about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,451 · 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 Libertarian Senators in Colorado and the second variable is Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number.  The chart goes from 2002 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the Libertarian philosophy of individual freedom and minimal government intervention gained traction in Colorado, it inadvertently led to a surge in 2-related positivity. This subtle yet influential mindset shift created a metaphysical connection to the Mega Millions drawing, causing the number 2 to exude an inexplicable charm. Perhaps it's the idea of doubling down on personal choices or the symbolic representation of peace, but one thing's for sure - in the cosmic lottery of life, the Libertarian 2 phenomenon was a sure bet for amusement!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an image of a picturesque Colorado landscape with rolling hills and a deep blue sky. In the foreground, a line of voters, depicted with colorful, stylized graphics, eagerly waits in line to cast their ballots at a rustic polling station. The voters are portrayed with diverse and expressive faces, their eyes filled with hope and determination. Nearby, a quaint convenience store is depicted, bustling with activity. A digital billboard situated by the roadside proudly displays the Mega Millions winning numbers, with the number 2 depicted as a glowing, magnetic element within the scene, emitting a subtle charm. The atmosphere is filled with positivity and amusement as a sense of connection between the philosophical shift and the number 2 resonates within the hearts of the voters and lottery players, evoking a feeling of enchantment and unity amidst the Colorado landscape. 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 Libertarian Senators in Colorado and Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Art nouveau Cyber folk a meme Cutsy graphics Scalar art
ChatGPT: Cutsy graphics

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 Libertarian Senators in Colorado and Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number, in the following situation: As the Libertarian philosophy of individual freedom and minimal government intervention gained traction in Colorado, it inadvertently led to a surge in 2-related positivity. This subtle yet influential mindset shift created a metaphysical connection to the Mega Millions drawing, causing the number 2 to exude an inexplicable charm. Perhaps it's the idea of doubling down on personal choices or the symbolic representation of peace, but one thing's for sure - in the cosmic lottery of life, the Libertarian 2 phenomenon was a sure bet for amusement!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: Amidst the sprawling landscapes of Colorado, a line of voters eagerly cast their ballots for Libertarian Senators, their faces illuminated with hope and determination. Nearby, at a bustling convenience store, a digital billboard proudly displays the Mega Millions winning numbers, with the number 2 glowing brightly, seemingly emitting a subtle, magnetic charm. The connection between the philosophical shift and the number 2 becomes evident as a feeling of positivity and amusement fills the air, resonating within the hearts of the voters and lottery players alike.

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: [ Cutsy graphics ] and depicting this scene: Amidst the sprawling landscapes of Colorado, a line of voters eagerly cast their ballots for Libertarian Senators, their faces illuminated with hope and determination. Nearby, at a bustling convenience store, a digital billboard proudly displays the Mega Millions winning numbers, with the number 2 glowing brightly, seemingly emitting a subtle, magnetic charm. The connection between the philosophical shift and the number 2 becomes evident as a feeling of positivity and amusement fills the air, resonating within the hearts of the voters and lottery players alike. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an image of a picturesque Colorado landscape with rolling hills and a deep blue sky. In the foreground, a line of voters, depicted with colorful, stylized graphics, eagerly waits in line to cast their ballots at a rustic polling station. The voters are portrayed with diverse and expressive faces, their eyes filled with hope and determination. Nearby, a quaint convenience store is depicted, bustling with activity. A digital billboard situated by the roadside proudly displays the Mega Millions winning numbers, with the number 2 depicted as a glowing, magnetic element within the scene, emitting a subtle charm. The atmosphere is filled with positivity and amusement as a sense of connection between the philosophical shift and the number 2 resonates within the hearts of the voters and lottery players, evoking a feeling of enchantment and unity amidst the Colorado landscape.

*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 increases in Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado positively influenced Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Odds are in their Favor: 2 Good 2 Be True - A Correlational Study of Libertarian Votes and the Winning Mega Millions Numbers in Colorado

The Journal of Improbable Correlations

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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Include a pun in the title.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and NY Mega Millions Lottery to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9480316 and p < 0.01 for 2002 to 2020.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
The Odds are in their Favor: 2 Good 2 Be True - A Correlational Study of Libertarian Votes and the Winning Mega Millions Numbers in Colorado

[[ABSTRACT]]
The question of the relationship between seemingly unrelated factors has long puzzled researchers. In this study, we set out to explore the curious correlation between the number of times the digit 2 emerged as a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2002 to 2020.

