about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,077 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Popularity of the first name Storm and the second variable is Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Louisiana.  The chart goes from 1976 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

Perhaps parents who named their child Storm were more inclined to support a candidate who promised to shake things up in the political climate. This created a little-known but powerful voting bloc of weather-themed baby name enthusiasts, ultimately influencing the election outcome in Louisiana.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a vibrant cyberpunk Louisiana neighborhood, with a cheerful crowd gathered under a colorful and neon-lit umbrella adorned with "Storm" while the parents of children named Storm converse and enthusiastically support the Democratic Presidential candidate. The scene should depict a united force shaping the election outcome in an electrifying and futuristic setting. 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: Popularity of the first name Storm and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. 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: Oragami Sci-fi fantacy Cyberpunk A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s Photorealism
ChatGPT: Cyberpunk

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 Popularity of the first name Storm and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana, in the following situation: Perhaps parents who named their child Storm were more inclined to support a candidate who promised to shake things up in the political climate. This created a little-known but powerful voting bloc of weather-themed baby name enthusiasts, ultimately influencing the election outcome in Louisiana.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a vibrant Louisiana neighborhood, a cheerful crowd gathers under a colorful umbrella with "Storm" written on it. The parents of children named Storm are seen conversing and enthusiastically supporting the Democratic Presidential candidate. Their presence suggests a united force shaping the election outcome.

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: [ Cyberpunk ] and depicting this scene: In a vibrant Louisiana neighborhood, a cheerful crowd gathers under a colorful umbrella with "Storm" written on it. The parents of children named Storm are seen conversing and enthusiastically supporting the Democratic Presidential candidate. Their presence suggests a united force shaping the election outcome. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a vibrant cyberpunk Louisiana neighborhood, with a cheerful crowd gathered under a colorful and neon-lit umbrella adorned with "Storm" while the parents of children named Storm converse and enthusiastically support the Democratic Presidential candidate. The scene should depict a united force shaping the election outcome in an electrifying and futuristic setting.

*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 Popularity of the first name Storm caused Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana to increase. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Storm's Norm: A Rhyme-alicious Time with Political Clime in Louisiana

The Journal of Lyrical Sociology

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 goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Popularity of the first name Storm and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. 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 US Social Security Administration and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8890055 and p < 0.01 for 1976 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]]
Storm's Norm: A Rhyme-alicious Time with Political Clime in Louisiana

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking research, we delve into the correlation between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in the lovely state of Louisiana. Our research team utilized data from the US Social Security Administration, complemented with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, in an attempt to satisfy the curiosity that has been storming our minds. *Sorry for the pun, I just couldn't resist!*

Our study covers the period from 1976 to 2020, a time full of political storms and electoral whirlwinds. Analyzing the data, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8890055, indicating a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and the number of votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate. This finding was indeed electrifying, like a bolt out of the blue, or rather, a bolt from the "Storm"! *Pun number two - because it never hertz to add a bit of electricity to academic research.*

With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results are statistically significant, shedding light on the influence of names on political preferences in the Bayou State. *Who knew a name could cast such a vote-worthy spell!* Our findings provide evidence of the nuanced interactions between individual characteristics and political choices, beckoning us to weather the storm of name popularity in the political arena.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Popularity of the first name Storm and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Storm's Norm: A Rhyme-alicious Time with Political Clime in Louisiana

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking research, we delve into the correlation between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in the lovely state of Louisiana. Our research team utilized data from the US Social Security Administration, complemented with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, in an attempt to satisfy the curiosity that has been storming our minds. *Sorry for the pun, I just couldn't resist!*

Our study covers the period from 1976 to 2020, a time full of political storms and electoral whirlwinds. Analyzing the data, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8890055, indicating a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and the number of votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate. This finding was indeed electrifying, like a bolt out of the blue, or rather, a bolt from the "Storm"! *Pun number two - because it never hertz to add a bit of electricity to academic research.*

With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results are statistically significant, shedding light on the influence of names on political preferences in the Bayou State. *Who knew a name could cast such a vote-worthy spell!* Our findings provide evidence of the nuanced interactions between individual characteristics and political choices, beckoning us to weather the storm of name popularity in the political arena.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
**[[INTRODUCTION]]**

The influence of names on various aspects of life has long been a subject of fascination. From the impact of names on job prospects to their association with certain personality traits, the significance of nomenclature cannot be overlooked. In the realm of politics, the role of names in influencing voter behavior has not escaped scrutiny. Our research aims to contribute to this fascinating field by examining the relationship between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana.

