about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,485 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Annual US household spending on beef and the second variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in Idaho.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

Perhaps there's a strong beefy bond that has formed between the electorate and the candidates. As households spent more on beef, they found themselves inexplicably drawn to the steaks...I mean, stakes of the election. It's as if the sizzle of their spending translated into a desire for sizzling policies, leading to a rare victory for the Democrats.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a rustic Idaho kitchen, where a family is gathered around a grill, cooking steaks together. The family members are depicted enjoying the hearty beef dinner, with smiles on their faces as they engage in a lively political discussion. In the background, a strong beefy aroma fills the air, symbolizing the familial bond and their interest in the upcoming election. Additionally, include a representation of a Democrat senatorial candidate shaking hands with the father, symbolizing the unexpected victory for Democrats in a state known for its love of beef. Depict the scene using a cybernetic art style, incorporating metallic elements and futuristic details to enhance the visual. 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: Annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. 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: Cyber folk Cybernetic art A scene from Skyrim Photorealism High-tech
ChatGPT: Cybernetic 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 Annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho, in the following situation: Perhaps there's a strong beefy bond that has formed between the electorate and the candidates. As households spent more on beef, they found themselves inexplicably drawn to the steaks...I mean, stakes of the election. It's as if the sizzle of their spending translated into a desire for sizzling policies, leading to a rare victory for the Democrats.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a rustic Idaho kitchen, a family grills steaks together, enjoying a hearty beef dinner. As they savor the meal, they discuss politics and the upcoming election. A strong beefy aroma fills the air, symbolizing the close bond between their spending on beef and their interest in the political stakes. A Democrat senatorial candidate is seen shaking hands with the father, symbolizing the unusual victory for Democrats in a state known for its love of beef.

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: [ Cybernetic art ] and depicting this scene: In a rustic Idaho kitchen, a family grills steaks together, enjoying a hearty beef dinner. As they savor the meal, they discuss politics and the upcoming election. A strong beefy aroma fills the air, symbolizing the close bond between their spending on beef and their interest in the political stakes. A Democrat senatorial candidate is seen shaking hands with the father, symbolizing the unusual victory for Democrats in a state known for its love of beef. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a rustic Idaho kitchen, where a family is gathered around a grill, cooking steaks together. The family members are depicted enjoying the hearty beef dinner, with smiles on their faces as they engage in a lively political discussion. In the background, a strong beefy aroma fills the air, symbolizing the familial bond and their interest in the upcoming election. Additionally, include a representation of a Democrat senatorial candidate shaking hands with the father, symbolizing the unexpected victory for Democrats in a state known for its love of beef. Depict the scene using a cybernetic art style, incorporating metallic elements and futuristic details to enhance the visual.

*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 an increase in Annual US household spending on beef caused Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Steak and Ballot: The Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections

The Journal of Culinary Politics

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 Annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for 2000 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]]
Steak and Ballot: The Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the connection between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho, exploring the beef-ballot battle in the Gem State's Senate elections. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team aimed to put the "filet" of information on the table. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020. We present evidence that may "rare"ly be seen in political research, shedding light on the potential influence of beef consumption on voting patterns. Join us as we carve through the data to uncover the sizzling intersection of steak and state politics.


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 Annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. 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]]
Steak and Ballot: The Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the connection between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho, exploring the beef-ballot battle in the Gem State's Senate elections. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team aimed to put the "filet" of information on the table. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020. We present evidence that may "rare"ly be seen in political research, shedding light on the potential influence of beef consumption on voting patterns. Join us as we carve through the data to uncover the sizzling intersection of steak and state politics.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Ladies and gentlemen, step right up and witness the grand unveiling of the most appetizing research to hit the academic buffet line - the Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections! This study takes you on a journey through the juicy world of beef consumption and its tantalizing connection to Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Idaho.

As we sink our teeth into this mouthwatering topic, we aim to bring some sizzle to the rather rarefied air of political research. Our aim is to not just sirloin, but to tenderize the current state of knowledge about the factors influencing political voting patterns. Instead of crying over spilled milk, we're here to offer up some food for thought - as we chew the fat, so to speak, on the correlation between beef spending and political allegiance.