Our findings, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9480316 and p < 0.01, suggest a surprisingly strong relationship between these two variables. While this may seem like a coincidence "2" good to be true, our results hold statistical significance. We delve into potential explanations, ranging from the influence of lucky number superstitions on voter behavior to the possibility of a clandestine alliance between lottery balls and political campaigns. Ultimately, this study sheds light on an unexpected intersection between the realm of chance and the realm of politics, proving that when it comes to correlations, the odds are truly unpredictable.


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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Odds are in their Favor: 2 Good 2 Be True - A Correlational Study of Libertarian Votes and the Winning Mega Millions Numbers in Colorado

[[ABSTRACT]]
The question of the relationship between seemingly unrelated factors has long puzzled researchers. In this study, we set out to explore the curious correlation between the number of times the digit 2 emerged as a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2002 to 2020.

Our findings, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9480316 and p < 0.01, suggest a surprisingly strong relationship between these two variables. While this may seem like a coincidence "2" good to be true, our results hold statistical significance. We delve into potential explanations, ranging from the influence of lucky number superstitions on voter behavior to the possibility of a clandestine alliance between lottery balls and political campaigns. Ultimately, this study sheds light on an unexpected intersection between the realm of chance and the realm of politics, proving that when it comes to correlations, the odds are truly unpredictable.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

As humans, we are obsessed with patterns and correlations, especially when they involve seemingly unrelated phenomena. From the uncanny relationship between the phases of the moon and emergency room visits to the puzzling connection between the popularity of beards and the sales of lumberjack shirts, our quest for understanding the interplay of random events knows no bounds.

In this spirit of unwavering curiosity, we turn our attention to the unlikely pairing of Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and the frequency of the number 2 gracing the stage as a winning Mega Millions number. At first glance, these two topics may appear as disparate as a snowboarder in a library, but as the saying goes, "there are always two sides to every story" - or in this case, perhaps there's just a two in it.

The state of Colorado, known for its breathtaking landscapes and pioneering spirit, has also been a hotbed for political diversity, including a notable presence of Libertarian voters. On the other hand, the Mega Millions lottery, a game of chance with tantalizing jackpots, has captured the imagination of hopeful participants, with the number 2 occasionally taking the spotlight as one of the winning digits.

As researchers, we couldn't help but ponder whether there might be a curious link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Are Libertarian voters in Colorado drawn to the number 2 like moths to a flame? Or could it be that the elusive digit 2 holds a mystical allure that transcends the political and the probabilistic realms?

Intrigued by this conundrum, we set out to investigate this unlikely correlation through a thorough analysis of the relevant data. Our study aims to shed light on this peculiar relationship and to unravel the mystery behind what could be succinctly described as "2 good 2 be true." So, buckle up and prepare for a wild ride through the erratic landscape of statistics, politics, and lotteries as we delve into this curious intersection of numbers and ballots.


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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number. 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 you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Odds are in their Favor: 2 Good 2 Be True - A Correlational Study of Libertarian Votes and the Winning Mega Millions Numbers in Colorado

[[ABSTRACT]]
The question of the relationship between seemingly unrelated factors has long puzzled researchers. In this study, we set out to explore the curious correlation between the number of times the digit 2 emerged as a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2002 to 2020.

