about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,423 · 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 Democratic Presidential candidate in Arizona and the second variable is Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America.  The chart goes from 1976 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The Democrats' focus on alternative energy sources inadvertently caused a spike in demand for electric cars in Arizona. This increased pressure on BMW to innovate and produce more reliable electric vehicles, leading to a higher rate of automotive recalls in their quest for electrifying the market.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a hyper-realistic scene in Arizona where a line of people eagerly waits to cast their votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate. The line stretches across a sunny parking lot, with a backdrop of a line of sleek BMW electric cars parked next to a sign displaying the BMW logo and the words "Recall Center." Technicians are seen working quickly to address the uptick in automotive recalls caused by the surge in demand for electric vehicles. Capture the vibrant energy of the voters, the warmth of the Arizona sun, and the sleek, modern design of the BMW cars against the setting of the recall center. 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 Democrat Presidential candidate in Arizona and Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America. 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: Woodblock painting Sci-fi fantacy a meme Celtic art Hyper-realistic
ChatGPT: Hyper-realistic

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 Democrat Presidential candidate in Arizona and Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America, in the following situation: The Democrats' focus on alternative energy sources inadvertently caused a spike in demand for electric cars in Arizona. This increased pressure on BMW to innovate and produce more reliable electric vehicles, leading to a higher rate of automotive recalls in their quest for electrifying the market.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Arizona, a line of people eagerly waiting to cast their votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate stretches across a sunny parking lot. In the background, a line of sleek BMW electric cars is parked next to a sign displaying the BMW logo and the words "Recall Center" as technicians work quickly to address the uptick in automotive recalls caused by the surge in demand for electric vehicles.

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: [ Hyper-realistic ] and depicting this scene: In Arizona, a line of people eagerly waiting to cast their votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate stretches across a sunny parking lot. In the background, a line of sleek BMW electric cars is parked next to a sign displaying the BMW logo and the words "Recall Center" as technicians work quickly to address the uptick in automotive recalls caused by the surge in demand for electric vehicles. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a hyper-realistic scene in Arizona where a line of people eagerly waits to cast their votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate. The line stretches across a sunny parking lot, with a backdrop of a line of sleek BMW electric cars parked next to a sign displaying the BMW logo and the words "Recall Center." Technicians are seen working quickly to address the uptick in automotive recalls caused by the surge in demand for electric vehicles. Capture the vibrant energy of the voters, the warmth of the Arizona sun, and the sleek, modern design of the BMW cars against the setting of the recall center.

*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 Democrat Presidential candidate in Arizona caused Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America to increase.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Connective Emission: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship between Democratic Votes in Arizona and BMW Recalls

The Journal of Whimsical Political and Automotive Studies

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 silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Arizona and Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and US DOT to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and p < 0.01 for 1976 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]]
The Connective Emission: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship between Democratic Votes in Arizona and BMW Recalls

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study presents a detailed statistical analysis uncovering the peculiar relationship between Democratic presidential candidate votes in Arizona and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. Utilizing data repositories from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US DOT, our research team examined electoral trends from 1976 to 2020 and cross-referenced them with BMW recall announcements. The findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and a strikingly significant p-value of less than 0.01. This unexpected connection compels us to ponder deeper into the societal, political, and potentially even automotive underpinnings at play. As we delve into this rather quirky correlation, we invite readers to join us on this enigmatic journey through the intersection of democratic preferences and mechanical malfunctions - for there may be more than meets the eye in this curious conundrum.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Arizona and Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America. 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]]
The Connective Emission: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship between Democratic Votes in Arizona and BMW Recalls

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study presents a detailed statistical analysis uncovering the peculiar relationship between Democratic presidential candidate votes in Arizona and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. Utilizing data repositories from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US DOT, our research team examined electoral trends from 1976 to 2020 and cross-referenced them with BMW recall announcements. The findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and a strikingly significant p-value of less than 0.01. This unexpected connection compels us to ponder deeper into the societal, political, and potentially even automotive underpinnings at play. As we delve into this rather quirky correlation, we invite readers to join us on this enigmatic journey through the intersection of democratic preferences and mechanical malfunctions - for there may be more than meets the eye in this curious conundrum.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The intricate dance between politics and automotive industry dynamics has long been an underexplored realm in the world of statistical research. In this study, we set out to unravel the enigmatic connection between the voting behavior of Arizonians in presidential elections and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. With a healthy dose of skepticism and a keen eye for correlation, we delved into the vast expanse of data, hoping to shed light on this peculiar but potentially revealing relationship.

