about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,761 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia and the second variable is Kerosene used in El Salvador.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

Fewer hot air balloons were commissioned for political events, leading to a kerosene surplus in the international market.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ Hyper-realistic ] A scene in a tranquil Virginia field where a group of people sporting bright Republican red hats are gathered around a formal ballot box, each carefully casting their vote for the presidential candidate. Meanwhile, in El Salvador, a vast warehouse is filled with meticulously arranged barrels of kerosene, creating a striking contrast to the tranquil scene in Virginia, as fewer hot air balloons commissioned for political events have led to a surplus in the international market. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia and Kerosene used in El Salvador. 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: Sci-fi fantacy a funny image you would see on reddit Hyper-realistic a funny image you would see on reddit Cute 2D animation
ChatGPT: Hyper-realistic

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia and Kerosene used in El Salvador, in the following situation: Fewer hot air balloons were commissioned for political events, leading to a kerosene surplus in the international market.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a field in Virginia, a group of people wearing Republican red hats gathers around a ballot box, casting their votes for the presidential candidate. Meanwhile, in El Salvador, a warehouse is filled with barrels of kerosene, as fewer hot air balloons commissioned for political events have led to a surplus in the international market.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Hyper-realistic ] and depicting this scene: In a field in Virginia, a group of people wearing Republican red hats gathers around a ballot box, casting their votes for the presidential candidate. Meanwhile, in El Salvador, a warehouse is filled with barrels of kerosene, as fewer hot air balloons commissioned for political events have led to a surplus in the international market. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ Hyper-realistic ] A scene in a tranquil Virginia field where a group of people sporting bright Republican red hats are gathered around a formal ballot box, each carefully casting their vote for the presidential candidate. Meanwhile, in El Salvador, a vast warehouse is filled with meticulously arranged barrels of kerosene, creating a striking contrast to the tranquil scene in Virginia, as fewer hot air balloons commissioned for political events have led to a surplus in the international market.

*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 a decrease in Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia caused Kerosene used in El Salvador to decrease. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Burning Up the Polls: An Unlikely Correlation Between Republican Votes in Virginia and Kerosene Consumption in El Salvador

The Journal of Global Electoral Quirkiness

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia and Kerosene used in El Salvador. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title a clever pun.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 and p < 0.01 for 1980 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]]
Burning Up the Polls: An Unlikely Correlation Between Republican Votes in Virginia and Kerosene Consumption in El Salvador

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we explore the surprising and seemingly unrelated connection between the number of votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of kerosene in El Salvador. Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we conducted a robust analysis spanning the years 1980 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between these seemingly disparate variables.

We delve into the possible explanations for this unexpected association and propose several tongue-in-cheek theories that could potentially account for this puzzling phenomenon. Our research presents a playful yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection of political voting patterns and energy consumption in two seemingly unrelated regions.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia and Kerosene used in El Salvador. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Burning Up the Polls: An Unlikely Correlation Between Republican Votes in Virginia and Kerosene Consumption in El Salvador

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we explore the surprising and seemingly unrelated connection between the number of votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of kerosene in El Salvador. Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we conducted a robust analysis spanning the years 1980 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between these seemingly disparate variables.

We delve into the possible explanations for this unexpected association and propose several tongue-in-cheek theories that could potentially account for this puzzling phenomenon. Our research presents a playful yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection of political voting patterns and energy consumption in two seemingly unrelated regions.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
INTRODUCTION

Politics and energy consumption are not often considered bedfellows, but recent research has revealed a surprising and unconventional relationship between the two. Our investigation delves into the unexpected correlation between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador. While one might initially assume that these two data points are as related as a fish and a bicycle, our analysis suggests otherwise.

At first glance, it seems like a classic case of comparing apples to oranges (or perhaps elephants to arugula) - what could possibly link the political attitudes of voters in Virginia to the kerosene purchasing habits of households in El Salvador? However, as we dived into the dearth of data on this peculiar pairing, we found ourselves in a tangle of statistical intrigue.

The correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 that we uncovered left us flabbergasted, to say the least. This kind of strength in the relationship is like finding out that the winning lottery numbers are all consecutive primes. Furthermore, the p-value less than 0.01 was akin to stumbling upon the Holy Grail of statistical significance.

In the following study, we unravel the various threads that may help weave this seemingly unrelated tapestry together. From historical political movements to the global trade of energy resources, we explore the potential explanations for this peculiar pairing. In doing so, we present a lighthearted yet compelling foray into the quirky world of cross-border correlations and statistical surprises.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia and Kerosene used in El Salvador. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Burning Up the Polls: An Unlikely Correlation Between Republican Votes in Virginia and Kerosene Consumption in El Salvador

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we explore the surprising and seemingly unrelated connection between the number of votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of kerosene in El Salvador. Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we conducted a robust analysis spanning the years 1980 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between these seemingly disparate variables.

We delve into the possible explanations for this unexpected association and propose several tongue-in-cheek theories that could potentially account for this puzzling phenomenon. Our research presents a playful yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection of political voting patterns and energy consumption in two seemingly unrelated regions.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
Politics and energy consumption are not often considered bedfellows, but recent research has revealed a surprising and unconventional relationship between the two. Our investigation delves into the unexpected correlation between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador. While one might initially assume that these two data points are as related as a fish and a bicycle, our analysis suggests otherwise.
At first glance, it seems like a classic case of comparing apples to oranges (or perhaps elephants to arugula) - what could possibly link the political attitudes of voters in Virginia to the kerosene purchasing habits of households in El Salvador? However, as we dived into the dearth of data on this peculiar pairing, we found ourselves in a tangle of statistical intrigue.
The correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 that we uncovered left us flabbergasted, to say the least. This kind of strength in the relationship is like finding out that the winning lottery numbers are all consecutive primes. Furthermore, the p-value less than 0.01 was akin to stumbling upon the Holy Grail of statistical significance.
In the following study, we unravel the various threads that may help weave this seemingly unrelated tapestry together. From historical political movements to the global trade of energy resources, we explore the potential explanations for this peculiar pairing. In doing so, we present a lighthearted yet compelling foray into the quirky world of cross-border correlations and statistical surprises.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The connection between the number of votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of kerosene in El Salvador has sparked considerable interest among researchers in various fields. Studies have shown that this unexpected correlation has perplexed scholars and enthusiasts alike, leading to a wide array of conjectures and hypotheses.

Smith et al. (2015) delved into the voting patterns in Virginia, meticulously analyzing electoral data and demographic trends. Their study focused on the political ideologies of different regions within the state, shedding light on the complexities of voter behavior. While their work did not directly address kerosene consumption, it provided valuable insights into the intricate tapestry of political sentiment that exists within Virginia.

Doe (2018) explored energy consumption in developing nations, examining the factors influencing the use of various fuel sources. Their comprehensive analysis of household energy preferences and socio-economic dynamics offered a nuanced perspective on the challenges and choices facing communities in regions like El Salvador. Although their study did not specifically investigate political voting patterns, it provided a crucial foundation for understanding the context of energy usage in the country.

Jones (2020) conducted a cross-sectional analysis of global energy consumption trends, investigating the impact of political factors on energy policies. Their research highlighted the complex interplay between governance and resource utilization, emphasizing the significance of political ideologies in shaping energy landscapes. While their study did not specifically focus on Virginia or El Salvador, it offered valuable insights into the broader dynamics of energy politics.

Moving beyond scholarly articles, several non-fiction books have touched upon themes related to politics and energy. "The Energy Paradox: A Political Perspective" by Author A. explores the intricate relationship between political ideologies and energy policy, offering a compelling analysis of the intertwining forces at play. Similarly, "Votes and Volts: A Comparative Study" by Author B. delves into the parallels between voting patterns and energy consumption, presenting a thought-provoking exploration of seemingly disparate phenomena.

On a more creative note, fictional works such as "Kerosene Dreams" by Author C. and "The Republican Quandary" by Author D. have woven imaginative narratives that blur the boundaries between political intrigue and energy dilemmas. While these literary creations may not offer empirical evidence, they demonstrate the enduring fascination with themes that intersect the realms of politics and energy.

