about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,479 · 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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. and the second variable is Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake.  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

As the support for the Libertarian candidate revved up in D.C., it put the brakes on the traditional two-party system. This political shift somehow triggered a chain reaction in the automotive industry, leading to more thorough inspections and an increase in parking brake recalls. It seems like even in the world of politics, when it rains, it auto-pours!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ Concept art ] Generate an image of a bustling Washington, D.C. street scene. The focus is a long line of diverse and excited voters waiting outside a polling station. They are depicted in various stages of engaging with the voting process, from showing identification to casting their ballots for the Libertarian Presidential candidate. Meanwhile, a nearby automotive workshop showcases diligent mechanics inspecting and repairing parking brakes on a row of cars, emphasizing a surge in automotive safety measures. The scene should capture the energetic political environment and the increased focus on automotive safety, blending the two elements seamlessly within the composition. 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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. 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: Data cyber art inspired by bauhaus Glitch art Concept art 3D Pixar Style
ChatGPT: Concept art

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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake, in the following situation: As the support for the Libertarian candidate revved up in D.C., it put the brakes on the traditional two-party system. This political shift somehow triggered a chain reaction in the automotive industry, leading to more thorough inspections and an increase in parking brake recalls. It seems like even in the world of politics, when it rains, it auto-pours!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Washington, D.C., a line of people stretches outside a polling station, with individuals excitedly casting their votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate. Meanwhile, in a nearby automotive workshop, mechanics are diligently inspecting and repairing parking brakes on a row of cars, indicating an increase in recalls due to issues with the parking brake system. The political buzz in the air seems to have influenced a surge in automotive safety measures.

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: [ Concept art ] and depicting this scene: In Washington, D.C., a line of people stretches outside a polling station, with individuals excitedly casting their votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate. Meanwhile, in a nearby automotive workshop, mechanics are diligently inspecting and repairing parking brakes on a row of cars, indicating an increase in recalls due to issues with the parking brake system. The political buzz in the air seems to have influenced a surge in automotive safety measures. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ Concept art ] Generate an image of a bustling Washington, D.C. street scene. The focus is a long line of diverse and excited voters waiting outside a polling station. They are depicted in various stages of engaging with the voting process, from showing identification to casting their ballots for the Libertarian Presidential candidate. Meanwhile, a nearby automotive workshop showcases diligent mechanics inspecting and repairing parking brakes on a row of cars, emphasizing a surge in automotive safety measures. The scene should capture the energetic political environment and the increased focus on automotive safety, blending the two elements seamlessly within the composition.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how increases in Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. positively influenced Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Brake the Vote: A Libertarian Review of Parking Brake Recalls in Washington, D.C.

Journal of Vehicular Libertarianism

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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and US DOT to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 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]]
Brake the Vote: A Libertarian Review of Parking Brake Recalls in Washington, D.C.

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious correlation between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1980 to 2020. Surprisingly, we discovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value less than 0.01. Our findings shed light on the peculiar relationship between political preferences and automotive safety in the nation's capital, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of democracy and automotive engineering.


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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Brake the Vote: A Libertarian Review of Parking Brake Recalls in Washington, D.C.

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious correlation between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1980 to 2020. Surprisingly, we discovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value less than 0.01. Our findings shed light on the peculiar relationship between political preferences and automotive safety in the nation's capital, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of democracy and automotive engineering.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Revving up the engine of inquiry, our research team decided to take a joyride through the eccentric and unexpected territory of the relationship between political voting patterns and automotive recalls. Specifically, we aimed to unravel the mysterious connection between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C.

As any diligent researcher would, we fastened our seatbelts and kicked off this curious investigation by diving headfirst into the archives of MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT. Armed with a trunkload of data spanning four bumpy decades from 1980 to 2020, we embarked on a journey to untangle the intricate web of statistical peculiarities that lay ahead.

Imagine our surprise when the data revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value that's rarer than a unicorn sighting – less than 0.01! Hold onto your hats, folks, because we were about to enter uncharted scientific territory where political preferences and automotive safety intersect.

Unveiling this correlation had us grappling with both astonishment and amusement, akin to discovering a kangaroo in a business suit – it's unexpected, it's quirky, and it leaves you scratching your head in wonder. But fear not, dear readers, for the curious and chuckle-worthy findings we are about to present shall provide a refreshing twist to the typically serious and stoic realm of academic research.

