about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,210 · 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 Republican Senators in Pennsylvania and the second variable is Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'.  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 saying goes, bird of a feather flock together, and it seems the Republican votes and avian precipitation preferences have finally aligned. It appears that the political climate has a direct impact on the feathered community, with the birds opting to take their rainy day activities elsewhere. Whether it's a red or blue state, these birds aren't winging it when it comes to seeking shelter from the storm.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that resembles a scene from 'Star Wars', featuring a Pennsylvania forest with tall, imposing trees and a group of Republican voters, enveloped in an air of importance, casting their ballots for senators. Amidst the lush greenery, a flock of birds, clustered tightly together, seeks refuge from the pouring rain, creating an atmosphere of tension and anticipation. The forest exudes an otherworldly aura, evoking the grandeur and mystery of an epic space opera. 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: Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. 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: Surrealism Voxel art An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' Symbolism inspired by bauhaus
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars'

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 Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains', in the following situation: As the saying goes, bird of a feather flock together, and it seems the Republican votes and avian precipitation preferences have finally aligned. It appears that the political climate has a direct impact on the feathered community, with the birds opting to take their rainy day activities elsewhere. Whether it's a red or blue state, these birds aren't winging it when it comes to seeking shelter from the storm.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a Pennsylvania forest, a group of Republican voters gathers to cast their ballots for senators while simultaneously, a flock of birds is seen huddled together under the cover of tall trees, searching for shelter from the rain.

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 'Star Wars' ] and depicting this scene: In a Pennsylvania forest, a group of Republican voters gathers to cast their ballots for senators while simultaneously, a flock of birds is seen huddled together under the cover of tall trees, searching for shelter from the rain. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that resembles a scene from 'Star Wars', featuring a Pennsylvania forest with tall, imposing trees and a group of Republican voters, enveloped in an air of importance, casting their ballots for senators. Amidst the lush greenery, a flock of birds, clustered tightly together, seeks refuge from the pouring rain, creating an atmosphere of tension and anticipation. The forest exudes an otherworldly aura, evoking the grandeur and mystery of an epic space opera.

*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 Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania caused where do birds go when it rains (Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains') to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Flocking Together: The Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'

The Journal of Quirky Political and Ornithological Studies

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 Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Include a pun in the title.

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 0.8152374 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]]
"Flocking Together: The Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating intersection of political voting behavior and curiosity about avian meteorological strategies. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team examined the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains" from 2004 to 2018. Our findings reveal a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 with statistical significance (p < 0.05), shedding light on the potentially interconnected nature of political preferences and ornithologically inquisitive nature. This study not only contributes to the burgeoning field of interdisciplinary research but also whimsically highlights the captivating, albeit unanticipated, correlations that can surface from seemingly unrelated datasets.


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 Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Flocking Together: The Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating intersection of political voting behavior and curiosity about avian meteorological strategies. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team examined the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains" from 2004 to 2018. Our findings reveal a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 with statistical significance (p < 0.05), shedding light on the potentially interconnected nature of political preferences and ornithologically inquisitive nature. This study not only contributes to the burgeoning field of interdisciplinary research but also whimsically highlights the captivating, albeit unanticipated, correlations that can surface from seemingly unrelated datasets.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
INTRODUCTION

Understanding the complex interplay between political behavior and seemingly unrelated phenomena has long been a subject of interest for researchers seeking to uncover the hidden forces that shape human decision-making. In this study, we explore the intriguing relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the question "where do birds go when it rains." While at first glance, these two subjects may appear as distant from each other as the Republican and Democratic parties in a heated debate, our investigation demonstrates that there may be more to this correlation than meets the eye.

Over the past few decades, the field of political science has increasingly embraced the use of diverse data sources and advanced analytical techniques to gain insight into the factors influencing voter preferences. Meanwhile, the rise of digital platforms has allowed individuals to express their curiosity on a wide range of topics, including those related to the behavior of our feathered friends during inclement weather. Combining these two disparate realms, our study ventures into uncharted territory, seeking to uncover potential connections that may challenge conventional wisdom.

The state of Pennsylvania serves as our focal point, with its rich political landscape and diverse avian population providing a unique backdrop for our analysis. By examining Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2018, we aim to capture the ebb and flow of electoral sentiment within a critical swing state. Simultaneously, our investigation into Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" over the same period offers a glimpse into the curious inquiries of internet users navigating the intricacies of avian behavior.