Furthermore, social media discourse has echoed with musings and observations regarding the peculiar connection between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene use in El Salvador. Tweets such as "Who knew that kerosene and conservatism could spark such an unexpected romance?" and "The political heat in Virginia seems to be fueling a fiery trend in El Salvador" reflect the playful curiosity and astonishment surrounding this intriguing correlation.

In light of the diverse insights provided by these sources, our investigation seeks to build upon existing knowledge and offer a whimsical exploration of the enigmatic relationship between political voting patterns in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia and Kerosene used in El Salvador. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 Energy Information Administration . You used data from 1980 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]]
Burning Up the Polls: An Unlikely Correlation Between Republican Votes in Virginia and Kerosene Consumption in El Salvador

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we explore the surprising and seemingly unrelated connection between the number of votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of kerosene in El Salvador. Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we conducted a robust analysis spanning the years 1980 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between these seemingly disparate variables.

We delve into the possible explanations for this unexpected association and propose several tongue-in-cheek theories that could potentially account for this puzzling phenomenon. Our research presents a playful yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection of political voting patterns and energy consumption in two seemingly unrelated regions.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
Politics and energy consumption are not often considered bedfellows, but recent research has revealed a surprising and unconventional relationship between the two. Our investigation delves into the unexpected correlation between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador. While one might initially assume that these two data points are as related as a fish and a bicycle, our analysis suggests otherwise.
At first glance, it seems like a classic case of comparing apples to oranges (or perhaps elephants to arugula) - what could possibly link the political attitudes of voters in Virginia to the kerosene purchasing habits of households in El Salvador? However, as we dived into the dearth of data on this peculiar pairing, we found ourselves in a tangle of statistical intrigue.
The correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 that we uncovered left us flabbergasted, to say the least. This kind of strength in the relationship is like finding out that the winning lottery numbers are all consecutive primes. Furthermore, the p-value less than 0.01 was akin to stumbling upon the Holy Grail of statistical significance.
In the following study, we unravel the various threads that may help weave this seemingly unrelated tapestry together. From historical political movements to the global trade of energy resources, we explore the potential explanations for this peculiar pairing. In doing so, we present a lighthearted yet compelling foray into the quirky world of cross-border correlations and statistical surprises.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Data Collection:
The data for this analysis was gathered from an assortment of sources, much like assembling a sundae with every topping in the parlor. The primary sources included the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, providing us with comprehensive information on the number of votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Virginia. Meanwhile, we relied on the Harvard Dataverse for access to detailed kerosene consumption data in El Salvador. To ensure a robust analysis, we supplemented these sources with energy consumption statistics from the Energy Information Administration, crafting a blend of data that could rival the most intricate of cocktails.

Variable Selection:
Selecting the appropriate variables for this analysis was akin to deciding which ingredients to toss into a stew - a delicate balance of flavors and textures. We focused on the total number of Republican votes in Virginia and the per capita kerosene consumption in El Salvador, all the while resisting the temptation to toss in extraneous variables that would have cluttered our statistical kitchen.

Data Processing:
Once the data were procured, we engaged in a rigorous process of data cleaning and preparation, ensuring that our dataset was as crisp and fresh as a head of lettuce. This involved the removal of any missing or implausible values, akin to separating the weeds from a meticulously cultivated garden. Through careful transformations and standardizations, we curated the dataset with all the precision of a conductor guiding a symphony orchestra, ready for the harmonious analysis that would follow.

Statistical Analysis:
The crux of our methodology revolved around conducting a series of intricate statistical analyses to unearth the hidden relationship between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador. The statistical techniques employed in this study included regression analysis, time series analysis, and outlier detection methods, resembling the careful dance of a seasoned chef preparing a complex dish. These analyses were conducted using sophisticated software, ensuring that we could extract every ounce of meaningful insight from our dataset, much like squeezing every last drop of juice from a lemon.

