about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,648 · 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 poultry and the second variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in South Carolina.  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

As household spending on poultry increases, more chicken dinners are being made. The delicious aroma of those dinners wafts through the air, enticing the local South Carolinians to have a taste. This creates a deep-seated, subconscious association between the Democratic senators and the mouthwatering poultry, leading to an increase in votes for the Democratic senators. It's like a poultry-flavored persuasion that's clucking its way into the voting booths!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Generate an image of a quaint South Carolina town with charming houses lining the street. The scene is bathed in warm sunlight, with smoke wafting from chimneys as the savory aroma of roasting poultry fills the air. Capture the bustling activity in the town, with families preparing and enjoying chicken dinners in their cozy kitchens. In the background, depict a subtle image of a voting booth with citizens being lured by the irresistible scent of poultry, subtly influencing their decision to vote for the Democratic senators. The overall scene should evoke a sense of comfort and community, with the subtle influence of the savory aroma adding an intriguing political twist. 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 poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina. 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: inspired by bauhaus An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie Minimalism Celtic art Hyper-realistic
ChatGPT: Hyper-realistic

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, in the following situation: As household spending on poultry increases, more chicken dinners are being made. The delicious aroma of those dinners wafts through the air, enticing the local South Carolinians to have a taste. This creates a deep-seated, subconscious association between the Democratic senators and the mouthwatering poultry, leading to an increase in votes for the Democratic senators. It's like a poultry-flavored persuasion that's clucking its way into the voting booths!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a cozy South Carolina town, as household spending on poultry rises, more chicken dinners are being prepared in kitchens across the neighborhood. The savory aroma of roasting poultry fills the air, drawing in locals with a tempting appeal. Meanwhile, at the voting booths, the Democratic senators benefit from this mouthwatering poultry persuasion as the scent of chicken dinners prompts an increase in votes for the Democratic candidates.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Hyper-realistic ] and depicting this scene: In a cozy South Carolina town, as household spending on poultry rises, more chicken dinners are being prepared in kitchens across the neighborhood. The savory aroma of roasting poultry fills the air, drawing in locals with a tempting appeal. Meanwhile, at the voting booths, the Democratic senators benefit from this mouthwatering poultry persuasion as the scent of chicken dinners prompts an increase in votes for the Democratic candidates. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Generate an image of a quaint South Carolina town with charming houses lining the street. The scene is bathed in warm sunlight, with smoke wafting from chimneys as the savory aroma of roasting poultry fills the air. Capture the bustling activity in the town, with families preparing and enjoying chicken dinners in their cozy kitchens. In the background, depict a subtle image of a voting booth with citizens being lured by the irresistible scent of poultry, subtly influencing their decision to vote for the Democratic senators. The overall scene should evoke a sense of comfort and community, with the subtle influence of the savory aroma adding an intriguing political twist.

*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 poultry caused Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina to increase. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Cluck Bucks and Dems' Luck: Exploring the Correlation Between Poultry Expenditure and Democratic Senatorial Votes in South Carolina

The Journal of Avian 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 poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 0.9404839 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]]
Cluck Bucks and Dems' Luck: Exploring the Correlation Between Poultry Expenditure and Democratic Senatorial Votes in South Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the link between annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, it's no yolk! Our research cracks open a nest of data to investigate this feather-brained relationship. We plucked information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to fry, er, analyze this finger-lickin' good question.

Using advanced statistical analysis, we discovered a poultry-pleasing correlation coefficient of 0.9404839 and p < 0.01 over the period from 2000 to 2020. This suggests that as poultry spending increases, Democratic Senatorial votes in South Carolina tend to soar higher than a wild turkey on Thanksgiving Day. But don't count your chickens before they hatch - correlation does not imply causation, as any wise old rooster could tell you!

Our study aims to provide a leg-up for future research in understanding the poultry-politics interplay and its implications for South Carolina's electoral landscape. After all, when it comes to understanding voter behavior, we shouldn't chicken out from exploring all the egg-citing factors at play!


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 poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Cluck Bucks and Dems' Luck: Exploring the Correlation Between Poultry Expenditure and Democratic Senatorial Votes in South Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the link between annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, it's no yolk! Our research cracks open a nest of data to investigate this feather-brained relationship. We plucked information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to fry, er, analyze this finger-lickin' good question.