So, buckle up and tag along as we accelerate through the lanes of statistics, traverse the winding road of political analysis, and ultimately unveil the whimsical connection between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and automotive recalls for parking brake issues in Washington, D.C. This, my friends, is no ordinary journey – it's a turbocharged adventure into the unexpected convergence of democracy and automotive engineering. Fasten your seatbelts as we delve into the comical curiosities of Brake the Vote!


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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Perhaps you also got inspiration from some board games that are vaugely related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Brake the Vote: A Libertarian Review of Parking Brake Recalls in Washington, D.C.

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious correlation between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1980 to 2020. Surprisingly, we discovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value less than 0.01. Our findings shed light on the peculiar relationship between political preferences and automotive safety in the nation's capital, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of democracy and automotive engineering.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Revving up the engine of inquiry, our research team decided to take a joyride through the eccentric and unexpected territory of the relationship between political voting patterns and automotive recalls. Specifically, we aimed to unravel the mysterious connection between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C.
As any diligent researcher would, we fastened our seatbelts and kicked off this curious investigation by diving headfirst into the archives of MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT. Armed with a trunkload of data spanning four bumpy decades from 1980 to 2020, we embarked on a journey to untangle the intricate web of statistical peculiarities that lay ahead.
Imagine our surprise when the data revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value that's rarer than a unicorn sighting – less than 0.01! Hold onto your hats, folks, because we were about to enter uncharted scientific territory where political preferences and automotive safety intersect.
Unveiling this correlation had us grappling with both astonishment and amusement, akin to discovering a kangaroo in a business suit – it's unexpected, it's quirky, and it leaves you scratching your head in wonder. But fear not, dear readers, for the curious and chuckle-worthy findings we are about to present shall provide a refreshing twist to the typically serious and stoic realm of academic research.
So, buckle up and tag along as we accelerate through the lanes of statistics, traverse the winding road of political analysis, and ultimately unveil the whimsical connection between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and automotive recalls for parking brake issues in Washington, D.C. This, my friends, is no ordinary journey – it's a turbocharged adventure into the unexpected convergence of democracy and automotive engineering. Fasten your seatbelts as we delve into the comical curiosities of Brake the Vote!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The relationship between political preferences and automotive safety has been an oft-debated topic in both scholarly and public discourse. Smith and Doe (2020) conducted a thorough analysis of voting patterns and automotive recalls, primarily focusing on the correlation between conservative voting tendencies and occurrences of defects in automobile safety features. However, their study failed to account for the peculiar quirk of Libertarian voting behavior and its intersection with specific automotive issues.

In "Automechanics Quarterly," the authors unearth the curious observation that parking brake malfunctions seem to coincide with the voting fervor for Libertarian presidential candidates. This unexpected correlation challenges conventional wisdom and prompts a closer examination of the idiosyncrasies within the voting populace and their curious alignment with automotive malfunctions.

Drawing inspiration from automotive literature, Jones delves into the world of parking brake mechanics and the fascinating interplay of political choice in his work, "Automotive Anomalies and Political Peculiarities." As Jones aptly notes, the connection between parking brake recalls and political leanings is akin to an unexpected pothole on the smooth road of academic discourse – jarring, surprising, and potentially hazardous to traditional scholarly paradigms.

Furthermore, in the fiction realm, the dystopian novel "Freedom Highway" by A. C. Campaigner presents a speculative scenario in which a political movement centered around vehicular autonomy inadvertently leads to an epidemic of parking brake defects, challenging notions of automotive safety in a chaotic, libertarian-inspired society.

The classic board game "Life on the Road" presents players with the challenge of navigating auto-related mishaps, including parking brake malfunctions, while also making strategic political decisions along the way. This game serves as a lighthearted nod to the entwined nature of automotive experiences and political choices, further highlighting the unexpected convergence at the heart of our research.

As we wade through the peculiar and often whimsical literature surrounding our topic, it becomes abundantly clear that the correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and automotive recalls for parking brake issues in Washington, D.C. is not just a statistical oddity but a delightful and unexpected intersection of democracy and automotive engineering. Hold onto your steering wheels, dear readers, as we joyfully embark on this journey of laughter, learning, and unexpected revelations in Brake the Vote!


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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and US DOT . 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]]
Brake the Vote: A Libertarian Review of Parking Brake Recalls in Washington, D.C.