Robustness Checks:
Given the extraordinary nature of our findings, we remained vigilant in conducting robustness checks to confirm the stability of our results. This involved employing alternative statistical methodologies, conducting sensitivity analyses, and scrutinizing the data from every conceivable angle, akin to inspecting a priceless artifact from every possible vantage point to verify its authenticity.

Limitations:
While our methodology was designed with meticulous care, it is imperative to acknowledge the limitations inherent in any study of this nature. The potential for omitted variable bias, confounding factors, and spurious correlations looms like a mischievous imp over the landscape of statistical analysis. These limitations were given due consideration as we navigated the high seas of data analysis, ever alert for potential stormy weather.

In summary, our methodology was designed to uncover the unexpected correlation between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador with a blend of careful data selection, meticulous processing, and multifaceted statistical analyses.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia and Kerosene used in El Salvador. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 Energy Information Administration .

For the time period 1980 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8974373, r-squared of 0.8053937, 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]]
Burning Up the Polls: An Unlikely Correlation Between Republican Votes in Virginia and Kerosene Consumption in El Salvador

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we explore the surprising and seemingly unrelated connection between the number of votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of kerosene in El Salvador. Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we conducted a robust analysis spanning the years 1980 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between these seemingly disparate variables.

We delve into the possible explanations for this unexpected association and propose several tongue-in-cheek theories that could potentially account for this puzzling phenomenon. Our research presents a playful yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection of political voting patterns and energy consumption in two seemingly unrelated regions.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
Politics and energy consumption are not often considered bedfellows, but recent research has revealed a surprising and unconventional relationship between the two. Our investigation delves into the unexpected correlation between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador. While one might initially assume that these two data points are as related as a fish and a bicycle, our analysis suggests otherwise.
At first glance, it seems like a classic case of comparing apples to oranges (or perhaps elephants to arugula) - what could possibly link the political attitudes of voters in Virginia to the kerosene purchasing habits of households in El Salvador? However, as we dived into the dearth of data on this peculiar pairing, we found ourselves in a tangle of statistical intrigue.
The correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 that we uncovered left us flabbergasted, to say the least. This kind of strength in the relationship is like finding out that the winning lottery numbers are all consecutive primes. Furthermore, the p-value less than 0.01 was akin to stumbling upon the Holy Grail of statistical significance.
In the following study, we unravel the various threads that may help weave this seemingly unrelated tapestry together. From historical political movements to the global trade of energy resources, we explore the potential explanations for this peculiar pairing. In doing so, we present a lighthearted yet compelling foray into the quirky world of cross-border correlations and statistical surprises.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of data pertaining to Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador resulted in a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8974373, denoting a remarkably strong relationship. This discovery had our research team scratching their heads and exchanging bemused glances, akin to stumbling upon a pineapple in a pumpkin patch. The r-squared value of 0.8053937 further reinforced the robustness of this unexpected association, akin to a rare celestial alignment.

Fig. 1 illustrates the clear linear relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables, resembling the unlikely pairing of peanut butter and pickles. The scatterplot graphically portrays the synchronization of these two distinct phenomena, leaving us with a grand symphony of statistical serendipity.

The significance level (p < 0.01) of the observed correlation left us feeling like we had discovered a pot of gold at the end of our statistical rainbow. This level of significance is akin to finding a four-leaf clover hidden within a field of standard three-leaf clovers. It's the kind of statistical finding that makes you want to call up your colleagues just to exclaim, "Well, butter my biscuit!"

These remarkable results have left us with a conundrum, much like finding oneself in a maze with no apparent exit. The unexpected and substantial correlation between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador raises more questions than it answers, inviting a playful yet thought-provoking exploration of the quirky world of cross-border correlations and statistical surprises.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia and Kerosene used in El Salvador. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Burning Up the Polls: An Unlikely Correlation Between Republican Votes in Virginia and Kerosene Consumption in El Salvador

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we explore the surprising and seemingly unrelated connection between the number of votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of kerosene in El Salvador. Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we conducted a robust analysis spanning the years 1980 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between these seemingly disparate variables.

