about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,148 · 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 Democratic Senators in Connecticut and the second variable is Google searches for 'how to annex texas'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut decreased, there was a ripple effect on the national political landscape. This shift in power dynamics somehow sent shockwaves all the way to Texas, where even the Google searches for 'how to annex Texas' felt the need to take a little break. It's like the political domino effect, but with a Texan twist - who knew that the road to annexation could be so intricately connected to voting patterns in Connecticut? It's a wild, wild political rodeo out there!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Generate an image that visually represents a futuristic narrative centered around contrasting political shifts in Connecticut and Texas. Illustrate a map of the United States with Connecticut highlighted in a cool blue shade and Texas depicted in a striking red color. On the left side of the image, craft a graph showcasing a decrease in Democrat votes in Connecticut. On the right side, design a line graph depicting a pause in Google searches for "how to annex Texas". Connect the graphs with a series of sleek arrows to symbolize the ripple effect of the political shift. The futuristic visual should convey the surprising and interrelated nature of voting patterns in Connecticut and the curiosity about annexation in Texas. 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: Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. 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: Futuristic Oragami Macabre Parallax art Psychedelic
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 Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for 'how to annex texas', in the following situation: As the Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut decreased, there was a ripple effect on the national political landscape. This shift in power dynamics somehow sent shockwaves all the way to Texas, where even the Google searches for 'how to annex Texas' felt the need to take a little break. It's like the political domino effect, but with a Texan twist - who knew that the road to annexation could be so intricately connected to voting patterns in Connecticut? It's a wild, wild political rodeo out there!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: Picture a map of the United States, with Connecticut colored blue and Texas shaded in red. On the left side, there's a graph showing a decrease in Democrat votes in Connecticut. On the right, a line graph depicts a pause in Google searches for "how to annex Texas." The graphs are connected by a series of arrows, symbolizing the ripple effect of the political shift. It's a graphical representation of the surprising connection between voting patterns in Connecticut and the curiosity about annexation in Texas.

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: Picture a map of the United States, with Connecticut colored blue and Texas shaded in red. On the left side, there's a graph showing a decrease in Democrat votes in Connecticut. On the right, a line graph depicts a pause in Google searches for "how to annex Texas." The graphs are connected by a series of arrows, symbolizing the ripple effect of the political shift. It's a graphical representation of the surprising connection between voting patterns in Connecticut and the curiosity about annexation in Texas. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Generate an image that visually represents a futuristic narrative centered around contrasting political shifts in Connecticut and Texas. Illustrate a map of the United States with Connecticut highlighted in a cool blue shade and Texas depicted in a striking red color. On the left side of the image, craft a graph showcasing a decrease in Democrat votes in Connecticut. On the right side, design a line graph depicting a pause in Google searches for "how to annex Texas". Connect the graphs with a series of sleek arrows to symbolize the ripple effect of the political shift. The futuristic visual should convey the surprising and interrelated nature of voting patterns in Connecticut and the curiosity about annexation in Texas.

*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 a decrease in Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut caused how to annex texas (Google searches for 'how to annex texas') to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Tongue-in-cheek Ties: Tracing the Trend of Democrat Votes in Connecticut and Google Searches for How to Annex Texas

Journal of Political Puzzles

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 and p < 0.05 for 2004 to 2018.

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]]
Tongue-in-cheek Ties: Tracing the Trend of Democrat Votes in Connecticut and Google Searches for "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the amusingly unexpected link between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for "how to annex Texas." Despite initially being seen as an unrelated pair of data points, our research uncovers a surprising correlation that demands attention. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we meticulously analyze the voting records and search patterns from 2004 to 2018. The statistical analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 and p < 0.05, prompting a mix of bemusement and fascination among the research team. This unexpected connection prompts a rethinking of the phrase "Texas-sized ambition," as we humorously speculate on the motivations behind this online quest for annexation instructions. Weaving together political trends and internet curiosity, this research sheds a light-hearted yet thought-provoking perspective on the oft-overlooked nuances of public interest and political discourse.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Tongue-in-cheek Ties: Tracing the Trend of Democrat Votes in Connecticut and Google Searches for "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the amusingly unexpected link between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for "how to annex Texas." Despite initially being seen as an unrelated pair of data points, our research uncovers a surprising correlation that demands attention. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we meticulously analyze the voting records and search patterns from 2004 to 2018. The statistical analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 and p < 0.05, prompting a mix of bemusement and fascination among the research team. This unexpected connection prompts a rethinking of the phrase "Texas-sized ambition," as we humorously speculate on the motivations behind this online quest for annexation instructions. Weaving together political trends and internet curiosity, this research sheds a light-hearted yet thought-provoking perspective on the oft-overlooked nuances of public interest and political discourse.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Ah, the fascinating world of political peculiarities and the delightful dance of data analysis. Today, we embark on a whimsical journey through the intertwining realms of Democrat votes in Connecticut and the curious phenomenon of Googling "how to annex Texas." It is, no doubt, a match made in the annals of statistical tomfoolery.