So, grab your fork and knife, because we're about to carve into the meat of the matter. Our team has combed through data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and Harvard Dataverse to serve up a delectable dish of statistical analysis. Our findings have uncovered a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, leaving us with a well-done understanding of the intricate connection between beef consumption and political preferences.

As we embark on this adventure, we invite you to join us in exploring the tender, flavorful, and unexpected relationship that unfolds when we plate up state politics and sizzling steaks. It's time to raise the steaks and bring some meaty insights to the table as we feed your hunger for knowledge and your appetite for the unexpected. So, without further ado, let's dive into the beef-ballot battle and see what's cooking in Idaho's Senate elections!


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 Annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name some movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Steak and Ballot: The Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the connection between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho, exploring the beef-ballot battle in the Gem State's Senate elections. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team aimed to put the "filet" of information on the table. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020. We present evidence that may "rare"ly be seen in political research, shedding light on the potential influence of beef consumption on voting patterns. Join us as we carve through the data to uncover the sizzling intersection of steak and state politics.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ladies and gentlemen, step right up and witness the grand unveiling of the most appetizing research to hit the academic buffet line - the Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections! This study takes you on a journey through the juicy world of beef consumption and its tantalizing connection to Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Idaho.
As we sink our teeth into this mouthwatering topic, we aim to bring some sizzle to the rather rarefied air of political research. Our aim is to not just sirloin, but to tenderize the current state of knowledge about the factors influencing political voting patterns. Instead of crying over spilled milk, we're here to offer up some food for thought - as we chew the fat, so to speak, on the correlation between beef spending and political allegiance.
So, grab your fork and knife, because we're about to carve into the meat of the matter. Our team has combed through data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and Harvard Dataverse to serve up a delectable dish of statistical analysis. Our findings have uncovered a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, leaving us with a well-done understanding of the intricate connection between beef consumption and political preferences.
As we embark on this adventure, we invite you to join us in exploring the tender, flavorful, and unexpected relationship that unfolds when we plate up state politics and sizzling steaks. It's time to raise the steaks and bring some meaty insights to the table as we feed your hunger for knowledge and your appetite for the unexpected. So, without further ado, let's dive into the beef-ballot battle and see what's cooking in Idaho's Senate elections!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The connection between household spending on beef and political preferences has been a topic of interest for researchers over the years. Smith et al. (2010) conducted a study examining the correlation between meat consumption and voting patterns, highlighting the potential influence of dietary habits on political allegiances. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2015) delved into the interplay between food choices and democratic inclinations, shedding light on the complex relationship between carnivorous tendencies and voting behavior.

Turning to non-fiction works, "Meat: A Love Story" by Blumenthal (2016) offers a comprehensive exploration of the cultural and societal impact of meat consumption, touching upon its potential ramifications on political attitudes. Furthermore, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Pollan (2006) presents a critical analysis of modern food choices and their broader implications, providing valuable insights into the intersection of dietary preferences and political leanings.

In the realm of fiction, "The Steak Conspiracy" by Griller (2012) presents a humorous take on the clandestine world of beef politics and its potential influence on government decision-making. Additionally, "Beef, Ballots, and Burgers" by Patty (2018) delves into the quirky connections between culinary indulgences and electoral dynamics, offering a light-hearted perspective on the beef-ballot nexus.

Furthermore, films such as "Beef Wars: The Grill Awakens" and "The Prime Rib Ultimatum" provide a lighthearted yet tangentially related portrayal of beef-centered conflicts, offering a whimsical take on the potential implications of meaty matters on political landscapes.

As we journey through this literature review, it becomes evident that the beef-ballot battle is not merely a rare occurrence in the political landscape but rather a medium rare topic that offers a juicy and well-done opportunity to explore the sizzling intersection of steak and state politics.


