about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,146 · 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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine and the second variable is Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the number of people supporting the Libertarians rose, so did the frequency of parking brake malfunctions. It seems that with more votes for the party of personal freedom, the parking brakes felt emboldened to liberate cars from their stationary positions! It's as if the candidate's rallying cry of "Brake free!" was inadvertently echoing through the automotive world, leading the parking brakes to throw off their restraints and demand autonomy on the roads. This correlation suggests that when it comes to parking brakes, the real struggle is between individual liberty and societal safety. It's a political 'wheel' of fortune, where each vote cast had a 'braking' effect on the automotive industry. After all, in the race for political representation, it appears that the parking brakes were determined to have their voices – or rather, their screeches – heard on the campaign trail!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie, depicting a parking lot in Maine. The cars in the parking lot have "Libertarian" bumper stickers and are lined up, each with its parking brake engaged. With more voters rallying behind the Libertarian candidate, the parking brakes of the cars start to disengage, creating a defiant and freeing atmosphere in the parking lot. The correlation between the rising Libertarian votes and the parking brake malfunctions becomes a whimsical visual representation of personal liberty. 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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. 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: Charcoal Glitch art An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie Minimalism Realistic
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie

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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake, in the following situation: As the number of people supporting the Libertarians rose, so did the frequency of parking brake malfunctions. It seems that with more votes for the party of personal freedom, the parking brakes felt emboldened to liberate cars from their stationary positions! It's as if the candidate's rallying cry of "Brake free!" was inadvertently echoing through the automotive world, leading the parking brakes to throw off their restraints and demand autonomy on the roads. This correlation suggests that when it comes to parking brakes, the real struggle is between individual liberty and societal safety. It's a political 'wheel' of fortune, where each vote cast had a 'braking' effect on the automotive industry. After all, in the race for political representation, it appears that the parking brakes were determined to have their voices – or rather, their screeches – heard on the campaign trail!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a parking lot in Maine, cars with "Libertarian" bumper stickers lined up, each with its parking brake engaged. As more voters rallied behind the Libertarian candidate, the sound of screeching brakes filled the air as the parking brakes defiantly disengaged. The cars seemed to be asserting their freedom, echoing the candidate's call for personal liberty. The correlation between rising Libertarian votes and parking brake malfunctions was as clear as the slogan "Brake Free!" that reverberated through the automotive world.

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: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie ] and depicting this scene: In a parking lot in Maine, cars with "Libertarian" bumper stickers lined up, each with its parking brake engaged. As more voters rallied behind the Libertarian candidate, the sound of screeching brakes filled the air as the parking brakes defiantly disengaged. The cars seemed to be asserting their freedom, echoing the candidate's call for personal liberty. The correlation between rising Libertarian votes and parking brake malfunctions was as clear as the slogan "Brake Free!" that reverberated through the automotive world. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie, depicting a parking lot in Maine. The cars in the parking lot have "Libertarian" bumper stickers and are lined up, each with its parking brake engaged. With more voters rallying behind the Libertarian candidate, the parking brakes of the cars start to disengage, creating a defiant and freeing atmosphere in the parking lot. The correlation between the rising Libertarian votes and the parking brake malfunctions becomes a whimsical visual representation of personal liberty.

*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 increases in Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine positively influenced Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Breaking News: Parking Brake Politics - The Correlation Between Libertarian Votes in Maine and Automotive Recalls

The Journal of Whimsical Political Science

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 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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, make it sound serious.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and US DOT to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 and p < 0.01 for 1980 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]]
"Breaking News: Parking Brake Politics - The Correlation Between Libertarian Votes in Maine and Automotive Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the intriguing relationship between voter behavior in Maine and automotive recalls related to parking brake issues. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning the years from 1980 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 and p < 0.01, shedding light on the surprisingly intertwined nature of political preferences and vehicular safety features. The implications of these results extend beyond the field of automotive safety, serving as a quirky testament to the unforeseen connections present in the political and automotive realms. Through this research, we aim to ignite a spark of curiosity and invite further exploration into the delightful yet unexpected relationship between electoral choices and mechanical maladies.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Breaking News: Parking Brake Politics - The Correlation Between Libertarian Votes in Maine and Automotive Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the intriguing relationship between voter behavior in Maine and automotive recalls related to parking brake issues. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning the years from 1980 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 and p < 0.01, shedding light on the surprisingly intertwined nature of political preferences and vehicular safety features. The implications of these results extend beyond the field of automotive safety, serving as a quirky testament to the unforeseen connections present in the political and automotive realms. Through this research, we aim to ignite a spark of curiosity and invite further exploration into the delightful yet unexpected relationship between electoral choices and mechanical maladies.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The world of politics and the realm of automotive engineering may seem like two entirely separate universes, but as our research will unearth, there exists an unexpected link between these seemingly disparate domains. While common sense might dictate that the only connection between political choices and vehicle recalls would be the unpleasant experience of finding parking brake issues after leaving the polling station, our diligent analysis has uncovered a correlation that is as puzzling as finding a wrench in your ballot box.

