about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,343 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in Massachusetts and the second variable is Searches for 'never gonna give you up'.  The chart goes from 2006 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

Perhaps the Senators were secretly rickrolling their constituents with impassioned speeches and catchy campaign jingles. As their support grew, so did the urge to spread the lighthearted, never-ending internet prank. It's possible that politicking in the Bay State inadvertently led to a surge in '80s music nostalgia and meme appreciation. Who knew democracy could be so groovy?

Create a meme inspired by the never gonna give you up meme that in some way references Votes for Democratic Senators in Massachusetts. Try to emulate the style of the meme - don’t violate the copyright, just make it look and feel like the original meme.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts caused Popularity of the 'never gonna give you up' meme to increase. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Never Gonna Give Blue Up: The Correlation Between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes and 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Meme Popularity

The Journal of Political Meme 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 goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts and Popularity of the 'never gonna give you up' meme. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8339148 and p < 0.05 for 2006 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]]
"Never Gonna Give Blue Up: The Correlation Between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes and 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Meme Popularity"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unlikely link between the voting behavior of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections and the pop culture phenomenon known as the "never gonna give you up" meme. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we examined the temporal relationship between Senatorial votes and search interest in the meme from 2006 to 2020. Surprisingly, our analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8339148 (p < 0.05), suggesting a potential connection between political inclinations and internet nostalgia. Our findings not only shed light on the unexplored dynamics of meme influence but also highlight the quirky interplay between politics and pop culture. So, grab your lab coat and Rickroll into the world of unexpected correlations!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts and Popularity of the 'never gonna give you up' meme. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Never Gonna Give Blue Up: The Correlation Between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes and 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Meme Popularity"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unlikely link between the voting behavior of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections and the pop culture phenomenon known as the "never gonna give you up" meme. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we examined the temporal relationship between Senatorial votes and search interest in the meme from 2006 to 2020. Surprisingly, our analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8339148 (p < 0.05), suggesting a potential connection between political inclinations and internet nostalgia. Our findings not only shed light on the unexplored dynamics of meme influence but also highlight the quirky interplay between politics and pop culture. So, grab your lab coat and Rickroll into the world of unexpected correlations!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

In the realm of political research, uncovering unexpected connections between voter behavior and seemingly unrelated cultural phenomena can be akin to stumbling upon a unicorn in a field of data points. This study ventures into the uncharted territory of the correlation between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the proliferation of the iconic "never gonna give you up" meme. Now, you may be thinking, "What do political choices and a catchy 80s tune have in common?" Well, dear reader, prepare to be Rickrolled by the world of statistical analysis.

While most academic inquiries strive to answer pressing questions or address critical societal issues, we cannot deny the allure of exploring the whimsical, the quirky, and the absurd in the annals of research. After all, who wouldn't want to be the scientist that discovers a statistical link between political leanings and internet shenanigans? So, as we delve into this unusual and slightly whimsical investigation, let us not forget that amidst the serious pursuit of knowledge, there's room for a little scientific goofiness.

The very idea of investigating the nexus between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial votes and the "never gonna give you up" meme popularity may elicit a chuckle or two, but let us not underestimate the power of unexpected correlations. After all, as researchers, it is our duty to approach all data with an open mind, even if it treads into the realm of the, dare I say, "Rickdiculous."

As we embark on this scholarly journey, we'll employ rigorous statistical analyses and delve into the treasure trove of public opinion and online search trends to unravel the mystery behind this peculiar linkage. So, let us don our thinking caps and gracefully waltz into the bizarre yet intriguing world of political preferences and internet nostalgia. As the saying goes, "Never gonna give up on uncovering surprising correlations!"


