about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,215 · 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 Indiana and the second variable is Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'.  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

The decrease in Democrat votes for Senators in Indiana has caused a shift in the quantum linguistic field, leading to a reordering of phonetic priorities. As a result, the pronunciation of "eleven" has been harmonically adjusted to align with the new political landscape, effectively rendering "onety one" obsolete in the current electoral linguistic framework.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ A humorous image you would see on Reddit ] Create an image of a rural Indiana Senate campaign office set in a picturesque scene amidst rolling cornfields. The office is housed in a traditional red barn with a faded "Support Our Democratic Candidates" sign prominently displayed. Inside the barn, an old wooden radio crackles with news of the declining number of Democrat votes. Nearby, an open laptop displays the Google search page with "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one" as the top search query. Just outside the barn, a group of locals gathers, engaged in lively discussion about recent election results. As they talk, the word "eleven" floats in the air with a new, subtly altered pronunciation, reflecting the shifting political landscape. 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 Indiana and Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'. 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: A Discovery magazine cover image Woodblock painting a funny image you would see on reddit Brutalism Cute 2D animation
ChatGPT: A funny image you would see on Reddit

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 Indiana and Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one', in the following situation: The decrease in Democrat votes for Senators in Indiana has caused a shift in the quantum linguistic field, leading to a reordering of phonetic priorities. As a result, the pronunciation of "eleven" has been harmonically adjusted to align with the new political landscape, effectively rendering "onety one" obsolete in the current electoral linguistic framework.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a rural Indiana Senate campaign office, a traditional red barn with a faded "Support Our Democratic Candidates" sign is surrounded by rolling cornfields. Inside, an old wooden radio crackles with news of the declining number of Democrat votes. Meanwhile, on a nearby table, a laptop sits open with the Google search page displaying "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one" as the top search query. Outside, a group of locals gather, discussing the recent election results, as the word "eleven" floats in the air with a new, subtly altered pronunciation, reflecting the shifting political landscape.

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: [ A funny image you would see on Reddit ] and depicting this scene: In a rural Indiana Senate campaign office, a traditional red barn with a faded "Support Our Democratic Candidates" sign is surrounded by rolling cornfields. Inside, an old wooden radio crackles with news of the declining number of Democrat votes. Meanwhile, on a nearby table, a laptop sits open with the Google search page displaying "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one" as the top search query. Outside, a group of locals gather, discussing the recent election results, as the word "eleven" floats in the air with a new, subtly altered pronunciation, reflecting the shifting political landscape. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ A humorous image you would see on Reddit ] Create an image of a rural Indiana Senate campaign office set in a picturesque scene amidst rolling cornfields. The office is housed in a traditional red barn with a faded "Support Our Democratic Candidates" sign prominently displayed. Inside the barn, an old wooden radio crackles with news of the declining number of Democrat votes. Nearby, an open laptop displays the Google search page with "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one" as the top search query. Just outside the barn, a group of locals gathers, engaged in lively discussion about recent election results. As they talk, the word "eleven" floats in the air with a new, subtly altered pronunciation, reflecting the shifting political landscape.

*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 humerus 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 Indiana caused why isnt 11 pronounced onety one (Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one') to decrease. Make it silly.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Democratic Dilemma: Data-Driven Determination of the Dependence of Indiana Senatorial Votes on Yearning for Onety One Explanations

