about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,767 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota and the second variable is Number of Lawyers in the United States.  The chart goes from 1989 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the Republican candidate gained popularity in South Dakota, more and more people in the state were inspired to pursue legal careers. Whether it was the passion for argumentation or the thrill of debate, the correlation between political support and the influx of future attorneys was undeniable. It was as if every vote cast had somehow summoned a new lawyer to join the ranks, leading to a surge in legal professionals across the entire country. It was a political spectacle with a legal twist, as the campaign trail seemed to directly shape the legal landscape, one vote at a time.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a vast, rolling prairie landscape under a sky filled with dramatic clouds. In the foreground, visualize a group of young, determined individuals in professional attire casting their votes, with each ballot appearing to materialize a new lawyer. The scene should convey the fusion of political fervor and legal aspiration, with a sense of momentum and transformation. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota and Number of Lawyers in the United States. 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: Cubism Cybernetic art A scene from Skyrim Cyber folk Voxel art
ChatGPT: A scene from Skyrim

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota and Number of Lawyers in the United States, in the following situation: As the Republican candidate gained popularity in South Dakota, more and more people in the state were inspired to pursue legal careers. Whether it was the passion for argumentation or the thrill of debate, the correlation between political support and the influx of future attorneys was undeniable. It was as if every vote cast had somehow summoned a new lawyer to join the ranks, leading to a surge in legal professionals across the entire country. It was a political spectacle with a legal twist, as the campaign trail seemed to directly shape the legal landscape, one vote at a time.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: Amidst the rolling plains of South Dakota, a wave of red votes swept across the state, capturing the attention of aspiring individuals. Inspired by the fervor of the political climate, a steady stream of future lawyers emerged, their eager faces reflecting the determination to join the legal profession. As each ballot was cast, it seemed to materialize a new lawyer, and this ripple effect extended far beyond the state, transforming the legal landscape across the entire country. The crossroads of politics and law paved the way for a surge in legal professionals, as South Dakota's Republican support ignited a legal revolution.

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 scene from Skyrim ] and depicting this scene: Amidst the rolling plains of South Dakota, a wave of red votes swept across the state, capturing the attention of aspiring individuals. Inspired by the fervor of the political climate, a steady stream of future lawyers emerged, their eager faces reflecting the determination to join the legal profession. As each ballot was cast, it seemed to materialize a new lawyer, and this ripple effect extended far beyond the state, transforming the legal landscape across the entire country. The crossroads of politics and law paved the way for a surge in legal professionals, as South Dakota's Republican support ignited a legal revolution. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a vast, rolling prairie landscape under a sky filled with dramatic clouds. In the foreground, visualize a group of young, determined individuals in professional attire casting their votes, with each ballot appearing to materialize a new lawyer. The scene should convey the fusion of political fervor and legal aspiration, with a sense of momentum and transformation.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota caused Number of Lawyers in the United States to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Legal Luminary Likings: Linking Republican Votes in South Dakota to Lawyers in the United States

The Journal of Legal Sociology & Political Behavior

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and ABA to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8174327 and p < 0.05 for 1989 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]]
Legal Luminary Likings: Linking Republican Votes in South Dakota to Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the voting patterns for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of South Dakota and the number of legal professionals across the United States. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, our research team explored the correlation between these seemingly disparate variables. We utilized statistical analysis to uncover a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8174327, with a p-value of less than 0.05, for the time period spanning from 1989 to 2020. Our findings provide a tantalizing glimpse into the intricate dynamics at play, shedding light on the curious relationship between political preferences and the legal landscape. This research not only offers a fresh perspective on the influence of political affinity on professional demographics, but also unravels the legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Legal Luminary Likings: Linking Republican Votes in South Dakota to Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the voting patterns for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of South Dakota and the number of legal professionals across the United States. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, our research team explored the correlation between these seemingly disparate variables. We utilized statistical analysis to uncover a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8174327, with a p-value of less than 0.05, for the time period spanning from 1989 to 2020. Our findings provide a tantalizing glimpse into the intricate dynamics at play, shedding light on the curious relationship between political preferences and the legal landscape. This research not only offers a fresh perspective on the influence of political affinity on professional demographics, but also unravels the legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

In the realm of voting behaviors and professional demographics, there often lurks an enigmatic connection waiting to be unraveled. The relationship between political leanings and the professional landscape is a topic that has long piqued scholarly interest, drawing researchers into a web of statistical analysis and survey data.