As the old adage goes, "what's in a name?" Well, according to our findings, quite a lot! *I guess you could say in Louisiana, "Storm" has both a literal and political thunder.* This study provides a unique opportunity to explore the potential impact of a name that is, metaphorically and meteorologically speaking, quite electrifying.

In delving into this intriguing phenomenon, we draw upon data from the US Social Security Administration, the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse. Our analysis spans over four decades, from 1976 to 2020, allowing us to capture the electoral climate across various tempestuous political periods. *It's like we're creating a political forecast, but instead of cold fronts and high pressure, we're dealing with electoral swings and popularity peaks!*

The correlation coefficient of 0.8890055 that emerged from our rigorous analysis provides compelling evidence of a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. This correlation is so clear, it's like the calm before the political storm! *And trust me, in Louisiana, they definitely know a thing or two about those!*

The statistical significance of our findings, signaled by a p-value of less than 0.01, serves as a beacon in navigating the intricate web of socio-political influences. *It's like we've uncovered a treasure map, and X marks the spot where "Storm" meets Democratic votes!* These results invite further pondering on the underlying mechanisms through which a name could sway political allegiances. *Who would've thought that a little "Storm" could blow the winds of political change?*

As we navigate this novel terrain, we aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of the intersections between personal nomenclature and political proclivities. Our study sets the stage for future investigations on the impact of unique names on political dynamics, an area ripe for exploration. Join us as we unravel the mysteries of nomenclatural influence and embrace the surprising ways in which names can shape the political clime. *After all, in Louisiana, it seems that even a "Storm" can make waves in the voting booth!*


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Popularity of the first name Storm and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. 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. Perhaps you also got inspiration from some board games that are vaugely related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Storm's Norm: A Rhyme-alicious Time with Political Clime in Louisiana

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking research, we delve into the correlation between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in the lovely state of Louisiana. Our research team utilized data from the US Social Security Administration, complemented with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, in an attempt to satisfy the curiosity that has been storming our minds. *Sorry for the pun, I just couldn't resist!*

Our study covers the period from 1976 to 2020, a time full of political storms and electoral whirlwinds. Analyzing the data, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8890055, indicating a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and the number of votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate. This finding was indeed electrifying, like a bolt out of the blue, or rather, a bolt from the "Storm"! *Pun number two - because it never hertz to add a bit of electricity to academic research.*

With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results are statistically significant, shedding light on the influence of names on political preferences in the Bayou State. *Who knew a name could cast such a vote-worthy spell!* Our findings provide evidence of the nuanced interactions between individual characteristics and political choices, beckoning us to weather the storm of name popularity in the political arena.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The influence of names on various aspects of life has long been a subject of fascination. From the impact of names on job prospects to their association with certain personality traits, the significance of nomenclature cannot be overlooked. In the realm of politics, the role of names in influencing voter behavior has not escaped scrutiny. Our research aims to contribute to this fascinating field by examining the relationship between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana.
As the old adage goes, "what's in a name?" Well, according to our findings, quite a lot! *I guess you could say in Louisiana, "Storm" has both a literal and political thunder.* This study provides a unique opportunity to explore the potential impact of a name that is, metaphorically and meteorologically speaking, quite electrifying.
In delving into this intriguing phenomenon, we draw upon data from the US Social Security Administration, the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse. Our analysis spans over four decades, from 1976 to 2020, allowing us to capture the electoral climate across various tempestuous political periods. *It's like we're creating a political forecast, but instead of cold fronts and high pressure, we're dealing with electoral swings and popularity peaks!*
The correlation coefficient of 0.8890055 that emerged from our rigorous analysis provides compelling evidence of a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. This correlation is so clear, it's like the calm before the political storm! *And trust me, in Louisiana, they definitely know a thing or two about those!*
The statistical significance of our findings, signaled by a p-value of less than 0.01, serves as a beacon in navigating the intricate web of socio-political influences. *It's like we've uncovered a treasure map, and X marks the spot where "Storm" meets Democratic votes!* These results invite further pondering on the underlying mechanisms through which a name could sway political allegiances. *Who would've thought that a little "Storm" could blow the winds of political change?*
As we navigate this novel terrain, we aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of the intersections between personal nomenclature and political proclivities. Our study sets the stage for future investigations on the impact of unique names on political dynamics, an area ripe for exploration. Join us as we unravel the mysteries of nomenclatural influence and embrace the surprising ways in which names can shape the political clime. *After all, in Louisiana, it seems that even a "Storm" can make waves in the voting booth!*

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
**LITERATURE REVIEW**

Smith (1998) explored the impact of first name popularity on political preferences, uncovering intriguing associations between certain monikers and voting behaviors. Doe (2005) delved into the psychological mechanisms through which names could prime individuals for particular political ideologies, shedding light on the subtle yet influential role of nomenclature in shaping voter inclinations. Jones (2012) extended this line of inquiry by examining the regional variations in the relationship between name popularity and political affiliations, providing nuanced insights into the geographical nuances of this phenomenon.

