about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,104 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and the second variable is Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As household spending on personal care products and services goes up, more people start using grooming tools like precision trimmers and razors. The sound of these grooming tools leads to a subconscious association with liberty bells, prompting a surge in support for the Libertarian candidate in Arizona. It's a razor-sharp revolution in political preferences, fueled by the grooming habits of the electorate!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a futuristic Arizona scene where people are using precision trimmers and razors, and the ambient sound evokes a connection with liberty bells. In the backdrop, visualize a surge in votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate. Show the atmosphere filled with the hum of grooming tools and a sense of political freedom. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona. 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: Whimsical illustration Surrealism Cutsy graphics Sci-fi fantacy Futuristic
ChatGPT: Futuristic

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona, in the following situation: As household spending on personal care products and services goes up, more people start using grooming tools like precision trimmers and razors. The sound of these grooming tools leads to a subconscious association with liberty bells, prompting a surge in support for the Libertarian candidate in Arizona. It's a razor-sharp revolution in political preferences, fueled by the grooming habits of the electorate!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Arizona, as household spending on personal care products and services increases, more people are seen using precision trimmers and razors. The sound of these grooming tools evokes an unconscious connection with liberty bells. As a result, there is a noticeable rise in votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona. The air is filled with the hum of grooming tools and the spirit of political freedom.

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: [ Futuristic ] and depicting this scene: In Arizona, as household spending on personal care products and services increases, more people are seen using precision trimmers and razors. The sound of these grooming tools evokes an unconscious connection with liberty bells. As a result, there is a noticeable rise in votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona. The air is filled with the hum of grooming tools and the spirit of political freedom. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a futuristic Arizona scene where people are using precision trimmers and razors, and the ambient sound evokes a connection with liberty bells. In the backdrop, visualize a surge in votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate. Show the atmosphere filled with the hum of grooming tools and a sense of political freedom.

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

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Annual US household spending on personal care products and services caused Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona to increase. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Lather, Rinse, Repeat: A Sudsy Analysis of the Relationship Between Personal Care Spending and Libertarian Votes in Arizona

The Journal of Suds and Democracy

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Include a pun in the title.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2020.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Lather, Rinse, Repeat: A Sudsy Analysis of the Relationship Between Personal Care Spending and Libertarian Votes in Arizona

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the correlation between the annual household spending on personal care products and services in the United States and the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the state of Arizona. Our research team amusingly wrinkled their noses and dove into the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, all in the quest to untangle the strands of economic and political influence. Much to our surprise, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 and p < 0.01 for the timeframe spanning from 2000 to 2020—clearly hinting at a fascinating intertwining of grooming habits and political leanings. It seems that when it comes to voting, some Arizonans truly value bodacious body washes and fabulous fragrances, proving that political choices may not just be skin-deep!

Oh, and speaking of skin-deep, did you hear about the dermatologist who told a dad joke about skin care? He said, "I asked my patient if they wanted a moisturizer. They said, 'Sure, but please make sure it's none-greasy!'" But I digress. Our findings have left us shampoo-verwhelmed, and we're excited to present this groundbreaking research, showcasing how the state of one's shower shelves may just have the power to sway political decisions.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Lather, Rinse, Repeat: A Sudsy Analysis of the Relationship Between Personal Care Spending and Libertarian Votes in Arizona

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the correlation between the annual household spending on personal care products and services in the United States and the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the state of Arizona. Our research team amusingly wrinkled their noses and dove into the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, all in the quest to untangle the strands of economic and political influence. Much to our surprise, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 and p < 0.01 for the timeframe spanning from 2000 to 2020—clearly hinting at a fascinating intertwining of grooming habits and political leanings. It seems that when it comes to voting, some Arizonans truly value bodacious body washes and fabulous fragrances, proving that political choices may not just be skin-deep!

Oh, and speaking of skin-deep, did you hear about the dermatologist who told a dad joke about skin care? He said, "I asked my patient if they wanted a moisturizer. They said, 'Sure, but please make sure it's none-greasy!'" But I digress. Our findings have left us shampoo-verwhelmed, and we're excited to present this groundbreaking research, showcasing how the state of one's shower shelves may just have the power to sway political decisions.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

How often do we consider the connection between the fragrant whiff of lavender shampoo and the scent of political inclination in the air? Probably not frequently enough! In the world of elections, every vote counts, and it seems that every dollar spent on personal care products might count as well. As we delve into this curious intersection of household spending and political preferences, we can't help but marvel at the unexpected correlations that emerge—much like when you accidentally discover a lost hair tie in the depths of the bathroom cabinet. It's a revelation that leaves you both perplexed and amused!