As researchers, we are accustomed to seeking causality and logical relationships between variables, like detectives hunting for clues in an intellectual whodunnit. Yet, every so often, we stumble upon a correlation that leaves us scratching our heads and flipping through the statistical textbook to confirm that our findings are not the result of some arcane mathematical mishap. In the case of our study, we found ourselves wading through piles of data from election polls and automotive recalls, searching for a common thread in the political preferences of Mainers and the reliability of their parking brakes. Much to our surprise, what emerged was not a mere statistical blip but a robust correlation worthy of raising an eyebrow or two.

Before delving into our findings, it is worth considering the rigor with which we approached this peculiar investigation. With one foot firmly planted in the world of electoral data and the other navigating the database of automotive mishaps, we endeavored to conduct an analysis that was as thorough as checking under the hood of a vintage election campaign bus. Our methodology involved scrutinizing decades of historical data and subjecting it to rigorous statistical analysis that would make even the most seasoned number-cruncher nod in approval.

The implications of our findings extend beyond the field of statistical oddities, delving into the realm of electoral sociology and automotive safety. What we uncovered was not merely a statistical anomaly but a mesmerizing dance between the voting inclinations of a state and the mechanical quirks of its automobiles – a pairing worthy of a Broadway musical number, if ever there was one. In the pages that follow, we invite you to join us in unpacking this unlikely romance between politics and parking brakes, as we uncover just how closely intertwined voter behavior and vehicular recalls can be.

Our study serves as a testament to the curious, interconnected nature of seemingly unrelated facets of society, highlighting that behind every mundane statistic lies a potential story waiting to be uncovered. So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a truly unexpected journey through the corridors of political polling and the garages of automotive repair – a journey that promises not just statistical intrigue, but a healthy dose of surprise and bemusement along the way.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. 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. Perhaps you also got inspiration from some board games that are vaugely related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Breaking News: Parking Brake Politics - The Correlation Between Libertarian Votes in Maine and Automotive Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the intriguing relationship between voter behavior in Maine and automotive recalls related to parking brake issues. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning the years from 1980 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 and p < 0.01, shedding light on the surprisingly intertwined nature of political preferences and vehicular safety features. The implications of these results extend beyond the field of automotive safety, serving as a quirky testament to the unforeseen connections present in the political and automotive realms. Through this research, we aim to ignite a spark of curiosity and invite further exploration into the delightful yet unexpected relationship between electoral choices and mechanical maladies.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The world of politics and the realm of automotive engineering may seem like two entirely separate universes, but as our research will unearth, there exists an unexpected link between these seemingly disparate domains. While common sense might dictate that the only connection between political choices and vehicle recalls would be the unpleasant experience of finding parking brake issues after leaving the polling station, our diligent analysis has uncovered a correlation that is as puzzling as finding a wrench in your ballot box.
As researchers, we are accustomed to seeking causality and logical relationships between variables, like detectives hunting for clues in an intellectual whodunnit. Yet, every so often, we stumble upon a correlation that leaves us scratching our heads and flipping through the statistical textbook to confirm that our findings are not the result of some arcane mathematical mishap. In the case of our study, we found ourselves wading through piles of data from election polls and automotive recalls, searching for a common thread in the political preferences of Mainers and the reliability of their parking brakes. Much to our surprise, what emerged was not a mere statistical blip but a robust correlation worthy of raising an eyebrow or two.
Before delving into our findings, it is worth considering the rigor with which we approached this peculiar investigation. With one foot firmly planted in the world of electoral data and the other navigating the database of automotive mishaps, we endeavored to conduct an analysis that was as thorough as checking under the hood of a vintage election campaign bus. Our methodology involved scrutinizing decades of historical data and subjecting it to rigorous statistical analysis that would make even the most seasoned number-cruncher nod in approval.
The implications of our findings extend beyond the field of statistical oddities, delving into the realm of electoral sociology and automotive safety. What we uncovered was not merely a statistical anomaly but a mesmerizing dance between the voting inclinations of a state and the mechanical quirks of its automobiles – a pairing worthy of a Broadway musical number, if ever there was one. In the pages that follow, we invite you to join us in unpacking this unlikely romance between politics and parking brakes, as we uncover just how closely intertwined voter behavior and vehicular recalls can be.
Our study serves as a testament to the curious, interconnected nature of seemingly unrelated facets of society, highlighting that behind every mundane statistic lies a potential story waiting to be uncovered. So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a truly unexpected journey through the corridors of political polling and the garages of automotive repair – a journey that promises not just statistical intrigue, but a healthy dose of surprise and bemusement along the way.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Our curiosity piqued by the unusual correlation we uncovered, we embarked on a literary expedition through the annals of scholarly research and literature, much like intrepid explorers traversing uncharted territories. We sought to unearth any inkling of a connection between electoral choices and vehicular foibles, and what we discovered is nothing short of a potpourri of unexpected twists and turns.

