about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,444 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in Delaware and the second variable is The number of millwrights in Delaware.  The chart goes from 2003 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The decrease in Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware caused a decrease The number of millwrights in Delaware by enacting a "straighten up and fly right" policy that inadvertently led to a shortage of professionals who specialize in keeping things on the right track.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an image of a quaint Delaware town where millwrights are dismantling machinery in frustration. The scene should show a street lined with charming houses and old-fashioned street lamps. Millwrights, clearly disheartened, are seen taking apart various machines, with others looking on in worry. The overall atmosphere should convey a sense of unease and disappointment. 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: Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and The number of millwrights in Delaware. 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: Macabre Psychedelic Art nouveau Realistic Data cyber art
ChatGPT: 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and The number of millwrights in Delaware, in the following situation: The decrease in Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware caused the number of millwrights in Delaware to decrease because disgruntled Democrats took their frustration out by dismantling anything they could get their hands on, inadvertently leading to a shortage of millwrights. Maybe they just needed to "vent" their feelings.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a quaint Delaware town, the ballot boxes were filled with fewer Democrat votes for Senators. As a result, the number of millwrights in the state decreased, as disheartened Democrats expressed their frustration by dismantling anything they could find. The sound of machinery being taken apart echoed through the streets, with former millwrights struggling to keep up with the sudden shortage of their fellow workers.

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: [ Realistic ] and depicting this scene: In a quaint Delaware town, the ballot boxes were filled with fewer Democrat votes for Senators. As a result, the number of millwrights in the state decreased, as disheartened Democrats expressed their frustration by dismantling anything they could find. The sound of machinery being taken apart echoed through the streets, with former millwrights struggling to keep up with the sudden shortage of their fellow workers. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an image of a quaint Delaware town where millwrights are dismantling machinery in frustration. The scene should show a street lined with charming houses and old-fashioned street lamps. Millwrights, clearly disheartened, are seen taking apart various machines, with others looking on in worry. The overall atmosphere should convey a sense of unease and disappointment.

*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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware caused The number of millwrights in Delaware to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Ballot and the Mill: An Examination of the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators and Millwrights in Delaware

The Journal of Political Ethnography

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 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and The number of millwrights in Delaware. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9059146 and p < 0.01 for 2003 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 Ballot and the Mill: An Examination of the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators and Millwrights in Delaware"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating correlation between the voting behavior of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we embarked on unraveling this enigmatic association. Our findings yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, with a significance level of p < 0.01, spanning the years 2003 to 2020.

It's no secret that Delawareans have a knack for choosing their senators, but could there be a hidden mechanical inclination governing this decision-making process? Our research suggests a strong connection between the ballot and the mill, indicating that as Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware rise, so does the presence of millwrights in the state. It seems the "wheels" of political preference may indeed drive the gears of occupational distribution. This is all to say—you can't spell Senator without "sen" as in millwright!

But of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While our findings prompt an amusing conversation, further investigation is essential to uncover the underlying mechanics behind this intriguing relationship. As we continue to probe this curious alliance between politics and machinery, we hope to shed light on the nuanced dynamics at play—because in the world of research, every vote and every sprocket counts.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and The number of millwrights in Delaware. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"The Ballot and the Mill: An Examination of the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators and Millwrights in Delaware"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating correlation between the voting behavior of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we embarked on unraveling this enigmatic association. Our findings yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, with a significance level of p < 0.01, spanning the years 2003 to 2020.

It's no secret that Delawareans have a knack for choosing their senators, but could there be a hidden mechanical inclination governing this decision-making process? Our research suggests a strong connection between the ballot and the mill, indicating that as Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware rise, so does the presence of millwrights in the state. It seems the "wheels" of political preference may indeed drive the gears of occupational distribution. This is all to say—you can't spell Senator without "sen" as in millwright!