Now that we've gotten the serious stuff out of the way, let's dive into the delightful world of puns, wordplay, and unexpected pop culture references. Picture it: you're sifting through "Storm" clouds to uncover the correlations between name popularity and political leanings in the enchanting state of Louisiana. It feels like a cross between a detective novel and a political intrigue, doesn't it? *I guess you could say we're on a quest to unveil the "Storm"y secrets of Louisiana's political landscape!*

Moving on to non-fiction books that may contain nuggets of wisdom related to our whimsical exploration, "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner pops to mind. While not directly related to names and political affiliations, it does offer a peek into the unexpected connections that lurk beneath seemingly unrelated phenomena. Then there's "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell, which illuminates the subtle psychological processes that shape our snap judgments and decisions, perhaps shedding light on the covert influence of names on political predilections. *You blink, and suddenly you're voting for "Storm"!*

As for fictional literature that may tickle our scholarly fancies, "A Storm of Swords" by George R.R. Martin may not offer direct insights into our research topic, but its title certainly tempts with its meteorological and metaphorical allure. And let's not forget "The Name of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss, which, despite being a work of fantasy, might just offer a mesmerizing parallel to our exploration of the winds of political change intertwined with the influence of a name. *Who knew a little "Storm" could stir up such literary marvels!*

Bringing board games into the mix, "Risk" seems like an apt representation of the intricate dance between strategic maneuvering and unexpected twists in the political arena. And why not throw in a bit of wordplay from "Scrabble"? After all, our research seeks to uncover the hidden combinations and connections between "Storm" and political votes, much like hunting for a triple word score in the turbulent landscape of political nomenclature. *We may not be playing with actual tiles, but we're certainly piecing together a compelling narrative of names and political sway!*

All in all, our review offers a refreshing blend of scholarly works and whimsical diversions, setting the stage for a rollicking exploration of the Storm's norm and its enthralling interplay with the political clime in Louisiana. *Now, let's weather this metaphorical storm of literature and plunge into the enchanting world of name-based political influence!*


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Popularity of the first name Storm and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from US Social Security Administration and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse . You used data from 1976 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]]
Storm's Norm: A Rhyme-alicious Time with Political Clime in Louisiana

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking research, we delve into the correlation between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in the lovely state of Louisiana. Our research team utilized data from the US Social Security Administration, complemented with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, in an attempt to satisfy the curiosity that has been storming our minds. *Sorry for the pun, I just couldn't resist!*

Our study covers the period from 1976 to 2020, a time full of political storms and electoral whirlwinds. Analyzing the data, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8890055, indicating a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and the number of votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate. This finding was indeed electrifying, like a bolt out of the blue, or rather, a bolt from the "Storm"! *Pun number two - because it never hertz to add a bit of electricity to academic research.*

With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results are statistically significant, shedding light on the influence of names on political preferences in the Bayou State. *Who knew a name could cast such a vote-worthy spell!* Our findings provide evidence of the nuanced interactions between individual characteristics and political choices, beckoning us to weather the storm of name popularity in the political arena.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The influence of names on various aspects of life has long been a subject of fascination. From the impact of names on job prospects to their association with certain personality traits, the significance of nomenclature cannot be overlooked. In the realm of politics, the role of names in influencing voter behavior has not escaped scrutiny. Our research aims to contribute to this fascinating field by examining the relationship between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana.
As the old adage goes, "what's in a name?" Well, according to our findings, quite a lot! *I guess you could say in Louisiana, "Storm" has both a literal and political thunder.* This study provides a unique opportunity to explore the potential impact of a name that is, metaphorically and meteorologically speaking, quite electrifying.
In delving into this intriguing phenomenon, we draw upon data from the US Social Security Administration, the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse. Our analysis spans over four decades, from 1976 to 2020, allowing us to capture the electoral climate across various tempestuous political periods. *It's like we're creating a political forecast, but instead of cold fronts and high pressure, we're dealing with electoral swings and popularity peaks!*
The correlation coefficient of 0.8890055 that emerged from our rigorous analysis provides compelling evidence of a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. This correlation is so clear, it's like the calm before the political storm! *And trust me, in Louisiana, they definitely know a thing or two about those!*
The statistical significance of our findings, signaled by a p-value of less than 0.01, serves as a beacon in navigating the intricate web of socio-political influences. *It's like we've uncovered a treasure map, and X marks the spot where "Storm" meets Democratic votes!* These results invite further pondering on the underlying mechanisms through which a name could sway political allegiances. *Who would've thought that a little "Storm" could blow the winds of political change?*
As we navigate this novel terrain, we aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of the intersections between personal nomenclature and political proclivities. Our study sets the stage for future investigations on the impact of unique names on political dynamics, an area ripe for exploration. Join us as we unravel the mysteries of nomenclatural influence and embrace the surprising ways in which names can shape the political clime. *After all, in Louisiana, it seems that even a "Storm" can make waves in the voting booth!*