In "Election Dynamics in Maine," Smith and Doe delve into the intricate fabric of voter behavior in the state, painting a comprehensive portrait of the political landscape that serves as our jumping-off point. While their focus is on traditional party affiliations, our own analysis extends to the peculiar tendencies exhibited by Maine's Libertarian voters – a group often overlooked but, as we argue, wielding curious influence over the automotive realm.

Venturing beyond the realm of political science, we stumbled upon "Automotive Woes: A Comprehensive Study," where Jones and Smith meticulously catalog the spectrum of vehicular maladies. Their work, while not directly addressing parking brake peculiarities, offers valuable insight into the interconnected web of automotive intricacies, sparking a glimmer of hope that there may be a nugget of wisdom to be gleaned from the pages of vehicular misfortune.

As we combed through the literature, we couldn't help but notice the stark absence of a direct link between political predilections and parking brake predicaments – an oversight tantamount to missing a glaring "check engine" light. Nevertheless, undeterred by the scholarly lacuna, we heeded the age-old advice to "follow the clues," even if they were as elusive as a politician's promise.

Turning our attention to non-fiction tomes of related interest, we considered "The Art of Political Persuasion" and "Engineering Wonders and Blunders." While the former regales us with the intricacies of political campaigns, the latter offers a riveting showcase of engineering mishaps that mirror the unpredictability of electoral outcomes, albeit in a more mechanical form.

In our quest for insights, we also sought inspiration from fiction works that seemed tangentially relevant to our research. The eerie parallels between Orwell's "1984," where Big Brother watches over citizens with a scrutinizing eye, and the meticulous oversight needed for automotive safety, provide a rich tapestry of contemplation. Meanwhile, the mischievous escapades in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Adams introduce a whimsical element that mirrors the surprising nature of our findings – a veritable "Don't Panic" sign in the face of the unpredictability of statistical associations.

As we explored the labyrinth of literature, our minds wandered to diverse sources of inspiration, including board games such as Clue – a game rooted in the pursuit of uncovering hidden connections and solving mysteries. Much like Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick, we found ourselves piecing together disparate clues to illuminate the enigmatic relationship between political choices and parking brake predicaments.

With a chuckle and a raised eyebrow, we now invite our readers to join us on this scholarly escapade as we unravel the perplexing yet oddly delightful bond between libertarian votes in Maine and automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake, aiming to infuse a dose of levity into a subject that unites the unexpected, much like an off-duty clown connoisseur at a political rally.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and US DOT . You used data from 1980 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]]
"Breaking News: Parking Brake Politics - The Correlation Between Libertarian Votes in Maine and Automotive Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the intriguing relationship between voter behavior in Maine and automotive recalls related to parking brake issues. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning the years from 1980 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 and p < 0.01, shedding light on the surprisingly intertwined nature of political preferences and vehicular safety features. The implications of these results extend beyond the field of automotive safety, serving as a quirky testament to the unforeseen connections present in the political and automotive realms. Through this research, we aim to ignite a spark of curiosity and invite further exploration into the delightful yet unexpected relationship between electoral choices and mechanical maladies.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The world of politics and the realm of automotive engineering may seem like two entirely separate universes, but as our research will unearth, there exists an unexpected link between these seemingly disparate domains. While common sense might dictate that the only connection between political choices and vehicle recalls would be the unpleasant experience of finding parking brake issues after leaving the polling station, our diligent analysis has uncovered a correlation that is as puzzling as finding a wrench in your ballot box.
As researchers, we are accustomed to seeking causality and logical relationships between variables, like detectives hunting for clues in an intellectual whodunnit. Yet, every so often, we stumble upon a correlation that leaves us scratching our heads and flipping through the statistical textbook to confirm that our findings are not the result of some arcane mathematical mishap. In the case of our study, we found ourselves wading through piles of data from election polls and automotive recalls, searching for a common thread in the political preferences of Mainers and the reliability of their parking brakes. Much to our surprise, what emerged was not a mere statistical blip but a robust correlation worthy of raising an eyebrow or two.
Before delving into our findings, it is worth considering the rigor with which we approached this peculiar investigation. With one foot firmly planted in the world of electoral data and the other navigating the database of automotive mishaps, we endeavored to conduct an analysis that was as thorough as checking under the hood of a vintage election campaign bus. Our methodology involved scrutinizing decades of historical data and subjecting it to rigorous statistical analysis that would make even the most seasoned number-cruncher nod in approval.
The implications of our findings extend beyond the field of statistical oddities, delving into the realm of electoral sociology and automotive safety. What we uncovered was not merely a statistical anomaly but a mesmerizing dance between the voting inclinations of a state and the mechanical quirks of its automobiles – a pairing worthy of a Broadway musical number, if ever there was one. In the pages that follow, we invite you to join us in unpacking this unlikely romance between politics and parking brakes, as we uncover just how closely intertwined voter behavior and vehicular recalls can be.
Our study serves as a testament to the curious, interconnected nature of seemingly unrelated facets of society, highlighting that behind every mundane statistic lies a potential story waiting to be uncovered. So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a truly unexpected journey through the corridors of political polling and the garages of automotive repair – a journey that promises not just statistical intrigue, but a healthy dose of surprise and bemusement along the way.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the enigmatic relationship between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Maine and automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake, we embarked on a methodological journey as winding as a Maine country road. Our approach, while rigorous, was tailor-made to dissect this intriguing correlation and navigate the labyrinth of statistical nuances.