As researchers, we are perpetually on the lookout for the unexpected, the eyebrow-raising, and the downright bizarre correlations that cause us to do a double-take. And what a serendipitous delight it is when we stumble upon a connection that is as surprising as finding a pineapple pizza in the middle of a Michelin star restaurant menu - a combination that raises both eyebrows and a fair amount of chuckles.

The trajectory of our investigation was set into motion by a chance encounter with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the siren call of Google Trends – an encounter that sparked the kind of scientific curiosity usually reserved for unraveling quantum mysteries or deciphering cryptic ancient texts. With data in hand, we set out to explore the peculiar link between political leanings in the Nutmeg State and the virtual quest for Texan annexation tips, all with the hope of shedding light on this unlikely kinship.

Our pursuit of knowledge in this unorthodox intersection of political inclination and online search behavior led us to uncover a correlation coefficient of 0.8556522, a statistic that not only raised our eyebrows but elevated them to suspiciously high altitudes. We were left pondering: is there a political inclination towards aspiring to Texas-sized ventures, or are the good people of Connecticut simply trying to solve a geographical jigsaw puzzle in their spare time?

In this paper, we band together statistical analysis and tongue-in-cheek humor to unpack this enigmatic camaraderie between political proclivity and aspirations of territorial expansion. So, buckle up, dear reader, as we embark on this comical odyssey that challenges conventional wisdom and showcases the quirks of our modern political and digital landscape.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Tongue-in-cheek Ties: Tracing the Trend of Democrat Votes in Connecticut and Google Searches for "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the amusingly unexpected link between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for "how to annex Texas." Despite initially being seen as an unrelated pair of data points, our research uncovers a surprising correlation that demands attention. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we meticulously analyze the voting records and search patterns from 2004 to 2018. The statistical analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 and p < 0.05, prompting a mix of bemusement and fascination among the research team. This unexpected connection prompts a rethinking of the phrase "Texas-sized ambition," as we humorously speculate on the motivations behind this online quest for annexation instructions. Weaving together political trends and internet curiosity, this research sheds a light-hearted yet thought-provoking perspective on the oft-overlooked nuances of public interest and political discourse.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the fascinating world of political peculiarities and the delightful dance of data analysis. Today, we embark on a whimsical journey through the intertwining realms of Democrat votes in Connecticut and the curious phenomenon of Googling "how to annex Texas." It is, no doubt, a match made in the annals of statistical tomfoolery.
As researchers, we are perpetually on the lookout for the unexpected, the eyebrow-raising, and the downright bizarre correlations that cause us to do a double-take. And what a serendipitous delight it is when we stumble upon a connection that is as surprising as finding a pineapple pizza in the middle of a Michelin star restaurant menu - a combination that raises both eyebrows and a fair amount of chuckles.
The trajectory of our investigation was set into motion by a chance encounter with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the siren call of Google Trends – an encounter that sparked the kind of scientific curiosity usually reserved for unraveling quantum mysteries or deciphering cryptic ancient texts. With data in hand, we set out to explore the peculiar link between political leanings in the Nutmeg State and the virtual quest for Texan annexation tips, all with the hope of shedding light on this unlikely kinship.
Our pursuit of knowledge in this unorthodox intersection of political inclination and online search behavior led us to uncover a correlation coefficient of 0.8556522, a statistic that not only raised our eyebrows but elevated them to suspiciously high altitudes. We were left pondering: is there a political inclination towards aspiring to Texas-sized ventures, or are the good people of Connecticut simply trying to solve a geographical jigsaw puzzle in their spare time?
In this paper, we band together statistical analysis and tongue-in-cheek humor to unpack this enigmatic camaraderie between political proclivity and aspirations of territorial expansion. So, buckle up, dear reader, as we embark on this comical odyssey that challenges conventional wisdom and showcases the quirks of our modern political and digital landscape.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Smith and Doe (2015) explored the nuanced intricacies of state-level political leanings and their impact on online search behavior, laying the groundwork for our foray into the comically peculiar correlation between Democrat votes in the Nutmeg State and the fervent Google searches for "how to annex Texas." Building upon their foundational work, we find ourselves in the whimsical realm of unexpected connections and statistical shenanigans.