Journal of Political Quirkiness

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 dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.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 Indiana and Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'. 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 0.9778886 and p < 0.01 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]]
The Democratic Dilemma: Data-Driven Determination of the Dependence of Indiana Senatorial Votes on Yearning for "Onety One" Explanations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the frequency of Google searches for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one". Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, a correlation coefficient of 0.9778886 and p < 0.01 for the years 2004 to 2018 was identified, indicating a strong positive association. Despite the illusory nature of such a connection, our research suggests that Hoosier constituents' insatiable curiosity about linguistic oddities may be influencing their political choices. This provides a whimsical yet thought-provoking insight into the interplay between language quirkiness and electoral decision-making.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.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 Indiana and Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'. Make lots of 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]]
The Democratic Dilemma: Data-Driven Determination of the Dependence of Indiana Senatorial Votes on Yearning for "Onety One" Explanations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the frequency of Google searches for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one". Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, a correlation coefficient of 0.9778886 and p < 0.01 for the years 2004 to 2018 was identified, indicating a strong positive association. Despite the illusory nature of such a connection, our research suggests that Hoosier constituents' insatiable curiosity about linguistic oddities may be influencing their political choices. This provides a whimsical yet thought-provoking insight into the interplay between language quirkiness and electoral decision-making.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
INTRODUCTION

Language and politics are not commonly considered bedfellows in the realm of academic research. However, as we delve further into the peculiarities of human behavior, it becomes increasingly evident that there are whimsically unexpected connections waiting to be unearthed. In this study, we endeavor to unravel the seemingly far-fetched association between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the enigmatic quest for the pronunciation of 11 as "onety one" through Google searches.

The state of Indiana, known for its cornfields, basketball fervor, and—apparently—linguistic inquisitiveness, serves as the backdrop for this idiosyncratic exploration. The juxtaposition of political leanings and linguistic curiosities may seem like an odd couple, akin to a stand-up comedian giving a TED talk, but as we venture further into the depths of data analysis, these seemingly incongruent elements may just reveal a hidden harmony.

At first glance, the notion of individuals' Google inquiries influencing their political inclinations may prompt a chuckle or two. However, as the old adage goes, truth is often stranger than fiction. It is within this spirit of curiosity and a tinge of bemusement that we embark on this investigation into the correlation between linguistic whimsy and electoral preferences. While the exploration may take us through the unexpected alleys of human behavior, it is the scientific rigor and a pinch of scholarly humor that will guide us through this lighthearted yet thought-provoking journey. Let us proceed with cautious amusement and rigorous inquiry into the Democratic dilemma that has entwined itself with the pronunciation of "onety one."


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.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 Indiana and Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'. 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]]
The Democratic Dilemma: Data-Driven Determination of the Dependence of Indiana Senatorial Votes on Yearning for "Onety One" Explanations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the frequency of Google searches for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one". Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, a correlation coefficient of 0.9778886 and p < 0.01 for the years 2004 to 2018 was identified, indicating a strong positive association. Despite the illusory nature of such a connection, our research suggests that Hoosier constituents' insatiable curiosity about linguistic oddities may be influencing their political choices. This provides a whimsical yet thought-provoking insight into the interplay between language quirkiness and electoral decision-making.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
Language and politics are not commonly considered bedfellows in the realm of academic research. However, as we delve further into the peculiarities of human behavior, it becomes increasingly evident that there are whimsically unexpected connections waiting to be unearthed. In this study, we endeavor to unravel the seemingly far-fetched association between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the enigmatic quest for the pronunciation of 11 as "onety one" through Google searches.
The state of Indiana, known for its cornfields, basketball fervor, and—apparently—linguistic inquisitiveness, serves as the backdrop for this idiosyncratic exploration. The juxtaposition of political leanings and linguistic curiosities may seem like an odd couple, akin to a stand-up comedian giving a TED talk, but as we venture further into the depths of data analysis, these seemingly incongruent elements may just reveal a hidden harmony.
At first glance, the notion of individuals' Google inquiries influencing their political inclinations may prompt a chuckle or two. However, as the old adage goes, truth is often stranger than fiction. It is within this spirit of curiosity and a tinge of bemusement that we embark on this investigation into the correlation between linguistic whimsy and electoral preferences. While the exploration may take us through the unexpected alleys of human behavior, it is the scientific rigor and a pinch of scholarly humor that will guide us through this lighthearted yet thought-provoking journey. Let us proceed with cautious amusement and rigorous inquiry into the Democratic dilemma that has entwined itself with the pronunciation of "onety one."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The authors find that the correlation between Google searches for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one" and Democrat votes for Senators in Indiana is indeed an intriguing subject of study. Smith et al. (2015) examined the relationship between linguistic oddities and political behavior, offering insights into the cognitive dissonance that may arise from such juxtapositions. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2017) delved into the unexpected fusion of language quirkiness and electoral decision-making, shedding light on the unexplored terrain where syntax meets the Senate.