Connecting politics and personal care is not unlike blending the perfect shampoo formula—there are bound to be some surprising results. The findings of this study just might leave you feeling foamy with excitement, akin to when you manage to generate an excessively ample amount of foam from a dollop of hand soap. Ah, the simple pleasures in life!

So, what drew us to this quirky research question, you might ask? Well, the allure of uncovering correlations in the most unexpected places is a bit like that elusive search for the perfect hair conditioner—it's a pursuit that never seems to end! And much like the feeling of a good hair day, discovering a strong statistical relationship between personal care spending and political choices can be wonderfully uplifting.

But speaking of hair care, did you hear about the politician who tried to boost their popularity with a hair-related campaign promise? They said, "I promise to lower taxes and increase the volume of hair on every citizen's head—now that's what I call a rootin' tootin' policy!" An apt pun for our investigation, as we uncover the intricate interweaving of shampoo suds and political studs in the context of Arizona's electoral dynamics.

As we embark on this journey through the lather, rinse, repeat cycle of statistical analysis, let's explore the fascinating relationship between personal care spending and Libertarian votes in Arizona. It's a tale that might just leave you with a toothpaste-stained grin, akin to the joy of a surprising quip from a toothpaste commercial. So, hold onto your loofahs, for we're about to dive headfirst into the sudsy sea of data and election results, with the hope of unraveling this curious correlation and emerging with a newfound appreciation for the pivotal role of personal care products in the political sphere.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Lather, Rinse, Repeat: A Sudsy Analysis of the Relationship Between Personal Care Spending and Libertarian Votes in Arizona

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the correlation between the annual household spending on personal care products and services in the United States and the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the state of Arizona. Our research team amusingly wrinkled their noses and dove into the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, all in the quest to untangle the strands of economic and political influence. Much to our surprise, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 and p < 0.01 for the timeframe spanning from 2000 to 2020—clearly hinting at a fascinating intertwining of grooming habits and political leanings. It seems that when it comes to voting, some Arizonans truly value bodacious body washes and fabulous fragrances, proving that political choices may not just be skin-deep!

Oh, and speaking of skin-deep, did you hear about the dermatologist who told a dad joke about skin care? He said, "I asked my patient if they wanted a moisturizer. They said, 'Sure, but please make sure it's none-greasy!'" But I digress. Our findings have left us shampoo-verwhelmed, and we're excited to present this groundbreaking research, showcasing how the state of one's shower shelves may just have the power to sway political decisions.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
How often do we consider the connection between the fragrant whiff of lavender shampoo and the scent of political inclination in the air? Probably not frequently enough! In the world of elections, every vote counts, and it seems that every dollar spent on personal care products might count as well. As we delve into this curious intersection of household spending and political preferences, we can't help but marvel at the unexpected correlations that emerge—much like when you accidentally discover a lost hair tie in the depths of the bathroom cabinet. It's a revelation that leaves you both perplexed and amused!
Connecting politics and personal care is not unlike blending the perfect shampoo formula—there are bound to be some surprising results. The findings of this study just might leave you feeling foamy with excitement, akin to when you manage to generate an excessively ample amount of foam from a dollop of hand soap. Ah, the simple pleasures in life!
So, what drew us to this quirky research question, you might ask? Well, the allure of uncovering correlations in the most unexpected places is a bit like that elusive search for the perfect hair conditioner—it's a pursuit that never seems to end! And much like the feeling of a good hair day, discovering a strong statistical relationship between personal care spending and political choices can be wonderfully uplifting.
But speaking of hair care, did you hear about the politician who tried to boost their popularity with a hair-related campaign promise? They said, "I promise to lower taxes and increase the volume of hair on every citizen's head—now that's what I call a rootin' tootin' policy!" An apt pun for our investigation, as we uncover the intricate interweaving of shampoo suds and political studs in the context of Arizona's electoral dynamics.
As we embark on this journey through the lather, rinse, repeat cycle of statistical analysis, let's explore the fascinating relationship between personal care spending and Libertarian votes in Arizona. It's a tale that might just leave you with a toothpaste-stained grin, akin to the joy of a surprising quip from a toothpaste commercial. So, hold onto your loofahs, for we're about to dive headfirst into the sudsy sea of data and election results, with the hope of unraveling this curious correlation and emerging with a newfound appreciation for the pivotal role of personal care products in the political sphere.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The relationship between household spending on personal care products and political behaviors has been a subject of growing interest in recent years. Smith (2015) illustrated the impact of consumer behavior on political affiliation, highlighting the potential influence of individual grooming habits on voting decisions. Additionally, Doe (2018) expanded on this line of inquiry by examining the connection between grooming expenditures and political alignments, shedding light on the nuanced interplay between personal care choices and party preferences. These studies underscore the importance of considering personal care spending as a potential determinant of political behavior.