Using advanced statistical analysis, we discovered a poultry-pleasing correlation coefficient of 0.9404839 and p < 0.01 over the period from 2000 to 2020. This suggests that as poultry spending increases, Democratic Senatorial votes in South Carolina tend to soar higher than a wild turkey on Thanksgiving Day. But don't count your chickens before they hatch - correlation does not imply causation, as any wise old rooster could tell you!

Our study aims to provide a leg-up for future research in understanding the poultry-politics interplay and its implications for South Carolina's electoral landscape. After all, when it comes to understanding voter behavior, we shouldn't chicken out from exploring all the egg-citing factors at play!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The intersection of poultry spending and political preferences may seem like a clucking absurd topic for academic study, but as Mark Twain once said, "The secret of getting ahead is getting started." And so, we embark on this fowl journey to unravel the connections between Annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina.

The relationship between a household's poultry purchases and their political leanings may appear to belong in the realm of “fowl” play, but as any good chicken farmer knows, there's wisdom in taking a peck at unexpected data sources, like USDA Economic Research Service and the Federal Election Commission. After all, in the coop of politics, the eggs of knowledge must be hatched from a variety of shells.

It’s said that you can win over a South Carolinian with just about anything, but our study aims to show that when it comes to Democratic Senatorial votes, poultry spending may have a significant “cluck” in the matter.

We hope to shed light on the “poultry in motion” in South Carolina households and voting behaviors, cracking open some egg-citing insights and hoping that this research doesn’t ruffle too many feathers. So, without further ado, let's dig into this feathered feast of findings in the following sections. After all, as any good dad would say, "Why did the chicken join a political party? Because it wanted to be a part of the peck-ing order!"


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 poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Cluck Bucks and Dems' Luck: Exploring the Correlation Between Poultry Expenditure and Democratic Senatorial Votes in South Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the link between annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, it's no yolk! Our research cracks open a nest of data to investigate this feather-brained relationship. We plucked information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to fry, er, analyze this finger-lickin' good question.

Using advanced statistical analysis, we discovered a poultry-pleasing correlation coefficient of 0.9404839 and p < 0.01 over the period from 2000 to 2020. This suggests that as poultry spending increases, Democratic Senatorial votes in South Carolina tend to soar higher than a wild turkey on Thanksgiving Day. But don't count your chickens before they hatch - correlation does not imply causation, as any wise old rooster could tell you!

Our study aims to provide a leg-up for future research in understanding the poultry-politics interplay and its implications for South Carolina's electoral landscape. After all, when it comes to understanding voter behavior, we shouldn't chicken out from exploring all the egg-citing factors at play!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of poultry spending and political preferences may seem like a clucking absurd topic for academic study, but as Mark Twain once said, "The secret of getting ahead is getting started." And so, we embark on this fowl journey to unravel the connections between Annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina.
The relationship between a household's poultry purchases and their political leanings may appear to belong in the realm of “fowl” play, but as any good chicken farmer knows, there's wisdom in taking a peck at unexpected data sources, like USDA Economic Research Service and the Federal Election Commission. After all, in the coop of politics, the eggs of knowledge must be hatched from a variety of shells.
It’s said that you can win over a South Carolinian with just about anything, but our study aims to show that when it comes to Democratic Senatorial votes, poultry spending may have a significant “cluck” in the matter.
We hope to shed light on the “poultry in motion” in South Carolina households and voting behaviors, cracking open some egg-citing insights and hoping that this research doesn’t ruffle too many feathers. So, without further ado, let's dig into this feathered feast of findings in the following sections. After all, as any good dad would say, "Why did the chicken join a political party? Because it wanted to be a part of the peck-ing order!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "A Survey of Consumer Expenditures," Smith et al. shed light on the patterns of household spending across various categories. Lorem and ipsum, they delve into the nuances of consumer behavior, but strangely, they failed to cluck out the significance of poultry expenditures on political affiliations. It seems they missed the opportunity to hatch a poultry-politics connection!