We amassed a wealth of historical data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation like treasure hunters scouring the internet for buried statistical gems. The eclectic mix of data sources contributed to a rich tapestry that encapsulated the political landscape and the automotive sphere from 1980 to 2020.

With data in hand and curiosity as our compass, we dived headfirst into the unfathomable ocean of statistical methods. Our statistical arsenal included robust techniques such as linear regression, multivariate analysis, and time-series modeling to dissect the intricate relationship between electoral choices and parking brake malfunctions. As we navigated through the murky waters of statistical analysis, we ensured that our approach was as precise as aligning the wheels of a Formula One racing car.

In our quest for understanding, we employed a variety of analytical tools to scrutinize the correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Maine, a state known for its lobsters and electoral surprises, and the occurrence of automotive recalls specifically related to parking brake issues. The use of statistical software akin to wielding a sonic screwdriver allowed us to uncover patterns and relationships hidden within the labyrinth of electoral and automotive data, unraveling a tale as unexpected as finding a spare tire in a ballot box.

Furthermore, our methodology involved the application of rigorous hypothesis testing to ensure that our findings were not a mere statistical snafu. With p-values as our sherpa guides through the treacherous peaks of statistical significance, we navigated the rugged terrain of hypothesis testing to ascertain the robustness of the observed correlation.

Our methodology was underpinned by a commitment to thoroughness and scientific integrity, akin to inspecting an engine for even the minutest of flaws. Through our methodological odyssey, we sought to wield the precision of a mathematician and the inquisitiveness of a detective, ultimately unearthing a correlation as captivating as a cryptic crossword puzzle.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

For the time period 1980 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9705206, r-squared of 0.9419102, 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]]
"Breaking News: Parking Brake Politics - The Correlation Between Libertarian Votes in Maine and Automotive Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the intriguing relationship between voter behavior in Maine and automotive recalls related to parking brake issues. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning the years from 1980 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 and p < 0.01, shedding light on the surprisingly intertwined nature of political preferences and vehicular safety features. The implications of these results extend beyond the field of automotive safety, serving as a quirky testament to the unforeseen connections present in the political and automotive realms. Through this research, we aim to ignite a spark of curiosity and invite further exploration into the delightful yet unexpected relationship between electoral choices and mechanical maladies.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The world of politics and the realm of automotive engineering may seem like two entirely separate universes, but as our research will unearth, there exists an unexpected link between these seemingly disparate domains. While common sense might dictate that the only connection between political choices and vehicle recalls would be the unpleasant experience of finding parking brake issues after leaving the polling station, our diligent analysis has uncovered a correlation that is as puzzling as finding a wrench in your ballot box.
As researchers, we are accustomed to seeking causality and logical relationships between variables, like detectives hunting for clues in an intellectual whodunnit. Yet, every so often, we stumble upon a correlation that leaves us scratching our heads and flipping through the statistical textbook to confirm that our findings are not the result of some arcane mathematical mishap. In the case of our study, we found ourselves wading through piles of data from election polls and automotive recalls, searching for a common thread in the political preferences of Mainers and the reliability of their parking brakes. Much to our surprise, what emerged was not a mere statistical blip but a robust correlation worthy of raising an eyebrow or two.
Before delving into our findings, it is worth considering the rigor with which we approached this peculiar investigation. With one foot firmly planted in the world of electoral data and the other navigating the database of automotive mishaps, we endeavored to conduct an analysis that was as thorough as checking under the hood of a vintage election campaign bus. Our methodology involved scrutinizing decades of historical data and subjecting it to rigorous statistical analysis that would make even the most seasoned number-cruncher nod in approval.
The implications of our findings extend beyond the field of statistical oddities, delving into the realm of electoral sociology and automotive safety. What we uncovered was not merely a statistical anomaly but a mesmerizing dance between the voting inclinations of a state and the mechanical quirks of its automobiles – a pairing worthy of a Broadway musical number, if ever there was one. In the pages that follow, we invite you to join us in unpacking this unlikely romance between politics and parking brakes, as we uncover just how closely intertwined voter behavior and vehicular recalls can be.
Our study serves as a testament to the curious, interconnected nature of seemingly unrelated facets of society, highlighting that behind every mundane statistic lies a potential story waiting to be uncovered. So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a truly unexpected journey through the corridors of political polling and the garages of automotive repair – a journey that promises not just statistical intrigue, but a healthy dose of surprise and bemusement along the way.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Upon delving into the vast ocean of data collected and meticulously scrutinized through painstaking analysis, our research team uncovered a most astonishing finding: a remarkably strong correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Maine and automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake. The correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 revealed a nearly perfect positive relationship, akin to discovering that two seemingly unrelated phenomena are cosmically connected like binary stars in the statistical galaxy.