Moving beyond traditional academic studies, non-fiction books such as "The Economics of Beauty" by Jones (2017) and "The Politics of Personal Grooming" by White (2019) have delved into the economic and sociopolitical dimensions of personal care habits, offering valuable insights into the societal significance of grooming practices. On a more fictional note, novels like "The Scent of Politics" by Green (2020) and "The Shampoo Conspiracy" by Black (2016) have explored speculative narratives that intertwine personal care rituals with political intrigue, provoking whimsical contemplation of the potential connections between grooming and governance.

Although the literature provides valuable perspectives on the intersection of personal care and politics, our research team took a more unconventional approach to uncovering insights on this subject. In addition to academic sources and books, we also combed through an unexpected yet surprisingly informative resource—CVS receipts. By deconstructing the purchasing patterns of personal care products from a multitude of receipts, we stumbled upon both enlightening and peculiar revelations about the relationship between personal care expenditures and political preferences. It seems that in the vast sea of consumer transactions, there may be more to glean than meets the eye, much like finding an unexpected treasure in a box of facial tissues.

Seriously though, those CVS receipts are a goldmine of information! You never know what gems you'll find hidden between the coupons and promotions. But then again, maybe we're just getting carried away with all this research and need to scale back—like trying to squeeze out a tiny amount of toothpaste but ending up with a colossal, unruly blob. Nevertheless, our unconventional approach to literature review has yielded intriguing insights and shall undoubtedly add a refreshing twist to the scholarly discourse on the relationship between personal care spending and political dynamics.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse . You used data from 2000 to 2020

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Lather, Rinse, Repeat: A Sudsy Analysis of the Relationship Between Personal Care Spending and Libertarian Votes in Arizona

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the correlation between the annual household spending on personal care products and services in the United States and the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the state of Arizona. Our research team amusingly wrinkled their noses and dove into the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, all in the quest to untangle the strands of economic and political influence. Much to our surprise, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 and p < 0.01 for the timeframe spanning from 2000 to 2020—clearly hinting at a fascinating intertwining of grooming habits and political leanings. It seems that when it comes to voting, some Arizonans truly value bodacious body washes and fabulous fragrances, proving that political choices may not just be skin-deep!

Oh, and speaking of skin-deep, did you hear about the dermatologist who told a dad joke about skin care? He said, "I asked my patient if they wanted a moisturizer. They said, 'Sure, but please make sure it's none-greasy!'" But I digress. Our findings have left us shampoo-verwhelmed, and we're excited to present this groundbreaking research, showcasing how the state of one's shower shelves may just have the power to sway political decisions.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
How often do we consider the connection between the fragrant whiff of lavender shampoo and the scent of political inclination in the air? Probably not frequently enough! In the world of elections, every vote counts, and it seems that every dollar spent on personal care products might count as well. As we delve into this curious intersection of household spending and political preferences, we can't help but marvel at the unexpected correlations that emerge—much like when you accidentally discover a lost hair tie in the depths of the bathroom cabinet. It's a revelation that leaves you both perplexed and amused!
Connecting politics and personal care is not unlike blending the perfect shampoo formula—there are bound to be some surprising results. The findings of this study just might leave you feeling foamy with excitement, akin to when you manage to generate an excessively ample amount of foam from a dollop of hand soap. Ah, the simple pleasures in life!
So, what drew us to this quirky research question, you might ask? Well, the allure of uncovering correlations in the most unexpected places is a bit like that elusive search for the perfect hair conditioner—it's a pursuit that never seems to end! And much like the feeling of a good hair day, discovering a strong statistical relationship between personal care spending and political choices can be wonderfully uplifting.
But speaking of hair care, did you hear about the politician who tried to boost their popularity with a hair-related campaign promise? They said, "I promise to lower taxes and increase the volume of hair on every citizen's head—now that's what I call a rootin' tootin' policy!" An apt pun for our investigation, as we uncover the intricate interweaving of shampoo suds and political studs in the context of Arizona's electoral dynamics.
As we embark on this journey through the lather, rinse, repeat cycle of statistical analysis, let's explore the fascinating relationship between personal care spending and Libertarian votes in Arizona. It's a tale that might just leave you with a toothpaste-stained grin, akin to the joy of a surprising quip from a toothpaste commercial. So, hold onto your loofahs, for we're about to dive headfirst into the sudsy sea of data and election results, with the hope of unraveling this curious correlation and emerging with a newfound appreciation for the pivotal role of personal care products in the political sphere.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To fathom the tantalizing relationship between personal care spending and Libertarian votes in Arizona, our research team approached the data with the precision of a hairstylist trimming split ends. We meticulously combed through the annual household spending data on personal care products and services provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, selecting categories ranging from hair care products to cosmetic services. This approach allowed us to capture the full spectrum of personal grooming habits, much like a comprehensive salon menu catering to all hair types and preferences.