Jones et al. (2018) further delved into the enigmatic world of internet search patterns, uncovering the rather perplexing link between regional political sentiments and seemingly unrelated online queries. Little did they know that their findings would serve as the launchpad for our amusing investigation, where we delight in untangling the web of digital curiosities and political jests.

Turning to related literature beyond the realm of academia, "The Search for Texas: A Political Odyssey" by D. Hilarious (2016) provides a tongue-in-cheek perspective on the Texan identity and its allure, offering a lighthearted take on the age-old question of "to annex, or not to annex." This satirical exploration of territorial ambition and the Texan mystique serves as a source of inspiration and amusement as we navigate the comedic landscape of online quests and political banter.

In the fictional realm, "The Annexation Adventures of Connecticut" by A. Jestful (2017) offers a hilariously improbable narrative where the Nutmeg State embarks on a whimsical quest for territorial expansion, weaving a tale of political intrigue and geographical capers fit for a modern-day comedy of errors. While undoubtedly a work of fiction, the parallels to our own research endeavor cannot be overstated, prompting a chuckle and a raised eyebrow at the uncanny twists of academic exploration.

Drawing from the world of animated entertainment, "Politically Puzzling Pals: Adventures in Annexation" from the whimsical television series "Political Penguins" introduces young viewers to the zany world of political aspirations and geographical conundrums, reinforcing the notion that political pursuits can indeed be a laughing matter. As budding researchers ourselves, we acknowledge the valuable insights gleaned from this unorthodox source, proving that even the most unlikely of mediums can offer a dash of scholarly merriment.

With this dizzying array of literary influences and thematic tangents, our literature review forms a whimsical tapestry of scholarly inquiry and playful exploration, as we untangle the amusements and peculiarities of this unexpected correlation between Democrat votes in Connecticut and the spirited searches for "how to annex Texas" on the digital frontier.

And now, let us continue our delightful romp through the scholarly landscape, where statistical japes and political whimsy converge in unprecedented ways.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2018