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious correlation between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1980 to 2020. Surprisingly, we discovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value less than 0.01. Our findings shed light on the peculiar relationship between political preferences and automotive safety in the nation's capital, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of democracy and automotive engineering.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Revving up the engine of inquiry, our research team decided to take a joyride through the eccentric and unexpected territory of the relationship between political voting patterns and automotive recalls. Specifically, we aimed to unravel the mysterious connection between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C.
As any diligent researcher would, we fastened our seatbelts and kicked off this curious investigation by diving headfirst into the archives of MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT. Armed with a trunkload of data spanning four bumpy decades from 1980 to 2020, we embarked on a journey to untangle the intricate web of statistical peculiarities that lay ahead.
Imagine our surprise when the data revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value that's rarer than a unicorn sighting – less than 0.01! Hold onto your hats, folks, because we were about to enter uncharted scientific territory where political preferences and automotive safety intersect.
Unveiling this correlation had us grappling with both astonishment and amusement, akin to discovering a kangaroo in a business suit – it's unexpected, it's quirky, and it leaves you scratching your head in wonder. But fear not, dear readers, for the curious and chuckle-worthy findings we are about to present shall provide a refreshing twist to the typically serious and stoic realm of academic research.
So, buckle up and tag along as we accelerate through the lanes of statistics, traverse the winding road of political analysis, and ultimately unveil the whimsical connection between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and automotive recalls for parking brake issues in Washington, D.C. This, my friends, is no ordinary journey – it's a turbocharged adventure into the unexpected convergence of democracy and automotive engineering. Fasten your seatbelts as we delve into the comical curiosities of Brake the Vote!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To navigate the convoluted maze of political preferences and automotive peculiarities, our intrepid research team employed a methodological concoction that could make even a mad scientist chuckle. First, we revved up our data collection engine and scoured the digital highways, primarily relying on the rich repositories of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US DOT. Our digital treasure hunt spanned the years 1980 to 2020, aiming to capture the full spectrum of political and automotive antics that unfolded in the nation's capital.

With a trunkful of data securely in our possession, we donned our statistical safety goggles and dived headfirst into the abyss of numbers, armed with an arsenal of analytical tools that could make even the staunchest mathematics enthusiast raise an eyebrow. We unleashed the mighty power of correlation analysis, harnessing its energy to unveil the hidden dance between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of parking brake-related automotive recalls.

The statistical wizardry didn't stop there – oh no! We summoned the mystical p-value, the teller of statistical significance, to discern whether the observed correlation was a rare phenomenon or just another statistical fluke. As any good researcher would, we performed rigorous sensitivity analyses and diagnostic checks, ensuring that our findings weren't just a mirage in the desert of data. And lo and behold, what we stumbled upon was no statistical mirage; it was a glittering correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 shining bright like a diamond in the rough, with a p-value rarer than a sighting of scientific Bigfoot – less than 0.01!

In our quest to unravel this enigmatic connection, we took into account the ebbs and flows of political ideologies and automotive quirks over the four rollercoaster-like decades we traversed. Our methodological concoction allowed us to uncover an unexpected correlation that left us scratching our heads in bemusement, akin to discovering a high-speed chase involving a tortoise and a hare.

Amidst the laughter and eyebrow-raising, our investigation peeled back the layers of statistical absurdity to reveal a correlation that wasn't just a statistical fluke; it was the peculiar alignment of political leanings and automotive safety in Washington, D.C. Buckle your seatbelts and hold onto your hypotheses, dear readers, for the comedic saga of Brake the Vote was just getting started. Fasten your seatbelts as we take a wild romp through the offbeat domain where political ballots and parking brakes collide.


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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

For the time period 1980 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9337606, r-squared of 0.8719089, 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]]
Brake the Vote: A Libertarian Review of Parking Brake Recalls in Washington, D.C.

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious correlation between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1980 to 2020. Surprisingly, we discovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value less than 0.01. Our findings shed light on the peculiar relationship between political preferences and automotive safety in the nation's capital, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of democracy and automotive engineering.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Revving up the engine of inquiry, our research team decided to take a joyride through the eccentric and unexpected territory of the relationship between political voting patterns and automotive recalls. Specifically, we aimed to unravel the mysterious connection between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C.
As any diligent researcher would, we fastened our seatbelts and kicked off this curious investigation by diving headfirst into the archives of MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT. Armed with a trunkload of data spanning four bumpy decades from 1980 to 2020, we embarked on a journey to untangle the intricate web of statistical peculiarities that lay ahead.
Imagine our surprise when the data revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value that's rarer than a unicorn sighting – less than 0.01! Hold onto your hats, folks, because we were about to enter uncharted scientific territory where political preferences and automotive safety intersect.
Unveiling this correlation had us grappling with both astonishment and amusement, akin to discovering a kangaroo in a business suit – it's unexpected, it's quirky, and it leaves you scratching your head in wonder. But fear not, dear readers, for the curious and chuckle-worthy findings we are about to present shall provide a refreshing twist to the typically serious and stoic realm of academic research.
So, buckle up and tag along as we accelerate through the lanes of statistics, traverse the winding road of political analysis, and ultimately unveil the whimsical connection between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and automotive recalls for parking brake issues in Washington, D.C. This, my friends, is no ordinary journey – it's a turbocharged adventure into the unexpected convergence of democracy and automotive engineering. Fasten your seatbelts as we delve into the comical curiosities of Brake the Vote!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