The choice of these variables may appear unconventional, perhaps even raising a skeptic's eyebrow, given the seemingly disparate nature of political voting patterns and bird-centric internet queries. However, as the renowned scientist Carl Sagan once noted, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." In this spirit of exploration, our research seeks to unravel the potentially astonishing links that underlie human behavior, prompting us to examine questions we never knew we had about birds’ rainy-day hideouts and political affiliations simultaneously.

In the subsequent sections of this paper, we delve into the specific methodology employed to rigorously analyze the data and unravel the statistical relationship between these variables. The findings from our investigation not only hold implications for the fields of political science and digital behavior analysis but also serve as a lighthearted reminder of the remarkable, and at times, amusing patterns that emerge when disparate worlds collide.



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 Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Flocking Together: The Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating intersection of political voting behavior and curiosity about avian meteorological strategies. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team examined the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains" from 2004 to 2018. Our findings reveal a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 with statistical significance (p < 0.05), shedding light on the potentially interconnected nature of political preferences and ornithologically inquisitive nature. This study not only contributes to the burgeoning field of interdisciplinary research but also whimsically highlights the captivating, albeit unanticipated, correlations that can surface from seemingly unrelated datasets.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
Understanding the complex interplay between political behavior and seemingly unrelated phenomena has long been a subject of interest for researchers seeking to uncover the hidden forces that shape human decision-making. In this study, we explore the intriguing relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the question "where do birds go when it rains." While at first glance, these two subjects may appear as distant from each other as the Republican and Democratic parties in a heated debate, our investigation demonstrates that there may be more to this correlation than meets the eye.
Over the past few decades, the field of political science has increasingly embraced the use of diverse data sources and advanced analytical techniques to gain insight into the factors influencing voter preferences. Meanwhile, the rise of digital platforms has allowed individuals to express their curiosity on a wide range of topics, including those related to the behavior of our feathered friends during inclement weather. Combining these two disparate realms, our study ventures into uncharted territory, seeking to uncover potential connections that may challenge conventional wisdom.
The state of Pennsylvania serves as our focal point, with its rich political landscape and diverse avian population providing a unique backdrop for our analysis. By examining Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2018, we aim to capture the ebb and flow of electoral sentiment within a critical swing state. Simultaneously, our investigation into Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" over the same period offers a glimpse into the curious inquiries of internet users navigating the intricacies of avian behavior.
The choice of these variables may appear unconventional, perhaps even raising a skeptic's eyebrow, given the seemingly disparate nature of political voting patterns and bird-centric internet queries. However, as the renowned scientist Carl Sagan once noted, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." In this spirit of exploration, our research seeks to unravel the potentially astonishing links that underlie human behavior, prompting us to examine questions we never knew we had about birds’ rainy-day hideouts and political affiliations simultaneously.
In the subsequent sections of this paper, we delve into the specific methodology employed to rigorously analyze the data and unravel the statistical relationship between these variables. The findings from our investigation not only hold implications for the fields of political science and digital behavior analysis but also serve as a lighthearted reminder of the remarkable, and at times, amusing patterns that emerge when disparate worlds collide.


-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

To gain a comprehensive understanding of the potential intersection between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and the enigmatic curiosity surrounding the whereabouts of avian creatures during rainfall, we turn to existing literature that may shed light on this unlikely amalgamation of political behavior and ornithological musings.

Smith et al. (2015) in their seminal work "The Dynamics of Political Behavior in Swing States" meticulously dissect the intricacies of voting patterns in critical battleground regions, emphasizing the multifaceted nature of voter decision-making. While their study primarily focuses on demographic and ideological factors influencing swing state elections, it paves the way for considering unconventional variables that may exude unexpected relevance.

Doe and Jones (2012) present compelling insights in "Curiosity and Internet Searches: Exploring the Uncharted Territories of Human Inquiry," delving into the diverse array of queries posed by internet users in the digital age. Their analysis of search trends unveils the wide-ranging spectrum of human curiosity, encompassing topics both mundane and extraordinary. Although their study does not directly address avian meteorological curiosities, it lays the groundwork for embracing the serendipitous connections that can emerge from examining seemingly unrelated phenomena.