To complement this, we delved into the election records provided by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, akin to a diligent trek through a political jungle, searching for the hidden shrubs of Libertarian votes amidst the electoral landscape. The data was then meticulously shampooed, rinsed, and repeated to ensure its cleanliness and reliability, much like the rigorous cleansing process of a high-quality shampoo with nourishing ingredients.

Now, let's talk about the statistical analysis, but first, a joke to lighten the mood: Why don't statisticians trust barbers? Because they always make the cut! Speaking of cutting, we used sophisticated statistical techniques, including correlation analysis and regression modeling, to untangle the perplexing web of personal care spending and Libertarian votes. Our modeling process was as thorough as a comprehensive spa treatment, ensuring that every variable was given the attention it deserved and leaving no statistical stone unturned.

Furthermore, we employed a time-series analysis to capture the dynamic interplay between personal care spending and Libertarian votes over the past two decades, as if we were observing the evolving trends of a hairstyle from the 2000s to the roaring twenties. This allowed us to assess how the relationship between grooming and voting habits has evolved over time, much like tracking the changing fashions of a soap opera character’s wardrobe.

Our methodological approach was as meticulous as the process of reviewing a multitude of haircare product reviews before settling on the perfect shampoo. By combining robust statistical techniques with a touch of levity, our analysis sought to shed light on the surprisingly deep-seated connections between personal care spending and political preferences in Arizona.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

For the time period 2000 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9301189, r-squared of 0.8651212, 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]]
Lather, Rinse, Repeat: A Sudsy Analysis of the Relationship Between Personal Care Spending and Libertarian Votes in Arizona

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the correlation between the annual household spending on personal care products and services in the United States and the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the state of Arizona. Our research team amusingly wrinkled their noses and dove into the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, all in the quest to untangle the strands of economic and political influence. Much to our surprise, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 and p < 0.01 for the timeframe spanning from 2000 to 2020—clearly hinting at a fascinating intertwining of grooming habits and political leanings. It seems that when it comes to voting, some Arizonans truly value bodacious body washes and fabulous fragrances, proving that political choices may not just be skin-deep!

Oh, and speaking of skin-deep, did you hear about the dermatologist who told a dad joke about skin care? He said, "I asked my patient if they wanted a moisturizer. They said, 'Sure, but please make sure it's none-greasy!'" But I digress. Our findings have left us shampoo-verwhelmed, and we're excited to present this groundbreaking research, showcasing how the state of one's shower shelves may just have the power to sway political decisions.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
How often do we consider the connection between the fragrant whiff of lavender shampoo and the scent of political inclination in the air? Probably not frequently enough! In the world of elections, every vote counts, and it seems that every dollar spent on personal care products might count as well. As we delve into this curious intersection of household spending and political preferences, we can't help but marvel at the unexpected correlations that emerge—much like when you accidentally discover a lost hair tie in the depths of the bathroom cabinet. It's a revelation that leaves you both perplexed and amused!
Connecting politics and personal care is not unlike blending the perfect shampoo formula—there are bound to be some surprising results. The findings of this study just might leave you feeling foamy with excitement, akin to when you manage to generate an excessively ample amount of foam from a dollop of hand soap. Ah, the simple pleasures in life!
So, what drew us to this quirky research question, you might ask? Well, the allure of uncovering correlations in the most unexpected places is a bit like that elusive search for the perfect hair conditioner—it's a pursuit that never seems to end! And much like the feeling of a good hair day, discovering a strong statistical relationship between personal care spending and political choices can be wonderfully uplifting.
But speaking of hair care, did you hear about the politician who tried to boost their popularity with a hair-related campaign promise? They said, "I promise to lower taxes and increase the volume of hair on every citizen's head—now that's what I call a rootin' tootin' policy!" An apt pun for our investigation, as we uncover the intricate interweaving of shampoo suds and political studs in the context of Arizona's electoral dynamics.
As we embark on this journey through the lather, rinse, repeat cycle of statistical analysis, let's explore the fascinating relationship between personal care spending and Libertarian votes in Arizona. It's a tale that might just leave you with a toothpaste-stained grin, akin to the joy of a surprising quip from a toothpaste commercial. So, hold onto your loofahs, for we're about to dive headfirst into the sudsy sea of data and election results, with the hope of unraveling this curious correlation and emerging with a newfound appreciation for the pivotal role of personal care products in the political sphere.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our analysis reveal a remarkably strong correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the state of Arizona. The correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 denotes a highly positive relationship between these two variables, indicating that as personal care spending increases, so does the support for the Libertarian candidate in Arizona. It seems that in the realm of political choices, the aroma of fragrant soaps and the allure of luxurious lotions might exert a significant influence.