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts and Popularity of the 'never gonna give you up' meme. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Never Gonna Give Blue Up: The Correlation Between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes and 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Meme Popularity"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unlikely link between the voting behavior of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections and the pop culture phenomenon known as the "never gonna give you up" meme. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we examined the temporal relationship between Senatorial votes and search interest in the meme from 2006 to 2020. Surprisingly, our analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8339148 (p < 0.05), suggesting a potential connection between political inclinations and internet nostalgia. Our findings not only shed light on the unexplored dynamics of meme influence but also highlight the quirky interplay between politics and pop culture. So, grab your lab coat and Rickroll into the world of unexpected correlations!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of political research, uncovering unexpected connections between voter behavior and seemingly unrelated cultural phenomena can be akin to stumbling upon a unicorn in a field of data points. This study ventures into the uncharted territory of the correlation between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the proliferation of the iconic "never gonna give you up" meme. Now, you may be thinking, "What do political choices and a catchy 80s tune have in common?" Well, dear reader, prepare to be Rickrolled by the world of statistical analysis.
While most academic inquiries strive to answer pressing questions or address critical societal issues, we cannot deny the allure of exploring the whimsical, the quirky, and the absurd in the annals of research. After all, who wouldn't want to be the scientist that discovers a statistical link between political leanings and internet shenanigans? So, as we delve into this unusual and slightly whimsical investigation, let us not forget that amidst the serious pursuit of knowledge, there's room for a little scientific goofiness.
The very idea of investigating the nexus between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial votes and the "never gonna give you up" meme popularity may elicit a chuckle or two, but let us not underestimate the power of unexpected correlations. After all, as researchers, it is our duty to approach all data with an open mind, even if it treads into the realm of the, dare I say, "Rickdiculous."
As we embark on this scholarly journey, we'll employ rigorous statistical analyses and delve into the treasure trove of public opinion and online search trends to unravel the mystery behind this peculiar linkage. So, let us don our thinking caps and gracefully waltz into the bizarre yet intriguing world of political preferences and internet nostalgia. As the saying goes, "Never gonna give up on uncovering surprising correlations!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Smith et al. (2015) examined the voting patterns of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections, focusing on factors such as party affiliation, candidate platforms, and regional demographics. The authors found that while traditional political variables played a significant role in voter decisions, there existed a mysterious undercurrent that seemed to elude rational explanation. Little did they know that this elusive factor was none other than the allure of Rick Astley's timeless hit, "Never Gonna Give You Up."

Doe and Jones (2018) conducted a comprehensive analysis of internet memes and their impact on public sentiment. In their study, they delved into the psychological mechanisms underlying meme contagion and identified peculiar patterns of behavior linked to the consumption of viral content. Their findings provided valuable insights into the potential influence of memes on unconventional domains, including political sentiment, thus setting the stage for our investigation into the enigmatic connection between meme popularity and senatorial votes in Massachusetts.

Turning to non-fiction sources, "The Internet is a Playground" by David Thorne presents a candid exploration of online culture and the peculiarities of digital interactions. While the book does not directly address political behavior, its humorous anecdotes shed light on the whimsical and often unpredictable nature of internet phenomena, laying the groundwork for our offbeat study.

In a similar vein, "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man" by Marshall McLuhan offers a theoretical framework for comprehending the impact of media on societal dynamics. While undoubtedly a classic in the realm of media studies, we are somewhat stretching its applicability to our current context, but hey, if it's good enough for academia, it's good enough for us!

Shifting to fictional narratives, the dystopian world depicted in "1984" by George Orwell presents a cautionary tale of government surveillance and manipulation of information. While the novel may seem lightyears away from our investigation, one could argue that the subtle, subconscious influence of cultural artifacts, such as memes, can shape perceptions and possibly, political inclinations. Or perhaps we've just gotten lost in the labyrinth of literary analogies.

In unearthing the most obscure and absurd sources, it is with a straight face (well, as straight as one can manage in this context) that we declare our rigorous examination of... drumroll, please... an assortment of CVS receipts. Yes, you read that correctly. Some may call it an unconventional approach, while others may deem it outright ludicrous, but within those seemingly mundane rolls of transaction listings, we sought to uncover hints, clues, or perhaps a hidden message from the retail gods about the conundrum at hand. After all, who wouldn't want to find enlightenment in the fine print of a coupon for fabric softener?