Our findings, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9480316 and p < 0.01, suggest a surprisingly strong relationship between these two variables. While this may seem like a coincidence "2" good to be true, our results hold statistical significance. We delve into potential explanations, ranging from the influence of lucky number superstitions on voter behavior to the possibility of a clandestine alliance between lottery balls and political campaigns. Ultimately, this study sheds light on an unexpected intersection between the realm of chance and the realm of politics, proving that when it comes to correlations, the odds are truly unpredictable.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As humans, we are obsessed with patterns and correlations, especially when they involve seemingly unrelated phenomena. From the uncanny relationship between the phases of the moon and emergency room visits to the puzzling connection between the popularity of beards and the sales of lumberjack shirts, our quest for understanding the interplay of random events knows no bounds.
In this spirit of unwavering curiosity, we turn our attention to the unlikely pairing of Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and the frequency of the number 2 gracing the stage as a winning Mega Millions number. At first glance, these two topics may appear as disparate as a snowboarder in a library, but as the saying goes, "there are always two sides to every story" - or in this case, perhaps there's just a two in it.
The state of Colorado, known for its breathtaking landscapes and pioneering spirit, has also been a hotbed for political diversity, including a notable presence of Libertarian voters. On the other hand, the Mega Millions lottery, a game of chance with tantalizing jackpots, has captured the imagination of hopeful participants, with the number 2 occasionally taking the spotlight as one of the winning digits.
As researchers, we couldn't help but ponder whether there might be a curious link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Are Libertarian voters in Colorado drawn to the number 2 like moths to a flame? Or could it be that the elusive digit 2 holds a mystical allure that transcends the political and the probabilistic realms?
Intrigued by this conundrum, we set out to investigate this unlikely correlation through a thorough analysis of the relevant data. Our study aims to shed light on this peculiar relationship and to unravel the mystery behind what could be succinctly described as "2 good 2 be true." So, buckle up and prepare for a wild ride through the erratic landscape of statistics, politics, and lotteries as we delve into this curious intersection of numbers and ballots.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The relationship between politics and probability has long been a source of fascination and speculation. Smith (2007) postulates that the convergence of chance and choice may hold unsuspecting sway over public opinion and electoral outcomes. Similarly, Doe (2013) explores the impact of superstitions and lucky numbers on decision-making processes, shedding light on the curious ways in which numerical symbols can influence behavior. These sobering studies lay the groundwork for our investigation into the unexpected correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and the fortuitous appearance of the number 2 in the Mega Millions lottery.

In "The Numbers Game: Why Everything We Know About Soccer Is Wrong," authors Chris Anderson and David Sally provide a thought-provoking analysis on the role of numbers and statistics in the world of sports. While their focus may not directly align with our topic, it serves as a reminder of the unanticipated ways in which numerical patterns emerge in unpredictable domains. On a more fictional note, Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" offers a tantalizing mix of cryptic symbols and hidden meanings, beckoning readers to decipher enigmatic connections. While we may not be dealing with secret societies and ancient codes, the allure of unraveling an intricate puzzle resonates with the spirit of our investigation.

Turning to animated sources of inspiration, the intersecting worlds of "SpongeBob SquarePants" and "The Simpsons" offer playful insights into the quirks of human behavior. While their comedic antics may not directly inform our research, the sheer delight in uncovering the unexpected lends a lighthearted perspective to our exploration. Additionally, the timeless wisdom of "Blue's Clues" serves as a testament to the power of keen observation and deductive reasoning, qualities that are indispensable in any scholarly pursuit, especially ones involving peculiar correlations.

As we venture further into the realm of unlikely connections, it becomes evident that the enigmatic interplay between politics and chance may hold more surprises than meets the eye. With their diversity of perspectives and imaginative interpretations, these sources set the stage for our investigation into the mystical alliance between the number 2 and the Libertarian votes in Colorado. So, let us embark on this whimsical journey with open minds and a dash of humor, for as we unravel the unpredictable, one thing is certain - 2 is not always just a number.


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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and NY Mega Millions Lottery . You used data from 2002 to 2020

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Odds are in their Favor: 2 Good 2 Be True - A Correlational Study of Libertarian Votes and the Winning Mega Millions Numbers in Colorado

[[ABSTRACT]]
The question of the relationship between seemingly unrelated factors has long puzzled researchers. In this study, we set out to explore the curious correlation between the number of times the digit 2 emerged as a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2002 to 2020.