In this paper, we venture into the fascinating intersection of legal luminary likings, seeking to unveil the correlation between votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the abundance of lawyers scattered across the expanse of the United States. While the connection may seem as convoluted as a legal brief, our exploration aims to shine a light on the subtle interplay between political affiliations and the legal profession, all while maintaining a sense of scholarly decorum – or at least attempting to do so.

The variables in question – Republican votes in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States – may appear to be as unrelated as an economist's sense of humor and a stand-up comedy routine. However, as we delve deeper into the statistical intricacies, we might be surprised to find that there lies a somewhat unexpected correlation waiting to be unearthed, much like a buried treasure in a desert of mundane associations.

The intellectual quest at hand delves beyond mere data analysis; it is akin to navigating a labyrinth of numbers and trend lines in search of the proverbial needle in a haystack, or perhaps the statistical significance in a sea of seemingly insignificant variables. Our journey, supported by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, seeks to bring to light a correlation coefficient that not only stands firm amidst the academic scrutiny but also presents itself with a p-value as rare as a unicorn sighting – less than 0.05.

As researchers, we must approach this investigation with all due seriousness, carefully applying statistical methodologies to unearth the hidden relationship between political proclivities and the legal domain. Yet, that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the unexpected humor and irony that might emerge from the analysis, much like finding a well-placed joke in a book on quantum physics – surprising and oddly refreshing.

In this paper, we invite our fellow academics to journey alongside us as we untangle the intertwined threads of political allegiance and the legal profession, all the while embracing the occasional statistical pun or unexpected twist that may subtly weave its way into our analysis. For amidst the serious pursuit of scholarly inquiry, there's always room for a dash of statistical whimsy.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 some movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Legal Luminary Likings: Linking Republican Votes in South Dakota to Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the voting patterns for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of South Dakota and the number of legal professionals across the United States. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, our research team explored the correlation between these seemingly disparate variables. We utilized statistical analysis to uncover a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8174327, with a p-value of less than 0.05, for the time period spanning from 1989 to 2020. Our findings provide a tantalizing glimpse into the intricate dynamics at play, shedding light on the curious relationship between political preferences and the legal landscape. This research not only offers a fresh perspective on the influence of political affinity on professional demographics, but also unravels the legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of voting behaviors and professional demographics, there often lurks an enigmatic connection waiting to be unraveled. The relationship between political leanings and the professional landscape is a topic that has long piqued scholarly interest, drawing researchers into a web of statistical analysis and survey data.
In this paper, we venture into the fascinating intersection of legal luminary likings, seeking to unveil the correlation between votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the abundance of lawyers scattered across the expanse of the United States. While the connection may seem as convoluted as a legal brief, our exploration aims to shine a light on the subtle interplay between political affiliations and the legal profession, all while maintaining a sense of scholarly decorum – or at least attempting to do so.
The variables in question – Republican votes in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States – may appear to be as unrelated as an economist's sense of humor and a stand-up comedy routine. However, as we delve deeper into the statistical intricacies, we might be surprised to find that there lies a somewhat unexpected correlation waiting to be unearthed, much like a buried treasure in a desert of mundane associations.
The intellectual quest at hand delves beyond mere data analysis; it is akin to navigating a labyrinth of numbers and trend lines in search of the proverbial needle in a haystack, or perhaps the statistical significance in a sea of seemingly insignificant variables. Our journey, supported by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, seeks to bring to light a correlation coefficient that not only stands firm amidst the academic scrutiny but also presents itself with a p-value as rare as a unicorn sighting – less than 0.05.
As researchers, we must approach this investigation with all due seriousness, carefully applying statistical methodologies to unearth the hidden relationship between political proclivities and the legal domain. Yet, that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the unexpected humor and irony that might emerge from the analysis, much like finding a well-placed joke in a book on quantum physics – surprising and oddly refreshing.
In this paper, we invite our fellow academics to journey alongside us as we untangle the intertwined threads of political allegiance and the legal profession, all the while embracing the occasional statistical pun or unexpected twist that may subtly weave its way into our analysis. For amidst the serious pursuit of scholarly inquiry, there's always room for a dash of statistical whimsy.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The authors find that the intricacies of the relationship between political preferences and professional demographics have long fascinated scholars across various disciplines. Smith, in their study "Political Leanings and Professional Landscapes," delved into the correlation between voting behavior and occupational distributions, highlighting the underlying complexity of these seemingly distinct domains. Similarly, Doe, in "Election Dynamics and Professional Demographics," unraveled the nuanced interplay between political affiliations and the professional landscape, setting the stage for further exploration in this intriguing realm.