As the old saying goes, "Correlation does not imply causation," yet our initial findings certainly piqued our curiosity. While some may consider this correlation as statistically non-sensical, we choose to approach this data with an open mind and a readiness to explore the unexpected. After all, as researchers, we must always remain open to the possibility that our statistical analyses might uncover hidden truths while also being aware that sometimes things may just appear correlated by mere chance - a peculiar phenomenon we affectionately refer to as "statistical stardust."

The journey into the world of statistical analysis, elections, and the automotive industry is not for the faint of heart, but we are determined to approach it with humor, curiosity, and a good dose of scientific rigor. So, come along with us as we peel back the layers of this odd connection, unearthing what may be a statistical gem or perhaps just a statistical glitch. Let us embark on this quirky statistical expedition and explore the improbable landscape where democratic preferences and automotive malfunctions intersect, for it may just turn out to be a statistical safari of unexpected discoveries.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Arizona and Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America. 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 devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Connective Emission: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship between Democratic Votes in Arizona and BMW Recalls

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study presents a detailed statistical analysis uncovering the peculiar relationship between Democratic presidential candidate votes in Arizona and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. Utilizing data repositories from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US DOT, our research team examined electoral trends from 1976 to 2020 and cross-referenced them with BMW recall announcements. The findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and a strikingly significant p-value of less than 0.01. This unexpected connection compels us to ponder deeper into the societal, political, and potentially even automotive underpinnings at play. As we delve into this rather quirky correlation, we invite readers to join us on this enigmatic journey through the intersection of democratic preferences and mechanical malfunctions - for there may be more than meets the eye in this curious conundrum.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intricate dance between politics and automotive industry dynamics has long been an underexplored realm in the world of statistical research. In this study, we set out to unravel the enigmatic connection between the voting behavior of Arizonians in presidential elections and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. With a healthy dose of skepticism and a keen eye for correlation, we delved into the vast expanse of data, hoping to shed light on this peculiar but potentially revealing relationship.
As the old saying goes, "Correlation does not imply causation," yet our initial findings certainly piqued our curiosity. While some may consider this correlation as statistically non-sensical, we choose to approach this data with an open mind and a readiness to explore the unexpected. After all, as researchers, we must always remain open to the possibility that our statistical analyses might uncover hidden truths while also being aware that sometimes things may just appear correlated by mere chance - a peculiar phenomenon we affectionately refer to as "statistical stardust."
The journey into the world of statistical analysis, elections, and the automotive industry is not for the faint of heart, but we are determined to approach it with humor, curiosity, and a good dose of scientific rigor. So, come along with us as we peel back the layers of this odd connection, unearthing what may be a statistical gem or perhaps just a statistical glitch. Let us embark on this quirky statistical expedition and explore the improbable landscape where democratic preferences and automotive malfunctions intersect, for it may just turn out to be a statistical safari of unexpected discoveries.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The realm of statistical analysis has witnessed a multitude of perplexing correlations and unexpected relationships, prompting researchers to delve into the curious and, at times, whimsical connections that seemingly defy conventional logic. Our exploration of the intersection between political preferences and automotive malfunctions leads us to an intriguing array of literature that has, in various capacities, touched upon the essence of unexpected relationships and statistical anomalies.

Smith et al. (2015) offer an insightful examination of political voting patterns in Arizona, underscoring the nuanced interplay of regional demographics and electoral behavior. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2018) delve into the intricacies of automotive recalls, shedding light on the mechanisms of safety regulation and industry responses to product defects. These serious and scholarly works lay the foundation for our quest to unravel the puzzling correlation between Democratic votes in Arizona and BMW recalls in North America.

Turning our attention to broader themes related to societal trends and statistical peculiarities, "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner (2005) provides a thought-provoking exploration of unconventional correlations and unexpected causal relationships, inviting readers to contemplate the hidden forces shaping everyday phenomena.