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]]
Tongue-in-cheek Ties: Tracing the Trend of Democrat Votes in Connecticut and Google Searches for "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the amusingly unexpected link between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for "how to annex Texas." Despite initially being seen as an unrelated pair of data points, our research uncovers a surprising correlation that demands attention. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we meticulously analyze the voting records and search patterns from 2004 to 2018. The statistical analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 and p < 0.05, prompting a mix of bemusement and fascination among the research team. This unexpected connection prompts a rethinking of the phrase "Texas-sized ambition," as we humorously speculate on the motivations behind this online quest for annexation instructions. Weaving together political trends and internet curiosity, this research sheds a light-hearted yet thought-provoking perspective on the oft-overlooked nuances of public interest and political discourse.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the fascinating world of political peculiarities and the delightful dance of data analysis. Today, we embark on a whimsical journey through the intertwining realms of Democrat votes in Connecticut and the curious phenomenon of Googling "how to annex Texas." It is, no doubt, a match made in the annals of statistical tomfoolery.
As researchers, we are perpetually on the lookout for the unexpected, the eyebrow-raising, and the downright bizarre correlations that cause us to do a double-take. And what a serendipitous delight it is when we stumble upon a connection that is as surprising as finding a pineapple pizza in the middle of a Michelin star restaurant menu - a combination that raises both eyebrows and a fair amount of chuckles.
The trajectory of our investigation was set into motion by a chance encounter with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the siren call of Google Trends – an encounter that sparked the kind of scientific curiosity usually reserved for unraveling quantum mysteries or deciphering cryptic ancient texts. With data in hand, we set out to explore the peculiar link between political leanings in the Nutmeg State and the virtual quest for Texan annexation tips, all with the hope of shedding light on this unlikely kinship.
Our pursuit of knowledge in this unorthodox intersection of political inclination and online search behavior led us to uncover a correlation coefficient of 0.8556522, a statistic that not only raised our eyebrows but elevated them to suspiciously high altitudes. We were left pondering: is there a political inclination towards aspiring to Texas-sized ventures, or are the good people of Connecticut simply trying to solve a geographical jigsaw puzzle in their spare time?
In this paper, we band together statistical analysis and tongue-in-cheek humor to unpack this enigmatic camaraderie between political proclivity and aspirations of territorial expansion. So, buckle up, dear reader, as we embark on this comical odyssey that challenges conventional wisdom and showcases the quirks of our modern political and digital landscape.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To untangle the tongue-in-cheek ties between Democrat votes in Connecticut and Google searches for "how to annex Texas," our research team devised a methodology that relied on a blend of statistical analysis, political scrutiny, and an unapologetic sense of humor. We gathered data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, holding fast to the belief that when combing through the labyrinth of internet data, one must be ready to stumble upon the unexpected, the puzzling, and the downright comical.

First and foremost, we methodically gathered Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut from election records, ensuring that no elephant sneaked in amongst the blue donkeys. These data, akin to finding a needle in a haystack, were meticulously curated to construct a comprehensive timeline from 2004 to 2018, capturing the ebbs and flows of political allegiances in the Land of Steady Habits.

Simultaneously, we ventured into the digital caverns of Google Trends, where the curious case of "how to annex Texas" searches awaited our analysis. With the enthusiasm of treasure hunters seeking the fabled city of El Dorado, we harnessed the power of search query data to uncover the waxing and waning interest in this perplexing topic. This exploration, much like a captivating mystery novel, provided us with ample fodder for speculation and a surprising amount of comedic relief.

Upon gathering these disparate yet oddly compatible datasets, we employed a statistical approach that could be described as a scholarly blend of Sherlock Holmes' deductive reasoning and the comedic timing of a stand-up comedian. Utilizing the statistical software favored by data detectives, we calculated and scrutinized correlations, employing the classic Pearson correlation coefficient to discern the strength and direction of the relationship between democrat votes and Texan annexation aspirations. With a p-value less than 0.05, we found ourselves in a statistical sweet spot, where eyebrow-raising relationships demanded further attention, and the research team's chuckles echoed through the hallowed halls of academia.

Furthermore, we engaged in a qualitative analysis that involved a whimsical examination of the broader political and cultural context surrounding these seemingly incongruous data points. We delved into the annals of political history, propelled by a fervor akin to a mystery novelist unraveling a hidden plot twist, all in pursuit of elucidating the whimsical kinship between the Nutmeg State and Lone Star State aspirations.

In summary, our methodology danced between the precision of statistical rigor and the levity of whimsical exploration, enlisting a blend of data curation, statistical analysis, and a healthy dose of humor to unravel this tongue-in-cheek conundrum. As we proceed to unveil the findings of our investigation, we invite the reader to don their detective hats and brace themselves for the lighthearted yet enlightening revelations that await.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

For the time period 2004 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.8556522, r-squared of 0.7321407, and p < 0.05.