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 Annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. 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 Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse . You used data from 2000 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]]
Steak and Ballot: The Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the connection between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho, exploring the beef-ballot battle in the Gem State's Senate elections. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team aimed to put the "filet" of information on the table. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020. We present evidence that may "rare"ly be seen in political research, shedding light on the potential influence of beef consumption on voting patterns. Join us as we carve through the data to uncover the sizzling intersection of steak and state politics.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ladies and gentlemen, step right up and witness the grand unveiling of the most appetizing research to hit the academic buffet line - the Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections! This study takes you on a journey through the juicy world of beef consumption and its tantalizing connection to Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Idaho.
As we sink our teeth into this mouthwatering topic, we aim to bring some sizzle to the rather rarefied air of political research. Our aim is to not just sirloin, but to tenderize the current state of knowledge about the factors influencing political voting patterns. Instead of crying over spilled milk, we're here to offer up some food for thought - as we chew the fat, so to speak, on the correlation between beef spending and political allegiance.
So, grab your fork and knife, because we're about to carve into the meat of the matter. Our team has combed through data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and Harvard Dataverse to serve up a delectable dish of statistical analysis. Our findings have uncovered a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, leaving us with a well-done understanding of the intricate connection between beef consumption and political preferences.
As we embark on this adventure, we invite you to join us in exploring the tender, flavorful, and unexpected relationship that unfolds when we plate up state politics and sizzling steaks. It's time to raise the steaks and bring some meaty insights to the table as we feed your hunger for knowledge and your appetite for the unexpected. So, without further ado, let's dive into the beef-ballot battle and see what's cooking in Idaho's Senate elections!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To beef up our methodology, our research team pursued a mixed methods approach that was as well-marbled as a prime rib. We conducted a thorough review of literature to ensure that our study was on the cutting edge of both political science and consumer behavior research. With our aprons on and sleeves rolled up, we embarked on a journey through the data landscape, making careful selections much like a discerning butcher choosing the finest cuts of meat.

Data Collection:
The primary ingredients for our study were sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse. We also whipped up a secret sauce of online sources, ensuring that our data collection was as comprehensive as a smorgasbord. The time period for our analysis spanned from 2000 to 2020, allowing us to sink our teeth into two decades of delectable data.

Variable Selection:
In the spirit of a well-balanced meal, we carefully selected our independent variable as annual US household spending on beef, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For the dependent variable, we took a bipartisan bite and focused on Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho, obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse.

Data Analysis:
Our statistical recipe involved stirring together a heaping helping of correlation analysis, garnishing it with a sprinkle of regression models, and seasoning it with some tasty hypothesis testing. We tenderized the data using robust statistical methods to ensure that our results were not just "meat" to the eye, but also fulfilled the rigorous standards of academic research.

Ethical Considerations:
While we were certainly eager to sink our teeth into the data, we also meticulously adhered to ethical guidelines, ensuring that the privacy and confidentiality of individuals represented in our dataset were preserved. This research was conducted with the utmost respect for data protection and the anonymity of the participants, guarding their identities like closely-guarded family recipes.

Limitations:
Just as every dish has its own unique flavor, our study also had its limitations. We recognize that our findings reflect only a specific slice of the political landscape, and the generalizability of our results may be constrained by the context of Idaho's unique demographic and political characteristics. Nonetheless, we are confident that our results provide a significant contribution to the discussions swirling around the intersection of consumer behavior and political preferences.

In conclusion, our methodological approach was a carefully crafted recipe, seasoned with attention to detail and a dash of academic flair. Like a master chef in the kitchen, we meticulously followed the recipe of scientific inquiry, ensuring that our study was cooked to perfection and ready to be served to the academic community and beyond.


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 Annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. 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 Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse .

For the time period 2000 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9222495, r-squared of 0.8505441, 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]]
Steak and Ballot: The Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the connection between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho, exploring the beef-ballot battle in the Gem State's Senate elections. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team aimed to put the "filet" of information on the table. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020. We present evidence that may "rare"ly be seen in political research, shedding light on the potential influence of beef consumption on voting patterns. Join us as we carve through the data to uncover the sizzling intersection of steak and state politics.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Ladies and gentlemen, step right up and witness the grand unveiling of the most appetizing research to hit the academic buffet line - the Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections! This study takes you on a journey through the juicy world of beef consumption and its tantalizing connection to Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Idaho.
As we sink our teeth into this mouthwatering topic, we aim to bring some sizzle to the rather rarefied air of political research. Our aim is to not just sirloin, but to tenderize the current state of knowledge about the factors influencing political voting patterns. Instead of crying over spilled milk, we're here to offer up some food for thought - as we chew the fat, so to speak, on the correlation between beef spending and political allegiance.
So, grab your fork and knife, because we're about to carve into the meat of the matter. Our team has combed through data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and Harvard Dataverse to serve up a delectable dish of statistical analysis. Our findings have uncovered a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, leaving us with a well-done understanding of the intricate connection between beef consumption and political preferences.
As we embark on this adventure, we invite you to join us in exploring the tender, flavorful, and unexpected relationship that unfolds when we plate up state politics and sizzling steaks. It's time to raise the steaks and bring some meaty insights to the table as we feed your hunger for knowledge and your appetite for the unexpected. So, without further ado, let's dive into the beef-ballot battle and see what's cooking in Idaho's Senate elections!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our investigation into the beef-ballot battle in Idaho Senate elections yielded some truly "meaty" results. After crunching the numbers and slicing through the data, we found a surprising correlation between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. The correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 for the years 2000 to 2020 has left us with a "well-done" understanding of the relationship between beef consumption and political preferences in the Gem State.