This striking correlation prompts one to ponder the compelling connection between grooming indulgences and political proclivities. It's as if individuals are not just casting their votes; they are also expressing their preferences through the products they adorn themselves with—a sort of "sent-imental" democracy, you could say.

The r-squared value of 0.8651212 further underscores the robustness of the relationship, suggesting that a sizable proportion of the variability in Libertarian votes in Arizona can be explained by variations in personal care spending. In essence, it appears that while one may lather, rinse, and repeat, the consistency in personal care spending patterns may also be echoed in the recurring support for a particular political ideology.

Now, let's take a moment to appreciate the peculiar parallel between personal care and political fervor. It's almost like shampoo and conditioner - two distinct entities that, when paired, create an optimally enriching experience. In the same vein, the amalgamation of personal care spending and electoral choices seems to render a distinctly robust pattern, reminiscent of how conditioner complements the cleansing prowess of shampoo.

The p-value of less than 0.01 signifies that the observed correlation is statistically significant, indicating that the likelihood of this relationship occurring due to random chance is exceedingly low. To put it simply, the chances of this correlation happening by sheer coincidence are as slim as the chances of finding a comb in a bald man's drawer—highly improbable, to say the least!

As a visual representation of our findings, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot illustrating the pronounced positive correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Arizona. The tightly clustered data points in the scatterplot affirm the consistency of the relationship, much like how a reliable deodorant stick affirms the consistency of personal fragrances.

In conclusion, our research has unveiled a compelling association between personal care spending and Libertarian votes in Arizona, hinting at the intriguing interplay between consumer behaviors and political affiliations. This study serves as a poignant reminder that in the colorful tapestry of electoral dynamics, the threads of personal grooming habits may weave an unexpectedly influential pattern. Much like a well-groomed beard, this correlation is not to be brushed aside lightly.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
Lather, Rinse, Repeat: A Sudsy Analysis of the Relationship Between Personal Care Spending and Libertarian Votes in Arizona

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the correlation between the annual household spending on personal care products and services in the United States and the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the state of Arizona. Our research team amusingly wrinkled their noses and dove into the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, all in the quest to untangle the strands of economic and political influence. Much to our surprise, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 and p < 0.01 for the timeframe spanning from 2000 to 2020—clearly hinting at a fascinating intertwining of grooming habits and political leanings. It seems that when it comes to voting, some Arizonans truly value bodacious body washes and fabulous fragrances, proving that political choices may not just be skin-deep!

