about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,376 · 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 Republican Senators in Arkansas and the second variable is Kerosene used in Comoros.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As more Senators were elected in Arkansas, the surplus hot air from political debates was inadvertently collected and shipped to Comoros, where it was repurposed as an eco-friendly alternative to kerosene.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image capturing the essence of a vibrant town square in Comoros, where residents are exchanging their traditional kerosene lamps for innovative canisters filled with recycled hot air. The scene should convey a sense of community and progress, with a focus on the bustling activity and the exchange of old and new. Additionally, depict a secondary focus on a group of voters in Arkansas proudly showcasing their "Republican" badges as they line up at polling stations. The image should blend the cultural transition in Comoros with the political engagement in Arkansas, creating a dynamic juxtaposition that encapsulates the diversity of human experiences. Capture the energy and significance of these moments within the town square while ensuring a balanced representation of both settings. 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: Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and Kerosene used in Comoros. 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: Whimsical illustration A Discovery magazine cover image Cybernetic art An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie
ChatGPT: A Discovery magazine cover 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 Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and Kerosene used in Comoros, in the following situation: As more Senators were elected in Arkansas, the surplus hot air from political debates was inadvertently collected and shipped to Comoros, where it was repurposed as an eco-friendly alternative to kerosene.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling town square in Comoros, people could be seen swapping out their traditional kerosene lamps for new canisters filled with recycled hot air. Meanwhile, in Arkansas, voters proudly displayed their "Republican" badges as they lined up at the polling stations to cast their votes for their Senators.

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 Discovery magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling town square in Comoros, people could be seen swapping out their traditional kerosene lamps for new canisters filled with recycled hot air. Meanwhile, in Arkansas, voters proudly displayed their "Republican" badges as they lined up at the polling stations to cast their votes for their Senators. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image capturing the essence of a vibrant town square in Comoros, where residents are exchanging their traditional kerosene lamps for innovative canisters filled with recycled hot air. The scene should convey a sense of community and progress, with a focus on the bustling activity and the exchange of old and new. Additionally, depict a secondary focus on a group of voters in Arkansas proudly showcasing their "Republican" badges as they line up at polling stations. The image should blend the cultural transition in Comoros with the political engagement in Arkansas, creating a dynamic juxtaposition that encapsulates the diversity of human experiences. Capture the energy and significance of these moments within the town square while ensuring a balanced representation of both settings.

*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 Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas caused Kerosene used in Comoros to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Fueling the Political Fire: A Combustible Connection Between Republican Votes in Arkansas and Kerosene Consumption in Comoros

The Journal of Eccentric Socio-Political Connections

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 Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and Kerosene used in Comoros. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2020.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Fueling the Political Fire: A Combustible Connection Between Republican Votes in Arkansas and Kerosene Consumption in Comoros"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the surprising and, dare we say, incendiary relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team delved into this unexpected correlation, sparking lively discussions and fire-related puns. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2020. This research sheds light on the curious intersection of political preferences and energy consumption patterns, igniting new avenues for interdisciplinary investigations and a fiery passion for data analysis.


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 Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and Kerosene used in Comoros. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Fueling the Political Fire: A Combustible Connection Between Republican Votes in Arkansas and Kerosene Consumption in Comoros"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the surprising and, dare we say, incendiary relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team delved into this unexpected correlation, sparking lively discussions and fire-related puns. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2020. This research sheds light on the curious intersection of political preferences and energy consumption patterns, igniting new avenues for interdisciplinary investigations and a fiery passion for data analysis.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

In the ever-burning bonfire of political investigations, one might not expect to find much kindling between the voting habits of Arkansans and the use of kerosene in the distant islands of Comoros. But as it turns out, these seemingly disparate topics are not just flickering flames in the night – they share a fiery connection that has ignited curiosity and sparked debates across the research community.

As researchers, we couldn't help but be drawn to this unexpected correlation, wondering: What flaming force links Republican votes in Arkansas to the consumption of kerosene in Comoros? Is it the lingering scent of a freshly lit torch? The unseen hand of a political firebrand? Or perhaps just a case of "hot air" influencing both political and energy behaviors?

While the relationship might seem as random as a spark in the dark, our investigation uncovered a statistical wildfire that demands attention. Our findings, a scorching correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a scalding p-value of less than 0.01 over the years 1980 to 2020, suggest that there might be more to this connection than meets the eye.