Not only did our statistical analysis reveal this beefy correlation, but the r-square value of 0.8505441 suggests that a significant proportion of the variability in Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho can be explained by annual household spending on beef. In other words, it seems that the stakes are high when it comes to the connection between beef and ballots in Idaho.

The p-value of less than 0.01 adds some extra sizzle to our findings, indicating that the likelihood of observing such a strong relationship by random chance alone is "rare" indeed. This p-value is so low, it’s practically grazing the floor – much like the average Democrat's tendency to "filet" their name on the ballot in Idaho.

In Figure 1, our scatterplot visually illustrates the robust correlation between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. It's a sight to behold, much like a perfectly marbled ribeye steak, and the correlation is as clear as day – or should we say "rare" as a medium-rare sirloin?

Overall, these results shed light on the surprising link between beef consumption and political inclinations in the state of Idaho. We hope our findings will inspire further research that delves into the "meat"y details of how dietary habits may influence voting behavior. It's clear that when it comes to understanding the dynamics of state politics, we can't simply "meat"-er around – it's time to sink our teeth into the rich and flavorful world of beef-ballot relationships.


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 Annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. 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]]
Steak and Ballot: The Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the connection between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho, exploring the beef-ballot battle in the Gem State's Senate elections. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team aimed to put the "filet" of information on the table. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020. We present evidence that may "rare"ly be seen in political research, shedding light on the potential influence of beef consumption on voting patterns. Join us as we carve through the data to uncover the sizzling intersection of steak and state politics.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between household spending on beef and political preferences has been a topic of interest for researchers over the years. Smith et al. (2010) conducted a study examining the correlation between meat consumption and voting patterns, highlighting the potential influence of dietary habits on political allegiances. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2015) delved into the interplay between food choices and democratic inclinations, shedding light on the complex relationship between carnivorous tendencies and voting behavior.
Turning to non-fiction works, "Meat: A Love Story" by Blumenthal (2016) offers a comprehensive exploration of the cultural and societal impact of meat consumption, touching upon its potential ramifications on political attitudes. Furthermore, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Pollan (2006) presents a critical analysis of modern food choices and their broader implications, providing valuable insights into the intersection of dietary preferences and political leanings.
In the realm of fiction, "The Steak Conspiracy" by Griller (2012) presents a humorous take on the clandestine world of beef politics and its potential influence on government decision-making. Additionally, "Beef, Ballots, and Burgers" by Patty (2018) delves into the quirky connections between culinary indulgences and electoral dynamics, offering a light-hearted perspective on the beef-ballot nexus.
Furthermore, films such as "Beef Wars: The Grill Awakens" and "The Prime Rib Ultimatum" provide a lighthearted yet tangentially related portrayal of beef-centered conflicts, offering a whimsical take on the potential implications of meaty matters on political landscapes.
As we journey through this literature review, it becomes evident that the beef-ballot battle is not merely a rare occurrence in the political landscape but rather a medium rare topic that offers a juicy and well-done opportunity to explore the sizzling intersection of steak and state politics.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the beef-ballot battle in Idaho Senate elections yielded some truly "meaty" results. After crunching the numbers and slicing through the data, we found a surprising correlation between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. The correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 for the years 2000 to 2020 has left us with a "well-done" understanding of the relationship between beef consumption and political preferences in the Gem State.
Not only did our statistical analysis reveal this beefy correlation, but the r-square value of 0.8505441 suggests that a significant proportion of the variability in Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho can be explained by annual household spending on beef. In other words, it seems that the stakes are high when it comes to the connection between beef and ballots in Idaho.
The p-value of less than 0.01 adds some extra sizzle to our findings, indicating that the likelihood of observing such a strong relationship by random chance alone is "rare" indeed. This p-value is so low, it’s practically grazing the floor – much like the average Democrat's tendency to "filet" their name on the ballot in Idaho.
In Figure 1, our scatterplot visually illustrates the robust correlation between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. It's a sight to behold, much like a perfectly marbled ribeye steak, and the correlation is as clear as day – or should we say "rare" as a medium-rare sirloin?
Overall, these results shed light on the surprising link between beef consumption and political inclinations in the state of Idaho. We hope our findings will inspire further research that delves into the "meat"y details of how dietary habits may influence voting behavior. It's clear that when it comes to understanding the dynamics of state politics, we can't simply "meat"-er around – it's time to sink our teeth into the rich and flavorful world of beef-ballot relationships.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of our research unveil a "beefy" relationship between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho, beefing up the existing knowledge on the potential influence of steak preferences on state politics. The correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 certainly brings some flavor to the political research space, providing a rare and well-done opportunity to explore the intricate intersection of beef and ballots.