Expanding beyond traditional academic literature, we turn our attention to non-fiction works that offer valuable perspectives on avian behavior and meteorological phenomena. "The Secret Life of Birds" by David Attenborough (1998) and "The Weather Handbook" by Alan Watts (2015) provide informative insights into the fascinating world of avian creatures and the dynamic interplay between birds and weather conditions. Although these works do not explicitly explore the correlation with political voting behavior, they serve as reminders of the captivating intricacies of avian life and atmospheric dynamics.

Moving into the realm of fiction, we encounter narratives that, albeit imaginative, may offer indirect parallels to our inquiry. "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee (1960) and "The Corrections" by Jonathan Franzen (2001) feature narrative elements entwined with bird symbolism and environmental metaphors. While these literary works may not directly address avian meteorology or political voting behavior, they subtly intertwine themes that evoke contemplation of human behavior and societal dynamics, albeit in a more metaphorical sense.

In considering unconventional sources of insight, we delve into popular culture references that parallel our investigation's whimsical nature. The animated series "The Adventures of DuckTales" and children's show "Sesame Street" often feature episodes highlighting avian behavior and ecological themes, symbolically resonating with the lighthearted spirit of our exploration. While these entertainment productions may not offer scientific rigor, they playfully intertwine themes of avian fascination and human interconnectedness, echoing the unexpected harmonies that may emerge from the unlikeliest of pairings.

As we journey through the diverse landscape of literature and popular culture, we embrace the complementary blend of serious scholarship and playful imagination, setting the stage for unraveling the peculiar correlation between Senatorial votes and rainy-day avian inquiries.


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 Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from 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]]
"Flocking Together: The Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating intersection of political voting behavior and curiosity about avian meteorological strategies. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team examined the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains" from 2004 to 2018. Our findings reveal a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 with statistical significance (p < 0.05), shedding light on the potentially interconnected nature of political preferences and ornithologically inquisitive nature. This study not only contributes to the burgeoning field of interdisciplinary research but also whimsically highlights the captivating, albeit unanticipated, correlations that can surface from seemingly unrelated datasets.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
Understanding the complex interplay between political behavior and seemingly unrelated phenomena has long been a subject of interest for researchers seeking to uncover the hidden forces that shape human decision-making. In this study, we explore the intriguing relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the question "where do birds go when it rains." While at first glance, these two subjects may appear as distant from each other as the Republican and Democratic parties in a heated debate, our investigation demonstrates that there may be more to this correlation than meets the eye.
Over the past few decades, the field of political science has increasingly embraced the use of diverse data sources and advanced analytical techniques to gain insight into the factors influencing voter preferences. Meanwhile, the rise of digital platforms has allowed individuals to express their curiosity on a wide range of topics, including those related to the behavior of our feathered friends during inclement weather. Combining these two disparate realms, our study ventures into uncharted territory, seeking to uncover potential connections that may challenge conventional wisdom.
The state of Pennsylvania serves as our focal point, with its rich political landscape and diverse avian population providing a unique backdrop for our analysis. By examining Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2018, we aim to capture the ebb and flow of electoral sentiment within a critical swing state. Simultaneously, our investigation into Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" over the same period offers a glimpse into the curious inquiries of internet users navigating the intricacies of avian behavior.
The choice of these variables may appear unconventional, perhaps even raising a skeptic's eyebrow, given the seemingly disparate nature of political voting patterns and bird-centric internet queries. However, as the renowned scientist Carl Sagan once noted, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." In this spirit of exploration, our research seeks to unravel the potentially astonishing links that underlie human behavior, prompting us to examine questions we never knew we had about birds’ rainy-day hideouts and political affiliations simultaneously.
In the subsequent sections of this paper, we delve into the specific methodology employed to rigorously analyze the data and unravel the statistical relationship between these variables. The findings from our investigation not only hold implications for the fields of political science and digital behavior analysis but also serve as a lighthearted reminder of the remarkable, and at times, amusing patterns that emerge when disparate worlds collide.


-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection
The data for this study were obtained from multiple sources, resembling a skillful scavenger hunt through the digital landscape. The MIT Election Data and Science Lab played the role of a trustworthy guide, providing comprehensive information on Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2018. Meanwhile, the Harvard Dataverse served as a treasure trove of electoral insights, enriching our dataset with additional nuances and details. To bring an unexpected twist, Google Trends emerged as our unconventional informant, shedding light on the frequency of searches for the phrase "where do birds go when it rains" over the same time frame. The choice of utilizing internet searches as a primary data source was driven by the desire to capture the whimsical and often enigmatic nature of human curiosity, as well as to add a touch of avian charm to the traditionally staid world of political research.