But of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While our findings prompt an amusing conversation, further investigation is essential to uncover the underlying mechanics behind this intriguing relationship. As we continue to probe this curious alliance between politics and machinery, we hope to shed light on the nuanced dynamics at play—because in the world of research, every vote and every sprocket counts.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

From the 1988 cult classic "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" to the impressive feats of Rube Goldberg machines, the interplay between politics and mechanics has an enduring appeal. In a similar vein, this study aims to unravel the enigmatic relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. It's a tale as old as time—well, at least as old as our data spanning from 2003 to 2020, partnering expertly with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data science meets industrial sensibility in this groundbreaking research, where we explore the very fabric of Delaware's political and industrial landscapes.

Let's face it, we're all "nuts and bolts" types when it comes to understanding the mechanics of political behavior. Our findings offer compelling evidence of a close-knit correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of millwrights in Delaware. Call it a coincidence, call it fate, but we've uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, making this a discovery that's "driven" by significance (p<0.01). As the mill turns, so does the Senator's fate, it seems. Delaware, with its esteemed history as the First State, has once again cast its ballot, and this time, it's for a wheel-y interesting case study!

Puns aside, it goes without saying that correlation isn't the same as causation. We recognize the need for caution in drawing definitive conclusions based solely on the strength of this correlation. While our findings might tickle the fancy of both politicos and millwrights alike, we're under no illusion that this relationship is a simple cause-and-effect affair. The gears of academia turn slowly, and in the realm of empirical research, it takes more than a catchy correlation to build a rock-solid theory. We remain committed to peeling back the layers of this curious alliance to uncover the nuts and bolts of causation—because whether in politics or machinery, every piece must fit snugly into the grander scheme.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and The number of millwrights in Delaware. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 name some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"The Ballot and the Mill: An Examination of the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators and Millwrights in Delaware"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating correlation between the voting behavior of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we embarked on unraveling this enigmatic association. Our findings yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, with a significance level of p < 0.01, spanning the years 2003 to 2020.

It's no secret that Delawareans have a knack for choosing their senators, but could there be a hidden mechanical inclination governing this decision-making process? Our research suggests a strong connection between the ballot and the mill, indicating that as Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware rise, so does the presence of millwrights in the state. It seems the "wheels" of political preference may indeed drive the gears of occupational distribution. This is all to say—you can't spell Senator without "sen" as in millwright!

But of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While our findings prompt an amusing conversation, further investigation is essential to uncover the underlying mechanics behind this intriguing relationship. As we continue to probe this curious alliance between politics and machinery, we hope to shed light on the nuanced dynamics at play—because in the world of research, every vote and every sprocket counts.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
From the 1988 cult classic "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" to the impressive feats of Rube Goldberg machines, the interplay between politics and mechanics has an enduring appeal. In a similar vein, this study aims to unravel the enigmatic relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. It's a tale as old as time—well, at least as old as our data spanning from 2003 to 2020, partnering expertly with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data science meets industrial sensibility in this groundbreaking research, where we explore the very fabric of Delaware's political and industrial landscapes.
Let's face it, we're all "nuts and bolts" types when it comes to understanding the mechanics of political behavior. Our findings offer compelling evidence of a close-knit correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of millwrights in Delaware. Call it a coincidence, call it fate, but we've uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, making this a discovery that's "driven" by significance (p<0.01). As the mill turns, so does the Senator's fate, it seems. Delaware, with its esteemed history as the First State, has once again cast its ballot, and this time, it's for a wheel-y interesting case study!
Puns aside, it goes without saying that correlation isn't the same as causation. We recognize the need for caution in drawing definitive conclusions based solely on the strength of this correlation. While our findings might tickle the fancy of both politicos and millwrights alike, we're under no illusion that this relationship is a simple cause-and-effect affair. The gears of academia turn slowly, and in the realm of empirical research, it takes more than a catchy correlation to build a rock-solid theory. We remain committed to peeling back the layers of this curious alliance to uncover the nuts and bolts of causation—because whether in politics or machinery, every piece must fit snugly into the grander scheme.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The investigation into the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state has captivated researchers for decades. Smith et al., in their seminal work "Political Decision-Making and Occupational Patterns," laid the groundwork for understanding the intersection of political preference and vocational distribution. Their findings hinted at a subtle association, prompting subsequent studies to delve deeper into this curious phenomenon. It's almost as if the voters are saying, "I'm 'gearing up' to cast my ballot!"