Our results align with prior research by Smith et al. (2010) and Doe and Jones (2015), who also broached the topic of meat consumption and its connection to voting patterns. Not to mention, Blumenthal’s "Meat: A Love Story" (2016) and Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" (2006) offered unique perspectives on the cultural and societal impact of meat consumption, setting the stage for our exploration into the Idaho Senate elections. Who knew that behind every vote lies a potential steak story waiting to be "sirloin"?

The substantial r-square value of 0.8505441 further reinforces the "well-done" nature of our findings, indicating that a sizable portion of the variance in Democrat votes for Idaho Senators can be attributed to annual household spending on beef. In other words, this relationship is not just a flash in the pan; it's a "prime" observation that beef consumption may indeed play a significant role in shaping political allegiances.

It's worth noting that our "meaty" results come with a side of caution. While the correlation between beef spending and Democrat votes is strong, causation is a dish best left to be "seasoned" with further research. There may be other "marbling" factors at play, and it’s essential to avoid jumping to conclusions like a hastily seared ribeye.

In conclusion, our study serves up compelling evidence that beef consumption may not only satisfy the palate but also sway political inclinations in Idaho. The beef-ballot battle isn't just a rare occurrence; it's a medium-rare insight into the flavorful dynamics of state politics. We hope our findings will "spice" up further research in this area, shaping a deeper understanding of the uncharted terrain of steak and state politics. As steak aficionados often say, there's always more to "tenderize" in the realm of research, and we eagerly anticipate savoring the future contributions of scholars in this "rare" and well-done field.


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 Annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. 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]]
Steak and Ballot: The Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research delves into the connection between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho, exploring the beef-ballot battle in the Gem State's Senate elections. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team aimed to put the "filet" of information on the table. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020. We present evidence that may "rare"ly be seen in political research, shedding light on the potential influence of beef consumption on voting patterns. Join us as we carve through the data to uncover the sizzling intersection of steak and state politics.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Ladies and gentlemen, step right up and witness the grand unveiling of the most appetizing research to hit the academic buffet line - the Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections! This study takes you on a journey through the juicy world of beef consumption and its tantalizing connection to Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Idaho.
As we sink our teeth into this mouthwatering topic, we aim to bring some sizzle to the rather rarefied air of political research. Our aim is to not just sirloin, but to tenderize the current state of knowledge about the factors influencing political voting patterns. Instead of crying over spilled milk, we're here to offer up some food for thought - as we chew the fat, so to speak, on the correlation between beef spending and political allegiance.
So, grab your fork and knife, because we're about to carve into the meat of the matter. Our team has combed through data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and Harvard Dataverse to serve up a delectable dish of statistical analysis. Our findings have uncovered a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, leaving us with a well-done understanding of the intricate connection between beef consumption and political preferences.
As we embark on this adventure, we invite you to join us in exploring the tender, flavorful, and unexpected relationship that unfolds when we plate up state politics and sizzling steaks. It's time to raise the steaks and bring some meaty insights to the table as we feed your hunger for knowledge and your appetite for the unexpected. So, without further ado, let's dive into the beef-ballot battle and see what's cooking in Idaho's Senate elections!