In "Linguistic Quirks in Political Landscapes," the authors delve into the interplay between phonetics and politics, which has been a hitherto unexplored avenue in the field of political science. Furthermore, "The Lyrical Leanings of the Electorate" analyzes the impact of language peculiarities on the voting patterns of individuals, providing a nuanced understanding of the unconventionality that may underpin seemingly rational decisions.

Turning to relevant non-fiction literature, works such as "The Power of Language: How Words Shape Our World" and "Political Puns and Phonetics" offer comprehensive insights into the interrelationship between language and human behavior, providing a theoretical framework for understanding the potential influence of linguistic curiosities on political choices. In similar vein, fictional narratives such as "Tongue Twisters and Trenches: A Tale of Linguistic Intrigue in Electoral Campaigns" and "The Verbal Vortex: How Phonetics Flipped the Political Script" weave whimsical tales of linguistic anomalies intersecting with political realms.

Additionally, a careful examination of children's cartoons and television shows reveals a latent fascination with linguistic oddities, with characters often engaging in playful banter that mirrors the quirks of human speech. Cartoons such as "The Phonetics Follies" and "Adventures in Alphabet City" provide a whimsical yet insightful lens through which to explore the allure of linguistic oddities intertwined with the fabric of human expression.

In conclusion, the literature provides a rich tapestry of scholarly inquiry and imaginative storytelling that underscores the captivating interplay between linguistic eccentricities and political dynamics. As we proceed with our investigation into the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Indiana and Google searches for the pronunciation of "onety one," we embark on a journey that embraces both scientific rigor and a hint of enchanting whimsy.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.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 Indiana and Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'. Make lots of 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]]
The Democratic Dilemma: Data-Driven Determination of the Dependence of Indiana Senatorial Votes on Yearning for "Onety One" Explanations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the frequency of Google searches for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one". Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, a correlation coefficient of 0.9778886 and p < 0.01 for the years 2004 to 2018 was identified, indicating a strong positive association. Despite the illusory nature of such a connection, our research suggests that Hoosier constituents' insatiable curiosity about linguistic oddities may be influencing their political choices. This provides a whimsical yet thought-provoking insight into the interplay between language quirkiness and electoral decision-making.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
Language and politics are not commonly considered bedfellows in the realm of academic research. However, as we delve further into the peculiarities of human behavior, it becomes increasingly evident that there are whimsically unexpected connections waiting to be unearthed. In this study, we endeavor to unravel the seemingly far-fetched association between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the enigmatic quest for the pronunciation of 11 as "onety one" through Google searches.
The state of Indiana, known for its cornfields, basketball fervor, and—apparently—linguistic inquisitiveness, serves as the backdrop for this idiosyncratic exploration. The juxtaposition of political leanings and linguistic curiosities may seem like an odd couple, akin to a stand-up comedian giving a TED talk, but as we venture further into the depths of data analysis, these seemingly incongruent elements may just reveal a hidden harmony.
At first glance, the notion of individuals' Google inquiries influencing their political inclinations may prompt a chuckle or two. However, as the old adage goes, truth is often stranger than fiction. It is within this spirit of curiosity and a tinge of bemusement that we embark on this investigation into the correlation between linguistic whimsy and electoral preferences. While the exploration may take us through the unexpected alleys of human behavior, it is the scientific rigor and a pinch of scholarly humor that will guide us through this lighthearted yet thought-provoking journey. Let us proceed with cautious amusement and rigorous inquiry into the Democratic dilemma that has entwined itself with the pronunciation of "onety one."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Data Collection:
The data for this research was sourced from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends. The search term "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one" was specifically selected to gauge the extent of Hoosiers' linguistic ponderings. This choice of search query could be considered an example of serendipitous linguistic whimsy, as it inadvertently set the stage for an unexpectedly colorful exploration of the intersection between language quirks and democratic choices in Indiana.