**[[RESULTS]]**

Our analysis revved full throttle into the data, and what we found was nothing short of an exhilarating joyride into statistical surprise. *Drumroll, please!* We unearthed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9337606, with an r-squared value that would make even the most seasoned statistician raise an eyebrow – a staggering 0.8719089! We also donned our party hats when the p-value danced its way into our analysis, flaunting its rare charm of being less than 0.01. Quite the statistical unicorn sighting, one might say!

But hold onto your hats, dear readers, because our journey through this automotive and political hodgepodge did not end there. Oh no, we're just gearing up! Fig. 1 (not to be mistaken with Fast and Furious) reveals a scatterplot showcasing the remarkable correlation between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for parking brake issues in our very own nation's capital.

We were left pondering, much like a scientist facing an unexpected hypothesis: how on earth are political voting preferences and automotive safety twirling in this mischievous dance of correlation? It's like finding a political pundit moonlighting as a master mechanic – a delightful surprise, indeed.

So, buckle up, my fellow researchers, for these findings not only unveiled a compelling correlation but also tickled our scholarly funny bones. Stay tuned for a whimsical spin on the stereotypical academic rigidity, as Brake the Vote accelerates us into the comical curiosities of politics and parking brakes. Fasten your seatbelts, for this unexpected convergence of democracy and automotive engineering is about to take you on a laughter-inducing rollercoaster ride through the wacky world of data and correlation.


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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
Brake the Vote: A Libertarian Review of Parking Brake Recalls in Washington, D.C.

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious correlation between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1980 to 2020. Surprisingly, we discovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value less than 0.01. Our findings shed light on the peculiar relationship between political preferences and automotive safety in the nation's capital, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of democracy and automotive engineering.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The relationship between political preferences and automotive safety has been an oft-debated topic in both scholarly and public discourse. Smith and Doe (2020) conducted a thorough analysis of voting patterns and automotive recalls, primarily focusing on the correlation between conservative voting tendencies and occurrences of defects in automobile safety features. However, their study failed to account for the peculiar quirk of Libertarian voting behavior and its intersection with specific automotive issues.
In "Automechanics Quarterly," the authors unearth the curious observation that parking brake malfunctions seem to coincide with the voting fervor for Libertarian presidential candidates. This unexpected correlation challenges conventional wisdom and prompts a closer examination of the idiosyncrasies within the voting populace and their curious alignment with automotive malfunctions.
Drawing inspiration from automotive literature, Jones delves into the world of parking brake mechanics and the fascinating interplay of political choice in his work, "Automotive Anomalies and Political Peculiarities." As Jones aptly notes, the connection between parking brake recalls and political leanings is akin to an unexpected pothole on the smooth road of academic discourse – jarring, surprising, and potentially hazardous to traditional scholarly paradigms.
Furthermore, in the fiction realm, the dystopian novel "Freedom Highway" by A. C. Campaigner presents a speculative scenario in which a political movement centered around vehicular autonomy inadvertently leads to an epidemic of parking brake defects, challenging notions of automotive safety in a chaotic, libertarian-inspired society.
The classic board game "Life on the Road" presents players with the challenge of navigating auto-related mishaps, including parking brake malfunctions, while also making strategic political decisions along the way. This game serves as a lighthearted nod to the entwined nature of automotive experiences and political choices, further highlighting the unexpected convergence at the heart of our research.
As we wade through the peculiar and often whimsical literature surrounding our topic, it becomes abundantly clear that the correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and automotive recalls for parking brake issues in Washington, D.C. is not just a statistical oddity but a delightful and unexpected intersection of democracy and automotive engineering. Hold onto your steering wheels, dear readers, as we joyfully embark on this journey of laughter, learning, and unexpected revelations in Brake the Vote!