As we embark on our quest to unravel the connection between votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the prevalence of legal professionals across the United States, it is imperative to appreciate the breadth of literature that informs our pursuit. Jones, in "Legal Luminaries: A Sociopolitical Analysis," shed light on the influence of legal luminaries on political leanings, offering insights that echo the very essence of our inquiry.

Moving beyond the academic realm, non-fiction works such as "The American Legal System: A Sociopolitical Perspective" by Author A and "Democracy and Demographics: Unveiling Correlations" by Author B, have provided invaluable insights into the complex interrelationships between political affiliations and professional landscapes. These works underscore the deep-seated intrigue surrounding the entwined fabrics of politics and the legal domain, mirroring the essence of our study.

In a departure from the conventional, yet not entirely divorced from our exploration, fictional works such as "The Lawyer's Lament" by Novelist X and "Political Pandemonium: A Legal Odyssey" by Novelist Y, offer a whimsical lens through which to view the intersection of legal luminaries and political proclivities, weaving a tapestry of imagination that beckons us to appreciate the lighter side of our scholarly pursuits.

Furthermore, cinematic experiences such as "Legal Battles and Ballot Boxes" and "The Lawyer's Campaign: A Political Comedy," though not empirical in nature, provide a semblance of the societal undercurrents that intersect between political preferences and the legal profession, offering glimpses into the realm of parallel narratives that resonate with our investigation.

Thus, amidst the scholarly expanse of literature and the fictitious realms of imagination, our quest to unveil the connection between Republican votes in South Dakota and the abundance of lawyers in the United States finds itself nestled within a tapestry woven with both intellectual rigor and a hint of whimsical curiosity.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 ABA . You used data from 1989 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]]
Legal Luminary Likings: Linking Republican Votes in South Dakota to Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the voting patterns for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of South Dakota and the number of legal professionals across the United States. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, our research team explored the correlation between these seemingly disparate variables. We utilized statistical analysis to uncover a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8174327, with a p-value of less than 0.05, for the time period spanning from 1989 to 2020. Our findings provide a tantalizing glimpse into the intricate dynamics at play, shedding light on the curious relationship between political preferences and the legal landscape. This research not only offers a fresh perspective on the influence of political affinity on professional demographics, but also unravels the legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of voting behaviors and professional demographics, there often lurks an enigmatic connection waiting to be unraveled. The relationship between political leanings and the professional landscape is a topic that has long piqued scholarly interest, drawing researchers into a web of statistical analysis and survey data.
In this paper, we venture into the fascinating intersection of legal luminary likings, seeking to unveil the correlation between votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the abundance of lawyers scattered across the expanse of the United States. While the connection may seem as convoluted as a legal brief, our exploration aims to shine a light on the subtle interplay between political affiliations and the legal profession, all while maintaining a sense of scholarly decorum – or at least attempting to do so.
The variables in question – Republican votes in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States – may appear to be as unrelated as an economist's sense of humor and a stand-up comedy routine. However, as we delve deeper into the statistical intricacies, we might be surprised to find that there lies a somewhat unexpected correlation waiting to be unearthed, much like a buried treasure in a desert of mundane associations.
The intellectual quest at hand delves beyond mere data analysis; it is akin to navigating a labyrinth of numbers and trend lines in search of the proverbial needle in a haystack, or perhaps the statistical significance in a sea of seemingly insignificant variables. Our journey, supported by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, seeks to bring to light a correlation coefficient that not only stands firm amidst the academic scrutiny but also presents itself with a p-value as rare as a unicorn sighting – less than 0.05.
As researchers, we must approach this investigation with all due seriousness, carefully applying statistical methodologies to unearth the hidden relationship between political proclivities and the legal domain. Yet, that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the unexpected humor and irony that might emerge from the analysis, much like finding a well-placed joke in a book on quantum physics – surprising and oddly refreshing.
In this paper, we invite our fellow academics to journey alongside us as we untangle the intertwined threads of political allegiance and the legal profession, all the while embracing the occasional statistical pun or unexpected twist that may subtly weave its way into our analysis. For amidst the serious pursuit of scholarly inquiry, there's always room for a dash of statistical whimsy.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Data Collection:
Our research team undertook the Herculean task of gathering data from various sources scattered across the vast expanse of the internet. Channels such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association served as our treasure troves, supplying us with a plethora of information to decipher the intricate relationship between Republican votes in South Dakota and the number of legal professionals in the United States. We meticulously combed through datasets spanning the years from 1989 to 2020, ensuring that no statistical stone was left unturned in our quest for meaningful correlations.

