about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,056 · 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 Delaware and the second variable is Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number.  The chart goes from 2002 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

It's a little-known fact that the collective positive energy from the Republican voters in Delaware was inadvertently influencing the outcome of the Mega Millions lottery. Their shared belief in conservative principles somehow aligned with the probability of 21 being drawn as the winning number. Who would've thought that political participation could have such a direct impact on lottery results? It's a statistical anomaly that's as puzzling as it is amusing!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a serene Delaware town on a crisp fall day. The focal point should be the quaint town hall adorned with American flags and surrounded by vibrant fall foliage. In the foreground, depict a group of local Republican voters happily making their way to cast their ballots, creating a serene and cozy atmosphere. In the background, show a convenience store with patrons checking their Mega Millions tickets in front of a glowing lottery board. Among the myriad digits, the number 21 should shine brightly, adding an element of chance and excitement to the scene, all while maintaining a sense of charm and inexplicable connection between politics and luck. 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 Delaware and Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number. 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: Cyberpunk An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie A TIME magazine cover image a funny image you would see on reddit Charcoal
ChatGPT: A TIME 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 Delaware and Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number, in the following situation: It's a little-known fact that the collective positive energy from the Republican voters in Delaware was inadvertently influencing the outcome of the Mega Millions lottery. Their shared belief in conservative principles somehow aligned with the probability of 21 being drawn as the winning number. Who would've thought that political participation could have such a direct impact on lottery results? It's a statistical anomaly that's as puzzling as it is amusing!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a cozy Delaware town, the local Republican voters gather at the quaint town hall to cast their ballots. The charming building is adorned with American flags and fall foliage, and a cheerful buzz fills the air as citizens exercise their civic duty. Meanwhile, at the nearby convenience store, a lucky few are checking their Mega Millions tickets in front of the glowing lottery board, as the number 21 shines brightly among the myriad digits. It's a scene where politics and chance seem to intertwine in a curious, inexplicable dance.

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 TIME magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In a cozy Delaware town, the local Republican voters gather at the quaint town hall to cast their ballots. The charming building is adorned with American flags and fall foliage, and a cheerful buzz fills the air as citizens exercise their civic duty. Meanwhile, at the nearby convenience store, a lucky few are checking their Mega Millions tickets in front of the glowing lottery board, as the number 21 shines brightly among the myriad digits. It's a scene where politics and chance seem to intertwine in a curious, inexplicable dance. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a serene Delaware town on a crisp fall day. The focal point should be the quaint town hall adorned with American flags and surrounded by vibrant fall foliage. In the foreground, depict a group of local Republican voters happily making their way to cast their ballots, creating a serene and cozy atmosphere. In the background, show a convenience store with patrons checking their Mega Millions tickets in front of a glowing lottery board. Among the myriad digits, the number 21 should shine brightly, adding an element of chance and excitement to the scene, all while maintaining a sense of charm and inexplicable connection between politics and luck.

*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 Delaware caused Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number to increase.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Rolling the Dice: The Unlikely Link Between Republican Votes in Delaware and the Frequency of 21 as a Winning Mega Millions Number

The Journal of Statistical Serendipity

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 dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Include a pun in the title.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and NY Mega Millions Lottery to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 and p < 0.01 for 2002 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]]
"Rolling the Dice: The Unlikely Link Between Republican Votes in Delaware and the Frequency of 21 as a Winning Mega Millions Number"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the occurrence of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. Utilizing data collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 and p < 0.01 was found for the period spanning from 2002 to 2020. Our findings suggest an unexpected connection between political preferences and the random selection of winning lottery numbers, offering a whimsical glimpse into the potential interplay between political fortunes and chance. While causation remains elusive, the data presents an amusing avenue for further investigation, perhaps shedding light on the role of probability in the political process.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Rolling the Dice: The Unlikely Link Between Republican Votes in Delaware and the Frequency of 21 as a Winning Mega Millions Number"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the occurrence of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. Utilizing data collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 and p < 0.01 was found for the period spanning from 2002 to 2020. Our findings suggest an unexpected connection between political preferences and the random selection of winning lottery numbers, offering a whimsical glimpse into the potential interplay between political fortunes and chance. While causation remains elusive, the data presents an amusing avenue for further investigation, perhaps shedding light on the role of probability in the political process.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The intersection of politics and probability has long piqued the interest of researchers seeking to uncover the subtle relationships that may exist between these seemingly disparate domains. In recent years, the study of political behavior has expanded to consider unconventional factors that could potentially influence voter preferences. Concurrently, the field of probability and statistics has allowed for the exploration of unexpected correlations that may challenge conventional wisdom. It is within this context that the present study endeavors to elucidate the curious correlation between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number.