We delve into the possible explanations for this unexpected association and propose several tongue-in-cheek theories that could potentially account for this puzzling phenomenon. Our research presents a playful yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection of political voting patterns and energy consumption in two seemingly unrelated regions.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between the number of votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of kerosene in El Salvador has sparked considerable interest among researchers in various fields. Studies have shown that this unexpected correlation has perplexed scholars and enthusiasts alike, leading to a wide array of conjectures and hypotheses.
Smith et al. (2015) delved into the voting patterns in Virginia, meticulously analyzing electoral data and demographic trends. Their study focused on the political ideologies of different regions within the state, shedding light on the complexities of voter behavior. While their work did not directly address kerosene consumption, it provided valuable insights into the intricate tapestry of political sentiment that exists within Virginia.
Doe (2018) explored energy consumption in developing nations, examining the factors influencing the use of various fuel sources. Their comprehensive analysis of household energy preferences and socio-economic dynamics offered a nuanced perspective on the challenges and choices facing communities in regions like El Salvador. Although their study did not specifically investigate political voting patterns, it provided a crucial foundation for understanding the context of energy usage in the country.
Jones (2020) conducted a cross-sectional analysis of global energy consumption trends, investigating the impact of political factors on energy policies. Their research highlighted the complex interplay between governance and resource utilization, emphasizing the significance of political ideologies in shaping energy landscapes. While their study did not specifically focus on Virginia or El Salvador, it offered valuable insights into the broader dynamics of energy politics.
Moving beyond scholarly articles, several non-fiction books have touched upon themes related to politics and energy. "The Energy Paradox: A Political Perspective" by Author A. explores the intricate relationship between political ideologies and energy policy, offering a compelling analysis of the intertwining forces at play. Similarly, "Votes and Volts: A Comparative Study" by Author B. delves into the parallels between voting patterns and energy consumption, presenting a thought-provoking exploration of seemingly disparate phenomena.
On a more creative note, fictional works such as "Kerosene Dreams" by Author C. and "The Republican Quandary" by Author D. have woven imaginative narratives that blur the boundaries between political intrigue and energy dilemmas. While these literary creations may not offer empirical evidence, they demonstrate the enduring fascination with themes that intersect the realms of politics and energy.
Furthermore, social media discourse has echoed with musings and observations regarding the peculiar connection between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene use in El Salvador. Tweets such as "Who knew that kerosene and conservatism could spark such an unexpected romance?" and "The political heat in Virginia seems to be fueling a fiery trend in El Salvador" reflect the playful curiosity and astonishment surrounding this intriguing correlation.
In light of the diverse insights provided by these sources, our investigation seeks to build upon existing knowledge and offer a whimsical exploration of the enigmatic relationship between political voting patterns in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of data pertaining to Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador resulted in a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8974373, denoting a remarkably strong relationship. This discovery had our research team scratching their heads and exchanging bemused glances, akin to stumbling upon a pineapple in a pumpkin patch. The r-squared value of 0.8053937 further reinforced the robustness of this unexpected association, akin to a rare celestial alignment.
Fig. 1 illustrates the clear linear relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables, resembling the unlikely pairing of peanut butter and pickles. The scatterplot graphically portrays the synchronization of these two distinct phenomena, leaving us with a grand symphony of statistical serendipity.
The significance level (p < 0.01) of the observed correlation left us feeling like we had discovered a pot of gold at the end of our statistical rainbow. This level of significance is akin to finding a four-leaf clover hidden within a field of standard three-leaf clovers. It's the kind of statistical finding that makes you want to call up your colleagues just to exclaim, "Well, butter my biscuit!"
These remarkable results have left us with a conundrum, much like finding oneself in a maze with no apparent exit. The unexpected and substantial correlation between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador raises more questions than it answers, inviting a playful yet thought-provoking exploration of the quirky world of cross-border correlations and statistical surprises.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study unveiled a striking relationship between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador, leaving us feeling like we stumbled upon a pair of mismatched socks in the correlation drawer. Our findings not only supported the tongue-in-cheek theories proposed in the literature review but also exhilaratingly surpassed our expectations.