Variable Measurement:
The approach to quantifying our variables was as precise as a surgeon's scalpel, albeit without the dramatic tension of an operating theater. Republican votes in South Dakota were meticulously tallied, capturing the political pulse of the state with the meticulousness of an electoral symphony conductor, while the number of lawyers in the United States was ascertained with all the rigor of a legal census. Our measures were designed to capture not only the quantitative essence of these variables but also their subtle, qualitative undertones – much like capturing the elusive nuances of a verbal contract in legal parlance.

Statistical Analysis:
With our data in hand, we embarked on a statistical odyssey that would have made the ancient explorers' journeys look like mere walkabouts in comparison. Leveraging time-tested statistical techniques, we drew upon the power of correlation analysis to unveil the hidden connection between Republican votes in South Dakota and the legal landscape of the entire nation. Our statistical methods were as robust as a courthouse door, ensuring that the correlations we uncovered were not mere statistical mirages, but rather substantive relationships worthy of scholarly attention.

Modeling and Hypothesis Testing:
Employing the tools of regression analysis, we constructed models that sought to encapsulate the complexities of the interplay between political affinities and legal professions. Our hypothesis testing was as rigorous as a legal argument in the Supreme Court, employing critical p-values to discern the significance of the discovered correlations. The testing process was as meticulous as scrutinizing a contract for loopholes, ensuring that the relationships we uncovered were not mere statistical flukes, but rather robust and meaningful associations deserving of academic deliberation.

Limitations:
As with any scientific endeavor, our research encountered its fair share of limitations, not unlike a legal case grappling with evidentiary constraints. While our sample size was substantial, encompassing data spanning over three decades, the correlative nature of our study does not imply causation. Furthermore, the complexity of political and legal dynamics beckons for further nuanced investigations, akin to navigating the labyrinthine corridors of legal statutes and political ideologies.

This methodology, while rigorously structured, tiptoed into the realm of statistical humor and scholarly whimsy, capturing the subtle undertones of academia with the flair of a well-timed pun in a research paper.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 ABA .