Data Analysis
The correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the avian meteorological quandary was quantified using a series of robust statistical techniques, each employed with the meticulousness of a bird meticulously arranging its nest. A Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to assess the strength and direction of the relationship between the two variables, ensuring that no stone was left unturned in our quest for insight. Additionally, a series of time series analyses and regression models were enlisted to uncover the temporal dynamics and potential causal pathways underlying this curious union of politics and ornithological curiosity.

Data Interpretation
Interpreting the results of our analysis involved a delicate balance of gravitas and levity, akin to witnessing a parliament of owls engage in a scholarly debate. The correlation coefficient of 0.8152374, accompanied by a p-value less than 0.05, metaphorically soared into significance, revealing a surprisingly robust statistical relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." While the academic world may be more accustomed to discussing party politics and policy preferences, this unexpected correlation serves as a whimsical reminder of the quirky, yet captivating, patterns that can emerge when disparate datasets collide.

In summary, our methodology sought to unravel the intricate connection between Republican votes and avian precipitation ponderings, employing a blend of traditional statistical analyses and unconventional data sources. The subsequent sections of this paper embark on a journey to present the findings of this captivating exploration, offering both scholarly insights and a dash of unexpected delight in the realm of interdisciplinary research.


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 Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

For the time period 2004 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.8152374, r-squared of 0.6646119, 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]]
"Flocking Together: The Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating intersection of political voting behavior and curiosity about avian meteorological strategies. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team examined the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains" from 2004 to 2018. Our findings reveal a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 with statistical significance (p < 0.05), shedding light on the potentially interconnected nature of political preferences and ornithologically inquisitive nature. This study not only contributes to the burgeoning field of interdisciplinary research but also whimsically highlights the captivating, albeit unanticipated, correlations that can surface from seemingly unrelated datasets.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
Understanding the complex interplay between political behavior and seemingly unrelated phenomena has long been a subject of interest for researchers seeking to uncover the hidden forces that shape human decision-making. In this study, we explore the intriguing relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the question "where do birds go when it rains." While at first glance, these two subjects may appear as distant from each other as the Republican and Democratic parties in a heated debate, our investigation demonstrates that there may be more to this correlation than meets the eye.
Over the past few decades, the field of political science has increasingly embraced the use of diverse data sources and advanced analytical techniques to gain insight into the factors influencing voter preferences. Meanwhile, the rise of digital platforms has allowed individuals to express their curiosity on a wide range of topics, including those related to the behavior of our feathered friends during inclement weather. Combining these two disparate realms, our study ventures into uncharted territory, seeking to uncover potential connections that may challenge conventional wisdom.
The state of Pennsylvania serves as our focal point, with its rich political landscape and diverse avian population providing a unique backdrop for our analysis. By examining Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2018, we aim to capture the ebb and flow of electoral sentiment within a critical swing state. Simultaneously, our investigation into Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" over the same period offers a glimpse into the curious inquiries of internet users navigating the intricacies of avian behavior.
The choice of these variables may appear unconventional, perhaps even raising a skeptic's eyebrow, given the seemingly disparate nature of political voting patterns and bird-centric internet queries. However, as the renowned scientist Carl Sagan once noted, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." In this spirit of exploration, our research seeks to unravel the potentially astonishing links that underlie human behavior, prompting us to examine questions we never knew we had about birds’ rainy-day hideouts and political affiliations simultaneously.
In the subsequent sections of this paper, we delve into the specific methodology employed to rigorously analyze the data and unravel the statistical relationship between these variables. The findings from our investigation not only hold implications for the fields of political science and digital behavior analysis but also serve as a lighthearted reminder of the remarkable, and at times, amusing patterns that emerge when disparate worlds collide.


-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our analysis illuminated a notable and surprisingly strong correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" from 2004 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 suggests a robust positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. Additionally, with an r-squared value of 0.6646119, approximately 66.5% of the variation in Republican votes can be explained by the variation in searches about avian precipitation predicaments. The p-value of less than 0.05 indicates that this correlation is statistically significant, further emphasizing the strength of the relationship observed.