Speaking of connections, in "Economics of Politics," Doe and Jones examine the relationship between economic factors and political behaviors. Lorem and ipsum, they analyze income, employment, and public policy, but alas, they did not dare to tread into the realm of poultry spending and voting habits. Perhaps they were too chicken to explore this potential correlation!

Turning to non-fiction literature, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan offers a deep dive into the modern food industry and its impact on society. "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safran Foer also provides a thought-provoking perspective on food consumption and ethical considerations. These works, while not directly related to political voting, certainly make readers egg-samine their dietary choices with a hens-ible approach.

On the fictional front, "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, though not directly related to poultry, does explore societal values and moral integrity in the American South. Similarly, "Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe" by Fannie Flagg captures the essence of Southern culture and community. While these novels may not lay an eggactly direct connection to our research topic, they do add a feather of intrigue to the literary landscape.

Beyond traditional academic sources, our literature review also involved seeking insights from unconventional sources. We took a cluck at cereal boxes, garden fertilizer labels, and even the backs of shampoo bottles in our quest for any inkling of poultry-spending correlations with political behavior. It turns out that the most surprising places can sometimes crack open a nest of unexpected insights - because after all, when it comes to research, you never know where you might find an egg-citing revelation!


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 poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
Cluck Bucks and Dems' Luck: Exploring the Correlation Between Poultry Expenditure and Democratic Senatorial Votes in South Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the link between annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, it's no yolk! Our research cracks open a nest of data to investigate this feather-brained relationship. We plucked information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to fry, er, analyze this finger-lickin' good question.

Using advanced statistical analysis, we discovered a poultry-pleasing correlation coefficient of 0.9404839 and p < 0.01 over the period from 2000 to 2020. This suggests that as poultry spending increases, Democratic Senatorial votes in South Carolina tend to soar higher than a wild turkey on Thanksgiving Day. But don't count your chickens before they hatch - correlation does not imply causation, as any wise old rooster could tell you!

Our study aims to provide a leg-up for future research in understanding the poultry-politics interplay and its implications for South Carolina's electoral landscape. After all, when it comes to understanding voter behavior, we shouldn't chicken out from exploring all the egg-citing factors at play!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of poultry spending and political preferences may seem like a clucking absurd topic for academic study, but as Mark Twain once said, "The secret of getting ahead is getting started." And so, we embark on this fowl journey to unravel the connections between Annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina.
The relationship between a household's poultry purchases and their political leanings may appear to belong in the realm of “fowl” play, but as any good chicken farmer knows, there's wisdom in taking a peck at unexpected data sources, like USDA Economic Research Service and the Federal Election Commission. After all, in the coop of politics, the eggs of knowledge must be hatched from a variety of shells.
It’s said that you can win over a South Carolinian with just about anything, but our study aims to show that when it comes to Democratic Senatorial votes, poultry spending may have a significant “cluck” in the matter.
We hope to shed light on the “poultry in motion” in South Carolina households and voting behaviors, cracking open some egg-citing insights and hoping that this research doesn’t ruffle too many feathers. So, without further ado, let's dig into this feathered feast of findings in the following sections. After all, as any good dad would say, "Why did the chicken join a political party? Because it wanted to be a part of the peck-ing order!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To examine the cluck-tastic connection between Annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, we employed a blend of sophisticated statistical analyses and some good old-fashioned chicken scratchings.

First, we gathered data on annual household spending on poultry from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, ensuring that we crossed our "t's" and dotted our "i's" to avoid any fowl play. Then, we shook our tail feathers and waddled over to the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to pluck out information on Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina.

Utilizing a method that was as precise as a farmyard rooster's crow - okay, maybe not that precise - we engaged in a statistical dance known as the "Poultry-Politico Cha-Cha." This involved waltzing through the data with a tango of regression analyses, scatter plots, and perhaps even a little barnyard gossip or two.

Once the data was corralled, we tumbled into the realm of statistical analysis, like a clutch of chicks discovering the world beyond the coop. We computed a poultry-pleasing correlation coefficient and trotted out the p-values to ensure that our findings weren't just a result of the barnyard clucking at random.

In addition to statistical analyses, we engaged in a bit of "chickening out" – no, not avoiding a situation - but rather, taking a deep dive into the nested complexities of the relationship between household poultry spending and political voting behaviors. This involved hatching, er, uncovering unexplored patterns and potential confounding variables, to ensure that our findings didn't end up scrambled.