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To embark on our quest to unravel the correlation between the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Louisiana, we employed a mix of data collection and analysis methods that eschewed the beaten path, much like a whirlwind cutting through the political landscape of the Bayou State.

Data Collection:
Initially, we scoured the vast expanse of the US Social Security Administration records, channeling our inner storm chasers to track down every instance of the name "Storm" registered in Louisiana from 1976 to 2020. Our methods may have been unconventional, but we rode the data waves with the determination of seasoned sailors navigating the stormy seas of nomenclatural research. *I guess you could say we really weathered that data storm!*

We then complemented our findings with data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the Harvard Dataverse, extracting the number of votes garnered by the Democratic Presidential candidate in each election year within our study period. We meticulously combed through the electoral history of Louisiana, braving the political thunderstorms and electoral squalls that characterized the state's voting patterns over the years.

Data Analysis:
With our data in tow, we utilized a series of statistical analyses to uncover the stormy connections between the name "Storm" and political preferences in Louisiana. We deployed correlation analysis to quantify the strength and direction of the relationship, carefully charting the course of our findings as if we were navigating the choppy waters of name-based political influences. *It's not every day you get to use nautical metaphors in academic research, but when you're studying "Storm," you've got to embrace the maritime spirit!*

Furthermore, we conducted regression analysis to delve deeper into the nuanced interplay between the popularity of the name "Storm" and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate, employing mathematical models that could weather the storm of complex electoral dynamics. *You could say we were like the meteorologists of nomenclatural influence, predicting political patterns with the precision of a well-calibrated barometer!*

Ethical Considerations:
In conducting our research, we adhered to the highest standards of data integrity and confidentiality, ensuring that the privacy of individuals with the name "Storm" was rigorously upheld. We also recognize the potential sensitivity of political affiliations, and thus approached our analysis with the utmost respect for the diverse perspectives of voters in Louisiana. *You could say we were like the guardians of the Storm's electoral secrets, ensuring that our findings were presented in a manner befitting the gravitas of our subject.*

Limitations:
While our study endeavors to shine a spotlight on the intriguing connection between the name "Storm" and Democratic votes in Louisiana, we acknowledge certain limitations. The generalizability of our findings to other states and electoral contexts may be subject to the unique political climates of different regions. Additionally, our analysis focuses on a specific timeframe, and the evolving nature of political preferences may necessitate ongoing research to capture the full scope of the "Storm" effect. *As with any gust of academic inquiry, there's always a chance of encountering some headwinds along the way!*

In summary, our methodology comprised a blend of resolute data collection, innovative analyses, and a commitment to ethical research practices that soared above the stormy seas of nomenclatural and political exploration. With our methods as our compass, we set sail on this research odyssey, determined to shed light on the electrifying nexus between the name "Storm" and Democratic votes in Louisiana.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Popularity of the first name Storm and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

For the time period 1976 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8890055, r-squared of 0.7903308, 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]]
Storm's Norm: A Rhyme-alicious Time with Political Clime in Louisiana

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking research, we delve into the correlation between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in the lovely state of Louisiana. Our research team utilized data from the US Social Security Administration, complemented with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, in an attempt to satisfy the curiosity that has been storming our minds. *Sorry for the pun, I just couldn't resist!*

Our study covers the period from 1976 to 2020, a time full of political storms and electoral whirlwinds. Analyzing the data, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8890055, indicating a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and the number of votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate. This finding was indeed electrifying, like a bolt out of the blue, or rather, a bolt from the "Storm"! *Pun number two - because it never hertz to add a bit of electricity to academic research.*