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]]
Tongue-in-cheek Ties: Tracing the Trend of Democrat Votes in Connecticut and Google Searches for "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the amusingly unexpected link between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for "how to annex Texas." Despite initially being seen as an unrelated pair of data points, our research uncovers a surprising correlation that demands attention. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we meticulously analyze the voting records and search patterns from 2004 to 2018. The statistical analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 and p < 0.05, prompting a mix of bemusement and fascination among the research team. This unexpected connection prompts a rethinking of the phrase "Texas-sized ambition," as we humorously speculate on the motivations behind this online quest for annexation instructions. Weaving together political trends and internet curiosity, this research sheds a light-hearted yet thought-provoking perspective on the oft-overlooked nuances of public interest and political discourse.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Ah, the fascinating world of political peculiarities and the delightful dance of data analysis. Today, we embark on a whimsical journey through the intertwining realms of Democrat votes in Connecticut and the curious phenomenon of Googling "how to annex Texas." It is, no doubt, a match made in the annals of statistical tomfoolery.
As researchers, we are perpetually on the lookout for the unexpected, the eyebrow-raising, and the downright bizarre correlations that cause us to do a double-take. And what a serendipitous delight it is when we stumble upon a connection that is as surprising as finding a pineapple pizza in the middle of a Michelin star restaurant menu - a combination that raises both eyebrows and a fair amount of chuckles.
The trajectory of our investigation was set into motion by a chance encounter with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the siren call of Google Trends – an encounter that sparked the kind of scientific curiosity usually reserved for unraveling quantum mysteries or deciphering cryptic ancient texts. With data in hand, we set out to explore the peculiar link between political leanings in the Nutmeg State and the virtual quest for Texan annexation tips, all with the hope of shedding light on this unlikely kinship.
Our pursuit of knowledge in this unorthodox intersection of political inclination and online search behavior led us to uncover a correlation coefficient of 0.8556522, a statistic that not only raised our eyebrows but elevated them to suspiciously high altitudes. We were left pondering: is there a political inclination towards aspiring to Texas-sized ventures, or are the good people of Connecticut simply trying to solve a geographical jigsaw puzzle in their spare time?
In this paper, we band together statistical analysis and tongue-in-cheek humor to unpack this enigmatic camaraderie between political proclivity and aspirations of territorial expansion. So, buckle up, dear reader, as we embark on this comical odyssey that challenges conventional wisdom and showcases the quirks of our modern political and digital landscape.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The data analysis uncovered a surprisingly strong correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for "how to annex Texas". The correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 left the research team in both awe and amusement, prompting various lighthearted speculations about the underlying motivations behind this unanticipated connection.

With an r-squared value of 0.7321407, the strength of the relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables prompted some quizzical eyebrow raises among the researchers. There was an undeniable sense of amusement in realizing that the political leanings within the Nutmeg State appeared to be oddly intertwined with a curiosity for the logistics of annexing a state known for its independent spirit.

The p-value of less than 0.05 further affirmed the significance of this unexpected correlation, causing the research team to chuckle at the thought of what this fascinating finding might imply about the intersection of political trends and online search behavior.

We present the scatterplot in Figure 1, which provides a visual representation of the robust correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for "how to annex Texas." The data points form a remarkably clear linear pattern, as if to humorously nudge the researchers and say, "Surprise! There's more to this than meets the eye."