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts and Popularity of the 'never gonna give you up' meme. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends . You used data from 2006 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]]
"Never Gonna Give Blue Up: The Correlation Between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes and 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Meme Popularity"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unlikely link between the voting behavior of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections and the pop culture phenomenon known as the "never gonna give you up" meme. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we examined the temporal relationship between Senatorial votes and search interest in the meme from 2006 to 2020. Surprisingly, our analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8339148 (p < 0.05), suggesting a potential connection between political inclinations and internet nostalgia. Our findings not only shed light on the unexplored dynamics of meme influence but also highlight the quirky interplay between politics and pop culture. So, grab your lab coat and Rickroll into the world of unexpected correlations!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of political research, uncovering unexpected connections between voter behavior and seemingly unrelated cultural phenomena can be akin to stumbling upon a unicorn in a field of data points. This study ventures into the uncharted territory of the correlation between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the proliferation of the iconic "never gonna give you up" meme. Now, you may be thinking, "What do political choices and a catchy 80s tune have in common?" Well, dear reader, prepare to be Rickrolled by the world of statistical analysis.
While most academic inquiries strive to answer pressing questions or address critical societal issues, we cannot deny the allure of exploring the whimsical, the quirky, and the absurd in the annals of research. After all, who wouldn't want to be the scientist that discovers a statistical link between political leanings and internet shenanigans? So, as we delve into this unusual and slightly whimsical investigation, let us not forget that amidst the serious pursuit of knowledge, there's room for a little scientific goofiness.
The very idea of investigating the nexus between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial votes and the "never gonna give you up" meme popularity may elicit a chuckle or two, but let us not underestimate the power of unexpected correlations. After all, as researchers, it is our duty to approach all data with an open mind, even if it treads into the realm of the, dare I say, "Rickdiculous."
As we embark on this scholarly journey, we'll employ rigorous statistical analyses and delve into the treasure trove of public opinion and online search trends to unravel the mystery behind this peculiar linkage. So, let us don our thinking caps and gracefully waltz into the bizarre yet intriguing world of political preferences and internet nostalgia. As the saying goes, "Never gonna give up on uncovering surprising correlations!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

**[[METHODOLOGY]]**

*Data Collection*

To unravel the enigmatic relationship between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the popularity of the "never gonna give you up" meme, we embarked on a digital quest across the vast expanse of the internet. Our data collection expedition was akin to a treasure hunt, scouring through the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends like intrepid explorers of the webiverse.

From the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, we acquired meticulous records of Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes from 2006 to 2020, capturing the ebb and flow of political choices across the years. For our second treasure trove, the Harvard Dataverse, we obtained a bounty of search interest data gleaned from Google Trends, chronicling the rise and fall of "never gonna give you up" meme popularity. The digital ocean proved to be abundant with memes, and we narrowed our search to uncover the zeitgeist of internet culture in the Bay State.

*Quantum Quirks and Statistical Spellcraft*

With our datasets in hand, we summoned the powers of statistical sorcery to probe the mystifying nexus between political propensities and internet nostalgia. Using the time-honored incantation of Pearson correlation coefficient, we sought to illuminate the hidden dance between electoral preferences and the siren call of Rick Astley's melodic promises.

Our incantations revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8339148 (p < 0.05), indicating a compelling association between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the surge and retreat of "never gonna give you up" meme notoriety. This statistical conjuring unveiled a connection that defied conventional expectations, leaving us both perplexed and tickled by the unexpected alignment of political allegiance and musical meme allure.

*Ethical Enchantment and Academic Alchemy*

As we delved into this unconventional exploration, we maintained the utmost scholarly integrity and ethical fortitude. Our incantations were cast within the bounds of academic rigor, ensuring that our findings were derived from the purest blend of data and statistical spellcraft. While dancing on the tightrope between whimsy and scholarly elegance, we never wavered in our commitment to the pursuit of knowledge, no matter how bizarre or chuckle-inducing the inquiry.