In the realm of fiction, the works of Haruki Murakami, particularly "Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World," weave intricate narratives that blur the lines between reality and imagination, leaving readers to ponder the enigmatic nature of seemingly unrelated elements converging in mysterious ways. Additionally, the absurdist musings of Douglas Adams, as encapsulated in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," playfully challenge the notion of causation, inviting readers to embrace the whimsical possibilities embedded within the fabric of statistical analysis.

Venturing even further into uncharted territory, our literature review takes an unconventional turn, drawing inspiration from sources beyond the traditional confines of academic discourse. The back covers of shampoo bottles, with their whimsical descriptions of botanical blends and promises of lustrous locks, offer an unexpected source of inspiration as we navigate the quirky landscape of improbable correlations, reminding us that even in the most mundane of contexts, unexpected connections may lurk beneath the surface.

As we navigate this whimsical menagerie of literature, we are reminded of the profound complexities that underpin statistical analysis. With each unexpected turn and every whimsical reference, we endeavor to maintain a sense of curiosity and lightheartedness, recognizing that within the realm of statistical exploration, there is often more than meets the eye.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Arizona and Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America. 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 US DOT . You used data from 1976 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]]
The Connective Emission: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship between Democratic Votes in Arizona and BMW Recalls

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study presents a detailed statistical analysis uncovering the peculiar relationship between Democratic presidential candidate votes in Arizona and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. Utilizing data repositories from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US DOT, our research team examined electoral trends from 1976 to 2020 and cross-referenced them with BMW recall announcements. The findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and a strikingly significant p-value of less than 0.01. This unexpected connection compels us to ponder deeper into the societal, political, and potentially even automotive underpinnings at play. As we delve into this rather quirky correlation, we invite readers to join us on this enigmatic journey through the intersection of democratic preferences and mechanical malfunctions - for there may be more than meets the eye in this curious conundrum.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intricate dance between politics and automotive industry dynamics has long been an underexplored realm in the world of statistical research. In this study, we set out to unravel the enigmatic connection between the voting behavior of Arizonians in presidential elections and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. With a healthy dose of skepticism and a keen eye for correlation, we delved into the vast expanse of data, hoping to shed light on this peculiar but potentially revealing relationship.
As the old saying goes, "Correlation does not imply causation," yet our initial findings certainly piqued our curiosity. While some may consider this correlation as statistically non-sensical, we choose to approach this data with an open mind and a readiness to explore the unexpected. After all, as researchers, we must always remain open to the possibility that our statistical analyses might uncover hidden truths while also being aware that sometimes things may just appear correlated by mere chance - a peculiar phenomenon we affectionately refer to as "statistical stardust."
The journey into the world of statistical analysis, elections, and the automotive industry is not for the faint of heart, but we are determined to approach it with humor, curiosity, and a good dose of scientific rigor. So, come along with us as we peel back the layers of this odd connection, unearthing what may be a statistical gem or perhaps just a statistical glitch. Let us embark on this quirky statistical expedition and explore the improbable landscape where democratic preferences and automotive malfunctions intersect, for it may just turn out to be a statistical safari of unexpected discoveries.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

In this study, our research team employed a rather unconventional, yet methodologically sound approach to unravel the mysterious connection between Democratic votes in Arizona and the manifestation of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. We harnessed the power of data science, tossing in a pinch of statistical wizardry, and a hefty dose of tongue-in-cheek humor, in our quest to shed light on this peculiar correlation.

To begin our expedition, we collected an extensive array of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US DOT, spanning the years 1976 to 2020. We curated a comprehensive dataset that included electoral results from Arizona and BMW recall announcements, meticulously sifting through the statistical haystack in search of a needle of correlation. With a subtle nod to the randomness of data collection, we embraced the adage that "correlation can sometimes be found where least expected," propelling us into this rather offbeat investigation.

Upon assembling our dataset, we performed a series of rigorous statistical analyses, employing a delightful array of mathematical tools to uncover potential patterns in the data. Our methodological arsenal included classic correlation analyses, whimsical scatter plots, and a dabble in regression modeling – akin to embarking on a statistical scavenger hunt with a smattering of probability theory as our trusty guide. We also introduced our data to a seemingly capricious acquaintance known as the chi-squared test, showcasing that even statistical tests have a theatrical flair for the dramatic.