This research aims to throw fuel on the flames of curiosity, shedding light on the blistering overlap between political preferences and energy consumption patterns. By igniting new discussions and kindling interdisciplinary investigations, we hope to spark a searing passion for data analysis and set the research community ablaze with ideas for further exploration. So, grab your fire extinguishers and join us as we delve into the combustible connection between political heat and fiery fuel.


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 Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and Kerosene used in Comoros. 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 name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Fueling the Political Fire: A Combustible Connection Between Republican Votes in Arkansas and Kerosene Consumption in Comoros"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the surprising and, dare we say, incendiary relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team delved into this unexpected correlation, sparking lively discussions and fire-related puns. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2020. This research sheds light on the curious intersection of political preferences and energy consumption patterns, igniting new avenues for interdisciplinary investigations and a fiery passion for data analysis.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the ever-burning bonfire of political investigations, one might not expect to find much kindling between the voting habits of Arkansans and the use of kerosene in the distant islands of Comoros. But as it turns out, these seemingly disparate topics are not just flickering flames in the night – they share a fiery connection that has ignited curiosity and sparked debates across the research community.
As researchers, we couldn't help but be drawn to this unexpected correlation, wondering: What flaming force links Republican votes in Arkansas to the consumption of kerosene in Comoros? Is it the lingering scent of a freshly lit torch? The unseen hand of a political firebrand? Or perhaps just a case of "hot air" influencing both political and energy behaviors?
While the relationship might seem as random as a spark in the dark, our investigation uncovered a statistical wildfire that demands attention. Our findings, a scorching correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a scalding p-value of less than 0.01 over the years 1980 to 2020, suggest that there might be more to this connection than meets the eye.
This research aims to throw fuel on the flames of curiosity, shedding light on the blistering overlap between political preferences and energy consumption patterns. By igniting new discussions and kindling interdisciplinary investigations, we hope to spark a searing passion for data analysis and set the research community ablaze with ideas for further exploration. So, grab your fire extinguishers and join us as we delve into the combustible connection between political heat and fiery fuel.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Previous research on the intersection of political behaviors and energy consumption has largely centered on more conventional connections, such as public policies, economic factors, and environmental attitudes. However, the widening scope of interdisciplinary research has led to a burning curiosity about unconventional and, dare I say, combustible relationships between seemingly unrelated variables.

Smith and Doe (2015) set the stage for such unconventional investigations in their study "Energy Politics: A Spark of Change," shedding light on the various factors influencing political decisions regarding energy resources. Meanwhile, Jones (2017) delved into the complexities of electoral behavior in "Voting Patterns and Political Prowess," igniting discussions about the underlying motivations driving voters' choices. While these studies stick to the classic matches of politics and energy, our research aims to throw some kerosene into the mix and set the academic world ablaze with unexpected correlations.

Turning to more theoretical contemplations, "The Burning Question: Exploring Energy Politics" by Firestorm and Ember (2019) pokes at the smoldering debate around the influence of political climates on energy consumption. In contrast, "Vote Fires: Uncovering the Embers of Electoral Behavior" by Blaze and Ignite (2018) sparks heated discussion about the fiery passions underlying voters' decisions. These studies, while not directly related to our curious case of Republican votes in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros, provide a burning backdrop for our unconventional investigations.

Stepping into the realm of fiction, one cannot overlook the novel "Kerosene Kingdom" by Flare Up (2016) which, though not a scholarly work, kindles the imagination with its portrayal of political intrigues and the flaming desires of the human heart. Complementing this, "The Fire of Politics" by Burnbright (2014) offers a fictional exploration of the incendiary dynamics between political ideologies and societal structures. While these works are not academic in nature, they help stoke the fire of our unconventional research interests.

In the realm of popular culture, the internet meme "This is Fine" featuring a cartoon dog surrounded by flames has become a symbol of obliviousness amidst chaos – a fitting metaphor for the unexpected correlations we seek to uncover. Additionally, the "Bernie Sanders Sitting in a Chair" meme, though not overtly related to our topic, reminds us of the burning intensity of political movements and the unexpected places where these flames might spread.

In conclusion, while previous literature has fanned the flames of curiosity across various aspects of politics and energy, our study ignites a new wave of inquiry, seeking to uncover the surprising connection between Republican votes in Arkansas and kerosene consumption in Comoros. This blazing journey promises to spark lively debate, scorching insights, and perhaps a few well-charred puns along the way.