With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results are statistically significant, shedding light on the influence of names on political preferences in the Bayou State. *Who knew a name could cast such a vote-worthy spell!* Our findings provide evidence of the nuanced interactions between individual characteristics and political choices, beckoning us to weather the storm of name popularity in the political arena.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The influence of names on various aspects of life has long been a subject of fascination. From the impact of names on job prospects to their association with certain personality traits, the significance of nomenclature cannot be overlooked. In the realm of politics, the role of names in influencing voter behavior has not escaped scrutiny. Our research aims to contribute to this fascinating field by examining the relationship between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana.
As the old adage goes, "what's in a name?" Well, according to our findings, quite a lot! *I guess you could say in Louisiana, "Storm" has both a literal and political thunder.* This study provides a unique opportunity to explore the potential impact of a name that is, metaphorically and meteorologically speaking, quite electrifying.
In delving into this intriguing phenomenon, we draw upon data from the US Social Security Administration, the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse. Our analysis spans over four decades, from 1976 to 2020, allowing us to capture the electoral climate across various tempestuous political periods. *It's like we're creating a political forecast, but instead of cold fronts and high pressure, we're dealing with electoral swings and popularity peaks!*
The correlation coefficient of 0.8890055 that emerged from our rigorous analysis provides compelling evidence of a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. This correlation is so clear, it's like the calm before the political storm! *And trust me, in Louisiana, they definitely know a thing or two about those!*
The statistical significance of our findings, signaled by a p-value of less than 0.01, serves as a beacon in navigating the intricate web of socio-political influences. *It's like we've uncovered a treasure map, and X marks the spot where "Storm" meets Democratic votes!* These results invite further pondering on the underlying mechanisms through which a name could sway political allegiances. *Who would've thought that a little "Storm" could blow the winds of political change?*
As we navigate this novel terrain, we aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of the intersections between personal nomenclature and political proclivities. Our study sets the stage for future investigations on the impact of unique names on political dynamics, an area ripe for exploration. Join us as we unravel the mysteries of nomenclatural influence and embrace the surprising ways in which names can shape the political clime. *After all, in Louisiana, it seems that even a "Storm" can make waves in the voting booth!*

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our investigation revealed a strong positive correlation between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana during the period from 1976 to 2020. The correlation coefficient of 0.8890055 suggested a robust relationship, as if political storms and the name "Storm" were dancing in perfect political harmony. *Perhaps voters were feeling a strong urge to weather the political "Storm"!*

Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.7903308 indicated that approximately 79.03% of the variation in votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate could be explained by the popularity of the name "Storm." It's as if the name "Storm" had become a defining feature of the political landscape, swirling its way into the hearts of Louisiana voters. *Talk about creating a political whirlwind!*

With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical significance of the correlation reaffirmed the influential role played by the name "Storm" in shaping political preferences in Louisiana. It's almost as if the name "Storm" had cast a spell over the electorate, drawing them in like moths to flame. *Looks like naming your child "Storm" might just stir up some voting action!*

These findings are graphically depicted in Figure 1, which illustrates the unmistakable relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate. It's a visual representation that makes it clear as day: when "Storm" is on the ballot, Democrats might just see a surge of support. *If only all political relationships were as clear-cut as this one!*


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Popularity of the first name Storm and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
Storm's Norm: A Rhyme-alicious Time with Political Clime in Louisiana

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking research, we delve into the correlation between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in the lovely state of Louisiana. Our research team utilized data from the US Social Security Administration, complemented with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, in an attempt to satisfy the curiosity that has been storming our minds. *Sorry for the pun, I just couldn't resist!*

Our study covers the period from 1976 to 2020, a time full of political storms and electoral whirlwinds. Analyzing the data, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8890055, indicating a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and the number of votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate. This finding was indeed electrifying, like a bolt out of the blue, or rather, a bolt from the "Storm"! *Pun number two - because it never hertz to add a bit of electricity to academic research.*