And just as any good dad joke should be delivered with impeccable timing, our methodological approach aimed to tickle the funny bone of academic rigor while ensuring our study was as thorough as... well, a poultry inspection. After all, as any wise old hen would say, "Why don't chickens like people? Because they beat eggs!"

(Feel free to add or modify as you see fit!)


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 poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 0.9404839, r-squared of 0.8845100, 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]]
Cluck Bucks and Dems' Luck: Exploring the Correlation Between Poultry Expenditure and Democratic Senatorial Votes in South Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the link between annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, it's no yolk! Our research cracks open a nest of data to investigate this feather-brained relationship. We plucked information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to fry, er, analyze this finger-lickin' good question.

Using advanced statistical analysis, we discovered a poultry-pleasing correlation coefficient of 0.9404839 and p < 0.01 over the period from 2000 to 2020. This suggests that as poultry spending increases, Democratic Senatorial votes in South Carolina tend to soar higher than a wild turkey on Thanksgiving Day. But don't count your chickens before they hatch - correlation does not imply causation, as any wise old rooster could tell you!

Our study aims to provide a leg-up for future research in understanding the poultry-politics interplay and its implications for South Carolina's electoral landscape. After all, when it comes to understanding voter behavior, we shouldn't chicken out from exploring all the egg-citing factors at play!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of poultry spending and political preferences may seem like a clucking absurd topic for academic study, but as Mark Twain once said, "The secret of getting ahead is getting started." And so, we embark on this fowl journey to unravel the connections between Annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina.
The relationship between a household's poultry purchases and their political leanings may appear to belong in the realm of “fowl” play, but as any good chicken farmer knows, there's wisdom in taking a peck at unexpected data sources, like USDA Economic Research Service and the Federal Election Commission. After all, in the coop of politics, the eggs of knowledge must be hatched from a variety of shells.
It’s said that you can win over a South Carolinian with just about anything, but our study aims to show that when it comes to Democratic Senatorial votes, poultry spending may have a significant “cluck” in the matter.
We hope to shed light on the “poultry in motion” in South Carolina households and voting behaviors, cracking open some egg-citing insights and hoping that this research doesn’t ruffle too many feathers. So, without further ado, let's dig into this feathered feast of findings in the following sections. After all, as any good dad would say, "Why did the chicken join a political party? Because it wanted to be a part of the peck-ing order!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Analysis of the data revealed a striking correlation of 0.9404839 between Annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, with an r-squared value of 0.8845100. The correlation coefficient suggests that as households spend more cluck bucks on poultry, there is a notable tendency for Democratic Senatorial votes to hatch and take flight in the Palmetto State. It seems that chicken and politicians do indeed have something to squawk about!

Graphical representation of the data in a scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually exhibits the robust relationship between these variables, resembling a "chick magnet" with a clear upward trend. Who knew feathers and politics could have such an egg-citing connection?

Digging deeper into our findings, it’s essential to remember that correlation does not imply causation, as we can't put all our eggs in one statistical basket. While our results indicate a strong association, we must exercise caution before we start pecking at the idea that poultry spending directly influences voting behavior. As the wise old rooster would say, "Let's not count our chickens before they hatch!"

Nonetheless, our study serves as a launching pad for further egg-sploration in understanding the poultry-politics interplay and its implications for South Carolina's electoral landscape. After all, when it comes to understanding voter behavior, we shouldn't chicken out from exploring all the egg-citing factors at play!

In conclusion, our research highlights the unegg-spected, yet statistically significant link between poultry expenditure and Democratic Senatorial votes in South Carolina. It’s clear that in the world of political science, poultry spending might just have a peck-ing order of its own. So next time you're at the voting booth, remember the age-old adage: "Which came first, the chicken or the Democratic votes? Our research suggests they may have hatched simultaneously!"


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 poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
Cluck Bucks and Dems' Luck: Exploring the Correlation Between Poultry Expenditure and Democratic Senatorial Votes in South Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the link between annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, it's no yolk! Our research cracks open a nest of data to investigate this feather-brained relationship. We plucked information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to fry, er, analyze this finger-lickin' good question.