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 Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and Kerosene used in Comoros. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration . You used data from 1980 to 2020

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Fueling the Political Fire: A Combustible Connection Between Republican Votes in Arkansas and Kerosene Consumption in Comoros"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the surprising and, dare we say, incendiary relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team delved into this unexpected correlation, sparking lively discussions and fire-related puns. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2020. This research sheds light on the curious intersection of political preferences and energy consumption patterns, igniting new avenues for interdisciplinary investigations and a fiery passion for data analysis.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the ever-burning bonfire of political investigations, one might not expect to find much kindling between the voting habits of Arkansans and the use of kerosene in the distant islands of Comoros. But as it turns out, these seemingly disparate topics are not just flickering flames in the night – they share a fiery connection that has ignited curiosity and sparked debates across the research community.
As researchers, we couldn't help but be drawn to this unexpected correlation, wondering: What flaming force links Republican votes in Arkansas to the consumption of kerosene in Comoros? Is it the lingering scent of a freshly lit torch? The unseen hand of a political firebrand? Or perhaps just a case of "hot air" influencing both political and energy behaviors?
While the relationship might seem as random as a spark in the dark, our investigation uncovered a statistical wildfire that demands attention. Our findings, a scorching correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a scalding p-value of less than 0.01 over the years 1980 to 2020, suggest that there might be more to this connection than meets the eye.
This research aims to throw fuel on the flames of curiosity, shedding light on the blistering overlap between political preferences and energy consumption patterns. By igniting new discussions and kindling interdisciplinary investigations, we hope to spark a searing passion for data analysis and set the research community ablaze with ideas for further exploration. So, grab your fire extinguishers and join us as we delve into the combustible connection between political heat and fiery fuel.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:


[[METHODOLOGY]]

To shed light on the dazzling correlation between Republican votes in Arkansas and kerosene consumption in Comoros, we employed a method as rigorous as fire safety standards at a fireworks factory. Our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis using data gathered from various sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. As they say, where there's smoke, there's fire, and we sifted through the data from 1980 to 2020 to uncover any potential sparks of correlation.

Our first step was to ignite the data analysis process by cleaning and prepping the datasets, ensuring there were no smoldering inconsistencies or blazing outliers that could skew our results. We then utilized a sophisticated statistical approach akin to locating the perfect roasting spot for marshmallows at a bonfire – it had to be just the right heat!

To quantify the relationship between Republican votes in Arkansas and kerosene consumption in Comoros, we employed an inferno of statistical tools, including Pearson’s correlation coefficient and linear regression analysis. These tools were hotter than a jalapeño pepper eating contest, allowing us to measure the strength and direction of the association between these seemingly disparate variables.

In order to fan the flames of scientific rigor, we also factored in potential confounding variables such as socio-economic factors, historical events, and any other ‘fuel’ that could stoke the fire of correlation without us noticing. Our goal was to ensure that our findings weren’t merely a fluke or a wildfire of coincidence.

Finally, we set the data ablaze with visual representations, creating scorching-hot graphs and charts to illustrate the relationship between Republican votes in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros. These visuals were more eye-catching than a fireworks display on the Fourth of July, providing a fiery backdrop to our scorching findings.

In the end, our methodology was as robust as a firefighter’s toolkit, equipped to handle the hottest of correlations and the most sizzling of statistical analyses. With these methods in hand, we were ready to set the research world alight with our findings of this unexpected connection.


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 Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and Kerosene used in Comoros. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration .

For the time period 1980 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9369462, r-squared of 0.8778682, 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]]
"Fueling the Political Fire: A Combustible Connection Between Republican Votes in Arkansas and Kerosene Consumption in Comoros"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the surprising and, dare we say, incendiary relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team delved into this unexpected correlation, sparking lively discussions and fire-related puns. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2020. This research sheds light on the curious intersection of political preferences and energy consumption patterns, igniting new avenues for interdisciplinary investigations and a fiery passion for data analysis.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the ever-burning bonfire of political investigations, one might not expect to find much kindling between the voting habits of Arkansans and the use of kerosene in the distant islands of Comoros. But as it turns out, these seemingly disparate topics are not just flickering flames in the night – they share a fiery connection that has ignited curiosity and sparked debates across the research community.
As researchers, we couldn't help but be drawn to this unexpected correlation, wondering: What flaming force links Republican votes in Arkansas to the consumption of kerosene in Comoros? Is it the lingering scent of a freshly lit torch? The unseen hand of a political firebrand? Or perhaps just a case of "hot air" influencing both political and energy behaviors?
While the relationship might seem as random as a spark in the dark, our investigation uncovered a statistical wildfire that demands attention. Our findings, a scorching correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a scalding p-value of less than 0.01 over the years 1980 to 2020, suggest that there might be more to this connection than meets the eye.
This research aims to throw fuel on the flames of curiosity, shedding light on the blistering overlap between political preferences and energy consumption patterns. By igniting new discussions and kindling interdisciplinary investigations, we hope to spark a searing passion for data analysis and set the research community ablaze with ideas for further exploration. So, grab your fire extinguishers and join us as we delve into the combustible connection between political heat and fiery fuel.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our scorching investigation into the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros has illuminated a blazingly strong correlation. The results of our analysis revealed a searing correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a flamingly high r-squared of 0.8778682 over the three-alarm period from 1980 to 2020. With a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, our findings are igniting discussions and fueling curiosity around the unexpected ties between political leanings and energy consumption patterns.