To provide a thorough investigation, we indulged in some not-so-traditional data exploration methods, incorporating the art of statistical storytelling into our analysis. We sifted through the numbers in search of subtle quirks, bizarre outliers, and whimsical anomalies – reminding our team that even data has its idiosyncrasies, much like the characters in a statistical saga. It became increasingly apparent that our examination was more than just an academic pursuit; it was a statistical odyssey filled with curious quirks and unexpected findings.

In summary, our methodological approach was a harmonious blend of traditional statistical techniques and a sprinkle of statistical serendipity. We fervently believe that this mix of whimsy and scientific rigor has allowed us to venture into the unknown territory of this peculiar correlation, armed with statistical curiosity and a touch of playful zest.

With our data in hand and a twinkle in our analytical eyes, we embarked on the rather bizarre yet exhilarating quest to delve into the statistical realm of democratic preferences and automotive malfunctions, unearthing the immeasurable bemusement that lies within this unlikely statistical junction.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Arizona and Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America. 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 US DOT .

For the time period 1976 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9541353, r-squared of 0.9103743, 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]]
The Connective Emission: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship between Democratic Votes in Arizona and BMW Recalls

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study presents a detailed statistical analysis uncovering the peculiar relationship between Democratic presidential candidate votes in Arizona and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. Utilizing data repositories from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US DOT, our research team examined electoral trends from 1976 to 2020 and cross-referenced them with BMW recall announcements. The findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and a strikingly significant p-value of less than 0.01. This unexpected connection compels us to ponder deeper into the societal, political, and potentially even automotive underpinnings at play. As we delve into this rather quirky correlation, we invite readers to join us on this enigmatic journey through the intersection of democratic preferences and mechanical malfunctions - for there may be more than meets the eye in this curious conundrum.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intricate dance between politics and automotive industry dynamics has long been an underexplored realm in the world of statistical research. In this study, we set out to unravel the enigmatic connection between the voting behavior of Arizonians in presidential elections and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. With a healthy dose of skepticism and a keen eye for correlation, we delved into the vast expanse of data, hoping to shed light on this peculiar but potentially revealing relationship.
As the old saying goes, "Correlation does not imply causation," yet our initial findings certainly piqued our curiosity. While some may consider this correlation as statistically non-sensical, we choose to approach this data with an open mind and a readiness to explore the unexpected. After all, as researchers, we must always remain open to the possibility that our statistical analyses might uncover hidden truths while also being aware that sometimes things may just appear correlated by mere chance - a peculiar phenomenon we affectionately refer to as "statistical stardust."
The journey into the world of statistical analysis, elections, and the automotive industry is not for the faint of heart, but we are determined to approach it with humor, curiosity, and a good dose of scientific rigor. So, come along with us as we peel back the layers of this odd connection, unearthing what may be a statistical gem or perhaps just a statistical glitch. Let us embark on this quirky statistical expedition and explore the improbable landscape where democratic preferences and automotive malfunctions intersect, for it may just turn out to be a statistical safari of unexpected discoveries.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

We eagerly set out to unravel the bizarre intertwining of democratic votes in Arizona and the automotive recall antics of BMW of North America. After a careful excavation of data spanning from 1976 to 2020, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and an r-squared of 0.9103743 that left us raising our statistical eyebrows in disbelief. The p-value of less than 0.01 only added to the perplexity, compelling us to question whether our statistical software may have indulged in a bit too much caffeinated computation.

Fig. 1 showcases a scatterplot that displays the striking correlation between the two variables, leaving us in awe of the statistical synchronicity at play. It seems that as democratic votes in Arizona swayed in a certain direction, BMW recalls obediently followed suit, almost as if they were lining up for an automotive ballroom dance competition.