While the notion of politics and lottery numbers sharing any sort of connection may initially appear preposterous, our preliminary investigation unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. Such findings compel us to delve deeper into this obscure association, prompting us to consider the possibility of an underlying, albeit whimsical, interplay between political proclivities and the serendipitous selection of lottery digits.

At first glance, this unanticipated linkage may seem more fitting for a product of chance than a subject of scholarly inquiry. However, by carefully examining the patterns within the available data, we hope to offer a preliminary insight into a phenomenon that, while undoubtedly quirky, could have broader implications for our understanding of human decision-making and unexpected correlations lurking within complex datasets.

In this study, we aim to adopt a methodical approach to peeling back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, wielding the tools of statistical analysis to discern patterns and, if possible, elucidate the underlying mechanisms at play. As we embark on this whimsical journey through the annals of political vote counts and lottery draws, we remain mindful of the need to maintain a balanced perspective, lest the allure of amusement leads us astray from the pursuit of scientific rigor and academic discipline.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number. 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. Perhaps you also got inspiration from some board games that are vaugely related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Rolling the Dice: The Unlikely Link Between Republican Votes in Delaware and the Frequency of 21 as a Winning Mega Millions Number"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the occurrence of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. Utilizing data collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 and p < 0.01 was found for the period spanning from 2002 to 2020. Our findings suggest an unexpected connection between political preferences and the random selection of winning lottery numbers, offering a whimsical glimpse into the potential interplay between political fortunes and chance. While causation remains elusive, the data presents an amusing avenue for further investigation, perhaps shedding light on the role of probability in the political process.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and probability has long piqued the interest of researchers seeking to uncover the subtle relationships that may exist between these seemingly disparate domains. In recent years, the study of political behavior has expanded to consider unconventional factors that could potentially influence voter preferences. Concurrently, the field of probability and statistics has allowed for the exploration of unexpected correlations that may challenge conventional wisdom. It is within this context that the present study endeavors to elucidate the curious correlation between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number.
While the notion of politics and lottery numbers sharing any sort of connection may initially appear preposterous, our preliminary investigation unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. Such findings compel us to delve deeper into this obscure association, prompting us to consider the possibility of an underlying, albeit whimsical, interplay between political proclivities and the serendipitous selection of lottery digits.
At first glance, this unanticipated linkage may seem more fitting for a product of chance than a subject of scholarly inquiry. However, by carefully examining the patterns within the available data, we hope to offer a preliminary insight into a phenomenon that, while undoubtedly quirky, could have broader implications for our understanding of human decision-making and unexpected correlations lurking within complex datasets.
In this study, we aim to adopt a methodical approach to peeling back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, wielding the tools of statistical analysis to discern patterns and, if possible, elucidate the underlying mechanisms at play. As we embark on this whimsical journey through the annals of political vote counts and lottery draws, we remain mindful of the need to maintain a balanced perspective, lest the allure of amusement leads us astray from the pursuit of scientific rigor and academic discipline.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The curious confluence of electoral voting behavior and lottery outcomes has elicited a bemused yet rigorous exploration in the scholarly literature. Smith (2015) delved into the intricate tapestry of voter preferences, uncovering the psychological underpinnings of political decision-making. Similarly, Doe (2018) expounded upon the probabilistic nature of lottery draws, illuminating the randomness that governs such chance events. However, neither of these esteemed scholars could have foreseen the unexpected union of these seemingly unrelated domains in the present study.

Turning to non-fiction works, "The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver provides a comprehensive elucidation of the role of probability and chance in various aspects of human endeavor, including both politics and gambling. Bringing a more eclectic perspective to the discourse, "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner offers a compelling examination of unconventional correlations, challenging conventional modes of thinking and inviting readers to consider the unexpected links that may lurk beneath the surface of mundane phenomena.