Fig. 1 illustrates the incendiary connection we found, with a fiery scatterplot displaying the robust relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables. This visual representation is sure to set the research world on fire, as it demonstrates the intense heat of the correlation we've identified.

Our results have stoked the flames of interest in this unanticipated intersection of political votes in the United States and kerosene usage in Comoros. This scorching revelation opens up new avenues for interdisciplinary exploration and ignites a newfound fervor for uncovering the unexpected connections lurking in the depths of data. Stay tuned as we continue to fan the flames of curiosity and burn through the boundaries of traditional research to uncover more fiery insights.


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 Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and Kerosene used in Comoros. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
"Fueling the Political Fire: A Combustible Connection Between Republican Votes in Arkansas and Kerosene Consumption in Comoros"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the surprising and, dare we say, incendiary relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team delved into this unexpected correlation, sparking lively discussions and fire-related puns. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2020. This research sheds light on the curious intersection of political preferences and energy consumption patterns, igniting new avenues for interdisciplinary investigations and a fiery passion for data analysis.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Previous research on the intersection of political behaviors and energy consumption has largely centered on more conventional connections, such as public policies, economic factors, and environmental attitudes. However, the widening scope of interdisciplinary research has led to a burning curiosity about unconventional and, dare I say, combustible relationships between seemingly unrelated variables.
Smith and Doe (2015) set the stage for such unconventional investigations in their study "Energy Politics: A Spark of Change," shedding light on the various factors influencing political decisions regarding energy resources. Meanwhile, Jones (2017) delved into the complexities of electoral behavior in "Voting Patterns and Political Prowess," igniting discussions about the underlying motivations driving voters' choices. While these studies stick to the classic matches of politics and energy, our research aims to throw some kerosene into the mix and set the academic world ablaze with unexpected correlations.
Turning to more theoretical contemplations, "The Burning Question: Exploring Energy Politics" by Firestorm and Ember (2019) pokes at the smoldering debate around the influence of political climates on energy consumption. In contrast, "Vote Fires: Uncovering the Embers of Electoral Behavior" by Blaze and Ignite (2018) sparks heated discussion about the fiery passions underlying voters' decisions. These studies, while not directly related to our curious case of Republican votes in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros, provide a burning backdrop for our unconventional investigations.
Stepping into the realm of fiction, one cannot overlook the novel "Kerosene Kingdom" by Flare Up (2016) which, though not a scholarly work, kindles the imagination with its portrayal of political intrigues and the flaming desires of the human heart. Complementing this, "The Fire of Politics" by Burnbright (2014) offers a fictional exploration of the incendiary dynamics between political ideologies and societal structures. While these works are not academic in nature, they help stoke the fire of our unconventional research interests.
In the realm of popular culture, the internet meme "This is Fine" featuring a cartoon dog surrounded by flames has become a symbol of obliviousness amidst chaos – a fitting metaphor for the unexpected correlations we seek to uncover. Additionally, the "Bernie Sanders Sitting in a Chair" meme, though not overtly related to our topic, reminds us of the burning intensity of political movements and the unexpected places where these flames might spread.
In conclusion, while previous literature has fanned the flames of curiosity across various aspects of politics and energy, our study ignites a new wave of inquiry, seeking to uncover the surprising connection between Republican votes in Arkansas and kerosene consumption in Comoros. This blazing journey promises to spark lively debate, scorching insights, and perhaps a few well-charred puns along the way.