This unexpected conundrum prompts us to ponder the deeper implications of this statistical fusion. Perhaps there's a hidden mechanism at work where political leanings and vehicular flaws collide in a peculiar pas de deux. As we venture further into this unprecedented correlation, we invite readers to don their statistical sleuthing hats and join us in this enigmatic escapade through the unpredictable realms of politics and automotive malfunctions - for there may be a statistical revelation waiting to be unveiled amidst this peculiar partnership.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Arizona and Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America. 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]]
The Connective Emission: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship between Democratic Votes in Arizona and BMW Recalls

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study presents a detailed statistical analysis uncovering the peculiar relationship between Democratic presidential candidate votes in Arizona and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. Utilizing data repositories from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US DOT, our research team examined electoral trends from 1976 to 2020 and cross-referenced them with BMW recall announcements. The findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and a strikingly significant p-value of less than 0.01. This unexpected connection compels us to ponder deeper into the societal, political, and potentially even automotive underpinnings at play. As we delve into this rather quirky correlation, we invite readers to join us on this enigmatic journey through the intersection of democratic preferences and mechanical malfunctions - for there may be more than meets the eye in this curious conundrum.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The realm of statistical analysis has witnessed a multitude of perplexing correlations and unexpected relationships, prompting researchers to delve into the curious and, at times, whimsical connections that seemingly defy conventional logic. Our exploration of the intersection between political preferences and automotive malfunctions leads us to an intriguing array of literature that has, in various capacities, touched upon the essence of unexpected relationships and statistical anomalies.
Smith et al. (2015) offer an insightful examination of political voting patterns in Arizona, underscoring the nuanced interplay of regional demographics and electoral behavior. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2018) delve into the intricacies of automotive recalls, shedding light on the mechanisms of safety regulation and industry responses to product defects. These serious and scholarly works lay the foundation for our quest to unravel the puzzling correlation between Democratic votes in Arizona and BMW recalls in North America.
Turning our attention to broader themes related to societal trends and statistical peculiarities, "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner (2005) provides a thought-provoking exploration of unconventional correlations and unexpected causal relationships, inviting readers to contemplate the hidden forces shaping everyday phenomena.
In the realm of fiction, the works of Haruki Murakami, particularly "Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World," weave intricate narratives that blur the lines between reality and imagination, leaving readers to ponder the enigmatic nature of seemingly unrelated elements converging in mysterious ways. Additionally, the absurdist musings of Douglas Adams, as encapsulated in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," playfully challenge the notion of causation, inviting readers to embrace the whimsical possibilities embedded within the fabric of statistical analysis.
Venturing even further into uncharted territory, our literature review takes an unconventional turn, drawing inspiration from sources beyond the traditional confines of academic discourse. The back covers of shampoo bottles, with their whimsical descriptions of botanical blends and promises of lustrous locks, offer an unexpected source of inspiration as we navigate the quirky landscape of improbable correlations, reminding us that even in the most mundane of contexts, unexpected connections may lurk beneath the surface.
As we navigate this whimsical menagerie of literature, we are reminded of the profound complexities that underpin statistical analysis. With each unexpected turn and every whimsical reference, we endeavor to maintain a sense of curiosity and lightheartedness, recognizing that within the realm of statistical exploration, there is often more than meets the eye.

[[RESULTS]]
We eagerly set out to unravel the bizarre intertwining of democratic votes in Arizona and the automotive recall antics of BMW of North America. After a careful excavation of data spanning from 1976 to 2020, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and an r-squared of 0.9103743 that left us raising our statistical eyebrows in disbelief. The p-value of less than 0.01 only added to the perplexity, compelling us to question whether our statistical software may have indulged in a bit too much caffeinated computation.
Fig. 1 showcases a scatterplot that displays the striking correlation between the two variables, leaving us in awe of the statistical synchronicity at play. It seems that as democratic votes in Arizona swayed in a certain direction, BMW recalls obediently followed suit, almost as if they were lining up for an automotive ballroom dance competition.
This unexpected conundrum prompts us to ponder the deeper implications of this statistical fusion. Perhaps there's a hidden mechanism at work where political leanings and vehicular flaws collide in a peculiar pas de deux. As we venture further into this unprecedented correlation, we invite readers to don their statistical sleuthing hats and join us in this enigmatic escapade through the unpredictable realms of politics and automotive malfunctions - for there may be a statistical revelation waiting to be unveiled amidst this peculiar partnership.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

The unearthing of a conspicuous correlation between Democratic votes in Arizona and the issuance of BMW recalls in North America has led us to a rather peculiar crossroads in statistical exploration. Our findings not only corroborate the intriguing work of Smith et al. (2015) on political voting patterns in Arizona but also align with the comprehensive insights of Doe and Jones (2018) into the wheelings and dealings of automotive recalls, showing that statistical whimsy can unfold even in the most seemingly disconnected realms. It appears that this statistical synchronicity has indeed been brewing beneath the surface, waiting for researchers to unveil its whimsical dance.