In conclusion, this peculiar correlation between political preferences and online curiosity serves as a whimsical reminder of the delightful surprises lurking within the annals of data analysis, prompting the research team to approach their work with a newfound sense of humor and intrigue. These results drive home the notion that the world of statistics and political curiosity is never lacking in surprises, much like stumbling upon a meme that perfectly encapsulates the essence of this unexpected correlation.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
Tongue-in-cheek Ties: Tracing the Trend of Democrat Votes in Connecticut and Google Searches for "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the amusingly unexpected link between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for "how to annex Texas." Despite initially being seen as an unrelated pair of data points, our research uncovers a surprising correlation that demands attention. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we meticulously analyze the voting records and search patterns from 2004 to 2018. The statistical analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 and p < 0.05, prompting a mix of bemusement and fascination among the research team. This unexpected connection prompts a rethinking of the phrase "Texas-sized ambition," as we humorously speculate on the motivations behind this online quest for annexation instructions. Weaving together political trends and internet curiosity, this research sheds a light-hearted yet thought-provoking perspective on the oft-overlooked nuances of public interest and political discourse.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Smith and Doe (2015) explored the nuanced intricacies of state-level political leanings and their impact on online search behavior, laying the groundwork for our foray into the comically peculiar correlation between Democrat votes in the Nutmeg State and the fervent Google searches for "how to annex Texas." Building upon their foundational work, we find ourselves in the whimsical realm of unexpected connections and statistical shenanigans.
Jones et al. (2018) further delved into the enigmatic world of internet search patterns, uncovering the rather perplexing link between regional political sentiments and seemingly unrelated online queries. Little did they know that their findings would serve as the launchpad for our amusing investigation, where we delight in untangling the web of digital curiosities and political jests.
Turning to related literature beyond the realm of academia, "The Search for Texas: A Political Odyssey" by D. Hilarious (2016) provides a tongue-in-cheek perspective on the Texan identity and its allure, offering a lighthearted take on the age-old question of "to annex, or not to annex." This satirical exploration of territorial ambition and the Texan mystique serves as a source of inspiration and amusement as we navigate the comedic landscape of online quests and political banter.
In the fictional realm, "The Annexation Adventures of Connecticut" by A. Jestful (2017) offers a hilariously improbable narrative where the Nutmeg State embarks on a whimsical quest for territorial expansion, weaving a tale of political intrigue and geographical capers fit for a modern-day comedy of errors. While undoubtedly a work of fiction, the parallels to our own research endeavor cannot be overstated, prompting a chuckle and a raised eyebrow at the uncanny twists of academic exploration.
Drawing from the world of animated entertainment, "Politically Puzzling Pals: Adventures in Annexation" from the whimsical television series "Political Penguins" introduces young viewers to the zany world of political aspirations and geographical conundrums, reinforcing the notion that political pursuits can indeed be a laughing matter. As budding researchers ourselves, we acknowledge the valuable insights gleaned from this unorthodox source, proving that even the most unlikely of mediums can offer a dash of scholarly merriment.
With this dizzying array of literary influences and thematic tangents, our literature review forms a whimsical tapestry of scholarly inquiry and playful exploration, as we untangle the amusements and peculiarities of this unexpected correlation between Democrat votes in Connecticut and the spirited searches for "how to annex Texas" on the digital frontier.
And now, let us continue our delightful romp through the scholarly landscape, where statistical japes and political whimsy converge in unprecedented ways.

[[RESULTS]]
The data analysis uncovered a surprisingly strong correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for "how to annex Texas". The correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 left the research team in both awe and amusement, prompting various lighthearted speculations about the underlying motivations behind this unanticipated connection.
With an r-squared value of 0.7321407, the strength of the relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables prompted some quizzical eyebrow raises among the researchers. There was an undeniable sense of amusement in realizing that the political leanings within the Nutmeg State appeared to be oddly intertwined with a curiosity for the logistics of annexing a state known for its independent spirit.
The p-value of less than 0.05 further affirmed the significance of this unexpected correlation, causing the research team to chuckle at the thought of what this fascinating finding might imply about the intersection of political trends and online search behavior.
We present the scatterplot in Figure 1, which provides a visual representation of the robust correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for "how to annex Texas." The data points form a remarkably clear linear pattern, as if to humorously nudge the researchers and say, "Surprise! There's more to this than meets the eye."
In conclusion, this peculiar correlation between political preferences and online curiosity serves as a whimsical reminder of the delightful surprises lurking within the annals of data analysis, prompting the research team to approach their work with a newfound sense of humor and intrigue. These results drive home the notion that the world of statistics and political curiosity is never lacking in surprises, much like stumbling upon a meme that perfectly encapsulates the essence of this unexpected correlation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

With the culmination of our rigorous analysis, we find ourselves amidst a whimsically perplexing correlation that not only serves as a testament to statistical serendipity but also invites a playful exploration of the intersection between political proclivities and online quirkiness. Our results have lent empirical support to the comically unexpected yet intriguingly robust relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and the seemingly incongruous Google searches for "how to annex Texas."

Harkening back to the literature review, Smith and Doe's (2015) groundwork on state-level political leanings and online search behavior finds empirical echo in our findings, showcasing the spectral reach of online curiosity. Jones et al.'s (2018) contemplation of regional political sentiments and digital queries now stands as a beacon of prophetic whimsy, marshaling the enigmatic forces that underpin our peculiar correlation.

The scatterplot in Figure 1 not only visually encapsulates the statistical merriment we've encountered but also playfully nudges us toward the playful realization that, much like unexpected punchlines in a comedic routine, there is more to this correlation than meets the eye.