In such an unusual endeavor, it is imperative to acknowledge the limitations inherent in our methodological incantations. The very nature of uncovering cryptic connections between memes and political proclivities invites skepticism, and rightly so. However, armed with statistical wand in hand, we strode forth into this singular odyssey with a blend of determination and irrepressible scientific curiosity.

*Conclusion*

In the immortal words of Rick Astley, "Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down." Similarly, our quest to unravel the correlation between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the "never gonna give you up" meme proved relentless in its pursuit of uncovering unforeseen connections. This whimsical odyssey, while unconventional, unveils the possibility of unearthing unsuspected associations that transcend the realms of politics and pop culture.

As we retire our statistical spellbooks for now, we leave behind this peculiar yet intriguing investigation into the interplay of internet nostalgia and electoral inclinations. The scholarly tapestry is woven not only with threads of gravity and solemn inquiry but also with the occasional splash of whimsy and unexpected correlations. In the grand scheme of academic exploration, there's no denying the allure of stumbling upon the "Rickdiculous" and reveling in the joy of scholarly serendipity.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts and Popularity of the 'never gonna give you up' meme. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

For the time period 2006 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8339148, r-squared of 0.6954140, and p < 0.05.

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Never Gonna Give Blue Up: The Correlation Between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes and 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Meme Popularity"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unlikely link between the voting behavior of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections and the pop culture phenomenon known as the "never gonna give you up" meme. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we examined the temporal relationship between Senatorial votes and search interest in the meme from 2006 to 2020. Surprisingly, our analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8339148 (p < 0.05), suggesting a potential connection between political inclinations and internet nostalgia. Our findings not only shed light on the unexplored dynamics of meme influence but also highlight the quirky interplay between politics and pop culture. So, grab your lab coat and Rickroll into the world of unexpected correlations!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the realm of political research, uncovering unexpected connections between voter behavior and seemingly unrelated cultural phenomena can be akin to stumbling upon a unicorn in a field of data points. This study ventures into the uncharted territory of the correlation between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the proliferation of the iconic "never gonna give you up" meme. Now, you may be thinking, "What do political choices and a catchy 80s tune have in common?" Well, dear reader, prepare to be Rickrolled by the world of statistical analysis.
While most academic inquiries strive to answer pressing questions or address critical societal issues, we cannot deny the allure of exploring the whimsical, the quirky, and the absurd in the annals of research. After all, who wouldn't want to be the scientist that discovers a statistical link between political leanings and internet shenanigans? So, as we delve into this unusual and slightly whimsical investigation, let us not forget that amidst the serious pursuit of knowledge, there's room for a little scientific goofiness.
The very idea of investigating the nexus between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial votes and the "never gonna give you up" meme popularity may elicit a chuckle or two, but let us not underestimate the power of unexpected correlations. After all, as researchers, it is our duty to approach all data with an open mind, even if it treads into the realm of the, dare I say, "Rickdiculous."
As we embark on this scholarly journey, we'll employ rigorous statistical analyses and delve into the treasure trove of public opinion and online search trends to unravel the mystery behind this peculiar linkage. So, let us don our thinking caps and gracefully waltz into the bizarre yet intriguing world of political preferences and internet nostalgia. As the saying goes, "Never gonna give up on uncovering surprising correlations!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

In this section, we decipher the tantalizing results of our investigation into the unexpected correlation between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the infectious "never gonna give you up" meme. As we unlock the findings, be prepared for a rollercoaster of statistical marvels and a few chuckles along the way.

Our analysis, spanning the years 2006 to 2020, unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.8339148, signaling a strong relationship between the voting behavior of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections and the enduring allure of Rick Astley's melodic masterpiece. It seems that while voters were casting their ballots, the "never gonna give you up" meme was harmonizing with their political sentiments in a dance of statistical synchronicity.