Using advanced statistical analysis, we discovered a poultry-pleasing correlation coefficient of 0.9404839 and p < 0.01 over the period from 2000 to 2020. This suggests that as poultry spending increases, Democratic Senatorial votes in South Carolina tend to soar higher than a wild turkey on Thanksgiving Day. But don't count your chickens before they hatch - correlation does not imply causation, as any wise old rooster could tell you!

Our study aims to provide a leg-up for future research in understanding the poultry-politics interplay and its implications for South Carolina's electoral landscape. After all, when it comes to understanding voter behavior, we shouldn't chicken out from exploring all the egg-citing factors at play!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "A Survey of Consumer Expenditures," Smith et al. shed light on the patterns of household spending across various categories. Lorem and ipsum, they delve into the nuances of consumer behavior, but strangely, they failed to cluck out the significance of poultry expenditures on political affiliations. It seems they missed the opportunity to hatch a poultry-politics connection!
Speaking of connections, in "Economics of Politics," Doe and Jones examine the relationship between economic factors and political behaviors. Lorem and ipsum, they analyze income, employment, and public policy, but alas, they did not dare to tread into the realm of poultry spending and voting habits. Perhaps they were too chicken to explore this potential correlation!
Turning to non-fiction literature, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan offers a deep dive into the modern food industry and its impact on society. "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safran Foer also provides a thought-provoking perspective on food consumption and ethical considerations. These works, while not directly related to political voting, certainly make readers egg-samine their dietary choices with a hens-ible approach.
On the fictional front, "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, though not directly related to poultry, does explore societal values and moral integrity in the American South. Similarly, "Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe" by Fannie Flagg captures the essence of Southern culture and community. While these novels may not lay an eggactly direct connection to our research topic, they do add a feather of intrigue to the literary landscape.
Beyond traditional academic sources, our literature review also involved seeking insights from unconventional sources. We took a cluck at cereal boxes, garden fertilizer labels, and even the backs of shampoo bottles in our quest for any inkling of poultry-spending correlations with political behavior. It turns out that the most surprising places can sometimes crack open a nest of unexpected insights - because after all, when it comes to research, you never know where you might find an egg-citing revelation!

[[RESULTS]]
Analysis of the data revealed a striking correlation of 0.9404839 between Annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, with an r-squared value of 0.8845100. The correlation coefficient suggests that as households spend more cluck bucks on poultry, there is a notable tendency for Democratic Senatorial votes to hatch and take flight in the Palmetto State. It seems that chicken and politicians do indeed have something to squawk about!
Graphical representation of the data in a scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually exhibits the robust relationship between these variables, resembling a "chick magnet" with a clear upward trend. Who knew feathers and politics could have such an egg-citing connection?
Digging deeper into our findings, it’s essential to remember that correlation does not imply causation, as we can't put all our eggs in one statistical basket. While our results indicate a strong association, we must exercise caution before we start pecking at the idea that poultry spending directly influences voting behavior. As the wise old rooster would say, "Let's not count our chickens before they hatch!"
Nonetheless, our study serves as a launching pad for further egg-sploration in understanding the poultry-politics interplay and its implications for South Carolina's electoral landscape. After all, when it comes to understanding voter behavior, we shouldn't chicken out from exploring all the egg-citing factors at play!
In conclusion, our research highlights the unegg-spected, yet statistically significant link between poultry expenditure and Democratic Senatorial votes in South Carolina. It’s clear that in the world of political science, poultry spending might just have a peck-ing order of its own. So next time you're at the voting booth, remember the age-old adage: "Which came first, the chicken or the Democratic votes? Our research suggests they may have hatched simultaneously!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our results not only confirm but also egg-sceed the expectations set forth by prior research. Smith et al. and Doe and Jones left a gaping chicken-sized hole in the literature regarding the correlation between poultry expenditure and political affiliations, but our study has cracked open a nest of data that lays a solid foundation for further exploration. It seems we've finally hatched a poultry-politics connection that's nothing to cluck at!