It's worth acknowledging the role of contingency factors such as the Texan mystique, political banter, and the digital landscape of territorial ambition, each contributing to the narrative of our findings with a lighthearted yet undeniably significant presence. The p-value of less than 0.05 humorously mimics the conclusive punchline of a jovial jest, affirming the significance of this correlation and eliciting a chuckle from the research team as we contemplate the implications of this oddly intertwined tale of political preferences and online inquiries.

In the grand tapestry of scholarly inquiry, our findings serve as a whimsical reminder of the unpredictable amusements lurking within the realms of data analysis and political curiosity. The unexpected correlations uncovered in our study prompt the research team to adopt a playfully speculative stance, recognizing that the world of statistics and political whimsy is rife with surprises, akin to stumbling upon a meme that perfectly encapsulates the essence of this unexpected correlation.

As we continue our jaunt through the scholarly landscape, we look ahead with the earnest anticipation of uncovering further instances of statistical antics and playful correlations, always embracing the lighthearted side of research with the curiosity of a child and the mirth of a seasoned scholar. For in the realm of academic inquiry, as in the whimsical expanse of humor, every unexpected turn of events is an invitation to revel in the delightful surprises that lie in wait.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Tongue-in-cheek Ties: Tracing the Trend of Democrat Votes in Connecticut and Google Searches for "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the amusingly unexpected link between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for "how to annex Texas." Despite initially being seen as an unrelated pair of data points, our research uncovers a surprising correlation that demands attention. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we meticulously analyze the voting records and search patterns from 2004 to 2018. The statistical analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 and p < 0.05, prompting a mix of bemusement and fascination among the research team. This unexpected connection prompts a rethinking of the phrase "Texas-sized ambition," as we humorously speculate on the motivations behind this online quest for annexation instructions. Weaving together political trends and internet curiosity, this research sheds a light-hearted yet thought-provoking perspective on the oft-overlooked nuances of public interest and political discourse.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Ah, the fascinating world of political peculiarities and the delightful dance of data analysis. Today, we embark on a whimsical journey through the intertwining realms of Democrat votes in Connecticut and the curious phenomenon of Googling "how to annex Texas." It is, no doubt, a match made in the annals of statistical tomfoolery.
As researchers, we are perpetually on the lookout for the unexpected, the eyebrow-raising, and the downright bizarre correlations that cause us to do a double-take. And what a serendipitous delight it is when we stumble upon a connection that is as surprising as finding a pineapple pizza in the middle of a Michelin star restaurant menu - a combination that raises both eyebrows and a fair amount of chuckles.
The trajectory of our investigation was set into motion by a chance encounter with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the siren call of Google Trends – an encounter that sparked the kind of scientific curiosity usually reserved for unraveling quantum mysteries or deciphering cryptic ancient texts. With data in hand, we set out to explore the peculiar link between political leanings in the Nutmeg State and the virtual quest for Texan annexation tips, all with the hope of shedding light on this unlikely kinship.
Our pursuit of knowledge in this unorthodox intersection of political inclination and online search behavior led us to uncover a correlation coefficient of 0.8556522, a statistic that not only raised our eyebrows but elevated them to suspiciously high altitudes. We were left pondering: is there a political inclination towards aspiring to Texas-sized ventures, or are the good people of Connecticut simply trying to solve a geographical jigsaw puzzle in their spare time?
In this paper, we band together statistical analysis and tongue-in-cheek humor to unpack this enigmatic camaraderie between political proclivity and aspirations of territorial expansion. So, buckle up, dear reader, as we embark on this comical odyssey that challenges conventional wisdom and showcases the quirks of our modern political and digital landscape.

[[RESULTS]]
The data analysis uncovered a surprisingly strong correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for "how to annex Texas". The correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 left the research team in both awe and amusement, prompting various lighthearted speculations about the underlying motivations behind this unanticipated connection.
With an r-squared value of 0.7321407, the strength of the relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables prompted some quizzical eyebrow raises among the researchers. There was an undeniable sense of amusement in realizing that the political leanings within the Nutmeg State appeared to be oddly intertwined with a curiosity for the logistics of annexing a state known for its independent spirit.
The p-value of less than 0.05 further affirmed the significance of this unexpected correlation, causing the research team to chuckle at the thought of what this fascinating finding might imply about the intersection of political trends and online search behavior.
We present the scatterplot in Figure 1, which provides a visual representation of the robust correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and Google searches for "how to annex Texas." The data points form a remarkably clear linear pattern, as if to humorously nudge the researchers and say, "Surprise! There's more to this than meets the eye."
In conclusion, this peculiar correlation between political preferences and online curiosity serves as a whimsical reminder of the delightful surprises lurking within the annals of data analysis, prompting the research team to approach their work with a newfound sense of humor and intrigue. These results drive home the notion that the world of statistics and political curiosity is never lacking in surprises, much like stumbling upon a meme that perfectly encapsulates the essence of this unexpected correlation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

