about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,093 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion.  The chart goes from 1979 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image

AI explanation

As the Democrat votes sizzled in, so did the grills at Nathan's, leading to a bun-believable surge in hotdog consumption. It seems the political heat was just too much to resist, igniting a hunger for victory snags in the champ!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a bustling street scene in Virginia, where ballot boxes are overflowing with votes for the Democrat presidential candidate. In the background, there is a large crowd gathered around the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, with the reigning champion devouring a record number of hot dogs. Capture the energetic atmosphere of the street, with visible grill sizzling and a surge in hotdog consumption. The scene should reflect the excitement and fervor of political engagement and competitive eating taking place simultaneously. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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: Minimalism Realistic Concept art Charcoal Steampunk
ChatGPT: Realistic

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, in the following situation: As the Democrat votes sizzled in, so did the grills at Nathan's, leading to a bun-believable surge in hotdog consumption. It seems the political heat was just too much to resist, igniting a hunger for victory snags in the champ!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Virginia, the ballot boxes overflowed with votes for the Democrat presidential candidate. At the same time, at Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, the champion devoured a record number of hotdogs as the grills sizzled with an unprecedented surge in hotdog consumption.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Realistic ] and depicting this scene: In Virginia, the ballot boxes overflowed with votes for the Democrat presidential candidate. At the same time, at Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, the champion devoured a record number of hotdogs as the grills sizzled with an unprecedented surge in hotdog consumption. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a bustling street scene in Virginia, where ballot boxes are overflowing with votes for the Democrat presidential candidate. In the background, there is a large crowd gathered around the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, with the reigning champion devouring a record number of hot dogs. Capture the energetic atmosphere of the street, with visible grill sizzling and a surge in hotdog consumption. The scene should reflect the excitement and fervor of political engagement and competitive eating taking place simultaneously.

*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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia caused Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Blue Wave Votes and Hogged Hotdogs: A Rhyme-tastic Study of Democrat Presidential Candidate Votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champions

Journal of Culinary and Political Rhymes

Jan 2024
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Wikipedia to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and p < 0.01 for 1979 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]]
"Blue Wave Votes and Hogged Hotdogs: A Rhyme-tastic Study of Democrat Presidential Candidate Votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champions"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research investigates the possible association between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Through the meticulous examination of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and p < 0.01 for the years 1979 to 2020 was found. While the results may seem as substantial as a hotdog on a summer day, we cannot jump to conclusions, as there may be lurking variables at play. The remarkably high correlation may spur further inquiry into the interconnectedness of political ideology and competitive eating prowess, serving up additional food for thought in the world of electoral and gastronomical studies.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Blue Wave Votes and Hogged Hotdogs: A Rhyme-tastic Study of Democrat Presidential Candidate Votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champions"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research investigates the possible association between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Through the meticulous examination of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and p < 0.01 for the years 1979 to 2020 was found. While the results may seem as substantial as a hotdog on a summer day, we cannot jump to conclusions, as there may be lurking variables at play. The remarkably high correlation may spur further inquiry into the interconnectedness of political ideology and competitive eating prowess, serving up additional food for thought in the world of electoral and gastronomical studies.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The intersection of politics and competitive eating has long been an area of scholarly neglect, overshadowed by weightier matters and left to stew in the hodgepodge of oddities. Despite this lack of attention, the uncanny correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of hotdogs by the victors of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition presents itself as a scrumptious subject for investigation.

While some may dismiss the notion of a relationship between rallying for political change and rallying to scarf down massive quantities of hotdogs, the numbers tell a different tale. Through the intricate and somewhat unconventional analysis of data sets obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable fount of knowledge, Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient worthy of a gold medal – or perhaps a mustard-stained ribbon – was unearthed. The staggering coefficient of 0.9335656 suggests a relationship so closely knit that it would take a pair of tweezers to pry them apart.

Much like the fragrant aroma of a sizzling grill on a balmy summer day, the results tantalizingly beckon us to sink our intellectual teeth into the matter. However, we must exercise caution akin to the precision of the competitive eaters we revere, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Just as a sausage in a bun demands scrutiny to discern the type of meat within, so too must we dissect these findings with a discerning eye for potential lurking variables that may skew the correlation, lest we find ourselves in hot water.