In "The Industrial Fabric of Delaware" by Doe, the resonating hum of gears and the rhythmic clang of machinery echo the state's industrial past. The narrative woven through Doe's work paints a vivid portrait of the bustling nexus of political and industrial dynamics. Could it be that the ticking of ballot boxes is synchronized with the precise movements of millwork machinery? Our research seems to suggest so, eliciting the question, "Are Delaware's Senators the unsung poet laureates of machinery?"

As we immerse ourselves in the realm of literature, Jones et al.'s "Democratic Votes and Industry: An Unlikely Pas de Deux" provides a comprehensive analysis of the correlation between political affiliation and occupational clusters. Their work paves the way for our exploration, illuminating the intricate dance between the voting populace and the industrial workforce. With each Democrat vote, does a millwright find their groove? Ah, the marvels of interconnectedness!

Steering away from non-fiction, the works of fiction also serve as a wellspring of inspiration. "The Gears of Politics" by Harper Lee (if only she had written about gears and not mockingbirds) offers a whimsical, albeit fictional, portrayal of the intricate web of political machinations and mechanical marvels. Let's not forget the classic "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller, where the interwoven complexities of bureaucracy and the cogs of war provide a backdrop for the unhinged hilarity of human nature.

Drawing on childhood influences, cartoons such as "The Jetsons" and "Inspector Gadget" provide a lighthearted yet insightful perspective on the fusion of innovation and politics. Who can forget the comical mishaps of Inspector Gadget as he navigates through his mechanized world, or the futuristic utopia depicted in "The Jetsons," where technology seamlessly integrates with everyday life? These childhood favorites serve as delightful reminders of the synergy between progress, politics, and mechanical marvels.

In the realm of children's shows, "Bob the Builder" holds a special place, offering a charming journey through the construction of a world brimming with the clinks and clanks of mechanical orchestration. Could Delaware's voters be the "builders" of political destiny, laying the foundation for an industrious landscape? As Bob the Builder would say, "Can we correlate it? Yes, we can!"

The crux of our literature review underscores the multifaceted nature of the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. From scholarly discourse to fictional narratives and animated realms, the vibrant tapestry of literature mirrors the nuanced interplay between politics and industry, showing that even the most unexpected associations can be found when we look closely enough.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and The number of millwrights in Delaware. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2003 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 Ballot and the Mill: An Examination of the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators and Millwrights in Delaware"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating correlation between the voting behavior of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we embarked on unraveling this enigmatic association. Our findings yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, with a significance level of p < 0.01, spanning the years 2003 to 2020.

It's no secret that Delawareans have a knack for choosing their senators, but could there be a hidden mechanical inclination governing this decision-making process? Our research suggests a strong connection between the ballot and the mill, indicating that as Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware rise, so does the presence of millwrights in the state. It seems the "wheels" of political preference may indeed drive the gears of occupational distribution. This is all to say—you can't spell Senator without "sen" as in millwright!

But of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While our findings prompt an amusing conversation, further investigation is essential to uncover the underlying mechanics behind this intriguing relationship. As we continue to probe this curious alliance between politics and machinery, we hope to shed light on the nuanced dynamics at play—because in the world of research, every vote and every sprocket counts.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
From the 1988 cult classic "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" to the impressive feats of Rube Goldberg machines, the interplay between politics and mechanics has an enduring appeal. In a similar vein, this study aims to unravel the enigmatic relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. It's a tale as old as time—well, at least as old as our data spanning from 2003 to 2020, partnering expertly with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data science meets industrial sensibility in this groundbreaking research, where we explore the very fabric of Delaware's political and industrial landscapes.
Let's face it, we're all "nuts and bolts" types when it comes to understanding the mechanics of political behavior. Our findings offer compelling evidence of a close-knit correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of millwrights in Delaware. Call it a coincidence, call it fate, but we've uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, making this a discovery that's "driven" by significance (p<0.01). As the mill turns, so does the Senator's fate, it seems. Delaware, with its esteemed history as the First State, has once again cast its ballot, and this time, it's for a wheel-y interesting case study!
Puns aside, it goes without saying that correlation isn't the same as causation. We recognize the need for caution in drawing definitive conclusions based solely on the strength of this correlation. While our findings might tickle the fancy of both politicos and millwrights alike, we're under no illusion that this relationship is a simple cause-and-effect affair. The gears of academia turn slowly, and in the realm of empirical research, it takes more than a catchy correlation to build a rock-solid theory. We remain committed to peeling back the layers of this curious alliance to uncover the nuts and bolts of causation—because whether in politics or machinery, every piece must fit snugly into the grander scheme.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unearth the entwined fate of political preferences and industrial vocations, we employed a multi-faceted approach that involved rigorous data collection, complex statistical analyses, and an occasional cup of coffee (cream and sugar, please). Our primary data sources included the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which served as the proverbial coal to fuel our research locomotive.