Smith et al.'s meticulous analysis of voting patterns in Virginia incidentally set the stage for our discovery. The political ideologies of different regions within Virginia, as discussed in their study, provided a crucial backdrop for understanding the unexpected fusion of political sentiment with energy usage that we unearthed. It's as if their work sowed the seeds that eventually sprouted into our marvelously tangled statistical vineyard.

Doe's exploration of energy consumption in developing nations also turned out to be unexpectedly relevant to our findings. Even though their study did not directly address political voting patterns, the socio-economic dynamics they uncovered offered a key piece of the puzzle in understanding the contextual factors that contribute to the kerosene consumption in El Salvador. Like a treasure map leading to an unforeseen buried chest of correlations, Doe's work subtly guided us to our statistical X marks the spot.

Meanwhile, Jones's cross-sectional analysis of global energy consumption trends, seemingly unrelated to our specific focus, accentuated the intricate interplay between political factors and energy policies. While their study did not explicitly incorporate Virginia or El Salvador, the broader insights it provided into energy politics served as a background canvas against which our unexpected correlation popped like a burst of confetti.

Beyond the scholarly articles, the fictional works and social media musings referenced in our literature review, which we initially took lightheartedly, unexpectedly provided a whimsical tapestry of insights. Little did we anticipate that these seemingly unrelated sources would paint a more vivid picture of the intricate relationship between political voting patterns and energy consumption.

Our results have elevated this seemingly whimsical correlation to a colossal statistical amusement park, complete with rollercoaster-like significance levels and a Ferris wheel of r-squared values. The unexpected strength of the correlation has left us pondering whether statistical anomalies could be lurking behind other ostensibly unrelated phenomena, akin to coming across a unicorn in a forest of statistics.

As we navigate this new frontier of whimsical statistical discoveries, our findings prompt us to juggle the multitude of potential explanations and theories, akin to balancing a circus of statistical conjectures. Our endeavor has opened up a Pandora's box of statistical curiosities, inviting future explorations into the uncanny connections that lie buried beneath the surface of apparently disconnected variables.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia and Kerosene used in El Salvador. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Burning Up the Polls: An Unlikely Correlation Between Republican Votes in Virginia and Kerosene Consumption in El Salvador

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we explore the surprising and seemingly unrelated connection between the number of votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of kerosene in El Salvador. Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we conducted a robust analysis spanning the years 1980 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between these seemingly disparate variables.

We delve into the possible explanations for this unexpected association and propose several tongue-in-cheek theories that could potentially account for this puzzling phenomenon. Our research presents a playful yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection of political voting patterns and energy consumption in two seemingly unrelated regions.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
Politics and energy consumption are not often considered bedfellows, but recent research has revealed a surprising and unconventional relationship between the two. Our investigation delves into the unexpected correlation between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador. While one might initially assume that these two data points are as related as a fish and a bicycle, our analysis suggests otherwise.
At first glance, it seems like a classic case of comparing apples to oranges (or perhaps elephants to arugula) - what could possibly link the political attitudes of voters in Virginia to the kerosene purchasing habits of households in El Salvador? However, as we dived into the dearth of data on this peculiar pairing, we found ourselves in a tangle of statistical intrigue.
The correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 that we uncovered left us flabbergasted, to say the least. This kind of strength in the relationship is like finding out that the winning lottery numbers are all consecutive primes. Furthermore, the p-value less than 0.01 was akin to stumbling upon the Holy Grail of statistical significance.
In the following study, we unravel the various threads that may help weave this seemingly unrelated tapestry together. From historical political movements to the global trade of energy resources, we explore the potential explanations for this peculiar pairing. In doing so, we present a lighthearted yet compelling foray into the quirky world of cross-border correlations and statistical surprises.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of data pertaining to Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador resulted in a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.8974373, denoting a remarkably strong relationship. This discovery had our research team scratching their heads and exchanging bemused glances, akin to stumbling upon a pineapple in a pumpkin patch. The r-squared value of 0.8053937 further reinforced the robustness of this unexpected association, akin to a rare celestial alignment.
Fig. 1 illustrates the clear linear relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables, resembling the unlikely pairing of peanut butter and pickles. The scatterplot graphically portrays the synchronization of these two distinct phenomena, leaving us with a grand symphony of statistical serendipity.
The significance level (p < 0.01) of the observed correlation left us feeling like we had discovered a pot of gold at the end of our statistical rainbow. This level of significance is akin to finding a four-leaf clover hidden within a field of standard three-leaf clovers. It's the kind of statistical finding that makes you want to call up your colleagues just to exclaim, "Well, butter my biscuit!"
These remarkable results have left us with a conundrum, much like finding oneself in a maze with no apparent exit. The unexpected and substantial correlation between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador raises more questions than it answers, inviting a playful yet thought-provoking exploration of the quirky world of cross-border correlations and statistical surprises.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation into the unanticipated correlation between Republican votes in Virginia and kerosene consumption in El Salvador has culminated in a perplexing yet exhilarating journey through the labyrinth of statistical anomalies. The robust correlation coefficient and the r-squared value have left us more puzzled than a cat with a Rubik's cube. The significance level of the observed correlation is as striking as finding a perfectly toasted marshmallow in a sea of slightly singed ones.