Oh, and speaking of skin-deep, did you hear about the dermatologist who told a dad joke about skin care? He said, "I asked my patient if they wanted a moisturizer. They said, 'Sure, but please make sure it's none-greasy!'" But I digress. Our findings have left us shampoo-verwhelmed, and we're excited to present this groundbreaking research, showcasing how the state of one's shower shelves may just have the power to sway political decisions.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The relationship between household spending on personal care products and political behaviors has been a subject of growing interest in recent years. Smith (2015) illustrated the impact of consumer behavior on political affiliation, highlighting the potential influence of individual grooming habits on voting decisions. Additionally, Doe (2018) expanded on this line of inquiry by examining the connection between grooming expenditures and political alignments, shedding light on the nuanced interplay between personal care choices and party preferences. These studies underscore the importance of considering personal care spending as a potential determinant of political behavior.
Moving beyond traditional academic studies, non-fiction books such as "The Economics of Beauty" by Jones (2017) and "The Politics of Personal Grooming" by White (2019) have delved into the economic and sociopolitical dimensions of personal care habits, offering valuable insights into the societal significance of grooming practices. On a more fictional note, novels like "The Scent of Politics" by Green (2020) and "The Shampoo Conspiracy" by Black (2016) have explored speculative narratives that intertwine personal care rituals with political intrigue, provoking whimsical contemplation of the potential connections between grooming and governance.
Although the literature provides valuable perspectives on the intersection of personal care and politics, our research team took a more unconventional approach to uncovering insights on this subject. In addition to academic sources and books, we also combed through an unexpected yet surprisingly informative resource—CVS receipts. By deconstructing the purchasing patterns of personal care products from a multitude of receipts, we stumbled upon both enlightening and peculiar revelations about the relationship between personal care expenditures and political preferences. It seems that in the vast sea of consumer transactions, there may be more to glean than meets the eye, much like finding an unexpected treasure in a box of facial tissues.
Seriously though, those CVS receipts are a goldmine of information! You never know what gems you'll find hidden between the coupons and promotions. But then again, maybe we're just getting carried away with all this research and need to scale back—like trying to squeeze out a tiny amount of toothpaste but ending up with a colossal, unruly blob. Nevertheless, our unconventional approach to literature review has yielded intriguing insights and shall undoubtedly add a refreshing twist to the scholarly discourse on the relationship between personal care spending and political dynamics.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis reveal a remarkably strong correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the state of Arizona. The correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 denotes a highly positive relationship between these two variables, indicating that as personal care spending increases, so does the support for the Libertarian candidate in Arizona. It seems that in the realm of political choices, the aroma of fragrant soaps and the allure of luxurious lotions might exert a significant influence.
This striking correlation prompts one to ponder the compelling connection between grooming indulgences and political proclivities. It's as if individuals are not just casting their votes; they are also expressing their preferences through the products they adorn themselves with—a sort of "sent-imental" democracy, you could say.
The r-squared value of 0.8651212 further underscores the robustness of the relationship, suggesting that a sizable proportion of the variability in Libertarian votes in Arizona can be explained by variations in personal care spending. In essence, it appears that while one may lather, rinse, and repeat, the consistency in personal care spending patterns may also be echoed in the recurring support for a particular political ideology.
Now, let's take a moment to appreciate the peculiar parallel between personal care and political fervor. It's almost like shampoo and conditioner - two distinct entities that, when paired, create an optimally enriching experience. In the same vein, the amalgamation of personal care spending and electoral choices seems to render a distinctly robust pattern, reminiscent of how conditioner complements the cleansing prowess of shampoo.
The p-value of less than 0.01 signifies that the observed correlation is statistically significant, indicating that the likelihood of this relationship occurring due to random chance is exceedingly low. To put it simply, the chances of this correlation happening by sheer coincidence are as slim as the chances of finding a comb in a bald man's drawer—highly improbable, to say the least!
As a visual representation of our findings, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot illustrating the pronounced positive correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Arizona. The tightly clustered data points in the scatterplot affirm the consistency of the relationship, much like how a reliable deodorant stick affirms the consistency of personal fragrances.
In conclusion, our research has unveiled a compelling association between personal care spending and Libertarian votes in Arizona, hinting at the intriguing interplay between consumer behaviors and political affiliations. This study serves as a poignant reminder that in the colorful tapestry of electoral dynamics, the threads of personal grooming habits may weave an unexpectedly influential pattern. Much like a well-groomed beard, this correlation is not to be brushed aside lightly.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings have certainly opened a Pandora's box of intriguing revelations, akin to finding a treasure trove of grooming goodies in the bathroom cabinet. The correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Arizona mirrors the harmonious symphony of a well-blended shampoo and conditioner duo. The robust correlation coefficient and r-squared value affirm the potency of the relationship, amplifying the idea that perhaps, in the realm of political choices, scent indeed plays a pivotal role.

Our results not only echo the prior research by Smith (2015) and Doe (2018) but also harmonize with the whimsical contemplations presented in novels such as "The Scent of Politics" by Green (2020) and "The Shampoo Conspiracy" by Black (2016). It seems that the intersection of personal care habits and political orientations is not merely a fanciful notion but a tangible phenomenon worthy of scholarly exploration. Much like finding a comb in a bald man's drawer, the likelihood of this correlation occurring by random chance is as slim as the last sliver of soap clinging to the shower floor.

Moreover, our unconventional literature review approach, including the exploration of CVS receipts, has shed light on the unexpected but informative patterns hidden in the labyrinth of consumer transactions. This echoes the sentiment that amidst a sea of mundane purchases lie deep-seated insights into the interwoven tapestry of economic choices and political predispositions.

In essence, our research reinforces the notion that personal care spending may not just be about skincare—it may also be a matter of political care. We are both amazed and enriched by the underpinning implications of this correlation, akin to the enriching effects of a nourishing hair mask. This study reflects the assertion that when it comes to political persuasions, the adage "first impressions count" appears to extend from personal appearances to personal spending habits. Just as a moisturizer that promises to be 'none-greasy' is a rare gem, the likelihood of stumbling upon such a statistically significant correlation is equally rare.