Figure 1 displays a scatterplot that visually encapsulates this striking correlation, showcasing the alignment of Republican votes and curiosity about the sheltering habits of our feathered friends during rainy weather. The compelling clustering of data points further accentuates the tight bond between political inclinations and ornithological musings, painting a vivid picture of the unexpected harmony between these two domains.

These findings not only contribute to the discourse on interdisciplinary research but also serve as a whimsical reminder of the delightful idiosyncrasies that can emerge when distinct spheres intersect. The correlation discovered in this study prompts contemplation on the interconnected nature of human interests and decision-making processes, highlighting the enchanting possibility that our electoral choices and penchant for avian meteorological curiosities may not be as unrelated as one might assume.


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 Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"Flocking Together: The Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating intersection of political voting behavior and curiosity about avian meteorological strategies. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team examined the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains" from 2004 to 2018. Our findings reveal a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 with statistical significance (p < 0.05), shedding light on the potentially interconnected nature of political preferences and ornithologically inquisitive nature. This study not only contributes to the burgeoning field of interdisciplinary research but also whimsically highlights the captivating, albeit unanticipated, correlations that can surface from seemingly unrelated datasets.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the potential intersection between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and the enigmatic curiosity surrounding the whereabouts of avian creatures during rainfall, we turn to existing literature that may shed light on this unlikely amalgamation of political behavior and ornithological musings.
Smith et al. (2015) in their seminal work "The Dynamics of Political Behavior in Swing States" meticulously dissect the intricacies of voting patterns in critical battleground regions, emphasizing the multifaceted nature of voter decision-making. While their study primarily focuses on demographic and ideological factors influencing swing state elections, it paves the way for considering unconventional variables that may exude unexpected relevance.
Doe and Jones (2012) present compelling insights in "Curiosity and Internet Searches: Exploring the Uncharted Territories of Human Inquiry," delving into the diverse array of queries posed by internet users in the digital age. Their analysis of search trends unveils the wide-ranging spectrum of human curiosity, encompassing topics both mundane and extraordinary. Although their study does not directly address avian meteorological curiosities, it lays the groundwork for embracing the serendipitous connections that can emerge from examining seemingly unrelated phenomena.
Expanding beyond traditional academic literature, we turn our attention to non-fiction works that offer valuable perspectives on avian behavior and meteorological phenomena. "The Secret Life of Birds" by David Attenborough (1998) and "The Weather Handbook" by Alan Watts (2015) provide informative insights into the fascinating world of avian creatures and the dynamic interplay between birds and weather conditions. Although these works do not explicitly explore the correlation with political voting behavior, they serve as reminders of the captivating intricacies of avian life and atmospheric dynamics.
Moving into the realm of fiction, we encounter narratives that, albeit imaginative, may offer indirect parallels to our inquiry. "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee (1960) and "The Corrections" by Jonathan Franzen (2001) feature narrative elements entwined with bird symbolism and environmental metaphors. While these literary works may not directly address avian meteorology or political voting behavior, they subtly intertwine themes that evoke contemplation of human behavior and societal dynamics, albeit in a more metaphorical sense.
In considering unconventional sources of insight, we delve into popular culture references that parallel our investigation's whimsical nature. The animated series "The Adventures of DuckTales" and children's show "Sesame Street" often feature episodes highlighting avian behavior and ecological themes, symbolically resonating with the lighthearted spirit of our exploration. While these entertainment productions may not offer scientific rigor, they playfully intertwine themes of avian fascination and human interconnectedness, echoing the unexpected harmonies that may emerge from the unlikeliest of pairings.
As we journey through the diverse landscape of literature and popular culture, we embrace the complementary blend of serious scholarship and playful imagination, setting the stage for unraveling the peculiar correlation between Senatorial votes and rainy-day avian inquiries.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis illuminated a notable and surprisingly strong correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" from 2004 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 suggests a robust positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. Additionally, with an r-squared value of 0.6646119, approximately 66.5% of the variation in Republican votes can be explained by the variation in searches about avian precipitation predicaments. The p-value of less than 0.05 indicates that this correlation is statistically significant, further emphasizing the strength of the relationship observed.
Figure 1 displays a scatterplot that visually encapsulates this striking correlation, showcasing the alignment of Republican votes and curiosity about the sheltering habits of our feathered friends during rainy weather. The compelling clustering of data points further accentuates the tight bond between political inclinations and ornithological musings, painting a vivid picture of the unexpected harmony between these two domains.
These findings not only contribute to the discourse on interdisciplinary research but also serve as a whimsical reminder of the delightful idiosyncrasies that can emerge when distinct spheres intersect. The correlation discovered in this study prompts contemplation on the interconnected nature of human interests and decision-making processes, highlighting the enchanting possibility that our electoral choices and penchant for avian meteorological curiosities may not be as unrelated as one might assume.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:


[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study intriguingly demonstrate a robust and statistically significant positive correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." This unexpected association aligns with prior literature on seemingly unrelated phenomena unexpectedly converging, as evidenced by our literature review.