The coefficient of determination, denoted as r-squared, strutted in at a noteworthy 0.6954140, indicating that approximately 69.54% of the variation in meme popularity can be explained by the fluctuation in Democrat senatorial votes. It's clear that when it comes to the political preferences of Massachusetts Democrats, the "never gonna give you up" meme is more than just a fleeting internet fad – it waltzes in tandem with the ebb and flow of electoral decisions.

Now, onto everyone's favorite statistical stamp of approval – the p-value. Drum roll, please! With a p-value of less than 0.05, our findings pass the rigorous test of statistical significance, affirming that the observed correlation is not merely a trick of random chance. In other words, the resonance between Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts and the "never gonna give you up" meme popularity is not something to be dismissed as a mere statistical fluke. The connection is as real as Rick Astley's unwavering commitment to never let us down.

With the weight of these results firmly established, it is apparent that there exists a peculiar yet compelling relational dance between the political inclinations of Massachusetts Democrats and the timeless Rickroll anthem. To illustrate this captivating correlation, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot exhibiting the unmistakable alignment between Senatorial votes and the enduring charm of the "never gonna give you up" meme. Now, let's allow our data points to bust a move and make some statistical waves!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts and Popularity of the 'never gonna give you up' meme. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
"Never Gonna Give Blue Up: The Correlation Between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes and 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Meme Popularity"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unlikely link between the voting behavior of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections and the pop culture phenomenon known as the "never gonna give you up" meme. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we examined the temporal relationship between Senatorial votes and search interest in the meme from 2006 to 2020. Surprisingly, our analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8339148 (p < 0.05), suggesting a potential connection between political inclinations and internet nostalgia. Our findings not only shed light on the unexplored dynamics of meme influence but also highlight the quirky interplay between politics and pop culture. So, grab your lab coat and Rickroll into the world of unexpected correlations!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Smith et al. (2015) examined the voting patterns of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections, focusing on factors such as party affiliation, candidate platforms, and regional demographics. The authors found that while traditional political variables played a significant role in voter decisions, there existed a mysterious undercurrent that seemed to elude rational explanation. Little did they know that this elusive factor was none other than the allure of Rick Astley's timeless hit, "Never Gonna Give You Up."
Doe and Jones (2018) conducted a comprehensive analysis of internet memes and their impact on public sentiment. In their study, they delved into the psychological mechanisms underlying meme contagion and identified peculiar patterns of behavior linked to the consumption of viral content. Their findings provided valuable insights into the potential influence of memes on unconventional domains, including political sentiment, thus setting the stage for our investigation into the enigmatic connection between meme popularity and senatorial votes in Massachusetts.
Turning to non-fiction sources, "The Internet is a Playground" by David Thorne presents a candid exploration of online culture and the peculiarities of digital interactions. While the book does not directly address political behavior, its humorous anecdotes shed light on the whimsical and often unpredictable nature of internet phenomena, laying the groundwork for our offbeat study.
In a similar vein, "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man" by Marshall McLuhan offers a theoretical framework for comprehending the impact of media on societal dynamics. While undoubtedly a classic in the realm of media studies, we are somewhat stretching its applicability to our current context, but hey, if it's good enough for academia, it's good enough for us!
Shifting to fictional narratives, the dystopian world depicted in "1984" by George Orwell presents a cautionary tale of government surveillance and manipulation of information. While the novel may seem lightyears away from our investigation, one could argue that the subtle, subconscious influence of cultural artifacts, such as memes, can shape perceptions and possibly, political inclinations. Or perhaps we've just gotten lost in the labyrinth of literary analogies.
In unearthing the most obscure and absurd sources, it is with a straight face (well, as straight as one can manage in this context) that we declare our rigorous examination of... drumroll, please... an assortment of CVS receipts. Yes, you read that correctly. Some may call it an unconventional approach, while others may deem it outright ludicrous, but within those seemingly mundane rolls of transaction listings, we sought to uncover hints, clues, or perhaps a hidden message from the retail gods about the conundrum at hand. After all, who wouldn't want to find enlightenment in the fine print of a coupon for fabric softener?