Expanding the purview to fiction literature, "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson captivates readers with its enigmatic portrayal of a small town's annual lottery, capturing the inherent tension between tradition and the capriciousness of fate. Likewise, in the realm of board games, the ever-popular "Monopoly" presents a whimsical simulation of property acquisition and financial vicissitudes, perhaps offering a lighthearted parallel to the intricate dynamics of political and probabilistic phenomena.

As we venture deeper into this delightful confluence of political voting patterns and lottery number selection, we are reminded of the underlying whimsy that infuses this seemingly peculiar liaison. With each passing page of this literature review, the authors aim to deftly blend academic rigor with the lighthearted examination of this unexpected correlation, endeavoring to encapsulate the essence of scholarly inquiry while embracing the whimsical nature of the phenomenon at hand.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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 NY Mega Millions Lottery . You used data from 2002 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]]
"Rolling the Dice: The Unlikely Link Between Republican Votes in Delaware and the Frequency of 21 as a Winning Mega Millions Number"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the occurrence of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. Utilizing data collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 and p < 0.01 was found for the period spanning from 2002 to 2020. Our findings suggest an unexpected connection between political preferences and the random selection of winning lottery numbers, offering a whimsical glimpse into the potential interplay between political fortunes and chance. While causation remains elusive, the data presents an amusing avenue for further investigation, perhaps shedding light on the role of probability in the political process.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and probability has long piqued the interest of researchers seeking to uncover the subtle relationships that may exist between these seemingly disparate domains. In recent years, the study of political behavior has expanded to consider unconventional factors that could potentially influence voter preferences. Concurrently, the field of probability and statistics has allowed for the exploration of unexpected correlations that may challenge conventional wisdom. It is within this context that the present study endeavors to elucidate the curious correlation between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number.
While the notion of politics and lottery numbers sharing any sort of connection may initially appear preposterous, our preliminary investigation unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. Such findings compel us to delve deeper into this obscure association, prompting us to consider the possibility of an underlying, albeit whimsical, interplay between political proclivities and the serendipitous selection of lottery digits.
At first glance, this unanticipated linkage may seem more fitting for a product of chance than a subject of scholarly inquiry. However, by carefully examining the patterns within the available data, we hope to offer a preliminary insight into a phenomenon that, while undoubtedly quirky, could have broader implications for our understanding of human decision-making and unexpected correlations lurking within complex datasets.
In this study, we aim to adopt a methodical approach to peeling back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, wielding the tools of statistical analysis to discern patterns and, if possible, elucidate the underlying mechanisms at play. As we embark on this whimsical journey through the annals of political vote counts and lottery draws, we remain mindful of the need to maintain a balanced perspective, lest the allure of amusement leads us astray from the pursuit of scientific rigor and academic discipline.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To investigate the enigmatic correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number, a multi-faceted approach was employed. Data were collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery for the years 2002 to 2020. The initial step involved the extraction of numeric records related to Republican votes in Delaware and the instances of the number 21 emerging as a victorious figure in the Mega Millions lottery.

The collected data were then subjected to rigorous pre-processing, including data cleaning and validation to ensure the integrity and reliability of the dataset. This stage involved sifting through a veritable mountain of numerical entries, akin to combing through a haystack to identify the proverbial needle. Through this process, it became evident that, much like a game of chance, the task at hand was not devoid of whimsy.

Following this, the data underwent a series of intricate statistical analyses, harnessing both parametric and non-parametric methods to explore the relationship between political voting preferences and the fortuitous emergence of the number 21 in the context of lottery draws. The choice of statistical methods was akin to navigating a labyrinth of probability, each turn providing a new perspective on the unexpected intersection of political sway and lottery outcomes.

Moreover, a multitude of exploratory techniques, including but not limited to correlation analysis, time series analysis, and regression modeling, were employed to tease out potential associations and underlying patterns within the dataset. While the pursuit of these analytical procedures bore semblance to the act of unraveling a complex riddle, each finding contributed to our understanding of the idiosyncratic bond between political electoral inclinations and the whims of chance in the lottery sphere.

In addition, a meticulous control for confounding variables, such as the effect of other political parties and the frequency of other winning lottery numbers, was undertaken to ensure the robustness and veracity of the identified relationship. This process resembled the delicate balancing act required in a game of strategy, where each move was calculated to guard against the potential interference of extraneous influences.