Data on Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware were meticulously gathered from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab. The number of millwrights in Delaware, a group wielding the power of precision and pragmatism, was sourced from the illustrious archives of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We do love the smell of freshly mined data in the morning—it's like the scent of fresh-cut lumber mingled with the excitement of democracy in action.

Now, the statistical modeling process, much like a delicately calibrated machine, involved leveraging intricate algorithms that rivaled the complexity of a Rube Goldberg contraption. Our team of statistical maestros, armed with copious amounts of caffeine and a healthy dose of pun-itivity, conducted a thorough analysis using a combination of regression models and correlation tests. The goal was to illuminate the nexus between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of millwrights in Delaware while maintaining a sense of humor because, after all, laughter is the best (turning) mechanism for scientific inquiry.

We employed a simple linear regression model to quantify the relationship between the number of Democrat votes for Senators and the count of millwrights in Delaware. This model not only provided us with a nitty-gritty understanding of the statistical relationship but also allowed us to dust off our "correlation-coefficient-o-meter" and watch in awe as it revealed a striking coefficient of 0.9059146. It was like witnessing the smooth operation of a precisely calibrated political gizmo! And, as they say, "if the coefficient fits, wear it."



Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and The number of millwrights in Delaware. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

For the time period 2003 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9059146, r-squared of 0.8206813, 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 Ballot and the Mill: An Examination of the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators and Millwrights in Delaware"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating correlation between the voting behavior of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we embarked on unraveling this enigmatic association. Our findings yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, with a significance level of p < 0.01, spanning the years 2003 to 2020.

It's no secret that Delawareans have a knack for choosing their senators, but could there be a hidden mechanical inclination governing this decision-making process? Our research suggests a strong connection between the ballot and the mill, indicating that as Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware rise, so does the presence of millwrights in the state. It seems the "wheels" of political preference may indeed drive the gears of occupational distribution. This is all to say—you can't spell Senator without "sen" as in millwright!

But of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While our findings prompt an amusing conversation, further investigation is essential to uncover the underlying mechanics behind this intriguing relationship. As we continue to probe this curious alliance between politics and machinery, we hope to shed light on the nuanced dynamics at play—because in the world of research, every vote and every sprocket counts.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
From the 1988 cult classic "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" to the impressive feats of Rube Goldberg machines, the interplay between politics and mechanics has an enduring appeal. In a similar vein, this study aims to unravel the enigmatic relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. It's a tale as old as time—well, at least as old as our data spanning from 2003 to 2020, partnering expertly with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data science meets industrial sensibility in this groundbreaking research, where we explore the very fabric of Delaware's political and industrial landscapes.
Let's face it, we're all "nuts and bolts" types when it comes to understanding the mechanics of political behavior. Our findings offer compelling evidence of a close-knit correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of millwrights in Delaware. Call it a coincidence, call it fate, but we've uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, making this a discovery that's "driven" by significance (p<0.01). As the mill turns, so does the Senator's fate, it seems. Delaware, with its esteemed history as the First State, has once again cast its ballot, and this time, it's for a wheel-y interesting case study!
Puns aside, it goes without saying that correlation isn't the same as causation. We recognize the need for caution in drawing definitive conclusions based solely on the strength of this correlation. While our findings might tickle the fancy of both politicos and millwrights alike, we're under no illusion that this relationship is a simple cause-and-effect affair. The gears of academia turn slowly, and in the realm of empirical research, it takes more than a catchy correlation to build a rock-solid theory. We remain committed to peeling back the layers of this curious alliance to uncover the nuts and bolts of causation—because whether in politics or machinery, every piece must fit snugly into the grander scheme.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our investigation into the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state unveiled a remarkably robust correlation over the years 2003 to 2020. The correlation coefficient of 0.9059146 suggests a strong positive relationship between these two variables, with an r-squared value of 0.8206813 indicating that approximately 82% of the variation in the number of millwrights can be explained by the variation in Democrat votes for Senators. In a fit of statistical significance, the p-value clocked in at less than 0.01, cementing the strength of this association.