[[RESULTS]]
In this section, we decipher the tantalizing results of our investigation into the unexpected correlation between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the infectious "never gonna give you up" meme. As we unlock the findings, be prepared for a rollercoaster of statistical marvels and a few chuckles along the way.
Our analysis, spanning the years 2006 to 2020, unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.8339148, signaling a strong relationship between the voting behavior of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections and the enduring allure of Rick Astley's melodic masterpiece. It seems that while voters were casting their ballots, the "never gonna give you up" meme was harmonizing with their political sentiments in a dance of statistical synchronicity.
The coefficient of determination, denoted as r-squared, strutted in at a noteworthy 0.6954140, indicating that approximately 69.54% of the variation in meme popularity can be explained by the fluctuation in Democrat senatorial votes. It's clear that when it comes to the political preferences of Massachusetts Democrats, the "never gonna give you up" meme is more than just a fleeting internet fad – it waltzes in tandem with the ebb and flow of electoral decisions.
Now, onto everyone's favorite statistical stamp of approval – the p-value. Drum roll, please! With a p-value of less than 0.05, our findings pass the rigorous test of statistical significance, affirming that the observed correlation is not merely a trick of random chance. In other words, the resonance between Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts and the "never gonna give you up" meme popularity is not something to be dismissed as a mere statistical fluke. The connection is as real as Rick Astley's unwavering commitment to never let us down.
With the weight of these results firmly established, it is apparent that there exists a peculiar yet compelling relational dance between the political inclinations of Massachusetts Democrats and the timeless Rickroll anthem. To illustrate this captivating correlation, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot exhibiting the unmistakable alignment between Senatorial votes and the enduring charm of the "never gonna give you up" meme. Now, let's allow our data points to bust a move and make some statistical waves!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings provide resounding support for the seemingly whimsical yet inexplicably profound connection between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the indomitable "never gonna give you up" meme. It is evident that beyond the realm of traditional political variables, a melody of internet nostalgia has surreptitiously waltzed into the hearts and minds of voters, swaying them in unison with the rhythms of electoral decision-making.

The correlation coefficient of 0.8339148 serves as the incontrovertible herald of this extraordinary association. For those uninitiated in the language of statistics, this number essentially indicates that the allure of the "never gonna give you up" meme and the inclinations of Massachusetts Democrats on the ballot share a compelling embrace, akin to two peas in a particularly rhythmic pod. While one may be inclined to dismiss such a correlation as an inconsequential statistical blip, our cherished p-value of less than 0.05 boldly stands as the guardian of validity, waving away any doubts with the assurance that this alignment is no statistical fluke.

Drawing a thread from the literature landscape we navigated, our results echo the intuitions of Smith et al. (2015) and Doe and Jones (2018), who rightly discerned the enigmatic undercurrents shaping Massachusetts Democrat voting behavior. Indeed, what appeared once as a mysterious tide in the sociopolitical ocean now finds its symphonic muse in the timeless serenade of Rick Astley, uniting the empirical rigor of scientific inquiry with the quirkiness of internet culture. As for our unconventional forays into amusing references and the unprecedented scrutiny of CVS receipts, well, let's just say that in the world of empirical research, a little absurdity can go a long way.

As we reflect on the implications of our findings, we are reminded of the unyielding perseverance of the scientific spirit, beckoning us to explore the unexpected, embrace the absurd, and uncover the hidden harmonies of the world around us. In the immortal words of Rick Astley, "Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down," our study has fearlessly embraced the unpredictable, and in doing so, has shed newfound light on the delightful interplay of politics and pop culture.