Variables and Trends:
The search volume index from Google Trends for the chosen query was obtained for the years 2004 to 2018. The frequency of searches was examined in relation to the Democratic vote share for Senators in Indiana during the same period. By selecting such an unconventional search query, we ventured into uncharted territory, akin to spelunkers exploring a cavern of quirky language conundrums. The juxtaposition of political preferences against the backdrop of linguistic perplexities brought a refreshing yet curious twist to the traditional domain of electoral analysis.

Correlation Analysis:
Utilizing statistical methods, a correlation coefficient of 0.9778886 and p < 0.01 was calculated, indicating a strong positive association between the frequency of Google searches for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one" and Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana. This unexpected finding, akin to stumbling upon a monocle-wearing squirrel in a linguistic labyrinth, prompted a reevaluation of the conventional understanding of voter behavior. While the connection may appear whimsical on the surface, it nudges the boundaries of electoral research into a realm of delightful intrigue and scholarly mirth.

Control Variables:
In order to ensure the robustness of the analysis, control variables including demographic factors, economic indicators, and traditional political variables were incorporated into the models. This meticulous approach, akin to detangling a linguistic limerick, allowed for the isolation of the unique influence of the research question at hand. The presence of control variables served as a safety net, preventing the potential merriment of the research findings from careening into the realm of statistical absurdity.

Limitations:
It is important to acknowledge the limitations inherent in this study, as the unorthodox nature of the research presents its own set of challenges. The use of an unconventional search query may raise eyebrows in traditional political research circles, yet it also provides a jovial departure from the somber norm. The limitations underscore the underlying lightheartedness of the study, offering a gentle reminder that academic inquiries, like life, occasionally benefit from a dash of whimsy and an unexpected turn of phrase.

In conclusion, the research methodology adopted in this study navigated the unanticipated waters of linguistic inquisitiveness and political proclivities with scholarly rigor, offering a nod to the playful spirit of human curiosity. The methodological approach, while unconventional, provided an avenue for the discovery of a captivating correlation, reinforcing the notion that truth, like a linguistic riddle, often hides in the most unexpected corners.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.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 Indiana and Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'. Make lots of 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 0.9778886, r-squared of 0.9562662, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Democratic Dilemma: Data-Driven Determination of the Dependence of Indiana Senatorial Votes on Yearning for "Onety One" Explanations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the frequency of Google searches for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one". Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, a correlation coefficient of 0.9778886 and p < 0.01 for the years 2004 to 2018 was identified, indicating a strong positive association. Despite the illusory nature of such a connection, our research suggests that Hoosier constituents' insatiable curiosity about linguistic oddities may be influencing their political choices. This provides a whimsical yet thought-provoking insight into the interplay between language quirkiness and electoral decision-making.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
Language and politics are not commonly considered bedfellows in the realm of academic research. However, as we delve further into the peculiarities of human behavior, it becomes increasingly evident that there are whimsically unexpected connections waiting to be unearthed. In this study, we endeavor to unravel the seemingly far-fetched association between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the enigmatic quest for the pronunciation of 11 as "onety one" through Google searches.
The state of Indiana, known for its cornfields, basketball fervor, and—apparently—linguistic inquisitiveness, serves as the backdrop for this idiosyncratic exploration. The juxtaposition of political leanings and linguistic curiosities may seem like an odd couple, akin to a stand-up comedian giving a TED talk, but as we venture further into the depths of data analysis, these seemingly incongruent elements may just reveal a hidden harmony.
At first glance, the notion of individuals' Google inquiries influencing their political inclinations may prompt a chuckle or two. However, as the old adage goes, truth is often stranger than fiction. It is within this spirit of curiosity and a tinge of bemusement that we embark on this investigation into the correlation between linguistic whimsy and electoral preferences. While the exploration may take us through the unexpected alleys of human behavior, it is the scientific rigor and a pinch of scholarly humor that will guide us through this lighthearted yet thought-provoking journey. Let us proceed with cautious amusement and rigorous inquiry into the Democratic dilemma that has entwined itself with the pronunciation of "onety one."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.9778886, indicative of a strong positive association between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the search intensity for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one" on Google. This finding suggests that there is more to Hoosier politics than meets the eye, or the ear, for that matter.

Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.9562662 portrays a substantial proportion of the variability in the voting patterns of Indiana constituents that can be explained by their perplexity regarding the pronunciation of the numeral 11 as "onety one". While the exact nature of this relationship remains as enigmatic as the linguistic quirk itself, the statistical evidence compels us to consider the possibility of an intriguing interplay between language befuddlement and electoral decision-making.

The p-value being less than 0.01 firmly substantiates the statistical significance of the observed correlation, dismissing any suggestions that this connection is merely a fluke or a product of random chance. It appears that the Hoosiers' insatiable curiosity about the idiosyncrasies of the English language may have tangible implications for the political landscape of Indiana.

Remarkably, these findings suggest that amidst the cut and thrust of political campaigns and policy debates, there exists a whimsically unconventional variable that may exert a peculiar yet discernible influence on voters' behavior. The depiction of this improbable association is graphically presented in Figure 1, which showcases a starkly evident pattern of co-movement between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the intrigue surrounding the pronunciation of "onety one".

In summary, the results of this investigation provide an unconventional yet compelling illumination of the intricate fabric of political decision-making. It seems that in the realm of Hoosier politics, the peculiar allure of linguistic oddities has managed to transcend the conventional determinants of electoral preferences, adding a peculiarly charming dimension to the political discourse.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.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 Indiana and Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'. Make lots of 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]]
The Democratic Dilemma: Data-Driven Determination of the Dependence of Indiana Senatorial Votes on Yearning for "Onety One" Explanations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the frequency of Google searches for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one". Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, a correlation coefficient of 0.9778886 and p < 0.01 for the years 2004 to 2018 was identified, indicating a strong positive association. Despite the illusory nature of such a connection, our research suggests that Hoosier constituents' insatiable curiosity about linguistic oddities may be influencing their political choices. This provides a whimsical yet thought-provoking insight into the interplay between language quirkiness and electoral decision-making.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The authors find that the correlation between Google searches for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one" and Democrat votes for Senators in Indiana is indeed an intriguing subject of study. Smith et al. (2015) examined the relationship between linguistic oddities and political behavior, offering insights into the cognitive dissonance that may arise from such juxtapositions. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2017) delved into the unexpected fusion of language quirkiness and electoral decision-making, shedding light on the unexplored terrain where syntax meets the Senate.
In "Linguistic Quirks in Political Landscapes," the authors delve into the interplay between phonetics and politics, which has been a hitherto unexplored avenue in the field of political science. Furthermore, "The Lyrical Leanings of the Electorate" analyzes the impact of language peculiarities on the voting patterns of individuals, providing a nuanced understanding of the unconventionality that may underpin seemingly rational decisions.
Turning to relevant non-fiction literature, works such as "The Power of Language: How Words Shape Our World" and "Political Puns and Phonetics" offer comprehensive insights into the interrelationship between language and human behavior, providing a theoretical framework for understanding the potential influence of linguistic curiosities on political choices. In similar vein, fictional narratives such as "Tongue Twisters and Trenches: A Tale of Linguistic Intrigue in Electoral Campaigns" and "The Verbal Vortex: How Phonetics Flipped the Political Script" weave whimsical tales of linguistic anomalies intersecting with political realms.
Additionally, a careful examination of children's cartoons and television shows reveals a latent fascination with linguistic oddities, with characters often engaging in playful banter that mirrors the quirks of human speech. Cartoons such as "The Phonetics Follies" and "Adventures in Alphabet City" provide a whimsical yet insightful lens through which to explore the allure of linguistic oddities intertwined with the fabric of human expression.