Smith et al. (2015) emphasized the multifaceted nature of voter decision-making, laying the groundwork for considering unconventional variables like avian curiosity. It appears that voters' inclinations may indeed possess a deeper connection to ornithological ponderings than previously conceived, much like the intertwining themes of human behavior and societal dynamics found in literary works such as "To Kill a Mockingbird." In a similarly unexpected fashion, our results support the serendipitous connections highlighted by Doe and Jones (2012), showcasing the uncharted territories of human inquiry and the wide-ranging spectrum of curiosity that extends to avian meteorological musings.

While our findings may initially seem whimsical, they offer valuable insights into the unpredictable interplay of human interests and decision-making processes. The correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 underscores the surprising alignment between political preferences and avian meteorological curiosities. It appears that a sizable portion of the variation in Republican votes can be explained by the variation in searches about rain-drenched avian shelters, reflecting an unforeseen connection between political behaviors and inquisitive musings about avian behavior.

Our study's results not only contribute to the burgeoning field of interdisciplinary research but also highlight the enchanting possibility that seemingly dissonant areas of human curiosity and decision-making may possess an unexpected cohesion. The whimsical correlation unveiled in this study adds a touch of lighthearted intrigue to the complex landscape of political behavior and internet queries, emphasizing the captivating idiosyncrasies that arise when distinct realms intersect. This study prompts further contemplation on the captivating intersections of human interests, shedding light on the delightful harmony between electoral choices and avian meteorological curiosities.


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 Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Flocking Together: The Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the fascinating intersection of political voting behavior and curiosity about avian meteorological strategies. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team examined the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains" from 2004 to 2018. Our findings reveal a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 with statistical significance (p < 0.05), shedding light on the potentially interconnected nature of political preferences and ornithologically inquisitive nature. This study not only contributes to the burgeoning field of interdisciplinary research but also whimsically highlights the captivating, albeit unanticipated, correlations that can surface from seemingly unrelated datasets.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
Understanding the complex interplay between political behavior and seemingly unrelated phenomena has long been a subject of interest for researchers seeking to uncover the hidden forces that shape human decision-making. In this study, we explore the intriguing relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the question "where do birds go when it rains." While at first glance, these two subjects may appear as distant from each other as the Republican and Democratic parties in a heated debate, our investigation demonstrates that there may be more to this correlation than meets the eye.
Over the past few decades, the field of political science has increasingly embraced the use of diverse data sources and advanced analytical techniques to gain insight into the factors influencing voter preferences. Meanwhile, the rise of digital platforms has allowed individuals to express their curiosity on a wide range of topics, including those related to the behavior of our feathered friends during inclement weather. Combining these two disparate realms, our study ventures into uncharted territory, seeking to uncover potential connections that may challenge conventional wisdom.
The state of Pennsylvania serves as our focal point, with its rich political landscape and diverse avian population providing a unique backdrop for our analysis. By examining Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2018, we aim to capture the ebb and flow of electoral sentiment within a critical swing state. Simultaneously, our investigation into Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" over the same period offers a glimpse into the curious inquiries of internet users navigating the intricacies of avian behavior.
The choice of these variables may appear unconventional, perhaps even raising a skeptic's eyebrow, given the seemingly disparate nature of political voting patterns and bird-centric internet queries. However, as the renowned scientist Carl Sagan once noted, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." In this spirit of exploration, our research seeks to unravel the potentially astonishing links that underlie human behavior, prompting us to examine questions we never knew we had about birds’ rainy-day hideouts and political affiliations simultaneously.
In the subsequent sections of this paper, we delve into the specific methodology employed to rigorously analyze the data and unravel the statistical relationship between these variables. The findings from our investigation not only hold implications for the fields of political science and digital behavior analysis but also serve as a lighthearted reminder of the remarkable, and at times, amusing patterns that emerge when disparate worlds collide.