Fig. 1 illustrates the striking correlation between the two variables. It seems there's more to Delaware's politico-industrial landscape than meets the eye, akin to a political machine with mechanical gears powering its election outcomes. As the saying goes, there's no situation that can't be improved by a good pun—just like there's no Senate race that doesn't benefit from the presence of millwrights.

When it comes to statistical correlations, it's always best to tread with caution and not jump to causal conclusions faster than an eager voter at the polls. As much as we'd love to believe that the act of casting a vote magically conjures a wayward millwright into existence, we recognize the need for further inquiry and theorizing. The interplay between voting behavior and the presence of millwrights is undoubtedly fascinating, but our research merely scratches the surface of this enigmatic relationship.

The convergence of statistical evidence and a touch of whimsy in our findings suggests that there may indeed be a deeper synthesis between political choices and the machinery that hums in the background. As we pivot to peel back the layers of this alliance, we aim to unleash a wave of insights that not only entertain but also enrich our understanding of the intricate connections that pervade our world. After all, every Senator could use a dependable millwright in their corner—talk about a vote of confidence in craftsmanship!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and The number of millwrights in Delaware. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"The Ballot and the Mill: An Examination of the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators and Millwrights in Delaware"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating correlation between the voting behavior of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we embarked on unraveling this enigmatic association. Our findings yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, with a significance level of p < 0.01, spanning the years 2003 to 2020.

It's no secret that Delawareans have a knack for choosing their senators, but could there be a hidden mechanical inclination governing this decision-making process? Our research suggests a strong connection between the ballot and the mill, indicating that as Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware rise, so does the presence of millwrights in the state. It seems the "wheels" of political preference may indeed drive the gears of occupational distribution. This is all to say—you can't spell Senator without "sen" as in millwright!