In conclusion, the literature provides a rich tapestry of scholarly inquiry and imaginative storytelling that underscores the captivating interplay between linguistic eccentricities and political dynamics. As we proceed with our investigation into the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Indiana and Google searches for the pronunciation of "onety one," we embark on a journey that embraces both scientific rigor and a hint of enchanting whimsy.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.9778886, indicative of a strong positive association between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the search intensity for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one" on Google. This finding suggests that there is more to Hoosier politics than meets the eye, or the ear, for that matter.
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.9562662 portrays a substantial proportion of the variability in the voting patterns of Indiana constituents that can be explained by their perplexity regarding the pronunciation of the numeral 11 as "onety one". While the exact nature of this relationship remains as enigmatic as the linguistic quirk itself, the statistical evidence compels us to consider the possibility of an intriguing interplay between language befuddlement and electoral decision-making.
The p-value being less than 0.01 firmly substantiates the statistical significance of the observed correlation, dismissing any suggestions that this connection is merely a fluke or a product of random chance. It appears that the Hoosiers' insatiable curiosity about the idiosyncrasies of the English language may have tangible implications for the political landscape of Indiana.
Remarkably, these findings suggest that amidst the cut and thrust of political campaigns and policy debates, there exists a whimsically unconventional variable that may exert a peculiar yet discernible influence on voters' behavior. The depiction of this improbable association is graphically presented in Figure 1, which showcases a starkly evident pattern of co-movement between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the intrigue surrounding the pronunciation of "onety one".
In summary, the results of this investigation provide an unconventional yet compelling illumination of the intricate fabric of political decision-making. It seems that in the realm of Hoosier politics, the peculiar allure of linguistic oddities has managed to transcend the conventional determinants of electoral preferences, adding a peculiarly charming dimension to the political discourse.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The robust correlation coefficient and statistical significance observed in our study supported existing literature that hinted at the unlikely interplay between linguistic oddities and political behavior. Smith et al. (2015) and Doe and Jones (2017) laid the groundwork for our exploration, and our results substantiated their theoretical musings. It appears that the inexplicable allure of "onety one" has managed to permeate the seemingly staid realm of electoral decision-making. This aligns with the whimsical yet thought-provoking insights provided by non-fiction works such as "The Power of Language: How Words Shape Our World" and "Political Puns and Phonetics," which, despite their lighthearted titles, delve into the profound influence of language on human behavior.

Moreover, the substantial r-squared value revealed that a considerable portion of the variability in the voting patterns of Indiana constituents can be attributed to their curiosity about the pronunciation of the number 11. While the literature had hinted at the possibility of such an association, our empirical findings established a tangible link between Hoosier constituents' linguistic perplexity and their electoral inclinations. This, in turn, echoes the explorations of fictional narratives like "Tongue Twisters and Trenches: A Tale of Linguistic Intrigue in Electoral Campaigns" and "The Verbal Vortex: How Phonetics Flipped the Political Script," which artfully blend the whimsy of language quirks with the serious undertones of political decision-making.

It is undeniable that our results have illuminated the intersection of language befuddlement and political dynamics, reinforcing the captivating interplay between linguistic eccentricities and electoral choices that the literature has so dearly espoused. The depiction of this improbable association in our findings breathes life into the scholarly and imaginative realms explored in the literature, substantiating the captivating interplay of linguistic curiosity with the fabric of human expression and electoral behavior. This unexpected finding underscores the multifaceted nature of human decision-making and the oft-unseen influences that may underpin seemingly rational choices, something that the study of political science cannot afford to overlook.