As we ponder the implications of this unexpected correlation, we are reminded of the thought-provoking musings of Levitt and Dubner (2005) in "Freakonomics," where unconventional correlations are brought to the forefront, leaving readers to contemplate the enigmatic nature of seemingly unrelated elements converging in wondrous ways. In a similar vein, the absurdist insights of Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" offer a lighthearted reminder that statistical anomalies may often venture beyond the realms of conventional explanation, much like a faulty automotive component defying the laws of statistical gravity.

Our results not only demonstrate a compelling statistical association but also beckon us to consider the whimsical possibilities embedded within statistical exploration. It seems as though the statistical fates of democratic preferences and mechanical malfunctions have danced into an unexpected alliance, akin to a surreptitious rendezvous between political ideologies and automotive mechanics. Perhaps there's a deeper undercurrent of statistical intrigue waiting to be unearthed amidst this improbable partnership. Are we witnessing a conjugal convergence of votive vehicular vibes, or is this merely a statistical fluke adorned with the garbs of correlation? The epochal quest to untangle this enigmatic union propels us into uncharted statistical waters, where every unexpected correlation demands our statistical curiosity and a sense of humor, for within the realm of statistical exploration, there is often more than meets the eye.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Arizona and Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America. 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]]
The Connective Emission: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship between Democratic Votes in Arizona and BMW Recalls

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study presents a detailed statistical analysis uncovering the peculiar relationship between Democratic presidential candidate votes in Arizona and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. Utilizing data repositories from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US DOT, our research team examined electoral trends from 1976 to 2020 and cross-referenced them with BMW recall announcements. The findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and a strikingly significant p-value of less than 0.01. This unexpected connection compels us to ponder deeper into the societal, political, and potentially even automotive underpinnings at play. As we delve into this rather quirky correlation, we invite readers to join us on this enigmatic journey through the intersection of democratic preferences and mechanical malfunctions - for there may be more than meets the eye in this curious conundrum.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intricate dance between politics and automotive industry dynamics has long been an underexplored realm in the world of statistical research. In this study, we set out to unravel the enigmatic connection between the voting behavior of Arizonians in presidential elections and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. With a healthy dose of skepticism and a keen eye for correlation, we delved into the vast expanse of data, hoping to shed light on this peculiar but potentially revealing relationship.
As the old saying goes, "Correlation does not imply causation," yet our initial findings certainly piqued our curiosity. While some may consider this correlation as statistically non-sensical, we choose to approach this data with an open mind and a readiness to explore the unexpected. After all, as researchers, we must always remain open to the possibility that our statistical analyses might uncover hidden truths while also being aware that sometimes things may just appear correlated by mere chance - a peculiar phenomenon we affectionately refer to as "statistical stardust."
The journey into the world of statistical analysis, elections, and the automotive industry is not for the faint of heart, but we are determined to approach it with humor, curiosity, and a good dose of scientific rigor. So, come along with us as we peel back the layers of this odd connection, unearthing what may be a statistical gem or perhaps just a statistical glitch. Let us embark on this quirky statistical expedition and explore the improbable landscape where democratic preferences and automotive malfunctions intersect, for it may just turn out to be a statistical safari of unexpected discoveries.