The r-squared value of 0.9419102 fortified the robustness of this correlation, signaling that a staggering 94.19% of the variability in automotive recalls for parking brake malfunctions can be attributed to the votes cast for the Libertarian candidate in Maine. It's as if this correlation were the automotive equivalent of a parking brake ensuring that statistical variance can't make a getaway.

The level of statistical significance, denoted by p < 0.01, further solidified the legitimacy of our findings, providing clear evidence that the observed correlation is not merely a statistical fluke but a bona fide relationship worthy of scrutiny and intrigue. In statistical terms, it's akin to finding the ultimate parking spot within the realm of significance.

Fig. 1 exhibits a visual representation of this extraordinary correlation in the form of a scatterplot, demonstrating the tight clustering of data points that unmistakably portray the interplay between the two variables. One might even visualize the plot as a road map charting the unexpected journey from political polling stations to automotive repair shops, with each data point marking a crossroads where political predilections and mechanical mishaps intersect.

The implications of these findings are as vast as an expanse of parallel-parked dreams. This unanticipated correlation challenges conventional wisdom, beckoning us to ponder the intricate ways in which political ideologies and vehicular safety intertwine. It is a testament to the quirks and idiosyncrasies that permeate the tapestry of human society, reminding us that beneath every statistical analysis lies a myriad of captivating stories waiting to be uncovered.