Furthermore, sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to evaluate the stability and robustness of the observed correlation, fortifying the substantiveness of our findings against the capricious fluctuations inherent in probabilistic phenomena. Akin to crafting an intricate tapestry, these supplemental analyses wove an additional layer of complexity into our exploration of this improbable nexus.

Throughout each stage of the methodology, fervent efforts were made to navigate the labyrinthine terrain of statistical inference with precision and rigor, effectively capturing the essence of this curious correlation without succumbing to the seductive allure of whimsy. Despite the inherent humor of the subject matter, the approach remained steadfastly committed to upholding the tenets of scholarly inquiry and scientific inquiry, all the while maintaining a wry appreciation for the delightful irony that underscored our pursuit.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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 NY Mega Millions Lottery .

For the time period 2002 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9095585, r-squared of 0.8272966, 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]]
"Rolling the Dice: The Unlikely Link Between Republican Votes in Delaware and the Frequency of 21 as a Winning Mega Millions Number"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the occurrence of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. Utilizing data collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 and p < 0.01 was found for the period spanning from 2002 to 2020. Our findings suggest an unexpected connection between political preferences and the random selection of winning lottery numbers, offering a whimsical glimpse into the potential interplay between political fortunes and chance. While causation remains elusive, the data presents an amusing avenue for further investigation, perhaps shedding light on the role of probability in the political process.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of politics and probability has long piqued the interest of researchers seeking to uncover the subtle relationships that may exist between these seemingly disparate domains. In recent years, the study of political behavior has expanded to consider unconventional factors that could potentially influence voter preferences. Concurrently, the field of probability and statistics has allowed for the exploration of unexpected correlations that may challenge conventional wisdom. It is within this context that the present study endeavors to elucidate the curious correlation between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number.
While the notion of politics and lottery numbers sharing any sort of connection may initially appear preposterous, our preliminary investigation unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. Such findings compel us to delve deeper into this obscure association, prompting us to consider the possibility of an underlying, albeit whimsical, interplay between political proclivities and the serendipitous selection of lottery digits.
At first glance, this unanticipated linkage may seem more fitting for a product of chance than a subject of scholarly inquiry. However, by carefully examining the patterns within the available data, we hope to offer a preliminary insight into a phenomenon that, while undoubtedly quirky, could have broader implications for our understanding of human decision-making and unexpected correlations lurking within complex datasets.
In this study, we aim to adopt a methodical approach to peeling back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, wielding the tools of statistical analysis to discern patterns and, if possible, elucidate the underlying mechanisms at play. As we embark on this whimsical journey through the annals of political vote counts and lottery draws, we remain mindful of the need to maintain a balanced perspective, lest the allure of amusement leads us astray from the pursuit of scientific rigor and academic discipline.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and NY Mega Millions Lottery has yielded intriguing findings regarding the purported association between Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. For the time period spanning from 2002 to 2020, a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 was observed, with an r-squared value of 0.8272966. Furthermore, the statistical significance of the relationship, denoted by a p-value of less than 0.01, underscores the substantial strength of this unexpected connection.

The scatterplot presented in Fig. 1 visually encapsulates the notable correlation between the two variables, portraying a strikingly linear relationship that belies the whimsical nature of the phenomenon under investigation.

The substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 suggests a strong positive relationship between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. While one may be inclined to dismiss this association as a mere peculiarity or chance occurrence, the robust statistical evidence compels a more nuanced consideration of the potential interplay between political preferences and random lottery outcomes."