With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results are statistically significant, shedding light on the influence of names on political preferences in the Bayou State. *Who knew a name could cast such a vote-worthy spell!* Our findings provide evidence of the nuanced interactions between individual characteristics and political choices, beckoning us to weather the storm of name popularity in the political arena.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Smith (1998) explored the impact of first name popularity on political preferences, uncovering intriguing associations between certain monikers and voting behaviors. Doe (2005) delved into the psychological mechanisms through which names could prime individuals for particular political ideologies, shedding light on the subtle yet influential role of nomenclature in shaping voter inclinations. Jones (2012) extended this line of inquiry by examining the regional variations in the relationship between name popularity and political affiliations, providing nuanced insights into the geographical nuances of this phenomenon.
Now that we've gotten the serious stuff out of the way, let's dive into the delightful world of puns, wordplay, and unexpected pop culture references. Picture it: you're sifting through "Storm" clouds to uncover the correlations between name popularity and political leanings in the enchanting state of Louisiana. It feels like a cross between a detective novel and a political intrigue, doesn't it? *I guess you could say we're on a quest to unveil the "Storm"y secrets of Louisiana's political landscape!*
Moving on to non-fiction books that may contain nuggets of wisdom related to our whimsical exploration, "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner pops to mind. While not directly related to names and political affiliations, it does offer a peek into the unexpected connections that lurk beneath seemingly unrelated phenomena. Then there's "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell, which illuminates the subtle psychological processes that shape our snap judgments and decisions, perhaps shedding light on the covert influence of names on political predilections. *You blink, and suddenly you're voting for "Storm"!*
As for fictional literature that may tickle our scholarly fancies, "A Storm of Swords" by George R.R. Martin may not offer direct insights into our research topic, but its title certainly tempts with its meteorological and metaphorical allure. And let's not forget "The Name of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss, which, despite being a work of fantasy, might just offer a mesmerizing parallel to our exploration of the winds of political change intertwined with the influence of a name. *Who knew a little "Storm" could stir up such literary marvels!*
Bringing board games into the mix, "Risk" seems like an apt representation of the intricate dance between strategic maneuvering and unexpected twists in the political arena. And why not throw in a bit of wordplay from "Scrabble"? After all, our research seeks to uncover the hidden combinations and connections between "Storm" and political votes, much like hunting for a triple word score in the turbulent landscape of political nomenclature. *We may not be playing with actual tiles, but we're certainly piecing together a compelling narrative of names and political sway!*
All in all, our review offers a refreshing blend of scholarly works and whimsical diversions, setting the stage for a rollicking exploration of the Storm's norm and its enthralling interplay with the political clime in Louisiana. *Now, let's weather this metaphorical storm of literature and plunge into the enchanting world of name-based political influence!*

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation revealed a strong positive correlation between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana during the period from 1976 to 2020. The correlation coefficient of 0.8890055 suggested a robust relationship, as if political storms and the name "Storm" were dancing in perfect political harmony. *Perhaps voters were feeling a strong urge to weather the political "Storm"!*
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.7903308 indicated that approximately 79.03% of the variation in votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate could be explained by the popularity of the name "Storm." It's as if the name "Storm" had become a defining feature of the political landscape, swirling its way into the hearts of Louisiana voters. *Talk about creating a political whirlwind!*
With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical significance of the correlation reaffirmed the influential role played by the name "Storm" in shaping political preferences in Louisiana. It's almost as if the name "Storm" had cast a spell over the electorate, drawing them in like moths to flame. *Looks like naming your child "Storm" might just stir up some voting action!*
These findings are graphically depicted in Figure 1, which illustrates the unmistakable relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate. It's a visual representation that makes it clear as day: when "Storm" is on the ballot, Democrats might just see a surge of support. *If only all political relationships were as clear-cut as this one!*

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our study has elucidated an intriguing association between the popularity of the name "Storm" and the proclivity of Louisiana voters to lean towards the Democrat Presidential candidate. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.8890055, echoing the findings of Smith (1998) and Doe (2005), underscores the persuasive sway wielded by names in the realm of politics. As seemingly whimsical as it may appear, the influence of nomenclature on electoral inclinations stands as a reminder of the deeper currents that underpin voter decision-making processes. It's almost as if the name "Storm" packed a punch, sweeping voters off their feet and into the Democratic camp! *Looks like Louisiana voters truly embraced the "Storm" surge!*

Our results not only align with prior research but also lend credence to the idea that names possess an underappreciated potency in shaping political affiliations. The statistical significance of our findings, with a p-value of less than 0.01, mirrors the weighty significance unravelled by Jones (2012) in the context of regional variations, accentuating the resonating impact of names across diverse geographical backdrops. It's as if the name "Storm" bore the hallmark of a political tempest, irresistibly drawing in voters, come rain or shine. *Who would've thought that a name could have such a stormy influence on political landscapes!*

Within the enchanting realm of literature, it becomes evident that our study treads in the footsteps of "Freakonomics" and "Blink," offering a revelatory peek into the intricate dance between nomenclature and political choices. Just as Malcolm Gladwell unveils the power of snap judgments and priming effects, our findings reveal a name's unfurling impact on political proclivities. Perhaps voters indeed blinked and found themselves subconsciously swayed by the name "Storm"! *Oh, the sheer power of puny priming effects!*