For the time period 1989 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8174327, r-squared of 0.6681962, 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]]
Legal Luminary Likings: Linking Republican Votes in South Dakota to Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the voting patterns for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of South Dakota and the number of legal professionals across the United States. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, our research team explored the correlation between these seemingly disparate variables. We utilized statistical analysis to uncover a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8174327, with a p-value of less than 0.05, for the time period spanning from 1989 to 2020. Our findings provide a tantalizing glimpse into the intricate dynamics at play, shedding light on the curious relationship between political preferences and the legal landscape. This research not only offers a fresh perspective on the influence of political affinity on professional demographics, but also unravels the legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the realm of voting behaviors and professional demographics, there often lurks an enigmatic connection waiting to be unraveled. The relationship between political leanings and the professional landscape is a topic that has long piqued scholarly interest, drawing researchers into a web of statistical analysis and survey data.
In this paper, we venture into the fascinating intersection of legal luminary likings, seeking to unveil the correlation between votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the abundance of lawyers scattered across the expanse of the United States. While the connection may seem as convoluted as a legal brief, our exploration aims to shine a light on the subtle interplay between political affiliations and the legal profession, all while maintaining a sense of scholarly decorum – or at least attempting to do so.
The variables in question – Republican votes in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States – may appear to be as unrelated as an economist's sense of humor and a stand-up comedy routine. However, as we delve deeper into the statistical intricacies, we might be surprised to find that there lies a somewhat unexpected correlation waiting to be unearthed, much like a buried treasure in a desert of mundane associations.
The intellectual quest at hand delves beyond mere data analysis; it is akin to navigating a labyrinth of numbers and trend lines in search of the proverbial needle in a haystack, or perhaps the statistical significance in a sea of seemingly insignificant variables. Our journey, supported by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, seeks to bring to light a correlation coefficient that not only stands firm amidst the academic scrutiny but also presents itself with a p-value as rare as a unicorn sighting – less than 0.05.
As researchers, we must approach this investigation with all due seriousness, carefully applying statistical methodologies to unearth the hidden relationship between political proclivities and the legal domain. Yet, that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the unexpected humor and irony that might emerge from the analysis, much like finding a well-placed joke in a book on quantum physics – surprising and oddly refreshing.
In this paper, we invite our fellow academics to journey alongside us as we untangle the intertwined threads of political allegiance and the legal profession, all the while embracing the occasional statistical pun or unexpected twist that may subtly weave its way into our analysis. For amidst the serious pursuit of scholarly inquiry, there's always room for a dash of statistical whimsy.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our analysis unearthed a robust correlation between the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8174327, we found a striking relationship that is as solid as a well-argued legal brief. This coefficient indicates a strong positive association between these seemingly disparate variables, reminiscent of the unexpected camaraderie between a lawyer and a statistics whiz at a cocktail party.

Furthermore, our analysis revealed an r-squared value of 0.6681962, suggesting that approximately 66.82% of the variation in the number of lawyers in the United States can be explained by the votes for the Republican candidate in South Dakota. This finding exemplifies the magnitude of influence that political preferences can exert on the demographics of the legal profession, akin to the pervasive impact of a compelling courtroom argument on the jury's deliberation.

In addition, the p-value of less than 0.05 lends strong support to the significant relationship discovered in our analysis. This level of statistical significance ensures that our findings are as reliable as a trustworthy legal counselor, standing firm amidst the onslaught of academic scrutiny like a meticulously crafted legal defense.

Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot visually capturing the compelling correlation between Republican votes in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States. The scatterplot showcases the coherence between these variables, evoking a sense of harmonious legal-political symphony, much like the unexpected consonance between a legal statute and a political speech.

In essence, our findings illuminate the intricate interplay between political preferences and the legal landscape, offering a fresh lens through which to view the fascinating dynamics underlying professional demographics. This robust correlation sheds light on the profound implications of political affinity on the composition of the legal profession, revealing the legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns, much like a surprising twist in a legal drama.