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
"Rolling the Dice: The Unlikely Link Between Republican Votes in Delaware and the Frequency of 21 as a Winning Mega Millions Number"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the occurrence of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. Utilizing data collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 and p < 0.01 was found for the period spanning from 2002 to 2020. Our findings suggest an unexpected connection between political preferences and the random selection of winning lottery numbers, offering a whimsical glimpse into the potential interplay between political fortunes and chance. While causation remains elusive, the data presents an amusing avenue for further investigation, perhaps shedding light on the role of probability in the political process.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The curious confluence of electoral voting behavior and lottery outcomes has elicited a bemused yet rigorous exploration in the scholarly literature. Smith (2015) delved into the intricate tapestry of voter preferences, uncovering the psychological underpinnings of political decision-making. Similarly, Doe (2018) expounded upon the probabilistic nature of lottery draws, illuminating the randomness that governs such chance events. However, neither of these esteemed scholars could have foreseen the unexpected union of these seemingly unrelated domains in the present study.
Turning to non-fiction works, "The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver provides a comprehensive elucidation of the role of probability and chance in various aspects of human endeavor, including both politics and gambling. Bringing a more eclectic perspective to the discourse, "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner offers a compelling examination of unconventional correlations, challenging conventional modes of thinking and inviting readers to consider the unexpected links that may lurk beneath the surface of mundane phenomena.
Expanding the purview to fiction literature, "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson captivates readers with its enigmatic portrayal of a small town's annual lottery, capturing the inherent tension between tradition and the capriciousness of fate. Likewise, in the realm of board games, the ever-popular "Monopoly" presents a whimsical simulation of property acquisition and financial vicissitudes, perhaps offering a lighthearted parallel to the intricate dynamics of political and probabilistic phenomena.
As we venture deeper into this delightful confluence of political voting patterns and lottery number selection, we are reminded of the underlying whimsy that infuses this seemingly peculiar liaison. With each passing page of this literature review, the authors aim to deftly blend academic rigor with the lighthearted examination of this unexpected correlation, endeavoring to encapsulate the essence of scholarly inquiry while embracing the whimsical nature of the phenomenon at hand.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and NY Mega Millions Lottery has yielded intriguing findings regarding the purported association between Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. For the time period spanning from 2002 to 2020, a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 was observed, with an r-squared value of 0.8272966. Furthermore, the statistical significance of the relationship, denoted by a p-value of less than 0.01, underscores the substantial strength of this unexpected connection.
The scatterplot presented in Fig. 1 visually encapsulates the notable correlation between the two variables, portraying a strikingly linear relationship that belies the whimsical nature of the phenomenon under investigation.
The substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 suggests a strong positive relationship between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. While one may be inclined to dismiss this association as a mere peculiarity or chance occurrence, the robust statistical evidence compels a more nuanced consideration of the potential interplay between political preferences and random lottery outcomes."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of the present study have provided empirical support for the unexpected correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. As indicated in the literature review, prior research has delved into the intricate nature of political decision-making, the probabilistic underpinnings of lottery draws, and the role of probability and chance in various aspects of human endeavor. Our findings lend empirical credence to the whimsical glimpses offered by these scholars and authors, thereby expanding the discourse on the unexpected intersection of political preferences and random chance.

The substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 and the high level of statistical significance evidenced by the low p-value validate the robustness of the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. This unexpected link suggests a potential interplay between political fortunes and the capricious nature of random lottery outcomes. While the notion of causation cannot be unequivocally ascertained, the strength of the observed association underscores the unanticipated confluence of these seemingly disparate domains.

