation in Democrat votes for Senators in Maine can be explained by the abundance of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. This relationship is not just a mere statistical fling; it wields a p-value of less than 0.05, signifying its bona fide significance and adding an extra pinch of spice to our findings.

To provide a visual feast for the eyes, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot that showcases the unmistakable correlation between these two delectable variables. This graph paints a vivid picture of the interconnectedness between Democrat support and the culinary domain, leaving little room for doubt that there is more to Maine's political landscape than meets the pie.

In conclusion, our research has left us with a taste of unexpected culinary and political flavors, enticing us to further explore the tantalizing connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias. These results may just have you pondering not only the ballot, but also the buffet, in the delightful state of Maine.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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]]
"Blueberry Pancakes and Blue Votes: Exploring the Correlation Between Democrat Senatorial Support in Maine and the Number of Cooks, Institutions, and Cafeterias"

[[ABSTRACT]]
Many have mused over the connection between political preferences and culinary creations, but little research has delved into the empirical relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the abundance of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. This paper presents our findings from an in-depth analysis of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, covering the years 2003 to 2020. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 and statistical significance (p < 0.05), our study uncovers a compelling link between Democrat support in Maine and the culinary landscape. Our unexpected results may have you craving both a generous serving of data and a side of political intrigue.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Maine and Politics: A Culinary Perspective" by Smith, the authors find that Maine's political landscape is as varied as its culinary delights. The study delves into the Democrat votes for Senators and their potential connection to the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias. Similarly, in "Blueberries and Ballot Boxes: Exploring Maine's Political Palette" by Doe, the authors explore the relationship between culinary infrastructure and political leanings, shedding light on the fascinating interplay of food and politics in the state.
Moving from the serious to the somewhat whimsical, "The Lobster Chronicles" by Greenlaw, offers insights into the captivating world of Maine's coastal life, with anecdotes that may leave one wondering if the crustaceans hold the key to understanding political shifts. Furthermore, "Blueberry Muffin Murder" by Fluke, while a work of fiction, beautifully captures the essence of Maine's culinary offerings and may provide some unexpected inspiration for understanding Democrat votes.
Taking a turn towards the hilariously unexpected, the authors of this paper also conducted an exhaustive review of unconventional sources, including but not limited to the backs of blueberry syrup bottles, the labels of lobster-themed kitchen aprons, and the packaging of New England clam chowder cans. While these sources may not be conventional scholarly material, they did provide some food for thought, quite literally, in unraveling the delicious mystery of the Democrat Senatorial support in Maine and its ties to the culinary world. Our rigorous approach to literature review leaves no stone unturned, not even the metaphorical ones found in lobster bisque.
In combining these varied sources, our literature review aims to present a comprehensive understanding of the multidimensional relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the culinary landscape, demonstrating that the territory of scholarly inquiry can often be as delightful as it is enlightening.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias has revealed some truly delectable findings. After analyzing data from the years 2003 to 2020 with a level of scrutiny fit for a Michelin-starred restaurant, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 between these two seemingly unrelated variables. This strong correlation indicates a substantial link between the political palate in Maine and the culinary landscape, leaving us with a statistical flavor that is both robust and savory.
In the realm of statistics, our results are as satisfying as a perfectly cooked lobster: the r-squared value of 0.7133352 demonstrates that a significant portion of the variation in Democrat votes for Senators in Maine can be explained by the abundance of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. This relationship is not just a mere statistical fling; it wields a p-value of less than 0.05, signifying its bona fide significance and adding an extra pinch of spice to our findings.
To provide a visual feast for the eyes, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot that showcases the unmistakable correlation between these two delectable variables. This graph paints a vivid picture of the interconnectedness between Democrat support and the culinary domain, leaving little room for doubt that there is more to Maine's political landscape than meets the pie.
In conclusion, our research has left us with a taste of unexpected culinary and political flavors, enticing us to further explore the tantalizing connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias. These results may just have you pondering not only the ballot, but also the buffet, in the delightful state of Maine.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our study delved into the deliciously complex relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the culinary landscape, ultimately revealing a correlation that's as tantalizing as a perfectly crafted blueberry pie. The connection we uncovered between political preferences and the culinary world may seem as unexpected as finding a peanut butter and lobster sandwich on a menu, but our results build upon prior research, including the lighthearted yet insightful musings found in "The Lobster Chronicles" by Greenlaw and the somewhat whimsical, yet thought-provoking analysis in "Blueberries and Ballot Boxes" by Doe.

The statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 we discovered harmonizes with the findings of previous studies, reinforcing the intriguing notion that Maine's political palette is intertwined with its culinary diversity. Our results provide empirical support for the idea that Democrat support in Maine is connected to the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. It's as if the voters' preferences are as finely orchestrated as a top chef's tasting menu, with each culinary element adding a distinct flavor to the political landscape.

The r-squared value of 0.7133352 sheds light on the substantial portion of variation in Democrat votes for Senators in Maine that can be attributed to the abundance of culinary establishments. This statistical revelation is reminiscent of a perfectly executed recipe, where each ingredient plays a pivotal role in crafting the final dish. Just like the meticulous balance of flavors in a gourmet meal, our findings point to a nuanced and multifaceted relationship between political leanings and culinary infrastructure.

As we savor the robustness of our results, it becomes evident that our study has stirred up a delectable concoction of empirical evidence and culinary intrigue, paving the way for future exploration into the confluence of politics and palate in Maine. The strong p-value of less than 0.05 further emphasizes that our findings are not mere statistical soufflés, but rather substantive revelations that add a dash of spice to the scholarly discourse on the intersection of politics and gastronomy.

In sum, our research has provided a rich tapestry of evidence that ties Democrat votes for Senators in Maine to the culinary landscape, leaving us with a sweet taste of empirical validation and an insatiable appetite for delving deeper into the intricacies of this flavorful relationship. Just as a well-crafted dish brings together a symphony of flavors, our study has blended empirical rigor with culinary whimsy to produce findings that are as satisfying to the scholarly palate as they are thought-provoking.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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]]
"Blueberry Pancakes and Blue Votes: Exploring the Correlation Between Democrat Senatorial Support in Maine and the Number of Cooks, Institutions, and Cafeterias"

[[ABSTRACT]]
Many have mused over the connection between political preferences and culinary creations, but little research has delved into the empirical relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the abundance of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. This paper presents our findings from an in-depth analysis of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, covering the years 2003 to 2020. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 and statistical significance (p < 0.05), our study uncovers a compelling link between Democrat support in Maine and the culinary landscape. Our unexpected results may have you craving both a generous serving of data and a side of political intrigue.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Ladies and gentlemen, foodies and politics enthusiasts, welcome to a research paper that promises to serve up a delectable blend of statistical analysis and culinary curiosities. In the world of empirical investigations, we often find ourselves grumbling and growling over dry data sets and tasteless variables, but fear not, for today we embark on a flavorful journey through the state of Maine, where Democrat votes for Senators mix and mingle with the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in a recipe for political and gastronomic intrigue.
It is no secret that Maine is a haven for delectable blueberries, succulent lobsters, and breathtaking landscapes, but what if I told you that behind the scenes, there exists a savory link between the political climate and the culinary domain? Our study sets out to enlighten you on the extraordinary connection between Democrat support for Senators in Maine and the abundance of culinary professionals and establishments. So buckle up, folks, as we dive into a hot pot of regression analysis, scatter plots, and a dash of political seasoning.
You may have pondered the pressing questions of our time, such as "Does more clam chowder lead to left-leaning views?" or "Are blueberries the key to unlocking the Democrat vote?" Well, fear not, for we have embarked on a scientific journey to answer these burning questions and perhaps unearth a few unexpected culinary and political spices along the way.
In this paper, we present the culmination of our culinary and statistical escapades, where we have employed data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to stir up a potent concoction of numbers, trends, and some good old-fashioned lobstah wisdom. So sit back, relax, and prepare your taste buds for a whirlwind of findings that will leave you craving not only a juicy political debate but also a sumptuous spread of scientific discovery. Let's dig in!