As we wrap up this rollercoaster ride through the amusingly unexpected connection between Democrat votes in Connecticut and the googly-eyed interest in annexing Texas, it's safe to say we've had quite the statistical shindig. The correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 has left us pondering whether there's a new political subgroup – the "Tex-panding Democrats" perhaps? Unraveling this comical enigma has reinforced the idea that in the world of data analysis, there's always room for surprise and laughter.

The robust correlation, with an r-squared value of 0.7321407, has certainly given us more than a few chuckles, proving once again that sometimes, statistical relationships can be as effortlessly groovy as a well-coordinated dance routine. And let's not forget the delightful scatterplot in Figure 1, playfully winking at us with its clear linear pattern, as if to say, "Did you really think you'd find such a whimsical connection?"

This research journey has been a joyful reminder that the unexpected can be as intriguing as a mystery novel and as side-splitting as a well-timed pun. However, as tempting as it may be to delve deeper into the relationship between political leanings and territorial daydreams, it's time to close the curtain on this particular act. In the wise words of our research team, "No mas, por favor." Yes, no more research is needed in this area – we'll leave the wacky world of statistical serendipity for the history books and the comedy clubs.


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 Tongue-in-cheek Ties: Tracing the Trend of Democrat Votes in Connecticut and Google Searches for How to Annex Texas. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Political Puzzles


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 Tongue-in-cheek Ties: Tracing the Trend of Democrat Votes in Connecticut and Google Searches for How to Annex Texas. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Political Satire and Societal Analysis


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 Tongue-in-cheek Ties: Tracing the Trend of Democrat Votes in Connecticut and Google Searches for How to Annex Texas with an abstract of This study delves into the amusingly unexpected link between Democrat votes for Senators in Connecticut and the peculiar phenomenon of Google searches for "how to annex Texas." Despite initially being seen as an unrelated pair of data points, our research uncovers a surprising correlation that demands attention. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we meticulously analyze the voting records and search patterns from 2004 to 2018. The statistical analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8556522 and p < 0.05, prompting a mix of bemusement and fascination among the research team. This unexpected connection prompts a rethinking of the phrase "Texas-sized ambition," as we humorously speculate on the motivations behind this online quest for annexation instructions. Weaving together political trends and internet curiosity, this research sheds a light-hearted yet thought-provoking perspective on the oft-overlooked nuances of public interest and political discourse.

ChatGPT:

"Democrat votes Connecticut data", "Google searches annex Texas correlation", "MIT Election Data and Science Lab", "Harvard Dataverse political trends", "Google Trends search patterns", "correlation coefficient political data", "Texas annexation curious online quest"

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

Google searches for 'how to annex texas'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'how to annex texas' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to annex texas'

Correlation r = 0.8556522 (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 = 0.7321407 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 73.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'how to annex texas') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Connecticut) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2018.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.03. 0.0297505954923097080000000000
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 0.86 in 3% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 34 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.

[ 0.14, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200420062010201220162018
Votes for Democratic Senators in Connecticut (Percentage of votes)66.352939.729752.484352.454257.682156.7971
Google searches for 'how to annex texas' (Rel. search volume)23.53.759.166676.083338.510.5




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([66.3529,39.7297,52.4843,52.4542,57.6821,56.7971,])
array_2 = np.array([23.5,3.75,9.16667,6.08333,8.5,10.5,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Connecticut"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'how to annex texas'"

# 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?

Thanks for being the explorer we needed!


Correlation ID: 5148 · Black Variable ID: 26360 · Red Variable ID: 1477
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0