The results of this study underscore the need for a more nuanced consideration of the potential interplay between political preferences and probabilistic phenomena. The unexpected nature of this correlation prompts a reevaluation of the traditional boundaries that delineate political and chance events, offering a lighthearted yet thought-provoking lens through which to view the intersection of statistical regularities and the inherent unpredictability of human behavior. It seems that while the dice may fall where they may in both the political and probabilistic realms, they might just roll in chorus, revealing a whimsical harmony hidden beneath the surface of mundane phenomena.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
"Rolling the Dice: The Unlikely Link Between Republican Votes in Delaware and the Frequency of 21 as a Winning Mega Millions Number"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the occurrence of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. Utilizing data collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 and p < 0.01 was found for the period spanning from 2002 to 2020. Our findings suggest an unexpected connection between political preferences and the random selection of winning lottery numbers, offering a whimsical glimpse into the potential interplay between political fortunes and chance. While causation remains elusive, the data presents an amusing avenue for further investigation, perhaps shedding light on the role of probability in the political process.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and probability has long piqued the interest of researchers seeking to uncover the subtle relationships that may exist between these seemingly disparate domains. In recent years, the study of political behavior has expanded to consider unconventional factors that could potentially influence voter preferences. Concurrently, the field of probability and statistics has allowed for the exploration of unexpected correlations that may challenge conventional wisdom. It is within this context that the present study endeavors to elucidate the curious correlation between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number.
While the notion of politics and lottery numbers sharing any sort of connection may initially appear preposterous, our preliminary investigation unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. Such findings compel us to delve deeper into this obscure association, prompting us to consider the possibility of an underlying, albeit whimsical, interplay between political proclivities and the serendipitous selection of lottery digits.
At first glance, this unanticipated linkage may seem more fitting for a product of chance than a subject of scholarly inquiry. However, by carefully examining the patterns within the available data, we hope to offer a preliminary insight into a phenomenon that, while undoubtedly quirky, could have broader implications for our understanding of human decision-making and unexpected correlations lurking within complex datasets.
In this study, we aim to adopt a methodical approach to peeling back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, wielding the tools of statistical analysis to discern patterns and, if possible, elucidate the underlying mechanisms at play. As we embark on this whimsical journey through the annals of political vote counts and lottery draws, we remain mindful of the need to maintain a balanced perspective, lest the allure of amusement leads us astray from the pursuit of scientific rigor and academic discipline.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and NY Mega Millions Lottery has yielded intriguing findings regarding the purported association between Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. For the time period spanning from 2002 to 2020, a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 was observed, with an r-squared value of 0.8272966. Furthermore, the statistical significance of the relationship, denoted by a p-value of less than 0.01, underscores the substantial strength of this unexpected connection.
The scatterplot presented in Fig. 1 visually encapsulates the notable correlation between the two variables, portraying a strikingly linear relationship that belies the whimsical nature of the phenomenon under investigation.
The substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 suggests a strong positive relationship between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. While one may be inclined to dismiss this association as a mere peculiarity or chance occurrence, the robust statistical evidence compels a more nuanced consideration of the potential interplay between political preferences and random lottery outcomes."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In light of the compelling correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, our study offers intriguing insights into the unexpected nexus between Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the frequency of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. This whimsical correlation, as whimsical as a clown at a statistics convention, challenges conventional notions of the separation between politics and chance, leaving us to ponder whether fate might indeed be influenced by ballot boxes. However, as captivating as it may be to conjure theories of political numerology or lottery-based forecasting, the etiology of this relationship remains enigmatic. While our research sheds light on this curious connection, further exploration may unravel the mysterious threads linking politics and probability. Yet, it is with a wry smile and a statistical shrug that we assert, with the utmost scholarly decorum, that no more research is needed in this endeavor. After all, maybe some correlations are best left to the capricious whims of chance.


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 Rolling the Dice: The Unlikely Link Between Republican Votes in Delaware and the Frequency of 21 as a Winning Mega Millions Number. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Statistical Serendipity


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 Rolling the Dice: The Unlikely Link Between Republican Votes in Delaware and the Frequency of 21 as a Winning Mega Millions Number. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Association for Peculiar Statistical Phenomena Analysis (APSPA)


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 Rolling the Dice: The Unlikely Link Between Republican Votes in Delaware and the Frequency of 21 as a Winning Mega Millions Number with an abstract of This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between the number of Republican votes for Senators in Delaware and the occurrence of the number 21 as a winning Mega Millions number. Utilizing data collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, a correlation coefficient of 0.9095585 and p < 0.01 was found for the period spanning from 2002 to 2020. Our findings suggest an unexpected connection between political preferences and the random selection of winning lottery numbers, offering a whimsical glimpse into the potential interplay between political fortunes and chance. While causation remains elusive, the data presents an amusing avenue for further investigation, perhaps shedding light on the role of probability in the political process.

ChatGPT:

Republican votes in Delaware, frequency of 21 as winning Mega Millions number, correlation between political preferences and winning lottery numbers, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, NY Mega Millions Lottery, political fortunes and chance, probability in the political process

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

Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number
Detailed data title: Number of times the Mega Millions lottery Megaball landed on #21
Source: NY Mega Millions Lottery
See what else correlates with Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number

Correlation r = 0.9095585 (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 = 0.8272966 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 82.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Delaware) over the 7 years from 2002 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0045. 0.0044978040386043500000000000
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 0.91 in 0.45% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 222 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 6 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 6 because we have two variables measured over a period of 7 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.

[ 0.5, 0.99 ] 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.
2002200620082010201220182020
Votes for Republican Senators in Delaware (Total votes)9479369734140595123053115700137127186054
Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number (Number of megaballs)2243235




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.
  5. 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([94793,69734,140595,123053,115700,137127,186054,])
array_2 = np.array([2,2,4,3,2,3,5,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Delaware"
array_2_name = "Number of times 21 was a winning Mega Millions number"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating skills are top-notch!


Correlation ID: 5056 · Black Variable ID: 26218 · Red Variable ID: 887
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0