In conclusion, our research not only provides a tantalizing glimpse into the unexpected alliance between political inclinations and the realm of legal professionals but also serves as a testament to the subtle harmony that can emerge from the unlikeliest of statistical duos.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Legal Luminary Likings: Linking Republican Votes in South Dakota to Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the voting patterns for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of South Dakota and the number of legal professionals across the United States. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, our research team explored the correlation between these seemingly disparate variables. We utilized statistical analysis to uncover a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8174327, with a p-value of less than 0.05, for the time period spanning from 1989 to 2020. Our findings provide a tantalizing glimpse into the intricate dynamics at play, shedding light on the curious relationship between political preferences and the legal landscape. This research not only offers a fresh perspective on the influence of political affinity on professional demographics, but also unravels the legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The authors find that the intricacies of the relationship between political preferences and professional demographics have long fascinated scholars across various disciplines. Smith, in their study "Political Leanings and Professional Landscapes," delved into the correlation between voting behavior and occupational distributions, highlighting the underlying complexity of these seemingly distinct domains. Similarly, Doe, in "Election Dynamics and Professional Demographics," unraveled the nuanced interplay between political affiliations and the professional landscape, setting the stage for further exploration in this intriguing realm.
As we embark on our quest to unravel the connection between votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the prevalence of legal professionals across the United States, it is imperative to appreciate the breadth of literature that informs our pursuit. Jones, in "Legal Luminaries: A Sociopolitical Analysis," shed light on the influence of legal luminaries on political leanings, offering insights that echo the very essence of our inquiry.
Moving beyond the academic realm, non-fiction works such as "The American Legal System: A Sociopolitical Perspective" by Author A and "Democracy and Demographics: Unveiling Correlations" by Author B, have provided invaluable insights into the complex interrelationships between political affiliations and professional landscapes. These works underscore the deep-seated intrigue surrounding the entwined fabrics of politics and the legal domain, mirroring the essence of our study.
In a departure from the conventional, yet not entirely divorced from our exploration, fictional works such as "The Lawyer's Lament" by Novelist X and "Political Pandemonium: A Legal Odyssey" by Novelist Y, offer a whimsical lens through which to view the intersection of legal luminaries and political proclivities, weaving a tapestry of imagination that beckons us to appreciate the lighter side of our scholarly pursuits.
Furthermore, cinematic experiences such as "Legal Battles and Ballot Boxes" and "The Lawyer's Campaign: A Political Comedy," though not empirical in nature, provide a semblance of the societal undercurrents that intersect between political preferences and the legal profession, offering glimpses into the realm of parallel narratives that resonate with our investigation.
Thus, amidst the scholarly expanse of literature and the fictitious realms of imagination, our quest to unveil the connection between Republican votes in South Dakota and the abundance of lawyers in the United States finds itself nestled within a tapestry woven with both intellectual rigor and a hint of whimsical curiosity.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis unearthed a robust correlation between the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8174327, we found a striking relationship that is as solid as a well-argued legal brief. This coefficient indicates a strong positive association between these seemingly disparate variables, reminiscent of the unexpected camaraderie between a lawyer and a statistics whiz at a cocktail party.
Furthermore, our analysis revealed an r-squared value of 0.6681962, suggesting that approximately 66.82% of the variation in the number of lawyers in the United States can be explained by the votes for the Republican candidate in South Dakota. This finding exemplifies the magnitude of influence that political preferences can exert on the demographics of the legal profession, akin to the pervasive impact of a compelling courtroom argument on the jury's deliberation.
In addition, the p-value of less than 0.05 lends strong support to the significant relationship discovered in our analysis. This level of statistical significance ensures that our findings are as reliable as a trustworthy legal counselor, standing firm amidst the onslaught of academic scrutiny like a meticulously crafted legal defense.
Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot visually capturing the compelling correlation between Republican votes in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States. The scatterplot showcases the coherence between these variables, evoking a sense of harmonious legal-political symphony, much like the unexpected consonance between a legal statute and a political speech.
In essence, our findings illuminate the intricate interplay between political preferences and the legal landscape, offering a fresh lens through which to view the fascinating dynamics underlying professional demographics. This robust correlation sheds light on the profound implications of political affinity on the composition of the legal profession, revealing the legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns, much like a surprising twist in a legal drama.
In conclusion, our research not only provides a tantalizing glimpse into the unexpected alliance between political inclinations and the realm of legal professionals but also serves as a testament to the subtle harmony that can emerge from the unlikeliest of statistical duos.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings lend empirical support to the notion that there exists a compelling relationship between the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the abundance of legal professionals across the United States. This association is as sturdy as the legal framework of a well-crafted contract, underscoring the substantial influence of political preferences on the composition of the legal landscape.

Our results align with prior research, echoing the intricate dynamics highlighted by Smith in their study "Political Leanings and Professional Landscapes." The robust correlation coefficient uncovered in our analysis reinforces the notion that the interplay between political affiliations and professional demographics is as intertwined as a convoluted legal argument. Additionally, our findings resonate with Doe's exploration of the nuanced relationship between election dynamics and occupational distributions, reaffirming the intricate tapestry of connections between seemingly disparate domains.

Moreover, our research embraces the whimsy inherent in the intersection of legal luminaries and political proclivities, echoing the lighthearted observations presented in fictional works such as "The Lawyer's Lament" by Novelist X. The unexpected camaraderie between Republican votes in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States mirrors the surprising alliance between a legal statute and a political speech, encapsulating the playful yet profound nature of our scholarly pursuits.

In a testament to the unanticipated harmonious resonance between statistical variables, our analysis demonstrates the magnitude of influence that political preferences can exert on the demographics of the legal profession. The substantial r-squared value exemplifies the captivating sway of political affinity on the composition of the legal landscape, akin to the persuasive impact of a compelling courtroom argument on the jury's deliberation. In a nod to cinematic depictions, our research unravels a parallel narrative that resonates with the societal undercurrents at the intersection of political leanings and the legal profession, showcasing the subtle harmony that emerges from the unlikeliest of statistical duos.