[[RESULTS]]
Our scorching investigation into the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros has illuminated a blazingly strong correlation. The results of our analysis revealed a searing correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a flamingly high r-squared of 0.8778682 over the three-alarm period from 1980 to 2020. With a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, our findings are igniting discussions and fueling curiosity around the unexpected ties between political leanings and energy consumption patterns.
Fig. 1 illustrates the incendiary connection we found, with a fiery scatterplot displaying the robust relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables. This visual representation is sure to set the research world on fire, as it demonstrates the intense heat of the correlation we've identified.
Our results have stoked the flames of interest in this unanticipated intersection of political votes in the United States and kerosene usage in Comoros. This scorching revelation opens up new avenues for interdisciplinary exploration and ignites a newfound fervor for uncovering the unexpected connections lurking in the depths of data. Stay tuned as we continue to fan the flames of curiosity and burn through the boundaries of traditional research to uncover more fiery insights.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Well, well, well, it seems like we've stumbled upon a tinderbox of unexpected connections! Our findings have set the research world ablaze with the scorching revelation of a strong relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros. Who would have thought that political preferences in the United States could be linked to the consumption of kerosene in a small island nation in the Indian Ocean? It appears that this fiery correlation has truly sparked a new wave of interdisciplinary curiosity and raised some burning questions about the underlying mechanisms at play.

Harking back to Smith and Doe's (2015) "Energy Politics: A Spark of Change," it seems that our unconventional investigation has added fuel to the fire of unexpected correlations in the realm of political decisions regarding energy resources. Our findings not only support their work but also demonstrate the red-hot potential for uncovering unanticipated relationships between seemingly unrelated variables in the realm of political behaviors and energy consumption.

Moreover, on the fictional front, "Kerosene Kingdom" by Flare Up (2016) and "The Fire of Politics" by Burnbright (2014) certainly provided a spark of imagination in considering the various dynamics of political intrigues and societal structures. While not directly academic, these works have helped fuel our appreciation for the unforeseen connections that can arise between political ideologies and energy consumption patterns.

The visual representation of our incendiary findings in Fig. 1 serves as a flamboyant testament to the robustness of the correlation we've uncovered. This fiery scatterplot is not just a visualization; it's a flamethrower of evidence that adds more kindling to the fire of our curiosity and the potential for further incendiary investigations in this domain.

In conclusion, our results have sparked a fiery passion for understanding the unexpected relationships between political votes in the United States and energy consumption patterns in Comoros. This scorching revelation has undoubtedly ignited heated debates and stoked the flames of fervor for uncovering more blazing insights in the realm of unanticipated connections. Watch out for more sparks as we continue to fan the flames of curiosity and set the research world alight with our unconventional inquiries!


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 Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and Kerosene used in Comoros. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
"Fueling the Political Fire: A Combustible Connection Between Republican Votes in Arkansas and Kerosene Consumption in Comoros"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the surprising and, dare we say, incendiary relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team delved into this unexpected correlation, sparking lively discussions and fire-related puns. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2020. This research sheds light on the curious intersection of political preferences and energy consumption patterns, igniting new avenues for interdisciplinary investigations and a fiery passion for data analysis.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the ever-burning bonfire of political investigations, one might not expect to find much kindling between the voting habits of Arkansans and the use of kerosene in the distant islands of Comoros. But as it turns out, these seemingly disparate topics are not just flickering flames in the night – they share a fiery connection that has ignited curiosity and sparked debates across the research community.
As researchers, we couldn't help but be drawn to this unexpected correlation, wondering: What flaming force links Republican votes in Arkansas to the consumption of kerosene in Comoros? Is it the lingering scent of a freshly lit torch? The unseen hand of a political firebrand? Or perhaps just a case of "hot air" influencing both political and energy behaviors?
While the relationship might seem as random as a spark in the dark, our investigation uncovered a statistical wildfire that demands attention. Our findings, a scorching correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a scalding p-value of less than 0.01 over the years 1980 to 2020, suggest that there might be more to this connection than meets the eye.
This research aims to throw fuel on the flames of curiosity, shedding light on the blistering overlap between political preferences and energy consumption patterns. By igniting new discussions and kindling interdisciplinary investigations, we hope to spark a searing passion for data analysis and set the research community ablaze with ideas for further exploration. So, grab your fire extinguishers and join us as we delve into the combustible connection between political heat and fiery fuel.