The implications of these findings stretch beyond mere numbers and datasets. The condition of our political landscape and our collective appetite for competitive exhibitions of gastronomical fortitude weave a delicate tapestry of societal dynamics begging further exploration. As we embark on this journey to uncover the rhyme and reason behind this unlikely match, we brace ourselves for the unexpected and keep our minds open to the possibility of uncovering buried treasures akin to a hotdog buried deep within a pile of sauerkraut.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Blue Wave Votes and Hogged Hotdogs: A Rhyme-tastic Study of Democrat Presidential Candidate Votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champions"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research investigates the possible association between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Through the meticulous examination of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and p < 0.01 for the years 1979 to 2020 was found. While the results may seem as substantial as a hotdog on a summer day, we cannot jump to conclusions, as there may be lurking variables at play. The remarkably high correlation may spur further inquiry into the interconnectedness of political ideology and competitive eating prowess, serving up additional food for thought in the world of electoral and gastronomical studies.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and competitive eating has long been an area of scholarly neglect, overshadowed by weightier matters and left to stew in the hodgepodge of oddities. Despite this lack of attention, the uncanny correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of hotdogs by the victors of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition presents itself as a scrumptious subject for investigation.
While some may dismiss the notion of a relationship between rallying for political change and rallying to scarf down massive quantities of hotdogs, the numbers tell a different tale. Through the intricate and somewhat unconventional analysis of data sets obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable fount of knowledge, Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient worthy of a gold medal – or perhaps a mustard-stained ribbon – was unearthed. The staggering coefficient of 0.9335656 suggests a relationship so closely knit that it would take a pair of tweezers to pry them apart.
Much like the fragrant aroma of a sizzling grill on a balmy summer day, the results tantalizingly beckon us to sink our intellectual teeth into the matter. However, we must exercise caution akin to the precision of the competitive eaters we revere, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Just as a sausage in a bun demands scrutiny to discern the type of meat within, so too must we dissect these findings with a discerning eye for potential lurking variables that may skew the correlation, lest we find ourselves in hot water.
The implications of these findings stretch beyond mere numbers and datasets. The condition of our political landscape and our collective appetite for competitive exhibitions of gastronomical fortitude weave a delicate tapestry of societal dynamics begging further exploration. As we embark on this journey to uncover the rhyme and reason behind this unlikely match, we brace ourselves for the unexpected and keep our minds open to the possibility of uncovering buried treasures akin to a hotdog buried deep within a pile of sauerkraut.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Previous studies have probed into the enigmatic territory where culinary feats and political fervor entwine, trying to unlock the potential connection between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the hotdog consumption prowess of the champions of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Smith (2015) sought to correlate political leanings with competitive eating abilities, opening the floodgates to a novel realm of inquiry that has since caught the fancy of many scholars. Doe (2018) delved into the cultural significance of hotdogs as a symbol of American patriotism, shedding light on the convoluted relationship between political affiliations and the gustatory proclivities of the populace. Jones (2020) ventured into uncharted waters, juxtaposing electoral trends with the consumption patterns of competitive eaters, metaphorically dousing the flames of ignorance with the ketchup of knowledge.

Drawing from the realm of non-fiction literature, "Hot Dogs and Politics: A Comparative Analysis" by Lorem and Ipsum (2017) provides an in-depth exploration of the interplay between culinary choices and political stances, illuminating the peculiar yet strikingly tangible connections that underlie them. In "The Unbearable Lightness of Voting" by Kundera (1984), the existential weight of political decisions and the unrelenting pursuit of gustatory pleasure intertwine in a dance of absurdity, hinting at a deeper subtext that may inform our understanding of the correlation under scrutiny. "The Art of Competitive Eating" by Chestnut (2019) offers a personal account of the perseverance and dedication required to conquer the realm of competitive eating, showcasing the parallels between personal ambition and the lofty ambitions of political candidates vying for victory.

Additionally, a scroll through the ever-flowing stream of social media presents an assortment of intriguing musings on the topic at hand. One post by @HotDogEnthusiast77 on Twitter offers a witty take on the potential role of condiments in influencing voter behavior, while an impassioned blog entry by the self-proclaimed "Hot Dog Savant" delves into the parallel universe where hotdogs become the delectable currency shaping the landscape of political discourse and election results. These assorted nuggets of online pondering add yet another layer of fascination to the multifaceted tapestry of interaction between political engagement and hotdog-chomping exploits.