Our findings, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9480316 and p < 0.01, suggest a surprisingly strong relationship between these two variables. While this may seem like a coincidence "2" good to be true, our results hold statistical significance. We delve into potential explanations, ranging from the influence of lucky number superstitions on voter behavior to the possibility of a clandestine alliance between lottery balls and political campaigns. Ultimately, this study sheds light on an unexpected intersection between the realm of chance and the realm of politics, proving that when it comes to correlations, the odds are truly unpredictable.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
As humans, we are obsessed with patterns and correlations, especially when they involve seemingly unrelated phenomena. From the uncanny relationship between the phases of the moon and emergency room visits to the puzzling connection between the popularity of beards and the sales of lumberjack shirts, our quest for understanding the interplay of random events knows no bounds.
In this spirit of unwavering curiosity, we turn our attention to the unlikely pairing of Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and the frequency of the number 2 gracing the stage as a winning Mega Millions number. At first glance, these two topics may appear as disparate as a snowboarder in a library, but as the saying goes, "there are always two sides to every story" - or in this case, perhaps there's just a two in it.
The state of Colorado, known for its breathtaking landscapes and pioneering spirit, has also been a hotbed for political diversity, including a notable presence of Libertarian voters. On the other hand, the Mega Millions lottery, a game of chance with tantalizing jackpots, has captured the imagination of hopeful participants, with the number 2 occasionally taking the spotlight as one of the winning digits.
As researchers, we couldn't help but ponder whether there might be a curious link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Are Libertarian voters in Colorado drawn to the number 2 like moths to a flame? Or could it be that the elusive digit 2 holds a mystical allure that transcends the political and the probabilistic realms?
Intrigued by this conundrum, we set out to investigate this unlikely correlation through a thorough analysis of the relevant data. Our study aims to shed light on this peculiar relationship and to unravel the mystery behind what could be succinctly described as "2 good 2 be true." So, buckle up and prepare for a wild ride through the erratic landscape of statistics, politics, and lotteries as we delve into this curious intersection of numbers and ballots.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To uncover the enigmatic connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and the appearance of the number 2 as a winning Mega Millions number, our research team embarked on a data-gathering expedition that would make even the most intrepid of explorers envious. Armed with an insatiable hunger for statistical adventure and a trusty internet connection, we scoured the digital terrain, traversing the hallowed halls of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, navigating the labyrinthine corridors of the Harvard Dataverse, and braving the high-stakes landscape of the NY Mega Millions Lottery.

With our data spanning from the epochal year of 2002 to the tumultuous times of 2020, we harnessed the power of information from these esteemed sources to scrutinize the intersection of political preferences and lottery luck. Our approach was as meticulously crafted as a masterful Sudoku puzzle, employing a blend of quantitative analysis and whimsical curiosity to peel back the layers of this curious correlation.

First, we deftly plucked the historical records of Libertarian votes for Senatorial candidates in Colorado from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, meticulously documenting the ebb and flow of political fortunes over the years. This unearthing of electoral data was akin to discovering hidden treasure, as we meticulously tabulated the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates, never once losing sight of our quest for numerical enlightenment.

In parallel, we delved into the annals of the NY Mega Millions Lottery, where the whims of chance and fate intertwine with the aspirations of millions. We meticulously combed through the winning numbers, each one a tantalizing possibility in the grand tapestry of luck, to discern the frequency with which the digit 2 emerged as a winning protagonist. With each winning number scrutinized, we navigated the treacherous waters of randomness, seeking patterns and connections that even the most skeptical observer would dare not dismiss outright.

Once the data had been dutifully corralled and cataloged, we unleashed the formidable power of statistical analysis, wielding correlations and p-values with the grace of a maestro conducting a symphony. With reverent precision, we calculated the correlation coefficient between the occurrences of our coveted digit 2 in the Mega Millions winning numbers and the Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado, utilizing a robust time series analysis to capture the nuances of this unexpected relationship.

In our quest for clarity, we leveraged the wondrous tools of multivariate regression analysis to disentangle the web of factors that may influence this uncanny correlation, exploring potential confounding variables with the determination of a sleuth unraveling a complex mystery.

As with all great endeavors that straddle the realms of whimsy and academia, our methods exuded a blend of meticulous rigor and unbounded curiosity, drawing from the zeitgeist of unorthodox inquiry and statistical daring. The fruits of our methodological exploits stand as a testament to the unrelenting pursuit of knowledge, even when the signs may seem as puzzling as a riddle wrapped in an enigma, and sprinkled with a dash of whimsical statistical 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

For the time period 2002 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9480316, r-squared of 0.8987639, 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 Odds are in their Favor: 2 Good 2 Be True - A Correlational Study of Libertarian Votes and the Winning Mega Millions Numbers in Colorado

[[ABSTRACT]]
The question of the relationship between seemingly unrelated factors has long puzzled researchers. In this study, we set out to explore the curious correlation between the number of times the digit 2 emerged as a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2002 to 2020.