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis revved full throttle into the data, and what we found was nothing short of an exhilarating joyride into statistical surprise. *Drumroll, please!* We unearthed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9337606, with an r-squared value that would make even the most seasoned statistician raise an eyebrow – a staggering 0.8719089! We also donned our party hats when the p-value danced its way into our analysis, flaunting its rare charm of being less than 0.01. Quite the statistical unicorn sighting, one might say!
But hold onto your hats, dear readers, because our journey through this automotive and political hodgepodge did not end there. Oh no, we're just gearing up! Fig. 1 (not to be mistaken with Fast and Furious) reveals a scatterplot showcasing the remarkable correlation between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for parking brake issues in our very own nation's capital.
We were left pondering, much like a scientist facing an unexpected hypothesis: how on earth are political voting preferences and automotive safety twirling in this mischievous dance of correlation? It's like finding a political pundit moonlighting as a master mechanic – a delightful surprise, indeed.
So, buckle up, my fellow researchers, for these findings not only unveiled a compelling correlation but also tickled our scholarly funny bones. Stay tuned for a whimsical spin on the stereotypical academic rigidity, as Brake the Vote accelerates us into the comical curiosities of politics and parking brakes. Fasten your seatbelts, for this unexpected convergence of democracy and automotive engineering is about to take you on a laughter-inducing rollercoaster ride through the wacky world of data and correlation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings have certainly sparked a flurry of excitement and curiosity (pun very much intended!) in the automotive and political spheres. As we immerse ourselves in the delightful quagmire of statistical correlation, we can't help but marvel at the unexpected harmony between political preferences and automotive safety issues. It's like discovering a ballet performance at a NASCAR race – a beautiful yet unexpected convergence of seemingly unrelated phenomena.

Speaking of unexpected phenomena, let's harken back to the literature review, where the fictional novel "Freedom Highway" by A. C. Campaigner presented a speculative scenario in which political movements inadvertently led to a pandemic of parking brake defects. While this may seem whimsical, our results lend credence to the idea that the intersection of political fervor and automotive predicaments is not just a far-fetched concept, but a captivating reality.

Furthermore, our study elicits a chuckle-worthy nod to "Life on the Road," the classic board game that cunningly intertwines auto-related mishaps and strategic political decisions. In a similar manner, our findings highlight the unpredictable and entertaining overlap of voting behavior and automotive safety concerns. Who knew that navigating through political inclinations and parking brake malfunctions would lead us to uncover such a whimsical correlation?

In the realm of statistical marvels, our correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 and r-squared value of 0.8719089 make for quite the riveting spectacle, akin to witnessing a daring high-speed chase in the analytical world. Like a thrilling plot twist in a scientific thriller, our results not only support prior research but also add a delightful spin to the narrative of political preferences and automotive safety.

As we peel away the layers of this automotive and political onion, we are left with a profound appreciation for the humor and intrigue that spring forth from the unexpected convergence of democracy and automotive engineering. So, let's gear up for the next chapter in this uproarious saga of Brake the Vote, where statistical correlations and whimsy collide in a belly-laugh inducing journey through the maze of data and delightful discoveries.


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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Brake the Vote: A Libertarian Review of Parking Brake Recalls in Washington, D.C.

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious correlation between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1980 to 2020. Surprisingly, we discovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value less than 0.01. Our findings shed light on the peculiar relationship between political preferences and automotive safety in the nation's capital, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of democracy and automotive engineering.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Revving up the engine of inquiry, our research team decided to take a joyride through the eccentric and unexpected territory of the relationship between political voting patterns and automotive recalls. Specifically, we aimed to unravel the mysterious connection between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C.
As any diligent researcher would, we fastened our seatbelts and kicked off this curious investigation by diving headfirst into the archives of MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT. Armed with a trunkload of data spanning four bumpy decades from 1980 to 2020, we embarked on a journey to untangle the intricate web of statistical peculiarities that lay ahead.
Imagine our surprise when the data revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value that's rarer than a unicorn sighting – less than 0.01! Hold onto your hats, folks, because we were about to enter uncharted scientific territory where political preferences and automotive safety intersect.
Unveiling this correlation had us grappling with both astonishment and amusement, akin to discovering a kangaroo in a business suit – it's unexpected, it's quirky, and it leaves you scratching your head in wonder. But fear not, dear readers, for the curious and chuckle-worthy findings we are about to present shall provide a refreshing twist to the typically serious and stoic realm of academic research.
So, buckle up and tag along as we accelerate through the lanes of statistics, traverse the winding road of political analysis, and ultimately unveil the whimsical connection between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and automotive recalls for parking brake issues in Washington, D.C. This, my friends, is no ordinary journey – it's a turbocharged adventure into the unexpected convergence of democracy and automotive engineering. Fasten your seatbelts as we delve into the comical curiosities of Brake the Vote!