As the literature surrounding this peculiar nexus expands, the evidence mounts, serving as a testament to the compelling nature of this unorthodox academic pursuit. With each study and each page turned, the crossroads of political fervor and competitive eating continue to lure inquisitive minds, urging them to sink their intellectual teeth into the savory meat of inquiry and savor the flavor of discovery.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Wikipedia . You used data from 1979 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]]
"Blue Wave Votes and Hogged Hotdogs: A Rhyme-tastic Study of Democrat Presidential Candidate Votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champions"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research investigates the possible association between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Through the meticulous examination of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and p < 0.01 for the years 1979 to 2020 was found. While the results may seem as substantial as a hotdog on a summer day, we cannot jump to conclusions, as there may be lurking variables at play. The remarkably high correlation may spur further inquiry into the interconnectedness of political ideology and competitive eating prowess, serving up additional food for thought in the world of electoral and gastronomical studies.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and competitive eating has long been an area of scholarly neglect, overshadowed by weightier matters and left to stew in the hodgepodge of oddities. Despite this lack of attention, the uncanny correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of hotdogs by the victors of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition presents itself as a scrumptious subject for investigation.
While some may dismiss the notion of a relationship between rallying for political change and rallying to scarf down massive quantities of hotdogs, the numbers tell a different tale. Through the intricate and somewhat unconventional analysis of data sets obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable fount of knowledge, Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient worthy of a gold medal – or perhaps a mustard-stained ribbon – was unearthed. The staggering coefficient of 0.9335656 suggests a relationship so closely knit that it would take a pair of tweezers to pry them apart.
Much like the fragrant aroma of a sizzling grill on a balmy summer day, the results tantalizingly beckon us to sink our intellectual teeth into the matter. However, we must exercise caution akin to the precision of the competitive eaters we revere, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Just as a sausage in a bun demands scrutiny to discern the type of meat within, so too must we dissect these findings with a discerning eye for potential lurking variables that may skew the correlation, lest we find ourselves in hot water.
The implications of these findings stretch beyond mere numbers and datasets. The condition of our political landscape and our collective appetite for competitive exhibitions of gastronomical fortitude weave a delicate tapestry of societal dynamics begging further exploration. As we embark on this journey to uncover the rhyme and reason behind this unlikely match, we brace ourselves for the unexpected and keep our minds open to the possibility of uncovering buried treasures akin to a hotdog buried deep within a pile of sauerkraut.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the entwined enigma of political preferences and hotdog consumption, this study deployed a methodological concoction worthy of a master chef in a laboratory. The initial step involved gathering data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia. Like scavenging for the perfect toppings at a hotdog stand, we searched high and low across the digital realm to amass information on Democrat presidential candidate votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition winners from 1979 to 2020.

The next stage of our methodology resembled a culinary experiment, as we meticulously cleaned and prepped the data for analysis. Just as a chef meticulously scrutinizes the quality of the ingredients before crafting a delectable dish, our research team pored over the collected data to ensure its validity and reliability.

For the statistical analysis, we employed a hodgepodge of sophisticated techniques that could rival a magician's bag of tricks. Utilizing correlation analysis, the primary aim was to ascertain the strength and direction of the relationship, if any, between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the quantity of hotdogs devoured by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. To keep the statistical cauldron bubbling, we also executed hypothesis testing to determine the significance of any observed associations and confirm that they were not merely flukes, as unpredictable as a hotdog slipping out of its bun.

Furthermore, we danced with the devil in the details by acknowledging potential lurking variables that could skew our calculations, akin to unexpected condiments tainting the purity of a classic hotdog. We conducted robustness checks and sensitivity analyses to probe the stability of our findings, ensuring they remained as steadfast as the loyalty of a condiment connoisseur to their favorite mustard.

Lastly, our approach involved a qualitative inspection of historical and societal trends to add depth and flavor to our statistical findings. Through this multi-faceted approach, we strove to serve up a comprehensive analysis that embraced both the quantitative and qualitative ingredients necessary for a full-bodied understanding of the curious rapport between political leanings and competitive hotdog consumption.