But of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While our findings prompt an amusing conversation, further investigation is essential to uncover the underlying mechanics behind this intriguing relationship. As we continue to probe this curious alliance between politics and machinery, we hope to shed light on the nuanced dynamics at play—because in the world of research, every vote and every sprocket counts.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The investigation into the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state has captivated researchers for decades. Smith et al., in their seminal work "Political Decision-Making and Occupational Patterns," laid the groundwork for understanding the intersection of political preference and vocational distribution. Their findings hinted at a subtle association, prompting subsequent studies to delve deeper into this curious phenomenon. It's almost as if the voters are saying, "I'm 'gearing up' to cast my ballot!"
In "The Industrial Fabric of Delaware" by Doe, the resonating hum of gears and the rhythmic clang of machinery echo the state's industrial past. The narrative woven through Doe's work paints a vivid portrait of the bustling nexus of political and industrial dynamics. Could it be that the ticking of ballot boxes is synchronized with the precise movements of millwork machinery? Our research seems to suggest so, eliciting the question, "Are Delaware's Senators the unsung poet laureates of machinery?"
As we immerse ourselves in the realm of literature, Jones et al.'s "Democratic Votes and Industry: An Unlikely Pas de Deux" provides a comprehensive analysis of the correlation between political affiliation and occupational clusters. Their work paves the way for our exploration, illuminating the intricate dance between the voting populace and the industrial workforce. With each Democrat vote, does a millwright find their groove? Ah, the marvels of interconnectedness!
Steering away from non-fiction, the works of fiction also serve as a wellspring of inspiration. "The Gears of Politics" by Harper Lee (if only she had written about gears and not mockingbirds) offers a whimsical, albeit fictional, portrayal of the intricate web of political machinations and mechanical marvels. Let's not forget the classic "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller, where the interwoven complexities of bureaucracy and the cogs of war provide a backdrop for the unhinged hilarity of human nature.
Drawing on childhood influences, cartoons such as "The Jetsons" and "Inspector Gadget" provide a lighthearted yet insightful perspective on the fusion of innovation and politics. Who can forget the comical mishaps of Inspector Gadget as he navigates through his mechanized world, or the futuristic utopia depicted in "The Jetsons," where technology seamlessly integrates with everyday life? These childhood favorites serve as delightful reminders of the synergy between progress, politics, and mechanical marvels.
In the realm of children's shows, "Bob the Builder" holds a special place, offering a charming journey through the construction of a world brimming with the clinks and clanks of mechanical orchestration. Could Delaware's voters be the "builders" of political destiny, laying the foundation for an industrious landscape? As Bob the Builder would say, "Can we correlate it? Yes, we can!"
The crux of our literature review underscores the multifaceted nature of the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. From scholarly discourse to fictional narratives and animated realms, the vibrant tapestry of literature mirrors the nuanced interplay between politics and industry, showing that even the most unexpected associations can be found when we look closely enough.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state unveiled a remarkably robust correlation over the years 2003 to 2020. The correlation coefficient of 0.9059146 suggests a strong positive relationship between these two variables, with an r-squared value of 0.8206813 indicating that approximately 82% of the variation in the number of millwrights can be explained by the variation in Democrat votes for Senators. In a fit of statistical significance, the p-value clocked in at less than 0.01, cementing the strength of this association.
Fig. 1 illustrates the striking correlation between the two variables. It seems there's more to Delaware's politico-industrial landscape than meets the eye, akin to a political machine with mechanical gears powering its election outcomes. As the saying goes, there's no situation that can't be improved by a good pun—just like there's no Senate race that doesn't benefit from the presence of millwrights.
When it comes to statistical correlations, it's always best to tread with caution and not jump to causal conclusions faster than an eager voter at the polls. As much as we'd love to believe that the act of casting a vote magically conjures a wayward millwright into existence, we recognize the need for further inquiry and theorizing. The interplay between voting behavior and the presence of millwrights is undoubtedly fascinating, but our research merely scratches the surface of this enigmatic relationship.
The convergence of statistical evidence and a touch of whimsy in our findings suggests that there may indeed be a deeper synthesis between political choices and the machinery that hums in the background. As we pivot to peel back the layers of this alliance, we aim to unleash a wave of insights that not only entertain but also enrich our understanding of the intricate connections that pervade our world. After all, every Senator could use a dependable millwright in their corner—talk about a vote of confidence in craftsmanship!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our results bolster the findings of previous studies, reinforcing the intriguing correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the presence of millwrights in the state. Smith et al.'s pioneering work laid the groundwork for our investigation, and our findings align with the subtle association they suggested. It's as if Delaware's voters are saying, "We're 'gearing up' to cast our ballots!" The statistically robust relationship we uncovered substantiates the notion that political preference may indeed be entwined with vocational distribution, akin to gears meshing in a well-oiled machine.

Similarly, Doe's portrayal of Delaware's industrial fabric becomes all the more poignant in light of our findings. The rhythmic clang of machinery in the state may very well synchronize with the ticking of ballot boxes, underscoring the captivating interplay between political and industrial dynamics. It's as if the "wheels" of political preference truly drive the gears of occupational distribution. Who knew Delaware's Senators could be the unsung poet laureates of machinery?

While it may seem like a 'catch-22' to discern the precise causal mechanism between Democrat votes and the number of millwrights, our research suggests a compelling link between the two. The statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9059146 and the r-squared value of 0.8206813 underscore a notable relationship, lending credence to the hypothesis that as Democrat votes for Senators increase, so does the presence of millwrights in Delaware. This may prompt a chuckle or two, but it also sparks a vital conversation about the intricate interdependencies that underpin our societal and vocational landscapes.

It's essential to approach these findings with cautious optimism and not let our enthusiasm for a good dad joke overshadow the need for further investigation. As tantalizing as the idea may be, we acknowledge the necessity for more in-depth exploration into the mechanisms driving this correlation. The intricate dance between voting behavior and the occupational composition of Delaware offers a rich tapestry for further scholarly inquiry, and we're on track to uncovering the gears that drive this alliance.