Ultimately, our research has not only unveiled a link between personal care spending and Libertarian votes in Arizona but has also unfurled a thought-provoking realm where grooming and governance intersect. As we continue to ponder these unexpected connections, we are reminded that in the saga of political dynamics, even the most seemingly trivial consumer habits may leave an indelible mark. It's almost as if, in the sea of political choices, a touch of shampoo commercial-worthy drama sneaks in—where the aroma of freedom and the allure of indulgent grooming rituals collide in a captivating dance.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Lather, Rinse, Repeat: A Sudsy Analysis of the Relationship Between Personal Care Spending and Libertarian Votes in Arizona

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delved into the correlation between the annual household spending on personal care products and services in the United States and the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the state of Arizona. Our research team amusingly wrinkled their noses and dove into the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, all in the quest to untangle the strands of economic and political influence. Much to our surprise, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 and p < 0.01 for the timeframe spanning from 2000 to 2020—clearly hinting at a fascinating intertwining of grooming habits and political leanings. It seems that when it comes to voting, some Arizonans truly value bodacious body washes and fabulous fragrances, proving that political choices may not just be skin-deep!

Oh, and speaking of skin-deep, did you hear about the dermatologist who told a dad joke about skin care? He said, "I asked my patient if they wanted a moisturizer. They said, 'Sure, but please make sure it's none-greasy!'" But I digress. Our findings have left us shampoo-verwhelmed, and we're excited to present this groundbreaking research, showcasing how the state of one's shower shelves may just have the power to sway political decisions.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
How often do we consider the connection between the fragrant whiff of lavender shampoo and the scent of political inclination in the air? Probably not frequently enough! In the world of elections, every vote counts, and it seems that every dollar spent on personal care products might count as well. As we delve into this curious intersection of household spending and political preferences, we can't help but marvel at the unexpected correlations that emerge—much like when you accidentally discover a lost hair tie in the depths of the bathroom cabinet. It's a revelation that leaves you both perplexed and amused!
Connecting politics and personal care is not unlike blending the perfect shampoo formula—there are bound to be some surprising results. The findings of this study just might leave you feeling foamy with excitement, akin to when you manage to generate an excessively ample amount of foam from a dollop of hand soap. Ah, the simple pleasures in life!
So, what drew us to this quirky research question, you might ask? Well, the allure of uncovering correlations in the most unexpected places is a bit like that elusive search for the perfect hair conditioner—it's a pursuit that never seems to end! And much like the feeling of a good hair day, discovering a strong statistical relationship between personal care spending and political choices can be wonderfully uplifting.
But speaking of hair care, did you hear about the politician who tried to boost their popularity with a hair-related campaign promise? They said, "I promise to lower taxes and increase the volume of hair on every citizen's head—now that's what I call a rootin' tootin' policy!" An apt pun for our investigation, as we uncover the intricate interweaving of shampoo suds and political studs in the context of Arizona's electoral dynamics.
As we embark on this journey through the lather, rinse, repeat cycle of statistical analysis, let's explore the fascinating relationship between personal care spending and Libertarian votes in Arizona. It's a tale that might just leave you with a toothpaste-stained grin, akin to the joy of a surprising quip from a toothpaste commercial. So, hold onto your loofahs, for we're about to dive headfirst into the sudsy sea of data and election results, with the hope of unraveling this curious correlation and emerging with a newfound appreciation for the pivotal role of personal care products in the political sphere.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis reveal a remarkably strong correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the state of Arizona. The correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 denotes a highly positive relationship between these two variables, indicating that as personal care spending increases, so does the support for the Libertarian candidate in Arizona. It seems that in the realm of political choices, the aroma of fragrant soaps and the allure of luxurious lotions might exert a significant influence.
This striking correlation prompts one to ponder the compelling connection between grooming indulgences and political proclivities. It's as if individuals are not just casting their votes; they are also expressing their preferences through the products they adorn themselves with—a sort of "sent-imental" democracy, you could say.
The r-squared value of 0.8651212 further underscores the robustness of the relationship, suggesting that a sizable proportion of the variability in Libertarian votes in Arizona can be explained by variations in personal care spending. In essence, it appears that while one may lather, rinse, and repeat, the consistency in personal care spending patterns may also be echoed in the recurring support for a particular political ideology.
Now, let's take a moment to appreciate the peculiar parallel between personal care and political fervor. It's almost like shampoo and conditioner - two distinct entities that, when paired, create an optimally enriching experience. In the same vein, the amalgamation of personal care spending and electoral choices seems to render a distinctly robust pattern, reminiscent of how conditioner complements the cleansing prowess of shampoo.
The p-value of less than 0.01 signifies that the observed correlation is statistically significant, indicating that the likelihood of this relationship occurring due to random chance is exceedingly low. To put it simply, the chances of this correlation happening by sheer coincidence are as slim as the chances of finding a comb in a bald man's drawer—highly improbable, to say the least!
As a visual representation of our findings, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot illustrating the pronounced positive correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Arizona. The tightly clustered data points in the scatterplot affirm the consistency of the relationship, much like how a reliable deodorant stick affirms the consistency of personal fragrances.
In conclusion, our research has unveiled a compelling association between personal care spending and Libertarian votes in Arizona, hinting at the intriguing interplay between consumer behaviors and political affiliations. This study serves as a poignant reminder that in the colorful tapestry of electoral dynamics, the threads of personal grooming habits may weave an unexpectedly influential pattern. Much like a well-groomed beard, this correlation is not to be brushed aside lightly.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In wrapping up our sudsy analysis, it's clear that personal care spending and political leanings in Arizona are more intertwined than a pair of mismatched socks in the laundry. Our findings suggest that as household spending on personal care products and services increases, so does the support for the Libertarian presidential candidate, painting a picture of a politically fragrant state. It seems that when it comes to voting, Arizonans really know how to "lather" on the love for personal care products.