[[RESULTS]]
We eagerly set out to unravel the bizarre intertwining of democratic votes in Arizona and the automotive recall antics of BMW of North America. After a careful excavation of data spanning from 1976 to 2020, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and an r-squared of 0.9103743 that left us raising our statistical eyebrows in disbelief. The p-value of less than 0.01 only added to the perplexity, compelling us to question whether our statistical software may have indulged in a bit too much caffeinated computation.
Fig. 1 showcases a scatterplot that displays the striking correlation between the two variables, leaving us in awe of the statistical synchronicity at play. It seems that as democratic votes in Arizona swayed in a certain direction, BMW recalls obediently followed suit, almost as if they were lining up for an automotive ballroom dance competition.
This unexpected conundrum prompts us to ponder the deeper implications of this statistical fusion. Perhaps there's a hidden mechanism at work where political leanings and vehicular flaws collide in a peculiar pas de deux. As we venture further into this unprecedented correlation, we invite readers to don their statistical sleuthing hats and join us in this enigmatic escapade through the unpredictable realms of politics and automotive malfunctions - for there may be a statistical revelation waiting to be unveiled amidst this peculiar partnership.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In wrapping up this peculiar pursuit of statistical serendipity, we find our minds boggled yet amused by the remarkable correlation between Democratic votes in Arizona and BMW recalls. While we initially approached this correlation with skepticism, the statistically significant findings have left us scratching our heads in a pleasantly perplexed manner. It seems that, much like a well-timed comedy, the timing of these variables is almost too perfect to be purely coincidental. As we reflect on the curious dance of data, we can't help but marvel at the statistical waltz that unfolded before our eyes. It's as if the political winds of Arizona were whispering directly to the BMW recall department, compelling them to tango in statistical harmony.

As we conclude this research, we boldly assert that no further investigations are needed in this curious area. It's not every day that one encounters such an amusing statistical conundrum, and perhaps it's best to leave this quirky correlation to stand as a testament to the whimsical nature of statistical analysis. After all, in the grand theater of research, sometimes the most unexpected and amusing findings are the ones that leave a lasting impression.

In the wise words of statistical humorist, we must always remember that "a good correlation is like a fine wine - both are statistical treasures worth savoring, even if they leave us a bit tipsy with curiosity." With that, we bid adieu to this statistical safari, leaving behind a trail of laughter and statistical stardust that may continue to delight future researchers for years to come.


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 The Connective Emission: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship between Democratic Votes in Arizona and BMW Recalls. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Whimsical Political and Automotive Studies


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 The Connective Emission: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship between Democratic Votes in Arizona and BMW Recalls. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Association for Psychocartographic Research and Analysis


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 The Connective Emission: A Statistical Examination of the Relationship between Democratic Votes in Arizona and BMW Recalls with an abstract of This study presents a detailed statistical analysis uncovering the peculiar relationship between Democratic presidential candidate votes in Arizona and the issuance of automotive recalls by BMW of North America. Utilizing data repositories from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US DOT, our research team examined electoral trends from 1976 to 2020 and cross-referenced them with BMW recall announcements. The findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9541353 and a strikingly significant p-value of less than 0.01. This unexpected connection compels us to ponder deeper into the societal, political, and potentially even automotive underpinnings at play. As we delve into this rather quirky correlation, we invite readers to join us on this enigmatic journey through the intersection of democratic preferences and mechanical malfunctions - for there may be more than meets the eye in this curious conundrum.

ChatGPT:

Democratic votes, Arizona, BMW recalls, statistical analysis, correlation coefficient, p-value, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, US DOT, electoral trends, automotive recalls, societal implications, political implications, automotive industry, mechanical malfunctions

*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 Democratic Presidential candidate in Arizona
Detailed data title: Total votes cast for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Arizona
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Arizona

Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America
Detailed data title: Automotive recals issued by BMW of North America
Source: US DOT
See what else correlates with Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America

Correlation r = 0.9541353 (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 = 0.9103743 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 91% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Arizona) over the 12 years from 1976 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.5E-6. 0.0000014796196155209173000000
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 0.95 in 0.00015% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 675,849 random variables You don't actually need 675 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 11 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 11 because we have two variables measured over a period of 12 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.84, 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.
197619801984198819921996200020042008201220162020
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Arizona (Total votes)2956022468433338544540295430506532886853418935241034710102523011612101672140
Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America (Recalls)313352111716151736




Why this works

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




Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([295602,246843,333854,454029,543050,653288,685341,893524,1034710,1025230,1161210,1672140,])
array_2 = np.array([3,1,3,3,5,2,11,17,16,15,17,36,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Arizona"
array_2_name = "Automotive recalls issued by BMW of North America"

# 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?

Bravo! Your evaluation rocks!


Correlation ID: 4423 · Black Variable ID: 25950 · Red Variable ID: 1121
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0