In essence, our work not only sheds light on the profound implications of political affinity on the professional domain but also presents a whimsical lens through which to view the intricate interplay between political preferences and the legal landscape. Through the lens of our research, the dazzling correlation between Republican votes in South Dakota and the abundance of lawyers in the United States reveals the fascinating legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns, much like an unexpected twist in a legal drama.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Legal Luminary Likings: Linking Republican Votes in South Dakota to Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the intriguing connection between the voting patterns for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of South Dakota and the number of legal professionals across the United States. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, our research team explored the correlation between these seemingly disparate variables. We utilized statistical analysis to uncover a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8174327, with a p-value of less than 0.05, for the time period spanning from 1989 to 2020. Our findings provide a tantalizing glimpse into the intricate dynamics at play, shedding light on the curious relationship between political preferences and the legal landscape. This research not only offers a fresh perspective on the influence of political affinity on professional demographics, but also unravels the legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the realm of voting behaviors and professional demographics, there often lurks an enigmatic connection waiting to be unraveled. The relationship between political leanings and the professional landscape is a topic that has long piqued scholarly interest, drawing researchers into a web of statistical analysis and survey data.
In this paper, we venture into the fascinating intersection of legal luminary likings, seeking to unveil the correlation between votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the abundance of lawyers scattered across the expanse of the United States. While the connection may seem as convoluted as a legal brief, our exploration aims to shine a light on the subtle interplay between political affiliations and the legal profession, all while maintaining a sense of scholarly decorum – or at least attempting to do so.
The variables in question – Republican votes in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States – may appear to be as unrelated as an economist's sense of humor and a stand-up comedy routine. However, as we delve deeper into the statistical intricacies, we might be surprised to find that there lies a somewhat unexpected correlation waiting to be unearthed, much like a buried treasure in a desert of mundane associations.
The intellectual quest at hand delves beyond mere data analysis; it is akin to navigating a labyrinth of numbers and trend lines in search of the proverbial needle in a haystack, or perhaps the statistical significance in a sea of seemingly insignificant variables. Our journey, supported by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, seeks to bring to light a correlation coefficient that not only stands firm amidst the academic scrutiny but also presents itself with a p-value as rare as a unicorn sighting – less than 0.05.
As researchers, we must approach this investigation with all due seriousness, carefully applying statistical methodologies to unearth the hidden relationship between political proclivities and the legal domain. Yet, that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the unexpected humor and irony that might emerge from the analysis, much like finding a well-placed joke in a book on quantum physics – surprising and oddly refreshing.
In this paper, we invite our fellow academics to journey alongside us as we untangle the intertwined threads of political allegiance and the legal profession, all the while embracing the occasional statistical pun or unexpected twist that may subtly weave its way into our analysis. For amidst the serious pursuit of scholarly inquiry, there's always room for a dash of statistical whimsy.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis unearthed a robust correlation between the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8174327, we found a striking relationship that is as solid as a well-argued legal brief. This coefficient indicates a strong positive association between these seemingly disparate variables, reminiscent of the unexpected camaraderie between a lawyer and a statistics whiz at a cocktail party.
Furthermore, our analysis revealed an r-squared value of 0.6681962, suggesting that approximately 66.82% of the variation in the number of lawyers in the United States can be explained by the votes for the Republican candidate in South Dakota. This finding exemplifies the magnitude of influence that political preferences can exert on the demographics of the legal profession, akin to the pervasive impact of a compelling courtroom argument on the jury's deliberation.
In addition, the p-value of less than 0.05 lends strong support to the significant relationship discovered in our analysis. This level of statistical significance ensures that our findings are as reliable as a trustworthy legal counselor, standing firm amidst the onslaught of academic scrutiny like a meticulously crafted legal defense.
Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot visually capturing the compelling correlation between Republican votes in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States. The scatterplot showcases the coherence between these variables, evoking a sense of harmonious legal-political symphony, much like the unexpected consonance between a legal statute and a political speech.
In essence, our findings illuminate the intricate interplay between political preferences and the legal landscape, offering a fresh lens through which to view the fascinating dynamics underlying professional demographics. This robust correlation sheds light on the profound implications of political affinity on the composition of the legal profession, revealing the legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns, much like a surprising twist in a legal drama.
In conclusion, our research not only provides a tantalizing glimpse into the unexpected alliance between political inclinations and the realm of legal professionals but also serves as a testament to the subtle harmony that can emerge from the unlikeliest of statistical duos.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has successfully shed light on the enigmatic connection between votes for the Republican presidential candidate in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.8174327 signifies a compelling link akin to the unanticipated camaraderie between a legal brief and a statistical analysis. This finding not only underscores the surprising interplay between political leanings and the legal landscape but also provides a statistical storyline as captivating as a legal thriller.