Our findings invite a rethinking of the curious conjunction between electoral choices and mechanical exigencies, urging further exploration into the unexpected relationships that shape our world. In the grand symphony of statistical analysis, this correlation serves as a soloist, demanding attention and applause for revealing the harmonious, yet enigmatic, duet performed by politics and parking brakes. As we navigate through the convoluted highways of statistical correlations, let us not forget that sometimes, the most revelatory insights are found in the unlikeliest of places - even in the purview of political preferences and automotive peculiarities.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"Breaking News: Parking Brake Politics - The Correlation Between Libertarian Votes in Maine and Automotive Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the intriguing relationship between voter behavior in Maine and automotive recalls related to parking brake issues. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning the years from 1980 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 and p < 0.01, shedding light on the surprisingly intertwined nature of political preferences and vehicular safety features. The implications of these results extend beyond the field of automotive safety, serving as a quirky testament to the unforeseen connections present in the political and automotive realms. Through this research, we aim to ignite a spark of curiosity and invite further exploration into the delightful yet unexpected relationship between electoral choices and mechanical maladies.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Our curiosity piqued by the unusual correlation we uncovered, we embarked on a literary expedition through the annals of scholarly research and literature, much like intrepid explorers traversing uncharted territories. We sought to unearth any inkling of a connection between electoral choices and vehicular foibles, and what we discovered is nothing short of a potpourri of unexpected twists and turns.
In "Election Dynamics in Maine," Smith and Doe delve into the intricate fabric of voter behavior in the state, painting a comprehensive portrait of the political landscape that serves as our jumping-off point. While their focus is on traditional party affiliations, our own analysis extends to the peculiar tendencies exhibited by Maine's Libertarian voters – a group often overlooked but, as we argue, wielding curious influence over the automotive realm.
Venturing beyond the realm of political science, we stumbled upon "Automotive Woes: A Comprehensive Study," where Jones and Smith meticulously catalog the spectrum of vehicular maladies. Their work, while not directly addressing parking brake peculiarities, offers valuable insight into the interconnected web of automotive intricacies, sparking a glimmer of hope that there may be a nugget of wisdom to be gleaned from the pages of vehicular misfortune.
As we combed through the literature, we couldn't help but notice the stark absence of a direct link between political predilections and parking brake predicaments – an oversight tantamount to missing a glaring "check engine" light. Nevertheless, undeterred by the scholarly lacuna, we heeded the age-old advice to "follow the clues," even if they were as elusive as a politician's promise.
Turning our attention to non-fiction tomes of related interest, we considered "The Art of Political Persuasion" and "Engineering Wonders and Blunders." While the former regales us with the intricacies of political campaigns, the latter offers a riveting showcase of engineering mishaps that mirror the unpredictability of electoral outcomes, albeit in a more mechanical form.
In our quest for insights, we also sought inspiration from fiction works that seemed tangentially relevant to our research. The eerie parallels between Orwell's "1984," where Big Brother watches over citizens with a scrutinizing eye, and the meticulous oversight needed for automotive safety, provide a rich tapestry of contemplation. Meanwhile, the mischievous escapades in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Adams introduce a whimsical element that mirrors the surprising nature of our findings – a veritable "Don't Panic" sign in the face of the unpredictability of statistical associations.
As we explored the labyrinth of literature, our minds wandered to diverse sources of inspiration, including board games such as Clue – a game rooted in the pursuit of uncovering hidden connections and solving mysteries. Much like Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick, we found ourselves piecing together disparate clues to illuminate the enigmatic relationship between political choices and parking brake predicaments.
With a chuckle and a raised eyebrow, we now invite our readers to join us on this scholarly escapade as we unravel the perplexing yet oddly delightful bond between libertarian votes in Maine and automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake, aiming to infuse a dose of levity into a subject that unites the unexpected, much like an off-duty clown connoisseur at a political rally.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon delving into the vast ocean of data collected and meticulously scrutinized through painstaking analysis, our research team uncovered a most astonishing finding: a remarkably strong correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Maine and automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake. The correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 revealed a nearly perfect positive relationship, akin to discovering that two seemingly unrelated phenomena are cosmically connected like binary stars in the statistical galaxy.
The r-squared value of 0.9419102 fortified the robustness of this correlation, signaling that a staggering 94.19% of the variability in automotive recalls for parking brake malfunctions can be attributed to the votes cast for the Libertarian candidate in Maine. It's as if this correlation were the automotive equivalent of a parking brake ensuring that statistical variance can't make a getaway.
The level of statistical significance, denoted by p < 0.01, further solidified the legitimacy of our findings, providing clear evidence that the observed correlation is not merely a statistical fluke but a bona fide relationship worthy of scrutiny and intrigue. In statistical terms, it's akin to finding the ultimate parking spot within the realm of significance.
Fig. 1 exhibits a visual representation of this extraordinary correlation in the form of a scatterplot, demonstrating the tight clustering of data points that unmistakably portray the interplay between the two variables. One might even visualize the plot as a road map charting the unexpected journey from political polling stations to automotive repair shops, with each data point marking a crossroads where political predilections and mechanical mishaps intersect.
The implications of these findings are as vast as an expanse of parallel-parked dreams. This unanticipated correlation challenges conventional wisdom, beckoning us to ponder the intricate ways in which political ideologies and vehicular safety intertwine. It is a testament to the quirks and idiosyncrasies that permeate the tapestry of human society, reminding us that beneath every statistical analysis lies a myriad of captivating stories waiting to be uncovered.
Our findings invite a rethinking of the curious conjunction between electoral choices and mechanical exigencies, urging further exploration into the unexpected relationships that shape our world. In the grand symphony of statistical analysis, this correlation serves as a soloist, demanding attention and applause for revealing the harmonious, yet enigmatic, duet performed by politics and parking brakes. As we navigate through the convoluted highways of statistical correlations, let us not forget that sometimes, the most revelatory insights are found in the unlikeliest of places - even in the purview of political preferences and automotive peculiarities.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this investigation not only affirm the statistically robust connection between libertarian votes in Maine and automotive recalls for parking brake issues but also underscore the whimsically labyrinthine nature of statistical associations. Our results align with the prior research that hinted at the unfathomable interplay between seemingly unrelated phenomena, resembling an intricate jigsaw puzzle with political ballots and parking brakes as the peculiar pieces waiting to be pieced together. The correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 not only echoes the clarion call of statistical significance but also whispers a sly acknowledgment of the intricate dance between electoral choices and mechanical maladies, akin to a political waltz leading straight to the repair garage.

Harkening back to the literary sojourn into the scholarly expanse, we fondly recall the serendipitous encounters with peculiar insights. The proximity of the correlations in our results to the nearly adjacent squares on a board game's clue sheet invokes a sense of spirited deduction, akin to unraveling the enigmatic union of political persuasion and parking brake predicaments. While our findings may appear as unexpected as an unbidden punchline in a scientific discourse, they stand as a testament to the unforeseen connections latent in seemingly disparate domains, not unlike a whimsical subplot in the grand narrative of electoral cogitation and automotive revelry.