So, let us raise our statistical instruments to the irresistible allure of the "never gonna give you up" meme, celebrating its unexpected synergy with Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and beckoning fellow researchers to join us in the quest for empirical truths that dance to the rhythm of surprise and hilarity.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts and Popularity of the 'never gonna give you up' meme. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Never Gonna Give Blue Up: The Correlation Between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes and 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Meme Popularity"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the unlikely link between the voting behavior of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections and the pop culture phenomenon known as the "never gonna give you up" meme. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we examined the temporal relationship between Senatorial votes and search interest in the meme from 2006 to 2020. Surprisingly, our analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8339148 (p < 0.05), suggesting a potential connection between political inclinations and internet nostalgia. Our findings not only shed light on the unexplored dynamics of meme influence but also highlight the quirky interplay between politics and pop culture. So, grab your lab coat and Rickroll into the world of unexpected correlations!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the realm of political research, uncovering unexpected connections between voter behavior and seemingly unrelated cultural phenomena can be akin to stumbling upon a unicorn in a field of data points. This study ventures into the uncharted territory of the correlation between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the proliferation of the iconic "never gonna give you up" meme. Now, you may be thinking, "What do political choices and a catchy 80s tune have in common?" Well, dear reader, prepare to be Rickrolled by the world of statistical analysis.
While most academic inquiries strive to answer pressing questions or address critical societal issues, we cannot deny the allure of exploring the whimsical, the quirky, and the absurd in the annals of research. After all, who wouldn't want to be the scientist that discovers a statistical link between political leanings and internet shenanigans? So, as we delve into this unusual and slightly whimsical investigation, let us not forget that amidst the serious pursuit of knowledge, there's room for a little scientific goofiness.
The very idea of investigating the nexus between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial votes and the "never gonna give you up" meme popularity may elicit a chuckle or two, but let us not underestimate the power of unexpected correlations. After all, as researchers, it is our duty to approach all data with an open mind, even if it treads into the realm of the, dare I say, "Rickdiculous."
As we embark on this scholarly journey, we'll employ rigorous statistical analyses and delve into the treasure trove of public opinion and online search trends to unravel the mystery behind this peculiar linkage. So, let us don our thinking caps and gracefully waltz into the bizarre yet intriguing world of political preferences and internet nostalgia. As the saying goes, "Never gonna give up on uncovering surprising correlations!"

[[RESULTS]]
In this section, we decipher the tantalizing results of our investigation into the unexpected correlation between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the infectious "never gonna give you up" meme. As we unlock the findings, be prepared for a rollercoaster of statistical marvels and a few chuckles along the way.
Our analysis, spanning the years 2006 to 2020, unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.8339148, signaling a strong relationship between the voting behavior of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections and the enduring allure of Rick Astley's melodic masterpiece. It seems that while voters were casting their ballots, the "never gonna give you up" meme was harmonizing with their political sentiments in a dance of statistical synchronicity.
The coefficient of determination, denoted as r-squared, strutted in at a noteworthy 0.6954140, indicating that approximately 69.54% of the variation in meme popularity can be explained by the fluctuation in Democrat senatorial votes. It's clear that when it comes to the political preferences of Massachusetts Democrats, the "never gonna give you up" meme is more than just a fleeting internet fad – it waltzes in tandem with the ebb and flow of electoral decisions.
Now, onto everyone's favorite statistical stamp of approval – the p-value. Drum roll, please! With a p-value of less than 0.05, our findings pass the rigorous test of statistical significance, affirming that the observed correlation is not merely a trick of random chance. In other words, the resonance between Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts and the "never gonna give you up" meme popularity is not something to be dismissed as a mere statistical fluke. The connection is as real as Rick Astley's unwavering commitment to never let us down.
With the weight of these results firmly established, it is apparent that there exists a peculiar yet compelling relational dance between the political inclinations of Massachusetts Democrats and the timeless Rickroll anthem. To illustrate this captivating correlation, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot exhibiting the unmistakable alignment between Senatorial votes and the enduring charm of the "never gonna give you up" meme. Now, let's allow our data points to bust a move and make some statistical waves!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has not only shed light on the unexpected kinship between Massachusetts Democrat senatorial votes and the enduring allure of the 'never gonna give you up' meme, but it has also demonstrated that statistical analysis can be a real "Ricktreat." From the correlation coefficient to the p-value, we've witnessed a symphony of numbers harmonizing with the whimsical charm of internet nostalgia and political preferences.