In conclusion, our investigation not only deepens our understanding of the idiosyncrasies that underpin Hoosier politics but also invites further inquiry into the subtle yet influential role of linguistic peculiarities in shaping electoral outcomes. As we unpack the implications of such a whimsically unconventional variable, we must remain vigilant against dismissing linguistic oddities as trivial curiosities, for it is evident that in the realm of political decision-making, the unconventional may hold surprising sway. However, it is important to maintain a balanced perspective and not get carried away, lest we find ourselves searching for correlations between "tongue twisters" and voter turnout.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.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 Indiana and Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'. Make lots of 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]]
The Democratic Dilemma: Data-Driven Determination of the Dependence of Indiana Senatorial Votes on Yearning for "Onety One" Explanations

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the frequency of Google searches for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one". Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, a correlation coefficient of 0.9778886 and p < 0.01 for the years 2004 to 2018 was identified, indicating a strong positive association. Despite the illusory nature of such a connection, our research suggests that Hoosier constituents' insatiable curiosity about linguistic oddities may be influencing their political choices. This provides a whimsical yet thought-provoking insight into the interplay between language quirkiness and electoral decision-making.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
Language and politics are not commonly considered bedfellows in the realm of academic research. However, as we delve further into the peculiarities of human behavior, it becomes increasingly evident that there are whimsically unexpected connections waiting to be unearthed. In this study, we endeavor to unravel the seemingly far-fetched association between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the enigmatic quest for the pronunciation of 11 as "onety one" through Google searches.
The state of Indiana, known for its cornfields, basketball fervor, and—apparently—linguistic inquisitiveness, serves as the backdrop for this idiosyncratic exploration. The juxtaposition of political leanings and linguistic curiosities may seem like an odd couple, akin to a stand-up comedian giving a TED talk, but as we venture further into the depths of data analysis, these seemingly incongruent elements may just reveal a hidden harmony.
At first glance, the notion of individuals' Google inquiries influencing their political inclinations may prompt a chuckle or two. However, as the old adage goes, truth is often stranger than fiction. It is within this spirit of curiosity and a tinge of bemusement that we embark on this investigation into the correlation between linguistic whimsy and electoral preferences. While the exploration may take us through the unexpected alleys of human behavior, it is the scientific rigor and a pinch of scholarly humor that will guide us through this lighthearted yet thought-provoking journey. Let us proceed with cautious amusement and rigorous inquiry into the Democratic dilemma that has entwined itself with the pronunciation of "onety one."

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.9778886, indicative of a strong positive association between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the search intensity for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one" on Google. This finding suggests that there is more to Hoosier politics than meets the eye, or the ear, for that matter.
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.9562662 portrays a substantial proportion of the variability in the voting patterns of Indiana constituents that can be explained by their perplexity regarding the pronunciation of the numeral 11 as "onety one". While the exact nature of this relationship remains as enigmatic as the linguistic quirk itself, the statistical evidence compels us to consider the possibility of an intriguing interplay between language befuddlement and electoral decision-making.
The p-value being less than 0.01 firmly substantiates the statistical significance of the observed correlation, dismissing any suggestions that this connection is merely a fluke or a product of random chance. It appears that the Hoosiers' insatiable curiosity about the idiosyncrasies of the English language may have tangible implications for the political landscape of Indiana.
Remarkably, these findings suggest that amidst the cut and thrust of political campaigns and policy debates, there exists a whimsically unconventional variable that may exert a peculiar yet discernible influence on voters' behavior. The depiction of this improbable association is graphically presented in Figure 1, which showcases a starkly evident pattern of co-movement between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the intrigue surrounding the pronunciation of "onety one".
In summary, the results of this investigation provide an unconventional yet compelling illumination of the intricate fabric of political decision-making. It seems that in the realm of Hoosier politics, the peculiar allure of linguistic oddities has managed to transcend the conventional determinants of electoral preferences, adding a peculiarly charming dimension to the political discourse.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, the unexpected correlation uncovered between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the unending quest for the pronunciation of 11 as "onety one" through Google searches presents a whimsical yet thought-provoking insight into the interplay between language quirkiness and electoral decision-making. As we wrap our minds around this rather puzzling association, it is evident that the Hoosiers' linguistic inquisitiveness may be wielding an unforeseen influence on their political choices.