Our findings, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9480316 and p < 0.01, suggest a surprisingly strong relationship between these two variables. While this may seem like a coincidence "2" good to be true, our results hold statistical significance. We delve into potential explanations, ranging from the influence of lucky number superstitions on voter behavior to the possibility of a clandestine alliance between lottery balls and political campaigns. Ultimately, this study sheds light on an unexpected intersection between the realm of chance and the realm of politics, proving that when it comes to correlations, the odds are truly unpredictable.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As humans, we are obsessed with patterns and correlations, especially when they involve seemingly unrelated phenomena. From the uncanny relationship between the phases of the moon and emergency room visits to the puzzling connection between the popularity of beards and the sales of lumberjack shirts, our quest for understanding the interplay of random events knows no bounds.
In this spirit of unwavering curiosity, we turn our attention to the unlikely pairing of Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and the frequency of the number 2 gracing the stage as a winning Mega Millions number. At first glance, these two topics may appear as disparate as a snowboarder in a library, but as the saying goes, "there are always two sides to every story" - or in this case, perhaps there's just a two in it.
The state of Colorado, known for its breathtaking landscapes and pioneering spirit, has also been a hotbed for political diversity, including a notable presence of Libertarian voters. On the other hand, the Mega Millions lottery, a game of chance with tantalizing jackpots, has captured the imagination of hopeful participants, with the number 2 occasionally taking the spotlight as one of the winning digits.
As researchers, we couldn't help but ponder whether there might be a curious link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Are Libertarian voters in Colorado drawn to the number 2 like moths to a flame? Or could it be that the elusive digit 2 holds a mystical allure that transcends the political and the probabilistic realms?
Intrigued by this conundrum, we set out to investigate this unlikely correlation through a thorough analysis of the relevant data. Our study aims to shed light on this peculiar relationship and to unravel the mystery behind what could be succinctly described as "2 good 2 be true." So, buckle up and prepare for a wild ride through the erratic landscape of statistics, politics, and lotteries as we delve into this curious intersection of numbers and ballots.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

In the analysis of the data collected from 2002 to 2020, a striking correlation of 0.9480316 emerged between the number of times the digit 2 was a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. An r-squared value of 0.8987639 further emphasized the robustness of this relationship, leaving us astounded by the unexpected harmony between the world of politics and the realm of lottery numbers.

As our scatterplot in Figure 1 vividly portrays, the data points form a striking upward trend, highlighting the strong positive correlation between these seemingly unrelated variables. It's as if the number 2 and the Libertarian votes are engaged in a dance of statistical significance, a tango of intrigue that could make even the most seasoned researchers do a double take - or in this case, a "double 2."

The probability values (p < 0.01) associated with our findings further reinforce the statistical strength of this correlation, leading us to conclude that this is more than just a mere fluke - though it may seem like a coincidence "2" good to be true. The evidence suggests a substantial relationship between these two apparently disparate phenomena, sparking conversations that are "2" unconventional for the typical research circles.

So, what are we to make of all this? One might be tempted to call it a case of "2-mendous" luck or "2-gether" they make an intriguing pair. Whether it's the influence of lucky number superstitions on voter behavior or the clandestine alliance between lottery balls and political campaigns, the possibilities for this unexpected correlation are as numerous as the tickets sold in a record Mega Millions jackpot.

In the grand scheme of statistical oddities, this study highlights the unpredictability of correlations and the uncanny ways in which unrelated factors can intertwine. It illustrates the wondrous and whimsical nature of data analysis, proving that when it comes to unexpected connections, the numbers can be as surprising as the results of a lottery.


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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
The Odds are in their Favor: 2 Good 2 Be True - A Correlational Study of Libertarian Votes and the Winning Mega Millions Numbers in Colorado

[[ABSTRACT]]
The question of the relationship between seemingly unrelated factors has long puzzled researchers. In this study, we set out to explore the curious correlation between the number of times the digit 2 emerged as a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2002 to 2020.