The visual depiction of our findings in Figure 1 not only serves as a compelling testament to the salience of the "Storm" effect but also beckons further inquiry into the underlying mechanisms and contextual intricacies shaping this phenomenon. It's akin to uncovering the electrifying currents that surge beneath the tranquil surface, offering a tantalizing glimpse into the stormy maelstrom of political nomenclature. *Who knew that stormy weather could be so politically illuminating!*

In conclusion, our study has not just weathered the metaphorical "Storm" but also provided a fresh gust of insight into the interplay between names and political predilections. As we set sail from these findings, let us remain ever-cognizant of the hidden tempests and tranquil breezes that beset the seas of political discourse, for just as with a storm, there's much more than meets the eye. *Looks like with names, as with storms, it's best to expect the unexpected!*


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Popularity of the first name Storm and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Storm's Norm: A Rhyme-alicious Time with Political Clime in Louisiana

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking research, we delve into the correlation between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in the lovely state of Louisiana. Our research team utilized data from the US Social Security Administration, complemented with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, in an attempt to satisfy the curiosity that has been storming our minds. *Sorry for the pun, I just couldn't resist!*

Our study covers the period from 1976 to 2020, a time full of political storms and electoral whirlwinds. Analyzing the data, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8890055, indicating a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and the number of votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate. This finding was indeed electrifying, like a bolt out of the blue, or rather, a bolt from the "Storm"! *Pun number two - because it never hertz to add a bit of electricity to academic research.*

With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results are statistically significant, shedding light on the influence of names on political preferences in the Bayou State. *Who knew a name could cast such a vote-worthy spell!* Our findings provide evidence of the nuanced interactions between individual characteristics and political choices, beckoning us to weather the storm of name popularity in the political arena.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The influence of names on various aspects of life has long been a subject of fascination. From the impact of names on job prospects to their association with certain personality traits, the significance of nomenclature cannot be overlooked. In the realm of politics, the role of names in influencing voter behavior has not escaped scrutiny. Our research aims to contribute to this fascinating field by examining the relationship between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana.
As the old adage goes, "what's in a name?" Well, according to our findings, quite a lot! *I guess you could say in Louisiana, "Storm" has both a literal and political thunder.* This study provides a unique opportunity to explore the potential impact of a name that is, metaphorically and meteorologically speaking, quite electrifying.
In delving into this intriguing phenomenon, we draw upon data from the US Social Security Administration, the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse. Our analysis spans over four decades, from 1976 to 2020, allowing us to capture the electoral climate across various tempestuous political periods. *It's like we're creating a political forecast, but instead of cold fronts and high pressure, we're dealing with electoral swings and popularity peaks!*
The correlation coefficient of 0.8890055 that emerged from our rigorous analysis provides compelling evidence of a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. This correlation is so clear, it's like the calm before the political storm! *And trust me, in Louisiana, they definitely know a thing or two about those!*
The statistical significance of our findings, signaled by a p-value of less than 0.01, serves as a beacon in navigating the intricate web of socio-political influences. *It's like we've uncovered a treasure map, and X marks the spot where "Storm" meets Democratic votes!* These results invite further pondering on the underlying mechanisms through which a name could sway political allegiances. *Who would've thought that a little "Storm" could blow the winds of political change?*
As we navigate this novel terrain, we aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of the intersections between personal nomenclature and political proclivities. Our study sets the stage for future investigations on the impact of unique names on political dynamics, an area ripe for exploration. Join us as we unravel the mysteries of nomenclatural influence and embrace the surprising ways in which names can shape the political clime. *After all, in Louisiana, it seems that even a "Storm" can make waves in the voting booth!*

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation revealed a strong positive correlation between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana during the period from 1976 to 2020. The correlation coefficient of 0.8890055 suggested a robust relationship, as if political storms and the name "Storm" were dancing in perfect political harmony. *Perhaps voters were feeling a strong urge to weather the political "Storm"!*
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.7903308 indicated that approximately 79.03% of the variation in votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate could be explained by the popularity of the name "Storm." It's as if the name "Storm" had become a defining feature of the political landscape, swirling its way into the hearts of Louisiana voters. *Talk about creating a political whirlwind!*
With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical significance of the correlation reaffirmed the influential role played by the name "Storm" in shaping political preferences in Louisiana. It's almost as if the name "Storm" had cast a spell over the electorate, drawing them in like moths to flame. *Looks like naming your child "Storm" might just stir up some voting action!*
These findings are graphically depicted in Figure 1, which illustrates the unmistakable relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate. It's a visual representation that makes it clear as day: when "Storm" is on the ballot, Democrats might just see a surge of support. *If only all political relationships were as clear-cut as this one!*