The statistical robustness of the correlation, with a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9778886 and a p-value less than 0.01, lends credence to the notion that there is more at play in the electoral dynamics of Indiana than meets the eye, or should we say, the "onety one." The r-squared value of 0.9562662 reinforces the substantial proportion of the variability in voting patterns that can be attributed to this linguistic quirk. It appears that the intrigue surrounding the pronunciation of "onety one" has managed to carve out a distinctive niche in the Hoosier electorate's decision-making process.

These findings beckon us to ponder the tantalizing question: could the allure of linguistic oddities be steering the course of politics in the heartland of America? While the answer remains as elusive as the pronunciation in question, the evidence suggests that an unconventional variable has wiggled its way into the tapestry of electoral preferences in Indiana.

As we bid adieu to this enchanting conundrum, it is pertinent to acknowledge the quirkiness that lingers beneath the surface of seemingly unrelated phenomena. Perhaps, the next time a linguistic riddle captures the public's attention, we ought to cast a knowing glance at the electoral pulse it might be subtly nudging. Alas, the mysteries of human behavior continue to surprise and bewilder us, much like the pronunciation of "onety one" itself.

In the spirit of scholarly inquiry, we must assert that no further investigation is needed in this area. The results stand as a whimsically enlightening testament to the intriguing interplay between linguistic oddities and political predilections. It appears that sometimes, the most unexpected connections defy our expectations and leave us pondering the quirks that color our world.


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 The Democratic Dilemma: Data-Driven Determination of the Dependence of Indiana Senatorial Votes on Yearning for Onety One Explanations. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Political Quirkiness


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 The Democratic Dilemma: Data-Driven Determination of the Dependence of Indiana Senatorial Votes on Yearning for Onety One Explanations. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Quirky Political 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 The Democratic Dilemma: Data-Driven Determination of the Dependence of Indiana Senatorial Votes on Yearning for Onety One Explanations with an abstract of This paper investigates the peculiar relationship between Democratic votes for Senators in Indiana and the frequency of Google searches for "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one". Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, a correlation coefficient of 0.9778886 and p < 0.01 for the years 2004 to 2018 was identified, indicating a strong positive association. Despite the illusory nature of such a connection, our research suggests that Hoosier constituents' insatiable curiosity about linguistic oddities may be influencing their political choices. This provides a whimsical yet thought-provoking insight into the interplay between language quirkiness and electoral decision-making.

ChatGPT:

Democratic votes, Indiana, Senatorial votes, Google searches, "why isn't 11 pronounced onety one", MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Google Trends, correlation coefficient, political choices, language quirkiness, electoral decision-making

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

Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'

Correlation r = 0.9778886 (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 = 0.9562662 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 95.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Indiana) over the 5 years from 2004 through 2018.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0039. 0.0039337919315490105000000000
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 0.98 in 0.39% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 254 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 4 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 4 because we have two variables measured over a period of 5 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.

[ 0.7, 1 ] 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.
20042010201220162018
Votes for Democratic Senators in Indiana (Percentage of votes)61.648839.99950.044142.412744.8422
Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one' (Rel. search volume)4.583330.5833331.833330.9166670.75




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([61.6488,39.999,50.0441,42.4127,44.8422,])
array_2 = np.array([4.58333,0.583333,1.83333,0.916667,0.75,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Indiana"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'why isnt 11 pronounced onety one'"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your dedication to rating warms my heart!


Correlation ID: 5215 · Black Variable ID: 26381 · Red Variable ID: 1469
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0