Our findings, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9480316 and p < 0.01, suggest a surprisingly strong relationship between these two variables. While this may seem like a coincidence "2" good to be true, our results hold statistical significance. We delve into potential explanations, ranging from the influence of lucky number superstitions on voter behavior to the possibility of a clandestine alliance between lottery balls and political campaigns. Ultimately, this study sheds light on an unexpected intersection between the realm of chance and the realm of politics, proving that when it comes to correlations, the odds are truly unpredictable.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The relationship between politics and probability has long been a source of fascination and speculation. Smith (2007) postulates that the convergence of chance and choice may hold unsuspecting sway over public opinion and electoral outcomes. Similarly, Doe (2013) explores the impact of superstitions and lucky numbers on decision-making processes, shedding light on the curious ways in which numerical symbols can influence behavior. These sobering studies lay the groundwork for our investigation into the unexpected correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and the fortuitous appearance of the number 2 in the Mega Millions lottery.
In "The Numbers Game: Why Everything We Know About Soccer Is Wrong," authors Chris Anderson and David Sally provide a thought-provoking analysis on the role of numbers and statistics in the world of sports. While their focus may not directly align with our topic, it serves as a reminder of the unanticipated ways in which numerical patterns emerge in unpredictable domains. On a more fictional note, Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" offers a tantalizing mix of cryptic symbols and hidden meanings, beckoning readers to decipher enigmatic connections. While we may not be dealing with secret societies and ancient codes, the allure of unraveling an intricate puzzle resonates with the spirit of our investigation.
Turning to animated sources of inspiration, the intersecting worlds of "SpongeBob SquarePants" and "The Simpsons" offer playful insights into the quirks of human behavior. While their comedic antics may not directly inform our research, the sheer delight in uncovering the unexpected lends a lighthearted perspective to our exploration. Additionally, the timeless wisdom of "Blue's Clues" serves as a testament to the power of keen observation and deductive reasoning, qualities that are indispensable in any scholarly pursuit, especially ones involving peculiar correlations.
As we venture further into the realm of unlikely connections, it becomes evident that the enigmatic interplay between politics and chance may hold more surprises than meets the eye. With their diversity of perspectives and imaginative interpretations, these sources set the stage for our investigation into the mystical alliance between the number 2 and the Libertarian votes in Colorado. So, let us embark on this whimsical journey with open minds and a dash of humor, for as we unravel the unpredictable, one thing is certain - 2 is not always just a number.

[[RESULTS]]
In the analysis of the data collected from 2002 to 2020, a striking correlation of 0.9480316 emerged between the number of times the digit 2 was a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. An r-squared value of 0.8987639 further emphasized the robustness of this relationship, leaving us astounded by the unexpected harmony between the world of politics and the realm of lottery numbers.
As our scatterplot in Figure 1 vividly portrays, the data points form a striking upward trend, highlighting the strong positive correlation between these seemingly unrelated variables. It's as if the number 2 and the Libertarian votes are engaged in a dance of statistical significance, a tango of intrigue that could make even the most seasoned researchers do a double take - or in this case, a "double 2."
The probability values (p < 0.01) associated with our findings further reinforce the statistical strength of this correlation, leading us to conclude that this is more than just a mere fluke - though it may seem like a coincidence "2" good to be true. The evidence suggests a substantial relationship between these two apparently disparate phenomena, sparking conversations that are "2" unconventional for the typical research circles.
So, what are we to make of all this? One might be tempted to call it a case of "2-mendous" luck or "2-gether" they make an intriguing pair. Whether it's the influence of lucky number superstitions on voter behavior or the clandestine alliance between lottery balls and political campaigns, the possibilities for this unexpected correlation are as numerous as the tickets sold in a record Mega Millions jackpot.
In the grand scheme of statistical oddities, this study highlights the unpredictability of correlations and the uncanny ways in which unrelated factors can intertwine. It illustrates the wondrous and whimsical nature of data analysis, proving that when it comes to unexpected connections, the numbers can be as surprising as the results of a lottery.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study provide compelling evidence for a surprisingly strong correlation between the occurrence of the digit 2 as a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. As we reflect on the findings, we find ourselves pondering the peculiar and unforeseen connections that emerge in the realm of statistical analysis. It seems that in the game of numbers, there are surprises waiting to be unraveled, much like uncovering the winning combination in a lottery ticket.

Harkening back to the literature review, the work of Smith (2007) and Doe (2013) sheds light on the influence of chance and superstitions on decision-making processes. Our study's results echo the notion put forth by these esteemed researchers, revealing a compelling association between numerical symbols and behavioral outcomes. It appears that the allure of lucky numbers and their impact on voter behavior extends beyond mere superstition and delves into the intricate dynamics of electoral choices.

Furthermore, the humorous references to "SpongeBob SquarePants" and "The Simpsons" in our literature review offer a whimsical reminder of the unexpected twists and turns that can arise in the exploration of correlations. In a similar light-hearted vein, our study uncovers the unexpected dance of statistical significance between the number 2 and Libertarian votes, a tango of intrigue that would certainly pique the interest of even the most cartoonishly skeptical researchers.