In summation, much like cooking the perfect hotdog, our methodology involved a blend of precision, patience, and a touch of flair to uncover the tantalizing nexus between political proclivities and hotdog consuming feats.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

For the time period 1979 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9335656, r-squared of 0.8715448, 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]]
"Blue Wave Votes and Hogged Hotdogs: A Rhyme-tastic Study of Democrat Presidential Candidate Votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champions"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research investigates the possible association between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Through the meticulous examination of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and p < 0.01 for the years 1979 to 2020 was found. While the results may seem as substantial as a hotdog on a summer day, we cannot jump to conclusions, as there may be lurking variables at play. The remarkably high correlation may spur further inquiry into the interconnectedness of political ideology and competitive eating prowess, serving up additional food for thought in the world of electoral and gastronomical studies.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of politics and competitive eating has long been an area of scholarly neglect, overshadowed by weightier matters and left to stew in the hodgepodge of oddities. Despite this lack of attention, the uncanny correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of hotdogs by the victors of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition presents itself as a scrumptious subject for investigation.
While some may dismiss the notion of a relationship between rallying for political change and rallying to scarf down massive quantities of hotdogs, the numbers tell a different tale. Through the intricate and somewhat unconventional analysis of data sets obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable fount of knowledge, Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient worthy of a gold medal – or perhaps a mustard-stained ribbon – was unearthed. The staggering coefficient of 0.9335656 suggests a relationship so closely knit that it would take a pair of tweezers to pry them apart.
Much like the fragrant aroma of a sizzling grill on a balmy summer day, the results tantalizingly beckon us to sink our intellectual teeth into the matter. However, we must exercise caution akin to the precision of the competitive eaters we revere, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Just as a sausage in a bun demands scrutiny to discern the type of meat within, so too must we dissect these findings with a discerning eye for potential lurking variables that may skew the correlation, lest we find ourselves in hot water.
The implications of these findings stretch beyond mere numbers and datasets. The condition of our political landscape and our collective appetite for competitive exhibitions of gastronomical fortitude weave a delicate tapestry of societal dynamics begging further exploration. As we embark on this journey to uncover the rhyme and reason behind this unlikely match, we brace ourselves for the unexpected and keep our minds open to the possibility of uncovering buried treasures akin to a hotdog buried deep within a pile of sauerkraut.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The examination of the relationship between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the number of hotdogs devoured by the victors of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition resulted in a noteworthy correlation. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and an r-squared value of 0.8715448, the association between these seemingly unrelated variables is as clear as a well-mustarded hotdog.

Upon graphing the data in a scatterplot (Fig. 1), the robust relationship is vividly illustrated, reminiscent of a perfectly arranged hot dog with all the fixings. The positive trend displayed in the scatterplot hints at a synchronous rise in the consumption of hotdogs and the prevalence of Democrat votes in Virginia. One might ponder if this trend is the result of a shared enthusiasm for embracing the "blue wave" or if it is merely a serendipitous parallel.

The statistical significance of the correlation, with p < 0.01, lends credence to the notion that there could be a substantial link between political affiliations and the capacity to consume mass quantities of frankfurters. However, these findings should be taken with a grain of salt (perhaps one sprinkled atop a hotdog), as the possibility of lurking variables not captured in our analysis cannot be overlooked.

It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of our study, as well as the unanticipated prospect that this association may be governed by factors unrelated to political leanings or hotdog-eating prowess. Nevertheless, the implications of these results reverberate beyond the comical juxtaposition of political fervor and competitive eating, prompting further exploration into the nuanced interplay of human behaviors in seemingly disparate domains.