Our playful foray into this unlikely relationship has led us to entertain a myriad of theories, some as outlandish as a flamingo in a snowstorm. From speculations about clandestine international energy agreements to the influence of extraterrestrial beings on political ideologies, we have explored a delightful array of whimsical explanations.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of academic rigor and with a tinge of regret for disrupting the standard order of statistical predictability, we must assert that further research in this eccentric domain might yield diminishing returns, like trying to find a needle in a haystack while wearing oven mitts. Therefore, we confidently declare that the mystery of the connection between these disparate variables has been thoroughly probed and ought to remain a charming enigma in the annals of statistical eccentricities.


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 Burning Up the Polls: An Unlikely Correlation Between Republican Votes in Virginia and Kerosene Consumption in El Salvador. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Global Electoral Quirkiness


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 Burning Up the Polls: An Unlikely Correlation Between Republican Votes in Virginia and Kerosene Consumption in El Salvador. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Delirious Institute for Quirky Research


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 Burning Up the Polls: An Unlikely Correlation Between Republican Votes in Virginia and Kerosene Consumption in El Salvador with an abstract of In this paper, we explore the surprising and seemingly unrelated connection between the number of votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of kerosene in El Salvador. Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we conducted a robust analysis spanning the years 1980 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.8974373 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical relationship between these seemingly disparate variables.
We delve into the possible explanations for this unexpected association and propose several tongue-in-cheek theories that could potentially account for this puzzling phenomenon. Our research presents a playful yet thought-provoking exploration of the intersection of political voting patterns and energy consumption in two seemingly unrelated regions.

ChatGPT:

Republican votes, Virginia, kerosene consumption, El Salvador, correlation, statistical analysis, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Energy Information Administration

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Kerosene used in El Salvador
Detailed data title: Volume of kerosene used consumed in El Salvador in millions of barrels per day
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Kerosene used in El Salvador

Correlation r = 0.8974373 (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 = 0.8053937 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 80.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Kerosene used in El Salvador) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia) over the 10 years from 1980 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00043. 0.0004270290080385565000000000
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 0.9 in 0.043% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 2,342 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 9 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 9 because we have two variables measured over a period of 10 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.

[ 0.62, 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.
1980198419881992199620002004200820162020
Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia (Percentage of votes)53.032862.287259.735244.957447.104652.473753.73246.330544.427643.9955
Kerosene used in El Salvador (Million Barrels/Day)1.033560.95973210.30.40.6547270.6547270.06336070.0217260.0731802




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. 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([53.0328,62.2872,59.7352,44.9574,47.1046,52.4737,53.732,46.3305,44.4276,43.9955,])
array_2 = np.array([1.03356,0.959732,1,0.3,0.4,0.654727,0.654727,0.0633607,0.021726,0.0731802,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Virginia"
array_2_name = "Kerosene used in El Salvador"

# 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?

I'm genuinely thankful for your rating!


Correlation ID: 5761 · Black Variable ID: 26183 · Red Variable ID: 24380
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0