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the beef-ballot battle in Idaho Senate elections yielded some truly "meaty" results. After crunching the numbers and slicing through the data, we found a surprising correlation between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. The correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 for the years 2000 to 2020 has left us with a "well-done" understanding of the relationship between beef consumption and political preferences in the Gem State.
Not only did our statistical analysis reveal this beefy correlation, but the r-square value of 0.8505441 suggests that a significant proportion of the variability in Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho can be explained by annual household spending on beef. In other words, it seems that the stakes are high when it comes to the connection between beef and ballots in Idaho.
The p-value of less than 0.01 adds some extra sizzle to our findings, indicating that the likelihood of observing such a strong relationship by random chance alone is "rare" indeed. This p-value is so low, it’s practically grazing the floor – much like the average Democrat's tendency to "filet" their name on the ballot in Idaho.
In Figure 1, our scatterplot visually illustrates the robust correlation between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho. It's a sight to behold, much like a perfectly marbled ribeye steak, and the correlation is as clear as day – or should we say "rare" as a medium-rare sirloin?
Overall, these results shed light on the surprising link between beef consumption and political inclinations in the state of Idaho. We hope our findings will inspire further research that delves into the "meat"y details of how dietary habits may influence voting behavior. It's clear that when it comes to understanding the dynamics of state politics, we can't simply "meat"-er around – it's time to sink our teeth into the rich and flavorful world of beef-ballot relationships.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has brought a whole new meaning to the term "political steakholder." The beef-ballot battle in Idaho Senate elections has proved to be a sizzling hot topic, and our findings have certainly seasoned the discussion with some unexpected flavors.
The tantalizing correlation we uncovered between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho has left us with more food for thought than a never-ending buffet. It seems that when it comes to politics, the "prime" choice might just be a juicy steak.
Our results have provided a "rare" opportunity to sink our teeth into the intersection of dietary habits and political preferences. It’s clear that the stakes are high when it comes to understanding the sizzling dynamics of state politics, and we've managed to beef up the conversation with some very "meaty" insights.
However, it appears that further research in this area may no longer be necessary. After all, when the steaks are this high, how much more rare findings do we need to concoct? It's time to let this beef-ballot battle simmer and enjoy the "well-done" findings we've brought to the table.


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 Steak and Ballot: The Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Culinary Politics


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 Steak and Ballot: The Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Agricultural and Political 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 Steak and Ballot: The Beef-Ballot Battle in Idaho Senate Elections with an abstract of This research delves into the connection between annual US household spending on beef and Democrat votes for Senators in Idaho, exploring the beef-ballot battle in the Gem State's Senate elections. Utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team aimed to put the "filet" of information on the table. Our findings revealed a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9222495 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020. We present evidence that may "rare"ly be seen in political research, shedding light on the potential influence of beef consumption on voting patterns. Join us as we carve through the data to uncover the sizzling intersection of steak and state politics.

ChatGPT:

beef consumption, household spending, Democrat votes, Senate elections, Idaho, correlation coefficient, political research, voting patterns, Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse

*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

Annual US household spending on beef
Detailed data title: Average annual household spend on beef
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with Annual US household spending on beef

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

Correlation r = 0.9222495 (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 = 0.8505441 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 85.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Idaho) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Annual US household spending on beef) over the 6 years from 2000 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0088. 0.0088327135066345600000000000
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 0.92 in 0.88% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 113 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 5 because we have two variables measured over a period of 6 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.44, 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.
200220082010201420162020
Annual US household spending on beef (Household spend)231239217232244296
Votes for Democratic Senators in Idaho (Total votes)132975219903112057151574188249285864




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. Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.
  5. 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.
  6. 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([231,239,217,232,244,296,])
array_2 = np.array([132975,219903,112057,151574,188249,285864,])
array_1_name = "Annual US household spending on beef"
array_2_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Idaho"

# 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: 4485 · Black Variable ID: 19889 · Red Variable ID: 26228
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0