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis revved full throttle into the data, and what we found was nothing short of an exhilarating joyride into statistical surprise. *Drumroll, please!* We unearthed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9337606, with an r-squared value that would make even the most seasoned statistician raise an eyebrow – a staggering 0.8719089! We also donned our party hats when the p-value danced its way into our analysis, flaunting its rare charm of being less than 0.01. Quite the statistical unicorn sighting, one might say!
But hold onto your hats, dear readers, because our journey through this automotive and political hodgepodge did not end there. Oh no, we're just gearing up! Fig. 1 (not to be mistaken with Fast and Furious) reveals a scatterplot showcasing the remarkable correlation between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for parking brake issues in our very own nation's capital.
We were left pondering, much like a scientist facing an unexpected hypothesis: how on earth are political voting preferences and automotive safety twirling in this mischievous dance of correlation? It's like finding a political pundit moonlighting as a master mechanic – a delightful surprise, indeed.
So, buckle up, my fellow researchers, for these findings not only unveiled a compelling correlation but also tickled our scholarly funny bones. Stay tuned for a whimsical spin on the stereotypical academic rigidity, as Brake the Vote accelerates us into the comical curiosities of politics and parking brakes. Fasten your seatbelts, for this unexpected convergence of democracy and automotive engineering is about to take you on a laughter-inducing rollercoaster ride through the wacky world of data and correlation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

As we near the finish line of this zany race through the wild world of political preferences and parking brake predicaments, it's time to slam on the brakes and come to a screeching halt with our whimsical findings. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 and a p-value rarer than a statistically significant unicorn sighting, we've uncovered a connection that's as perplexing as trying to parallel park in a clown car.

Our data journey has been nothing short of a turbocharged adventure, akin to a rollercoaster ride through the realms of statistics and political peculiarities. We've unearthed a correlation so tight, it's like watching a vaudevillian duo performing a perfectly synchronized tango.

As we bid adieu to this enthralling escapade, we dare to declare that no further research is needed in this area. Our findings have revved up the field of political and automotive research, adding a dash of quirkiness and a sprinkle of statistical surprise that's sure to leave both scientists and citizens chuckling. So, let's put the brakes on this investigation and steer our scholarly vehicles toward the next uproarious adventure, for the hilarious quirks of statistical correlation have been conquered in Brake the Vote!


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 Brake the Vote: A Libertarian Review of Parking Brake Recalls in Washington, D.C.. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Vehicular Libertarianism


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 Brake the Vote: A Libertarian Review of Parking Brake Recalls in Washington, D.C.. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Urban Mobility Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Brake the Vote: A Libertarian Review of Parking Brake Recalls in Washington, D.C. with an abstract of This study delves into the curious correlation between the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake in Washington, D.C. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and US DOT, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1980 to 2020. Surprisingly, we discovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9337606 with a p-value less than 0.01. Our findings shed light on the peculiar relationship between political preferences and automotive safety in the nation's capital, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of democracy and automotive engineering.

ChatGPT:

"parking brake recalls Washington DC," "Libertarian presidential candidate votes correlation automotive recalls," "MIT Election Data and Science Lab analysis," "Harvard Dataverse research," "US DOT automotive safety data," "political preferences automotive safety correlation," "democracy automotive engineering intersection"

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake
Source: US DOT
See what else correlates with Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake

Correlation r = 0.9337606 (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 = 0.8719089 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 87.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C.) over the 9 years from 1980 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.000231. 0.0002307482522531386200000000
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 0.93 in 0.0231% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 4,334 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 8 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 8 because we have two variables measured over a period of 9 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.

[ 0.71, 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.
198019881992199620002004201220162020
Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C. (Percentage of votes)0.6348880.287230.205210.3165950.3313620.2205760.7090731.569540.591249
Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake (Recalls)52166672810




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.




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([0.634888,0.28723,0.20521,0.316595,0.331362,0.220576,0.709073,1.56954,0.591249,])
array_2 = np.array([5,2,1,6,6,6,7,28,10,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Washington, D.C."
array_2_name = "Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating skills are legendary!


Correlation ID: 4479 · Black Variable ID: 26074 · Red Variable ID: 1113
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0