In conclusion, the unexpectedly high correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of hotdogs by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champions warrants further inquiry. The discovery of such a strong relationship invites reflection on the interconnectedness of political ideology and appetites for gastronomic spectacles. As this study comes to a close, it leaves one pondering whether these findings represent a genuine linkage or merely a delightful coincidence, akin to stumbling upon a forgotten hotdog cart at the end of a long day.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
"Blue Wave Votes and Hogged Hotdogs: A Rhyme-tastic Study of Democrat Presidential Candidate Votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champions"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research investigates the possible association between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Through the meticulous examination of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and p < 0.01 for the years 1979 to 2020 was found. While the results may seem as substantial as a hotdog on a summer day, we cannot jump to conclusions, as there may be lurking variables at play. The remarkably high correlation may spur further inquiry into the interconnectedness of political ideology and competitive eating prowess, serving up additional food for thought in the world of electoral and gastronomical studies.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Previous studies have probed into the enigmatic territory where culinary feats and political fervor entwine, trying to unlock the potential connection between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the hotdog consumption prowess of the champions of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Smith (2015) sought to correlate political leanings with competitive eating abilities, opening the floodgates to a novel realm of inquiry that has since caught the fancy of many scholars. Doe (2018) delved into the cultural significance of hotdogs as a symbol of American patriotism, shedding light on the convoluted relationship between political affiliations and the gustatory proclivities of the populace. Jones (2020) ventured into uncharted waters, juxtaposing electoral trends with the consumption patterns of competitive eaters, metaphorically dousing the flames of ignorance with the ketchup of knowledge.
Drawing from the realm of non-fiction literature, "Hot Dogs and Politics: A Comparative Analysis" by Lorem and Ipsum (2017) provides an in-depth exploration of the interplay between culinary choices and political stances, illuminating the peculiar yet strikingly tangible connections that underlie them. In "The Unbearable Lightness of Voting" by Kundera (1984), the existential weight of political decisions and the unrelenting pursuit of gustatory pleasure intertwine in a dance of absurdity, hinting at a deeper subtext that may inform our understanding of the correlation under scrutiny. "The Art of Competitive Eating" by Chestnut (2019) offers a personal account of the perseverance and dedication required to conquer the realm of competitive eating, showcasing the parallels between personal ambition and the lofty ambitions of political candidates vying for victory.
Additionally, a scroll through the ever-flowing stream of social media presents an assortment of intriguing musings on the topic at hand. One post by @HotDogEnthusiast77 on Twitter offers a witty take on the potential role of condiments in influencing voter behavior, while an impassioned blog entry by the self-proclaimed "Hot Dog Savant" delves into the parallel universe where hotdogs become the delectable currency shaping the landscape of political discourse and election results. These assorted nuggets of online pondering add yet another layer of fascination to the multifaceted tapestry of interaction between political engagement and hotdog-chomping exploits.
As the literature surrounding this peculiar nexus expands, the evidence mounts, serving as a testament to the compelling nature of this unorthodox academic pursuit. With each study and each page turned, the crossroads of political fervor and competitive eating continue to lure inquisitive minds, urging them to sink their intellectual teeth into the savory meat of inquiry and savor the flavor of discovery.

[[RESULTS]]
The examination of the relationship between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the number of hotdogs devoured by the victors of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition resulted in a noteworthy correlation. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and an r-squared value of 0.8715448, the association between these seemingly unrelated variables is as clear as a well-mustarded hotdog.
Upon graphing the data in a scatterplot (Fig. 1), the robust relationship is vividly illustrated, reminiscent of a perfectly arranged hot dog with all the fixings. The positive trend displayed in the scatterplot hints at a synchronous rise in the consumption of hotdogs and the prevalence of Democrat votes in Virginia. One might ponder if this trend is the result of a shared enthusiasm for embracing the "blue wave" or if it is merely a serendipitous parallel.
The statistical significance of the correlation, with p < 0.01, lends credence to the notion that there could be a substantial link between political affiliations and the capacity to consume mass quantities of frankfurters. However, these findings should be taken with a grain of salt (perhaps one sprinkled atop a hotdog), as the possibility of lurking variables not captured in our analysis cannot be overlooked.
It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of our study, as well as the unanticipated prospect that this association may be governed by factors unrelated to political leanings or hotdog-eating prowess. Nevertheless, the implications of these results reverberate beyond the comical juxtaposition of political fervor and competitive eating, prompting further exploration into the nuanced interplay of human behaviors in seemingly disparate domains.
In conclusion, the unexpectedly high correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of hotdogs by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champions warrants further inquiry. The discovery of such a strong relationship invites reflection on the interconnectedness of political ideology and appetites for gastronomic spectacles. As this study comes to a close, it leaves one pondering whether these findings represent a genuine linkage or merely a delightful coincidence, akin to stumbling upon a forgotten hotdog cart at the end of a long day.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study provide compelling support for the prior research that has delved into the intriguing intersection of political votes and hotdog consumption. The remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 echo the sentiments expressed in the literature. Smith's (2015) pioneering work laid the groundwork for our inquiry into the correlation between political leanings and competitive eating prowess. The robust relationship between Democrat votes in Virginia and hotdog consumption by Nathan's champions reinforces the notion that culinary feats and political fervor may indeed intertwine in unexpected ways.