Building on the egg-citing insights from these literary sources, our research giggles in the face of conventionality and embraces the unexpected. Who would have thought that a cereal box could hold the key to unlocking the mysterious bond between chicken spending and political behavior? As the saying goes, "don't put all your eggs in one basket," but in our case, the basket of poultry spending seems to be filled to the brim with Democratic feathers!

The strong correlation coefficient we uncovered speaks volumes about the unegg-spected influence of poultry expenditure on voting behavior. It's hard to deny the significance of our findings; they make even the most seasoned researcher want to strut their stuff. Our results illuminate the subtle yet powerful ways in which consumer behavior and political engagement come home to roost, highlighting the egg-ceptional role played by poultry spending.

Of course, as any good researcher would remind us, correlation does not imply causation. We must resist the temptation to fly the coop and assume that purchasing poultry directly leads to casting Democratic votes. As the wise old rooster counsel us, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." However, the robust relationship between these variables suggests that there is more to this egg-splanation than meets the eye.

In sum, our findings lay a solid foundation for future research to build upon, leading us to ponder the age-old question: "Which came first, the chicken or the Democratic votes?" Our research suggests that, in South Carolina at least, they may have hatched simultaneously! With a cluck and a wing, our research has taken flight, offering a new perspective on the poultry-politics interplay. As we continue our journey, we must not be afraid to pluck at the feathers of conventional wisdom and embrace the egg-citing potential of unexpected correlations.

So, the next time you enjoy a good poultry dish, remember the feathered friends of South Carolina may have lent a wing to the world of politics, proving once and for all that when it comes to voter behavior, we can't be too chicken to explore all the egg-citing factors at play!


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 poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
Cluck Bucks and Dems' Luck: Exploring the Correlation Between Poultry Expenditure and Democratic Senatorial Votes in South Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
When it comes to the link between annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, it's no yolk! Our research cracks open a nest of data to investigate this feather-brained relationship. We plucked information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to fry, er, analyze this finger-lickin' good question.

Using advanced statistical analysis, we discovered a poultry-pleasing correlation coefficient of 0.9404839 and p < 0.01 over the period from 2000 to 2020. This suggests that as poultry spending increases, Democratic Senatorial votes in South Carolina tend to soar higher than a wild turkey on Thanksgiving Day. But don't count your chickens before they hatch - correlation does not imply causation, as any wise old rooster could tell you!

Our study aims to provide a leg-up for future research in understanding the poultry-politics interplay and its implications for South Carolina's electoral landscape. After all, when it comes to understanding voter behavior, we shouldn't chicken out from exploring all the egg-citing factors at play!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of poultry spending and political preferences may seem like a clucking absurd topic for academic study, but as Mark Twain once said, "The secret of getting ahead is getting started." And so, we embark on this fowl journey to unravel the connections between Annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina.
The relationship between a household's poultry purchases and their political leanings may appear to belong in the realm of “fowl” play, but as any good chicken farmer knows, there's wisdom in taking a peck at unexpected data sources, like USDA Economic Research Service and the Federal Election Commission. After all, in the coop of politics, the eggs of knowledge must be hatched from a variety of shells.
It’s said that you can win over a South Carolinian with just about anything, but our study aims to show that when it comes to Democratic Senatorial votes, poultry spending may have a significant “cluck” in the matter.
We hope to shed light on the “poultry in motion” in South Carolina households and voting behaviors, cracking open some egg-citing insights and hoping that this research doesn’t ruffle too many feathers. So, without further ado, let's dig into this feathered feast of findings in the following sections. After all, as any good dad would say, "Why did the chicken join a political party? Because it wanted to be a part of the peck-ing order!"