The urgings of statistical significance and the visual portrayal of the correlation through the scatterplot serve as a twofold persuasion, akin to a persuasive campaign advocating the irrefutable entwinement of two ostensibly disparate variables. Our results bolster the notion that beneath the veneer of statistical esotericism, a comedic touch remains present, akin to a sly quip delivered in the midst of a statistical debate – a reminder that statistics, like scientific inquiry, can be positively rife with unexpected twists and turns.

In closing, our findings beckon a reimagining of the interrelatedness between electoral choices and vehicular exigencies, humorously mirroring the capricious nature of statistical predilections and confidences. As we navigate this scholarly escapade, it is with a good-natured chuckle and a raised eyebrow that we invite our readers to join us in mirthful contemplation of this unexpected nexus, thus showcasing the capricious yet captivating interplay of statistical rigidity and unexpected revelations.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine and Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Breaking News: Parking Brake Politics - The Correlation Between Libertarian Votes in Maine and Automotive Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the intriguing relationship between voter behavior in Maine and automotive recalls related to parking brake issues. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning the years from 1980 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 and p < 0.01, shedding light on the surprisingly intertwined nature of political preferences and vehicular safety features. The implications of these results extend beyond the field of automotive safety, serving as a quirky testament to the unforeseen connections present in the political and automotive realms. Through this research, we aim to ignite a spark of curiosity and invite further exploration into the delightful yet unexpected relationship between electoral choices and mechanical maladies.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The world of politics and the realm of automotive engineering may seem like two entirely separate universes, but as our research will unearth, there exists an unexpected link between these seemingly disparate domains. While common sense might dictate that the only connection between political choices and vehicle recalls would be the unpleasant experience of finding parking brake issues after leaving the polling station, our diligent analysis has uncovered a correlation that is as puzzling as finding a wrench in your ballot box.
As researchers, we are accustomed to seeking causality and logical relationships between variables, like detectives hunting for clues in an intellectual whodunnit. Yet, every so often, we stumble upon a correlation that leaves us scratching our heads and flipping through the statistical textbook to confirm that our findings are not the result of some arcane mathematical mishap. In the case of our study, we found ourselves wading through piles of data from election polls and automotive recalls, searching for a common thread in the political preferences of Mainers and the reliability of their parking brakes. Much to our surprise, what emerged was not a mere statistical blip but a robust correlation worthy of raising an eyebrow or two.
Before delving into our findings, it is worth considering the rigor with which we approached this peculiar investigation. With one foot firmly planted in the world of electoral data and the other navigating the database of automotive mishaps, we endeavored to conduct an analysis that was as thorough as checking under the hood of a vintage election campaign bus. Our methodology involved scrutinizing decades of historical data and subjecting it to rigorous statistical analysis that would make even the most seasoned number-cruncher nod in approval.
The implications of our findings extend beyond the field of statistical oddities, delving into the realm of electoral sociology and automotive safety. What we uncovered was not merely a statistical anomaly but a mesmerizing dance between the voting inclinations of a state and the mechanical quirks of its automobiles – a pairing worthy of a Broadway musical number, if ever there was one. In the pages that follow, we invite you to join us in unpacking this unlikely romance between politics and parking brakes, as we uncover just how closely intertwined voter behavior and vehicular recalls can be.
Our study serves as a testament to the curious, interconnected nature of seemingly unrelated facets of society, highlighting that behind every mundane statistic lies a potential story waiting to be uncovered. So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a truly unexpected journey through the corridors of political polling and the garages of automotive repair – a journey that promises not just statistical intrigue, but a healthy dose of surprise and bemusement along the way.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon delving into the vast ocean of data collected and meticulously scrutinized through painstaking analysis, our research team uncovered a most astonishing finding: a remarkably strong correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Maine and automotive recalls for issues with the parking brake. The correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 revealed a nearly perfect positive relationship, akin to discovering that two seemingly unrelated phenomena are cosmically connected like binary stars in the statistical galaxy.
The r-squared value of 0.9419102 fortified the robustness of this correlation, signaling that a staggering 94.19% of the variability in automotive recalls for parking brake malfunctions can be attributed to the votes cast for the Libertarian candidate in Maine. It's as if this correlation were the automotive equivalent of a parking brake ensuring that statistical variance can't make a getaway.
The level of statistical significance, denoted by p < 0.01, further solidified the legitimacy of our findings, providing clear evidence that the observed correlation is not merely a statistical fluke but a bona fide relationship worthy of scrutiny and intrigue. In statistical terms, it's akin to finding the ultimate parking spot within the realm of significance.
Fig. 1 exhibits a visual representation of this extraordinary correlation in the form of a scatterplot, demonstrating the tight clustering of data points that unmistakably portray the interplay between the two variables. One might even visualize the plot as a road map charting the unexpected journey from political polling stations to automotive repair shops, with each data point marking a crossroads where political predilections and mechanical mishaps intersect.
The implications of these findings are as vast as an expanse of parallel-parked dreams. This unanticipated correlation challenges conventional wisdom, beckoning us to ponder the intricate ways in which political ideologies and vehicular safety intertwine. It is a testament to the quirks and idiosyncrasies that permeate the tapestry of human society, reminding us that beneath every statistical analysis lies a myriad of captivating stories waiting to be uncovered.
Our findings invite a rethinking of the curious conjunction between electoral choices and mechanical exigencies, urging further exploration into the unexpected relationships that shape our world. In the grand symphony of statistical analysis, this correlation serves as a soloist, demanding attention and applause for revealing the harmonious, yet enigmatic, duet performed by politics and parking brakes. As we navigate through the convoluted highways of statistical correlations, let us not forget that sometimes, the most revelatory insights are found in the unlikeliest of places - even in the purview of political preferences and automotive peculiarities.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has illuminated a remarkably strong and statistically significant correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Maine and automotive recalls for parking brake issues. The robustness of this correlation, akin to a well-maintained brake system, underscores the unexpected intertwining of political preferences and vehicular safety concerns. Our findings have raised eyebrows much like discovering a bumper sticker with a statistical equation. However, as much as we revel in the quirky allure of this correlation, it would be folly to ignore the litany of potential confounding variables and spurious correlations that could inadvertently obscure our insights, like a political campaign sign blocking a clear view of causality.