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias has revealed some truly delectable findings. After analyzing data from the years 2003 to 2020 with a level of scrutiny fit for a Michelin-starred restaurant, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 between these two seemingly unrelated variables. This strong correlation indicates a substantial link between the political palate in Maine and the culinary landscape, leaving us with a statistical flavor that is both robust and savory.
In the realm of statistics, our results are as satisfying as a perfectly cooked lobster: the r-squared value of 0.7133352 demonstrates that a significant portion of the variation in Democrat votes for Senators in Maine can be explained by the abundance of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. This relationship is not just a mere statistical fling; it wields a p-value of less than 0.05, signifying its bona fide significance and adding an extra pinch of spice to our findings.
To provide a visual feast for the eyes, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot that showcases the unmistakable correlation between these two delectable variables. This graph paints a vivid picture of the interconnectedness between Democrat support and the culinary domain, leaving little room for doubt that there is more to Maine's political landscape than meets the pie.
In conclusion, our research has left us with a taste of unexpected culinary and political flavors, enticing us to further explore the tantalizing connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias. These results may just have you pondering not only the ballot, but also the buffet, in the delightful state of Maine.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

As we indulge in the sumptuous banquet of our findings, we find ourselves marveling at the unexpected fusion of culinary and political palates in the state of Maine. Our study has dished out a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8445917, demonstrating a delectable link between Democrat support and the number of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias. It seems the flavors of the political dish in Maine are seasoned with a sprinkle of culinary influence, leaving our taste buds tingling with statistical significance and a r-squared value as robust as a lobster's shell.

Our scatterplot, like a chef's masterpiece, showcases the harmonious dance between these seemingly unrelated variables, urging us to savor the flavorful relationship between Democrat votes and the gastronomic landscape. While we may have started this gastronomic journey with a pinch of skepticism, our results have left us with an insatiable appetite for further exploration.

With our aprons worn proudly and our statistical spatulas in hand, we assert that no more research is needed in this area. It's time to close the recipe book on this delectable topic and take a well-deserved bow, leaving our readers with a sweet taste of scientific discovery and a side of political intrigue. Bon appétit!


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 Blueberry Pancakes and Blue Votes: Exploring the Correlation Between Democrat Senatorial Support in Maine and the Number of Cooks, Institutions, and Cafeterias. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Culinary Politics


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 Blueberry Pancakes and Blue Votes: Exploring the Correlation Between Democrat Senatorial Support in Maine and the Number of Cooks, Institutions, and Cafeterias. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Culinary and Political Inquiry


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 Blueberry Pancakes and Blue Votes: Exploring the Correlation Between Democrat Senatorial Support in Maine and the Number of Cooks, Institutions, and Cafeterias with an abstract of Many have mused over the connection between political preferences and culinary creations, but little research has delved into the empirical relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Maine and the abundance of cooks, institutions, and cafeterias in the state. This paper presents our findings from an in-depth analysis of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, covering the years 2003 to 2020. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8445917 and statistical significance (p < 0.05), our study uncovers a compelling link between Democrat support in Maine and the culinary landscape. Our unexpected results may have you craving both a generous serving of data and a side of political intrigue.

ChatGPT:

Maine Democrat Senatorial Support, culinary creations, political preferences, correlation, Maine institutions, Maine cafeterias, Democrat votes, Maine cooks, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003-2020.

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

The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine

Correlation r = 0.8445917 (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 = 0.7133352 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 71.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Maine) over the 6 years from 2003 through 2020.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.034. 0.0343509076975595500000000000
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 0.84 in 3.4% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 29 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 5 because we have two variables measured over a period of 6 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.11, 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.
200620082012201420182020
Votes for Democratic Senators in Maine (Percentage of votes)20.753138.583412.818730.835510.445641.9197
The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine (Laborers)185020901730172016902210




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,237 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 636,906,169 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
  5. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




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([20.7531,38.5834,12.8187,30.8355,10.4456,41.9197,])
array_2 = np.array([1850,2090,1730,1720,1690,2210,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Maine"
array_2_name = "The number of cooks, institution and cafeteria in Maine"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the correlation whisperer we needed!


Correlation ID: 5455 · Black Variable ID: 26396 · Red Variable ID: 8952
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0