The r-squared value of 0.6681962 indicates the substantial influence of political preferences on the demographics of the legal profession, akin to the irresistible allure of a well-constructed argument in a courtroom setting. Additionally, the p-value of less than 0.05 reinforces the reliability and significance of our findings, akin to the unwavering credibility of a seasoned legal counselor navigating the nuances of a complex case.

The scatterplot visually captures the captivating correlation between Republican votes in South Dakota and the number of lawyers in the United States, evoking a sense of harmonious legal-political symphony reminiscent of an unexpected duet between law and politics.

Thus, our research illuminates the unexpected alliance between political inclinations and the realm of legal professionals, narrating a statistical saga as intriguing as a legal drama with surprising plot twists and turns. It invites the scholarly community to appreciate the curious richness of statistical inquiry and the delightful whimsy that can emerge from the unlikeliest of statistical duos.

In light of these compelling findings, we assert that this research offers a thorough exploration of the connection between Republican votes in South Dakota and the abundance of lawyers in the United States. Therefore, we offer the firm conclusion that further research in this area is as unnecessary as a double jeopardy charge – or in layman's terms, not needed at all.


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 Legal Luminary Likings: Linking Republican Votes in South Dakota to Lawyers in the United States. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Legal Sociology & Political Behavior


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 Legal Luminary Likings: Linking Republican Votes in South Dakota to Lawyers in the United States. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Legal and Legislative Analysis (ILLA)


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 Legal Luminary Likings: Linking Republican Votes in South Dakota to Lawyers in the United States with an abstract of This study delves into the intriguing connection between the voting patterns for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of South Dakota and the number of legal professionals across the United States. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the American Bar Association, our research team explored the correlation between these seemingly disparate variables. We utilized statistical analysis to uncover a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8174327, with a p-value of less than 0.05, for the time period spanning from 1989 to 2020. Our findings provide a tantalizing glimpse into the intricate dynamics at play, shedding light on the curious relationship between political preferences and the legal landscape. This research not only offers a fresh perspective on the influence of political affinity on professional demographics, but also unravels the legal lunacy lurking beneath the surface of societal patterns.

ChatGPT:

Republican votes, South Dakota, lawyers, United States, political preferences, legal professionals, correlation, statistical analysis, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, American Bar Association, political affinity, professional demographics, societal patterns

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota
Detailed data title: Percentage of all votes cast for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota

Number of Lawyers in the United States
Detailed data title: The Count of ABA Lawyers in the United States
Source: ABA
See what else correlates with Number of Lawyers in the United States

Correlation r = 0.8174327 (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 = 0.6681962 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 66.8% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Number of Lawyers in the United States) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota) over the 8 years from 1989 through 2020.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.013. 0.0132058325078401540000000000
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 0.82 in 1.3% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 76 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 7 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 7 because we have two variables measured over a period of 8 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.

[ 0.27, 0.97 ] 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.
19921996200020042008201220162020
Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota (Percentage of votes)40.659146.488960.296859.911153.15957.889361.530861.7694
Number of Lawyers in the United States (Lawyers)799760953260102246010845001162120124520013128701328740




Why this works

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




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([40.6591,46.4889,60.2968,59.9111,53.159,57.8893,61.5308,61.7694,])
array_2 = np.array([799760,953260,1022460,1084500,1162120,1245200,1312870,1328740,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in South Dakota"
array_2_name = "Number of Lawyers in the United States"

# 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 a rater extraordinaire!


Correlation ID: 4767 · Black Variable ID: 26169 · Red Variable ID: 542
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0