While we celebrate the delightfully odd pairing of politics and parking brakes, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of our study. As whimsical as our findings may be, we must temper our exuberance with caution, reminding ourselves that correlation does not imply causation – no matter how tempting it may be to theorize about the political inclinations of parking brake engineers. As we park our statistical analyses for the time being, we acknowledge the need for caution in attributing the observed relationship solely to the electoral choices in Maine.

With that said, we stand by our findings and their potential to pique the curiosity of the academic community. The unexpected dance between political predilections and vehicular malfunctions is a testament to the endlessly fascinating and often whimsical nature of statistical analysis. However, in the spirit of academic humility, we assert that further research in this area is unnecessary. Instead, we urge future scholars to tread boldly into unexplored territories, where statistical anomalies and whimsical correlations await their discerning gaze. For now, let us bid adieu to this curious correlation, leaving the parking brake of quirky statistical relationships engaged but ripe for future exploration.


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 Breaking News: Parking Brake Politics - The Correlation Between Libertarian Votes in Maine and Automotive Recalls. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Whimsical Political Science


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 Breaking News: Parking Brake Politics - The Correlation Between Libertarian Votes in Maine and Automotive Recalls. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Eccentric Social Science Research


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 Breaking News: Parking Brake Politics - The Correlation Between Libertarian Votes in Maine and Automotive Recalls with an abstract of This paper investigates the intriguing relationship between voter behavior in Maine and automotive recalls related to parking brake issues. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning the years from 1980 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9705206 and p < 0.01, shedding light on the surprisingly intertwined nature of political preferences and vehicular safety features. The implications of these results extend beyond the field of automotive safety, serving as a quirky testament to the unforeseen connections present in the political and automotive realms. Through this research, we aim to ignite a spark of curiosity and invite further exploration into the delightful yet unexpected relationship between electoral choices and mechanical maladies.

ChatGPT:

Maine, libertarian votes, automotive recalls, parking brake issues, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, US Department of Transportation, correlation coefficient, political preferences, vehicular safety features, electoral choices, mechanical maladies, voter behavior, political realm, automotive safety, political implications, data analysis

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

Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake
Source: US DOT
See what else correlates with Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake

Correlation r = 0.9705206 (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 = 0.9419102 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 94.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine) over the 9 years from 1980 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.41E-5. 0.0000140715048975511040000000
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 0.97 in 0.00141% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 71,066 random variables You don't actually need 71 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. 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.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

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 8 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 8 because we have two variables measured over a period of 9 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.

[ 0.86, 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.
198019881992199620002004201220162020
Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine (Percentage of votes)0.9787560.4864560.2473880.4944730.4716050.2652711.290364.936571.70855
Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake (Recalls)52166672810




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.




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([0.978756,0.486456,0.247388,0.494473,0.471605,0.265271,1.29036,4.93657,1.70855,])
array_2 = np.array([5,2,1,6,6,6,7,28,10,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Maine"
array_2_name = "Automotive recalls for issues with the Parking Brake"

# 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?

Hats off to you for rating!


Correlation ID: 5146 · Black Variable ID: 26107 · Red Variable ID: 1113
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0