From the clinks and clanks of Bob the Builder's construction to the futuristic utopia of "The Jetsons," our findings resonate with the unexpected associations unearthed in the literature. As we continue our foray into this curious nexus of politics and machinery, we may yet discover the underpinnings of Delaware's industrious landscape. Every vote and every sprocket counts—and we're just getting started in unraveling this captivating correlation.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and The number of millwrights in Delaware. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"The Ballot and the Mill: An Examination of the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators and Millwrights in Delaware"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating correlation between the voting behavior of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we embarked on unraveling this enigmatic association. Our findings yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, with a significance level of p < 0.01, spanning the years 2003 to 2020.

It's no secret that Delawareans have a knack for choosing their senators, but could there be a hidden mechanical inclination governing this decision-making process? Our research suggests a strong connection between the ballot and the mill, indicating that as Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware rise, so does the presence of millwrights in the state. It seems the "wheels" of political preference may indeed drive the gears of occupational distribution. This is all to say—you can't spell Senator without "sen" as in millwright!

But of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While our findings prompt an amusing conversation, further investigation is essential to uncover the underlying mechanics behind this intriguing relationship. As we continue to probe this curious alliance between politics and machinery, we hope to shed light on the nuanced dynamics at play—because in the world of research, every vote and every sprocket counts.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
From the 1988 cult classic "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" to the impressive feats of Rube Goldberg machines, the interplay between politics and mechanics has an enduring appeal. In a similar vein, this study aims to unravel the enigmatic relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. It's a tale as old as time—well, at least as old as our data spanning from 2003 to 2020, partnering expertly with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data science meets industrial sensibility in this groundbreaking research, where we explore the very fabric of Delaware's political and industrial landscapes.
Let's face it, we're all "nuts and bolts" types when it comes to understanding the mechanics of political behavior. Our findings offer compelling evidence of a close-knit correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of millwrights in Delaware. Call it a coincidence, call it fate, but we've uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, making this a discovery that's "driven" by significance (p<0.01). As the mill turns, so does the Senator's fate, it seems. Delaware, with its esteemed history as the First State, has once again cast its ballot, and this time, it's for a wheel-y interesting case study!
Puns aside, it goes without saying that correlation isn't the same as causation. We recognize the need for caution in drawing definitive conclusions based solely on the strength of this correlation. While our findings might tickle the fancy of both politicos and millwrights alike, we're under no illusion that this relationship is a simple cause-and-effect affair. The gears of academia turn slowly, and in the realm of empirical research, it takes more than a catchy correlation to build a rock-solid theory. We remain committed to peeling back the layers of this curious alliance to uncover the nuts and bolts of causation—because whether in politics or machinery, every piece must fit snugly into the grander scheme.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state unveiled a remarkably robust correlation over the years 2003 to 2020. The correlation coefficient of 0.9059146 suggests a strong positive relationship between these two variables, with an r-squared value of 0.8206813 indicating that approximately 82% of the variation in the number of millwrights can be explained by the variation in Democrat votes for Senators. In a fit of statistical significance, the p-value clocked in at less than 0.01, cementing the strength of this association.
Fig. 1 illustrates the striking correlation between the two variables. It seems there's more to Delaware's politico-industrial landscape than meets the eye, akin to a political machine with mechanical gears powering its election outcomes. As the saying goes, there's no situation that can't be improved by a good pun—just like there's no Senate race that doesn't benefit from the presence of millwrights.
When it comes to statistical correlations, it's always best to tread with caution and not jump to causal conclusions faster than an eager voter at the polls. As much as we'd love to believe that the act of casting a vote magically conjures a wayward millwright into existence, we recognize the need for further inquiry and theorizing. The interplay between voting behavior and the presence of millwrights is undoubtedly fascinating, but our research merely scratches the surface of this enigmatic relationship.
The convergence of statistical evidence and a touch of whimsy in our findings suggests that there may indeed be a deeper synthesis between political choices and the machinery that hums in the background. As we pivot to peel back the layers of this alliance, we aim to unleash a wave of insights that not only entertain but also enrich our understanding of the intricate connections that pervade our world. After all, every Senator could use a dependable millwright in their corner—talk about a vote of confidence in craftsmanship!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, the remarkable correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state, as evidenced by a correlation coefficient of 0.9059146 and a p-value of less than 0.01, unveils a tantalizing link between political preference and mechanical presence. If you thought the only thing turning in Delaware was the Senate race, think again—there's a whole lot of mechanical movement going on behind the political curtains! This revelation gives new meaning to the old adage: "When there's a mill, there's a way" - especially when it comes to voter trends.