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has illuminated a striking connection between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana. The statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.8890055 and the r-squared value of 0.7903308 underscore the profound impact of this meteorologically-themed name on political preferences. It seems that in the Bayou State, the name "Storm" doesn't just bring heavy rain; it also brings in some heavy votes for the Democrats! *I guess you could say that name is making quite the political splash!*

These findings offer a refreshing perspective on the complex interplay between personal nomenclature and political inclinations, sparking intriguing questions about the potential influence of other weather-related names. Now, we're not suggesting that naming your child "Blizzard" or "Tornado" will predict their political affiliation, but hey, you never know! *Who knew a little breeze or snowfall could sway a voting decision?*

In light of these results, it is becoming increasingly clear that names, much like the weather, can have a significant impact on the political atmosphere. *So next time you're at the voting booth, remember: it's not just the candidates who make waves, but also the names!* However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our study, and we recognize the need for additional research to delve deeper into the mechanisms underlying this curious phenomenon.

With that being said, we believe that this investigation has traversed unchartered territory in the realm of naming and political behavior, and it's high time we close the chapter on "Storm" and Democratic votes in Louisiana. After all, delving into this topic any further might just be overkill. *We've weathered this storm of research and now it's time to bask in the sunshine of our findings!*


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 Storm's Norm: A Rhyme-alicious Time with Political Clime in Louisiana. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Lyrical Sociology


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 Storm's Norm: A Rhyme-alicious Time with Political Clime in Louisiana. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Bayou Ecology and Folklore 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 Storm's Norm: A Rhyme-alicious Time with Political Clime in Louisiana with an abstract of In this groundbreaking research, we delve into the correlation between the popularity of the first name "Storm" and votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in the lovely state of Louisiana. Our research team utilized data from the US Social Security Administration, complemented with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, in an attempt to satisfy the curiosity that has been storming our minds. *Sorry for the pun, I just couldn't resist!*
Our study covers the period from 1976 to 2020, a time full of political storms and electoral whirlwinds. Analyzing the data, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8890055, indicating a strong positive relationship between the popularity of the name "Storm" and the number of votes in favor of the Democrat Presidential candidate. This finding was indeed electrifying, like a bolt out of the blue, or rather, a bolt from the "Storm"! *Pun number two - because it never hertz to add a bit of electricity to academic research.*
With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results are statistically significant, shedding light on the influence of names on political preferences in the Bayou State. *Who knew a name could cast such a vote-worthy spell!* Our findings provide evidence of the nuanced interactions between individual characteristics and political choices, beckoning us to weather the storm of name popularity in the political arena.

ChatGPT:

"Storm popularity in Louisiana," "name influence on political preferences," "Storm correlation with Democrat votes," "Louisiana political preferences," "name popularity and political choices," "electoral data analysis," "MIT Election Data and Science Lab," "Harvard Dataverse," "US Social Security Administration data," "correlation coefficient in electoral votes," "Statistical significance of political name influence," "individual characteristics and political choices."

*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

Popularity of the first name Storm
Detailed data title: Babies of all sexes born in the US named Storm
Source: US Social Security Administration
See what else correlates with Popularity of the first name Storm

Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Louisiana
Detailed data title: Total votes cast for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Louisiana
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Louisiana

Correlation r = 0.8890055 (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 = 0.7903308 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 79% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Louisiana) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Popularity of the first name Storm) over the 12 years from 1976 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00011. 0.0001098186195712298100000000
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 0.89 in 0.011% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 9,106 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 11 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 11 because we have two variables measured over a period of 12 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, 0.97 ] 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.
197619801984198819921996200020042008201220162020
Popularity of the first name Storm (Babies born)614217317020415712691107174229
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Louisiana (Total votes)661365708453651586717460815971927837792344820299782989809141780154856034




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. 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([6,14,21,73,170,204,157,126,91,107,174,229,])
array_2 = np.array([661365,708453,651586,717460,815971,927837,792344,820299,782989,809141,780154,856034,])
array_1_name = "Popularity of the first name Storm"
array_2_name = "Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Louisiana"

# 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 is pure awesomeness!


Correlation ID: 5077 · Black Variable ID: 3636 · Red Variable ID: 25984
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0