From a methodological perspective, our findings align with the statistical significance and robustness outlined by Anderson and Sally (fictional characters in the literature review), albeit in a manner that surpasses the imagination of any cryptic puzzle enthusiast. The r-squared value of 0.8987639 serves as a testament to the sturdy relationship between the variables under scrutiny, solidifying our results in a way that would make even Dan Brown's protagonists take note, albeit with a more improbable plot twist than their typical adventures.

In summary, our study substantiates the unforeseen intersection of lottery outcomes and political preferences, echoing the spirit of improbable connections and unexpected revelations. The correlation uncovered in this research not only challenges conventional understanding but also showcases the whimsical and often unpredictable nature of statistical analysis. As we marvel at the "2-good-to-be-true" nature of our results, it becomes evident that when it comes to untangling numerical mysteries, 2 is indeed a number that holds more significance than meets the eye.


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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
The Odds are in their Favor: 2 Good 2 Be True - A Correlational Study of Libertarian Votes and the Winning Mega Millions Numbers in Colorado

[[ABSTRACT]]
The question of the relationship between seemingly unrelated factors has long puzzled researchers. In this study, we set out to explore the curious correlation between the number of times the digit 2 emerged as a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2002 to 2020.

Our findings, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9480316 and p < 0.01, suggest a surprisingly strong relationship between these two variables. While this may seem like a coincidence "2" good to be true, our results hold statistical significance. We delve into potential explanations, ranging from the influence of lucky number superstitions on voter behavior to the possibility of a clandestine alliance between lottery balls and political campaigns. Ultimately, this study sheds light on an unexpected intersection between the realm of chance and the realm of politics, proving that when it comes to correlations, the odds are truly unpredictable.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
As humans, we are obsessed with patterns and correlations, especially when they involve seemingly unrelated phenomena. From the uncanny relationship between the phases of the moon and emergency room visits to the puzzling connection between the popularity of beards and the sales of lumberjack shirts, our quest for understanding the interplay of random events knows no bounds.
In this spirit of unwavering curiosity, we turn our attention to the unlikely pairing of Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and the frequency of the number 2 gracing the stage as a winning Mega Millions number. At first glance, these two topics may appear as disparate as a snowboarder in a library, but as the saying goes, "there are always two sides to every story" - or in this case, perhaps there's just a two in it.
The state of Colorado, known for its breathtaking landscapes and pioneering spirit, has also been a hotbed for political diversity, including a notable presence of Libertarian voters. On the other hand, the Mega Millions lottery, a game of chance with tantalizing jackpots, has captured the imagination of hopeful participants, with the number 2 occasionally taking the spotlight as one of the winning digits.
As researchers, we couldn't help but ponder whether there might be a curious link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Are Libertarian voters in Colorado drawn to the number 2 like moths to a flame? Or could it be that the elusive digit 2 holds a mystical allure that transcends the political and the probabilistic realms?
Intrigued by this conundrum, we set out to investigate this unlikely correlation through a thorough analysis of the relevant data. Our study aims to shed light on this peculiar relationship and to unravel the mystery behind what could be succinctly described as "2 good 2 be true." So, buckle up and prepare for a wild ride through the erratic landscape of statistics, politics, and lotteries as we delve into this curious intersection of numbers and ballots.

[[RESULTS]]
In the analysis of the data collected from 2002 to 2020, a striking correlation of 0.9480316 emerged between the number of times the digit 2 was a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. An r-squared value of 0.8987639 further emphasized the robustness of this relationship, leaving us astounded by the unexpected harmony between the world of politics and the realm of lottery numbers.
As our scatterplot in Figure 1 vividly portrays, the data points form a striking upward trend, highlighting the strong positive correlation between these seemingly unrelated variables. It's as if the number 2 and the Libertarian votes are engaged in a dance of statistical significance, a tango of intrigue that could make even the most seasoned researchers do a double take - or in this case, a "double 2."
The probability values (p < 0.01) associated with our findings further reinforce the statistical strength of this correlation, leading us to conclude that this is more than just a mere fluke - though it may seem like a coincidence "2" good to be true. The evidence suggests a substantial relationship between these two apparently disparate phenomena, sparking conversations that are "2" unconventional for the typical research circles.
So, what are we to make of all this? One might be tempted to call it a case of "2-mendous" luck or "2-gether" they make an intriguing pair. Whether it's the influence of lucky number superstitions on voter behavior or the clandestine alliance between lottery balls and political campaigns, the possibilities for this unexpected correlation are as numerous as the tickets sold in a record Mega Millions jackpot.
In the grand scheme of statistical oddities, this study highlights the unpredictability of correlations and the uncanny ways in which unrelated factors can intertwine. It illustrates the wondrous and whimsical nature of data analysis, proving that when it comes to unexpected connections, the numbers can be as surprising as the results of a lottery.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has revealed a intriguing correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators in Colorado and the frequency of the number 2 gracing the stage as a winning Mega Millions number. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9480316 and a p-value lower than a mole's basement, our results indicate a strong relationship that seems "2" good to be just a random fluke, though it certainly feels like a statistical jackpot!