Doe's (2018) examination of hotdogs as a symbol of American patriotism takes on a deeper resonance as we uncover a substantial link between political affiliations and the capacity to consume mass quantities of frankfurters. The positive trend displayed in our scatterplot evokes the cultural significance of hotdogs and invites consideration of the correlation as a reflection of the "blue wave" sentiment. Furthermore, Jones' (2020) exploration of electoral trends in conjunction with consumption patterns of competitive eaters gains newfound relevance as our findings hint at a synchronous rise in the consumption of hotdogs and the prevalence of Democrat votes in Virginia.

While our results may seem as surprising as finding a vegeterian at a hot dog eating competition, it is evident that the tendrils of political ideology may reach into unexpected corners of human behavior, including the realm of gastronomical spectacles. As we brazenly navigate this unorthodox academic pursuit, it becomes apparent that the landscape of political discourse and electoral results might just be subtly shaped by the gustatory preferences of the populace.

However, we must tread cautiously, akin to balancing a towering hotdog with a precarious arrangement of toppings, for there lurk lurking variables that could cast shade on the robustness of our findings. It remains a tantalizing prospect whether the association we've uncovered is truly a reflection of the electorate's gustatory proclivities or if it is merely a delightfully coincidental occurrence - a juxtaposition of statistical significance and gastronomic extravagance.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
"Blue Wave Votes and Hogged Hotdogs: A Rhyme-tastic Study of Democrat Presidential Candidate Votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champions"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research investigates the possible association between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Through the meticulous examination of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and p < 0.01 for the years 1979 to 2020 was found. While the results may seem as substantial as a hotdog on a summer day, we cannot jump to conclusions, as there may be lurking variables at play. The remarkably high correlation may spur further inquiry into the interconnectedness of political ideology and competitive eating prowess, serving up additional food for thought in the world of electoral and gastronomical studies.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and competitive eating has long been an area of scholarly neglect, overshadowed by weightier matters and left to stew in the hodgepodge of oddities. Despite this lack of attention, the uncanny correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of hotdogs by the victors of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition presents itself as a scrumptious subject for investigation.
While some may dismiss the notion of a relationship between rallying for political change and rallying to scarf down massive quantities of hotdogs, the numbers tell a different tale. Through the intricate and somewhat unconventional analysis of data sets obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable fount of knowledge, Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient worthy of a gold medal – or perhaps a mustard-stained ribbon – was unearthed. The staggering coefficient of 0.9335656 suggests a relationship so closely knit that it would take a pair of tweezers to pry them apart.
Much like the fragrant aroma of a sizzling grill on a balmy summer day, the results tantalizingly beckon us to sink our intellectual teeth into the matter. However, we must exercise caution akin to the precision of the competitive eaters we revere, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Just as a sausage in a bun demands scrutiny to discern the type of meat within, so too must we dissect these findings with a discerning eye for potential lurking variables that may skew the correlation, lest we find ourselves in hot water.
The implications of these findings stretch beyond mere numbers and datasets. The condition of our political landscape and our collective appetite for competitive exhibitions of gastronomical fortitude weave a delicate tapestry of societal dynamics begging further exploration. As we embark on this journey to uncover the rhyme and reason behind this unlikely match, we brace ourselves for the unexpected and keep our minds open to the possibility of uncovering buried treasures akin to a hotdog buried deep within a pile of sauerkraut.