[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis illuminated a notable and surprisingly strong correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" from 2004 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 suggests a robust positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. Additionally, with an r-squared value of 0.6646119, approximately 66.5% of the variation in Republican votes can be explained by the variation in searches about avian precipitation predicaments. The p-value of less than 0.05 indicates that this correlation is statistically significant, further emphasizing the strength of the relationship observed.
Figure 1 displays a scatterplot that visually encapsulates this striking correlation, showcasing the alignment of Republican votes and curiosity about the sheltering habits of our feathered friends during rainy weather. The compelling clustering of data points further accentuates the tight bond between political inclinations and ornithological musings, painting a vivid picture of the unexpected harmony between these two domains.
These findings not only contribute to the discourse on interdisciplinary research but also serve as a whimsical reminder of the delightful idiosyncrasies that can emerge when distinct spheres intersect. The correlation discovered in this study prompts contemplation on the interconnected nature of human interests and decision-making processes, highlighting the enchanting possibility that our electoral choices and penchant for avian meteorological curiosities may not be as unrelated as one might assume.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation has unraveled an intriguing correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." While this association may initially seem as improbable as a penguin in the desert, our findings robustly support the presence of a significant link between these seemingly disparate domains. The strength of the correlation coefficient, coupled with the visualization of the data in Figure 1, vividly underscores the unexpected harmony between political preferences and avian precipitation ponderings.

This study not only contributes to the growing body of interdisciplinary research but also brings a whimsical touch to the serious realm of data analysis. The remarkable patterns uncovered in this investigation serve as a reminder of the delightful intricacies that can emerge from the convergence of distinct fields. As the adage goes, "birds of a feather flock together," and it appears that avian inquiries and political leanings are no exception.

As we reflect on our findings, we are left pondering the captivating possibility that our fascination with avian behavior during inclement weather may have unforeseen parallels with our electoral decision-making processes. While the unorthodox nature of our inquiry may raise an academic eyebrow or two, it is precisely this spirit of intellectual adventure that propels us to explore the uncharted territories of research and challenge conventional boundaries.

In light of these compelling findings, it is evident that further exploration into the intersection of political behavior and seemingly unrelated phenomena holds promise for uncovering additional connections that may defy conventional expectations. However, in the case of this specific correlation, one might argue that we've already flown the coop in terms of uncovering the depths of this particular avian-political nexus. Therefore, it is with a lighthearted sincerity that we assert: no more research is needed in this particular domain. The birds have spoken, and so have the voters in Pennsylvania.


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 Flocking Together: The Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Political and Ornithological Studies


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 Flocking Together: The Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Political Avian Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Flocking Together: The Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains' with an abstract of This paper delves into the fascinating intersection of political voting behavior and curiosity about avian meteorological strategies. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team examined the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Pennsylvania and Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains" from 2004 to 2018. Our findings reveal a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8152374 with statistical significance (p < 0.05), shedding light on the potentially interconnected nature of political preferences and ornithologically inquisitive nature. This study not only contributes to the burgeoning field of interdisciplinary research but also whimsically highlights the captivating, albeit unanticipated, correlations that can surface from seemingly unrelated datasets.

ChatGPT:

Republican votes, Senators, Pennsylvania, Google searches, "where do birds go when it rains", avian meteorological strategies, political voting behavior, curiosity, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, interdisciplinary research, ornithologically inquisitive nature

*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 Republican Senators in Pennsylvania
Detailed data title: Total number of votes cast for Federal Republican Senate candidates in Pennsylvania
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for Republican Senators in Pennsylvania

Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'

Correlation r = 0.8152374 (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 = 0.6646119 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 66.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Pennsylvania) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2018.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0481. 0.0480522103782445000000000000
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 0.82 in 4.81% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 21 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.

[ 0.01, 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 Republican Senators in Pennsylvania (Total votes)292508016847802028940250913029517002134850
Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' (Rel. search volume)2.833330.6666671.166670.9166672.083331.5




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([2925080,1684780,2028940,2509130,2951700,2134850,])
array_2 = np.array([2.83333,0.666667,1.16667,0.916667,2.08333,1.5,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Pennsylvania"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'"

# 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?

Kudos for rating!


Correlation ID: 5210 · Black Variable ID: 26307 · Red Variable ID: 1468
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0