And on that note, did you hear about the barber who moonlighted as a comedian? He was a cut above the rest, always delivering razor-sharp jokes with impeccable timing. But I digress. Our analysis has presented a robust relationship between grooming goodies and political preferences, reaffirming the adage that political choices may not just be skin-deep. One might even say that our findings have left us soapy-eyed with emotion.

In light of these results, it seems clear that no more research in this area is needed. After all, when it comes to the correlation between personal care spending and Libertarian votes in Arizona, we've already uncovered more than enough material to keep us shampoo-verwhelmed for the foreseeable future.


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 Lather, Rinse, Repeat: A Sudsy Analysis of the Relationship Between Personal Care Spending and Libertarian Votes in Arizona. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Suds and Democracy


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 Lather, Rinse, Repeat: A Sudsy Analysis of the Relationship Between Personal Care Spending and Libertarian Votes in Arizona. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Consortium for Sudsy Sociopolitical 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 Lather, Rinse, Repeat: A Sudsy Analysis of the Relationship Between Personal Care Spending and Libertarian Votes in Arizona with an abstract of In this study, we delved into the correlation between the annual household spending on personal care products and services in the United States and the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the state of Arizona. Our research team amusingly wrinkled their noses and dove into the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, all in the quest to untangle the strands of economic and political influence. Much to our surprise, we stumbled upon a correlation coefficient of 0.9301189 and p < 0.01 for the timeframe spanning from 2000 to 2020—clearly hinting at a fascinating intertwining of grooming habits and political leanings. It seems that when it comes to voting, some Arizonans truly value bodacious body washes and fabulous fragrances, proving that political choices may not just be skin-deep!
Oh, and speaking of skin-deep, did you hear about the dermatologist who told a dad joke about skin care? He said, "I asked my patient if they wanted a moisturizer. They said, 'Sure, but please make sure it's none-greasy!'" But I digress. Our findings have left us shampoo-verwhelmed, and we're excited to present this groundbreaking research, showcasing how the state of one's shower shelves may just have the power to sway political decisions.

ChatGPT:

personal care spending, household spending, personal care products, personal care services, spending correlation, political leanings, libertarian votes, Arizona, Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, grooming habits, political influence, correlation coefficient, political choices, Arizona voters, body wash, fragrances, political decisions

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Annual US household spending on personal care products and services
Detailed data title: Average annual household spend on personal care products and services
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with Annual US household spending on personal care products and services

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

Correlation r = 0.9301189 (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 = 0.8651212 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 86.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Annual US household spending on personal care products and services) over the 6 years from 2000 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0072. 0.0071544161572559420000000000
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 0.72% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 140 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 5 because we have two variables measured over a period of 6 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.48, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200020042008201220162020
Annual US household spending on personal care products and services (Household spend)564581616628707646
Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona (Percentage of votes)0.3769540.5890930.5474231.396114.132151.51934




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
  5. 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([564,581,616,628,707,646,])
array_2 = np.array([0.376954,0.589093,0.547423,1.39611,4.13215,1.51934,])
array_1_name = "Annual US household spending on personal care products and services"
array_2_name = "Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Arizona"

# 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 correlation rating is out of this world!


Correlation ID: 5104 · Black Variable ID: 19940 · Red Variable ID: 26056
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0