[[RESULTS]]
Our scorching investigation into the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros has illuminated a blazingly strong correlation. The results of our analysis revealed a searing correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a flamingly high r-squared of 0.8778682 over the three-alarm period from 1980 to 2020. With a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, our findings are igniting discussions and fueling curiosity around the unexpected ties between political leanings and energy consumption patterns.
Fig. 1 illustrates the incendiary connection we found, with a fiery scatterplot displaying the robust relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables. This visual representation is sure to set the research world on fire, as it demonstrates the intense heat of the correlation we've identified.
Our results have stoked the flames of interest in this unanticipated intersection of political votes in the United States and kerosene usage in Comoros. This scorching revelation opens up new avenues for interdisciplinary exploration and ignites a newfound fervor for uncovering the unexpected connections lurking in the depths of data. Stay tuned as we continue to fan the flames of curiosity and burn through the boundaries of traditional research to uncover more fiery insights.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has shed a blazing light on the unlikely yet undeniably sizzling relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros. The scorching correlation coefficient and flamingly high r-squared value over the years 1980 to 2020 have left us hot under the collar, sparking wild theories and igniting a wildfire of curiosity in the academic community.

Uncovering this connection is like finding a match in a haystack – unexpected and, dare I say, a little "fuel"ish. It's as if the voting booths in Arkansas are sending smoke signals across the ocean, influencing energy choices in Comoros. Perhaps these findings suggest that political leanings are so hot right now, they're even affecting global energy consumption – talk about a red-hot political climate!

While our results have set the research world ablaze with excitement, we must be cautious not to get burned by overinterpretation. But fear not, fellow researchers, because our findings have undoubtedly stoked the flames of curiosity in uncovering unexpected connections in data. It's like we've thrown a burning log into the pit of traditional research and are watching the sparks fly!

Nevertheless, when it comes to this correlation, we urge restraint – after all, we don't want to fan the flames of speculation too fiercely. We believe that our scorching investigation has sufficiently kindled the research community's interest and sparked a fiery passion for uncovering the unexpected. Rest assured, no more research is needed in this area. The inferno of knowledge that we've ignited will undoubtedly continue to burn bright, warming the hearts of future researchers and illuminating new paths for interdisciplinary exploration.


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 Fueling the Political Fire: A Combustible Connection Between Republican Votes in Arkansas and Kerosene Consumption in Comoros. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Eccentric Socio-Political Connections


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 Fueling the Political Fire: A Combustible Connection Between Republican Votes in Arkansas and Kerosene Consumption in Comoros. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for International Energy and Environmental Research (SIEER)


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 Fueling the Political Fire: A Combustible Connection Between Republican Votes in Arkansas and Kerosene Consumption in Comoros with an abstract of In this study, we investigate the surprising and, dare we say, incendiary relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas and kerosene usage in Comoros. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team delved into this unexpected correlation, sparking lively discussions and fire-related puns. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9369462 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 1980 to 2020. This research sheds light on the curious intersection of political preferences and energy consumption patterns, igniting new avenues for interdisciplinary investigations and a fiery passion for data analysis.

ChatGPT:

Republican votes Arkansas, kerosene consumption Comoros, political preference correlation energy consumption, MIT Election Data Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Energy Information Administration, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, interdisciplinary investigations, data analysis

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

Kerosene used in Comoros
Detailed data title: Volume of kerosene used consumed in Comoros in millions of barrels per day
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Kerosene used in Comoros

Correlation r = 0.9369462 (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 = 0.8778682 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 87.8% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Kerosene used in Comoros) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Arkansas) over the 12 years from 1980 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 7.06E-6. 0.0000070568567466602630000000
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 0.94 in 0.000706% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 141,706 random variables You don't actually need 141 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 11 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 11 because we have two variables measured over a period of 12 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.

[ 0.79, 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.
198019841986199219961998200220042010201420162020
Votes for Republican Senators in Arkansas (Total votes)330576373615262313366373445942295870370735458036451618478819661984793871
Kerosene used in Comoros (Million Barrels/Day)0.1165470.1165470.063530.084480.084480.084710.105890.1689620.1651890.2155930.2430930.333046




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([330576,373615,262313,366373,445942,295870,370735,458036,451618,478819,661984,793871,])
array_2 = np.array([0.116547,0.116547,0.06353,0.08448,0.08448,0.08471,0.10589,0.168962,0.165189,0.215593,0.243093,0.333046,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Arkansas"
array_2_name = "Kerosene used in Comoros"

# 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?

Kudos for rating!


Correlation ID: 4376 · Black Variable ID: 26206 · Red Variable ID: 24308
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0