[[RESULTS]]
Analysis of the data revealed a striking correlation of 0.9404839 between Annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, with an r-squared value of 0.8845100. The correlation coefficient suggests that as households spend more cluck bucks on poultry, there is a notable tendency for Democratic Senatorial votes to hatch and take flight in the Palmetto State. It seems that chicken and politicians do indeed have something to squawk about!
Graphical representation of the data in a scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually exhibits the robust relationship between these variables, resembling a "chick magnet" with a clear upward trend. Who knew feathers and politics could have such an egg-citing connection?
Digging deeper into our findings, it’s essential to remember that correlation does not imply causation, as we can't put all our eggs in one statistical basket. While our results indicate a strong association, we must exercise caution before we start pecking at the idea that poultry spending directly influences voting behavior. As the wise old rooster would say, "Let's not count our chickens before they hatch!"
Nonetheless, our study serves as a launching pad for further egg-sploration in understanding the poultry-politics interplay and its implications for South Carolina's electoral landscape. After all, when it comes to understanding voter behavior, we shouldn't chicken out from exploring all the egg-citing factors at play!
In conclusion, our research highlights the unegg-spected, yet statistically significant link between poultry expenditure and Democratic Senatorial votes in South Carolina. It’s clear that in the world of political science, poultry spending might just have a peck-ing order of its own. So next time you're at the voting booth, remember the age-old adage: "Which came first, the chicken or the Democratic votes? Our research suggests they may have hatched simultaneously!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has peeled away the layers of this cluck-tivating correlation between Annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina. Our findings suggest a robust relationship that's more feather-brained than a chicken trying to do math. We've cracked the egg wide open and come face to face with a correlation coefficient so high, even the most seasoned chicken farmers would be left scratching their heads.

But, just like trying to catch a chicken in a coop, we must proceed with caution. While our research points to a strong association, we must remember that correlation does not imply causation. After all, there's no use counting your chickens before they hatch, especially in the world of statistics.

As we wrap up our findings, we hope our research serves as a beak-on of light, illuminating the egg-citing relationship between poultry spending and political preferences in South Carolina. Our feathered friends may have more of a say in the voting booth than we ever thought possible. It's clear that in politics, poultry spending carries more weight than just a wing and a prayer.

So, dear readers, it's time to put this topic to roost. As any good dad would tell you, "Why did the chicken join a political party? Because it preferred the peck-ing order!"

In the end, it's safe to say that no more research is needed in this area. After all, we've cracked this egg wide open, and it's time to let the chickens come home to roost.


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 Cluck Bucks and Dems' Luck: Exploring the Correlation Between Poultry Expenditure and Democratic Senatorial Votes in South Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Avian 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 Cluck Bucks and Dems' Luck: Exploring the Correlation Between Poultry Expenditure and Democratic Senatorial Votes in South Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Avian Influence 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 Cluck Bucks and Dems' Luck: Exploring the Correlation Between Poultry Expenditure and Democratic Senatorial Votes in South Carolina with an abstract of When it comes to the link between annual US household spending on poultry and Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina, it's no yolk! Our research cracks open a nest of data to investigate this feather-brained relationship. We plucked information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to fry, er, analyze this finger-lickin' good question.
Using advanced statistical analysis, we discovered a poultry-pleasing correlation coefficient of 0.9404839 and p < 0.01 over the period from 2000 to 2020. This suggests that as poultry spending increases, Democratic Senatorial votes in South Carolina tend to soar higher than a wild turkey on Thanksgiving Day. But don't count your chickens before they hatch - correlation does not imply causation, as any wise old rooster could tell you!
Our study aims to provide a leg-up for future research in understanding the poultry-politics interplay and its implications for South Carolina's electoral landscape. After all, when it comes to understanding voter behavior, we shouldn't chicken out from exploring all the egg-citing factors at play!

ChatGPT:

poultry expenditure, Democrat votes, correlation, South Carolina, Senatorial votes, Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, statistical analysis, correlation coefficient, voter behavior, electoral landscape

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

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

Correlation r = 0.9404839 (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 = 0.8845100 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 88.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in South Carolina) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Annual US household spending on poultry) over the 7 years from 2000 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00161. 0.0016071291938968282000000000
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 0.94 in 0.161% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 622 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 6 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 6 because we have two variables measured over a period of 7 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.64, 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.
2002200420082010201420162020
Annual US household spending on poultry (Household spend)144156159138172172189
Votes for Democratic Senators in South Carolina (Total votes)4873597043847906213645989163097045401110830




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([144,156,159,138,172,172,189,])
array_2 = np.array([487359,704384,790621,364598,916309,704540,1110830,])
array_1_name = "Annual US household spending on poultry"
array_2_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in South Carolina"

# 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?

Big thanks for reviewing!


Correlation ID: 4648 · Black Variable ID: 19891 · Red Variable ID: 26310
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0