Now, before we allow ourselves to be swept away by the jazzy beat of our results, it's worth noting that correlation does not imply causation – even if it's as tempting as the irresistible chorus of "never gonna give you up." As much as we'd like to believe that the meme's omnipresence swayed the political tides, we must tread cautiously on the slippery dance floor of scientific inference.

As we bid adieu to this peculiar yet fascinating exploration, it becomes quite clear that the whims of statistical correlations can lead us to unexpected places. While we've unraveled the enigmatic bond between Democrat votes for Senators in Massachusetts and the 'never gonna give you up' meme, it's safe to say that our findings are as solid as Rick Astley's impeccably coiffed hair.

In the grand tapestry of research, there's always room for a sprinkle of scientific quirkiness, a dash of statistical whimsy, and a whole lot of Rickrolling. With that, we assert that further exploration in this area is as unnecessary as a rickroll in the age of Spotify playlists. It's time to give this peculiar correlation a well-deserved rest, and perhaps heed the profound wisdom of Rick Astley himself – "Never gonna give research up, never gonna let academic rigor down."


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 Never Gonna Give Blue Up: The Correlation Between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes and 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Meme Popularity. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Meme 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 Never Gonna Give Blue Up: The Correlation Between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes and 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Meme Popularity. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Political Meme Studies


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 Never Gonna Give Blue Up: The Correlation Between Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes and 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Meme Popularity with an abstract of In this study, we delve into the unlikely link between the voting behavior of Massachusetts Democrats in senatorial elections and the pop culture phenomenon known as the "never gonna give you up" meme. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we examined the temporal relationship between Senatorial votes and search interest in the meme from 2006 to 2020. Surprisingly, our analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8339148 (p < 0.05), suggesting a potential connection between political inclinations and internet nostalgia. Our findings not only shed light on the unexplored dynamics of meme influence but also highlight the quirky interplay between politics and pop culture. So, grab your lab coat and Rickroll into the world of unexpected correlations!

ChatGPT:

Massachusetts Democrat Senatorial Votes, "Never Gonna Give You Up" meme, meme popularity, internet nostalgia, political inclinations, meme influence, Massachusetts senatorial elections, online search behavior, Google Trends, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, correlation coefficient, unexpected correlations, pop culture, political behavior

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Searches for 'never gonna give you up'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'never gonna give you up' (without quotes, in the United States)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume is a unique Google thing; the shape of the chart is accurate but the actual numbers are meaningless.

See what else correlates with Searches for 'never gonna give you up'

Correlation r = 0.8339148 (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 = 0.6954140 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 69.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Searches for 'never gonna give you up') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Massachusetts) over the 6 years from 2006 through 2020.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0391. 0.0390857520480711500000000000
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 0.83 in 3.91% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 26 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 5 because we have two variables measured over a period of 6 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.07, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200620082012201420182020
Votes for Democratic Senators in Massachusetts (Total votes)150074019719701696350128994016333702357810
Searches for 'never gonna give you up' (Relative popularity)2.1666726.916715.7513.416717.833331.0833




Why this works

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




Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([1500740,1971970,1696350,1289940,1633370,2357810,])
array_2 = np.array([2.16667,26.9167,15.75,13.4167,17.8333,31.0833,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Massachusetts"
array_2_name = "Searches for 'never gonna give you up'"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're a rater extraordinaire!


Correlation ID: 5343 · Black Variable ID: 26254 · Red Variable ID: 25160
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0