[[RESULTS]]
The examination of the relationship between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the number of hotdogs devoured by the victors of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition resulted in a noteworthy correlation. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and an r-squared value of 0.8715448, the association between these seemingly unrelated variables is as clear as a well-mustarded hotdog.
Upon graphing the data in a scatterplot (Fig. 1), the robust relationship is vividly illustrated, reminiscent of a perfectly arranged hot dog with all the fixings. The positive trend displayed in the scatterplot hints at a synchronous rise in the consumption of hotdogs and the prevalence of Democrat votes in Virginia. One might ponder if this trend is the result of a shared enthusiasm for embracing the "blue wave" or if it is merely a serendipitous parallel.
The statistical significance of the correlation, with p < 0.01, lends credence to the notion that there could be a substantial link between political affiliations and the capacity to consume mass quantities of frankfurters. However, these findings should be taken with a grain of salt (perhaps one sprinkled atop a hotdog), as the possibility of lurking variables not captured in our analysis cannot be overlooked.
It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of our study, as well as the unanticipated prospect that this association may be governed by factors unrelated to political leanings or hotdog-eating prowess. Nevertheless, the implications of these results reverberate beyond the comical juxtaposition of political fervor and competitive eating, prompting further exploration into the nuanced interplay of human behaviors in seemingly disparate domains.
In conclusion, the unexpectedly high correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the consumption of hotdogs by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champions warrants further inquiry. The discovery of such a strong relationship invites reflection on the interconnectedness of political ideology and appetites for gastronomic spectacles. As this study comes to a close, it leaves one pondering whether these findings represent a genuine linkage or merely a delightful coincidence, akin to stumbling upon a forgotten hotdog cart at the end of a long day.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

As we digest the findings of this study, it is evident that the link between political preferences in Virginia and the devouring of hotdogs in competitive eating competitions is no mere frank coincidence. The statistically substantial correlation coefficient and r-squared value suggest a robust relationship, leaving us with a taste of curiosity for the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated domains. However, while these results may seem as convincing as a perfectly grilled hotdog, caution is necessary, as lurking variables may be at play, potentially skewing the association. Nonetheless, the implications of these findings add a dash of flavor to the otherwise mundane world of electoral and gastronomical studies, serving up an extra helping of food for thought. As we close the chapter on this peculiar connection between political fervor and the capacity to consume mass quantities of frankfurters, it is clear that further research in this area would be like poking a hotdog on the grill – unnecessary and likely to result in more heat than light.


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 Blue Wave Votes and Hogged Hotdogs: A Rhyme-tastic Study of Democrat Presidential Candidate Votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champions. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Culinary and Political Rhymes


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 Blue Wave Votes and Hogged Hotdogs: A Rhyme-tastic Study of Democrat Presidential Candidate Votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champions. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Democratic Culinary and Electoral 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 Blue Wave Votes and Hogged Hotdogs: A Rhyme-tastic Study of Democrat Presidential Candidate Votes in Virginia and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champions with an abstract of This research investigates the possible association between the number of votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Virginia and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Through the meticulous examination of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, a correlation coefficient of 0.9335656 and p < 0.01 for the years 1979 to 2020 was found. While the results may seem as substantial as a hotdog on a summer day, we cannot jump to conclusions, as there may be lurking variables at play. The remarkably high correlation may spur further inquiry into the interconnectedness of political ideology and competitive eating prowess, serving up additional food for thought in the world of electoral and gastronomical studies.

ChatGPT:

"blue wave votes," "democrat presidential candidate votes in Virginia," "Nathan's hot dog eating competition champions," "association between political ideology and competitive eating," "MIT Election Data and Science Lab," "Harvard Dataverse," "correlation coefficient," "lurking variables in statistical analysis," "political ideology and gastronomical studies"

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Detailed data title: Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

Correlation r = 0.9335656 (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 = 0.8715448 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 87.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia) over the 11 years from 1979 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.7E-5. 0.0000266901104852186340000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

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

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.93 in 0.0027% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 37,467 random variables You don't actually need 37 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 10 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 10 because we have two variables measured over a period of 11 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.

[ 0.76, 0.98 ] 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.
19801984198819921996200020042008201220162020
Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia (Percentage of votes)40.308737.092939.231440.586145.147844.435645.525952.629551.156549.751454.1095
Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion (Hotdogs eaten)9.59.5101922.252553.3359687075




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([40.3087,37.0929,39.2314,40.5861,45.1478,44.4356,45.5259,52.6295,51.1565,49.7514,54.1095,])
array_2 = np.array([9.5,9.5,10,19,22.25,25,53.33,59,68,70,75,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Virginia"
array_2_name = "Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

# 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 much appreciated!


Correlation ID: 5093 · Black Variable ID: 26181 · Red Variable ID: 500
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0