However, while these findings present a compelling narrative, we must resist the temptation to hastily make a "mill" out of a mere correlation. As much as we'd love for the act of voting to generate millwrights like magic, we acknowledge that further investigation is warranted. After all, in the research world, causation and correlation are as distinct as a lathe and a latte—often mistaken, but vastly different in function.

This study offers an intriguing entry point into exploring the interwoven tapestry of political decisions and the presence of skilled labor, demonstrating that there may be more gears at work in political landscapes than initially perceived. As we continue to dissect the underlying mechanisms of this union, it's apparent that this research has certainly opened a Pandora's toolbox of potential insights.

In the grand tradition of dad jokes, it seems that the Senate race in Delaware might need a little lubrication from the millwrights to keep its gears turning smoothly. Maybe they can work on a "bipartisan" agreement to ensure the seamless functioning of both mechanics and politics!

In the immortal words of Shakespeare, "All's well that ends well," and based on our findings, it seems that all's mill that ends mill. Therefore, with tongue firmly in cheek and research data in hand, we assert that there's no need for further research in this area. Because let's face it, when it comes to the quirky connection between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of millwrights in Delaware, we've pretty much nailed it!


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 Ballot and the Mill: An Examination of the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators and Millwrights in Delaware. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Ethnography


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 Ballot and the Mill: An Examination of the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators and Millwrights in Delaware. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Sociopolitical Analysis and Industrial Dynamics


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 Ballot and the Mill: An Examination of the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators and Millwrights in Delaware with an abstract of This paper delves into the fascinating correlation between the voting behavior of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the number of millwrights in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we embarked on unraveling this enigmatic association. Our findings yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9059146, with a significance level of p < 0.01, spanning the years 2003 to 2020.
It's no secret that Delawareans have a knack for choosing their senators, but could there be a hidden mechanical inclination governing this decision-making process? Our research suggests a strong connection between the ballot and the mill, indicating that as Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware rise, so does the presence of millwrights in the state. It seems the "wheels" of political preference may indeed drive the gears of occupational distribution. This is all to say—you can't spell Senator without "sen" as in millwright!
But of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While our findings prompt an amusing conversation, further investigation is essential to uncover the underlying mechanics behind this intriguing relationship. As we continue to probe this curious alliance between politics and machinery, we hope to shed light on the nuanced dynamics at play—because in the world of research, every vote and every sprocket counts.

ChatGPT:

Delaware Democrat votes for Senators, millwrights in Delaware, correlation coefficient, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Bureau of Labor Statistics, political preference and occupational distribution, correlation versus causation, political dynamics and machinery, relationship between politics and machinery

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

The number of millwrights in Delaware
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of millwrights in Delaware
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of millwrights in Delaware

Correlation r = 0.9059146 (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 = 0.8206813 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 82.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of millwrights in Delaware) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Delaware) over the 7 years from 2003 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.005. 0.0049546240043518010000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.91 in 0.5% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 202 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 6 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 6 because we have two variables measured over a period of 7 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.48, 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.
2006200820102012201420182020
Votes for Democratic Senators in Delaware (Percentage of votes)70.200364.686556.607366.419255.826459.953159.4384
The number of millwrights in Delaware (Millwrights)200160120190609080




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
  5. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([70.2003,64.6865,56.6073,66.4192,55.8264,59.9531,59.4384,])
array_2 = np.array([200,160,120,190,60,90,80,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Delaware"
array_2_name = "The number of millwrights in Delaware"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the rating guru we've been waiting for!


Correlation ID: 4444 · Black Variable ID: 26363 · Red Variable ID: 6240
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0