It's tempting to speculate on the reasons behind this connection - perhaps Libertarian voters are drawn to the number 2 like partygoers to a New Year's Eve countdown, or maybe the digit 2 possesses a magnetic charm that transcends political preferences. Nonetheless, the statistical significance of this relationship cannot be "2-ssed" over.

While some may believe this correlation is merely as random as a lottery draw, our findings demonstrate otherwise. It appears that in the unpredictable realm of politics and probability, the number 2 and Libertarian votes are more than just passing acquaintances; they might just be like two peas in a pod, or as we like to say, "2 peas in a voting pod."

With these statistical insights, we can confidently assert that this is a significant finding that contributes to our understanding of the curious dance between chance and choice. Indeed, the unpredictability of correlations never ceases to surprise, much like the anticipation of lottery results or the outcomes of political elections.

In light of this, we boldly assert that no further research is needed in this area, because, quite frankly, it's "2" much fun to handle!


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 Odds are in their Favor: 2 Good 2 Be True - A Correlational Study of Libertarian Votes and the Winning Mega Millions Numbers in Colorado. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Improbable Correlations


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 Odds are in their Favor: 2 Good 2 Be True - A Correlational Study of Libertarian Votes and the Winning Mega Millions Numbers in Colorado. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

Society for the Advancement of Absurd Research (SAAR)


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 Odds are in their Favor: 2 Good 2 Be True - A Correlational Study of Libertarian Votes and the Winning Mega Millions Numbers in Colorado with an abstract of The question of the relationship between seemingly unrelated factors has long puzzled researchers. In this study, we set out to explore the curious correlation between the number of times the digit 2 emerged as a winning Mega Millions number and the votes garnered by Libertarian candidates for Senators in Colorado. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the NY Mega Millions Lottery, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2002 to 2020.
Our findings, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9480316 and p < 0.01, suggest a surprisingly strong relationship between these two variables. While this may seem like a coincidence "2" good to be true, our results hold statistical significance. We delve into potential explanations, ranging from the influence of lucky number superstitions on voter behavior to the possibility of a clandestine alliance between lottery balls and political campaigns. Ultimately, this study sheds light on an unexpected intersection between the realm of chance and the realm of politics, proving that when it comes to correlations, the odds are truly unpredictable.

ChatGPT:

correlation study, odds correlation, winning lottery numbers, libertarian votes, Mega Millions, Colorado, correlation analysis, mit election data, harvard dataverse, lottery statistics, number 2 winning chances, political campaigns, voter behavior, lucky number superstitions, statistical significance, chance and politics intersection

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

Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number
Detailed data title: Number of times the Mega Millions lottery Megaball landed on #2
Source: NY Mega Millions Lottery
See what else correlates with Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number

Correlation r = 0.9480316 (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 = 0.8987639 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 89.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Libertarian Senators in Colorado) over the 6 years from 2002 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.004. 0.0039808941967608520000000000
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 0.4% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 251 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.

[ 0.59, 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.
200220042010201420162020
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Colorado (Percentage of votes)1.467150.4820941.274572.590623.619261.73874
Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number (Number of megaballs)111694




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.




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([1.46715,0.482094,1.27457,2.59062,3.61926,1.73874,])
array_2 = np.array([1,1,1,6,9,4,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Libertarian Senators in Colorado"
array_2_name = "Number of times 2 was a winning Mega Millions number"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your dedication to rating warms my heart!


Correlation ID: 5451 · Black Variable ID: 26358 · Red Variable ID: 868
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0