about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,293 · View random

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

AI explanation

As households spent more on laundry and cleaning supplies, they inadvertently created an environment that was 'too clean' for germs. This led to a decrease in the population of certain bacteria, including the 'Democratus Wipeus' species, known for influencing political preferences. With these bacteria dwindling in numbers, more individuals found themselves leaning towards the Republican candidate, ultimately boosting the votes in Missouri. Looks like it was a clean sweep for the Republican candidate!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Please generate an image of a low poly depiction of a tidy living room with sparkling clean floors. The shelves should be stocked with laundry and cleaning supplies. In the background, there should be a line of Missourians at a polling station, with signs showing strong support for the Republican presidential candidate. The image should reflect the correlation between increased spending on cleaning supplies and a rise in Republican votes in Missouri. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri. 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: Oragami a Polaroid photo Cyber folk Low poly Cyber folk
ChatGPT: Low poly

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri, in the following situation: As households spent more on laundry and cleaning supplies, they inadvertently created an environment that was 'too clean' for germs. This led to a decrease in the population of certain bacteria, including the 'Democratus Wipeus' species, known for influencing political preferences. With these bacteria dwindling in numbers, more individuals found themselves leaning towards the Republican candidate, ultimately boosting the votes in Missouri. Looks like it was a clean sweep for the Republican candidate!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: A tidy living room with sparkling clean floors and shelves stocked with laundry and cleaning supplies. In the background, Missourians are lining up to vote at a polling station, with signs showing strong support for the Republican presidential candidate. The scene reflects the correlation between increased spending on cleaning supplies and a rise in Republican votes in Missouri.

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: [ Low poly ] and depicting this scene: A tidy living room with sparkling clean floors and shelves stocked with laundry and cleaning supplies. In the background, Missourians are lining up to vote at a polling station, with signs showing strong support for the Republican presidential candidate. The scene reflects the correlation between increased spending on cleaning supplies and a rise in Republican votes in Missouri. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Please generate an image of a low poly depiction of a tidy living room with sparkling clean floors. The shelves should be stocked with laundry and cleaning supplies. In the background, there should be a line of Missourians at a polling station, with signs showing strong support for the Republican presidential candidate. The image should reflect the correlation between increased spending on cleaning supplies and a rise in Republican votes in Missouri.

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

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies caused Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Dirty Laundry and Right-Wing Sway: The Grand Old Party's Clean Sweep in Missouri

The Journal of Political Paradoxes

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 witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title a clever pun.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2020.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Dirty Laundry and Right-Wing Sway: The Grand Old Party's Clean Sweep in Missouri"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious connection between Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri from the year 2000 to 2020. Through an analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we explored whether there's a compelling correlation between keeping things clean and casting a vote for the conservative party. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and p < 0.01, suggesting a statistically significant relationship. The results leave us pondering whether the state's Republican stronghold is indeed anchored in pristine white socks and spotless bathroom tiles. So, the next time you're doing a load of laundry, remember: you might just be determining the political landscape.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Dirty Laundry and Right-Wing Sway: The Grand Old Party's Clean Sweep in Missouri"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious connection between Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri from the year 2000 to 2020. Through an analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we explored whether there's a compelling correlation between keeping things clean and casting a vote for the conservative party. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and p < 0.01, suggesting a statistically significant relationship. The results leave us pondering whether the state's Republican stronghold is indeed anchored in pristine white socks and spotless bathroom tiles. So, the next time you're doing a load of laundry, remember: you might just be determining the political landscape.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:

[[INTRODUCTION]]

The intersection of domestic chores and political affiliations has long been a topic of humor and intrigue. From the classic sitcom trope of the "politics and laundry" to the oft-quoted quip, "I vote for whoever can make my whites whiter," the connection between household duties and voting preferences has captured public imagination. In this study, we take a light-hearted yet rigorous approach to investigate the relationship between annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in the "Show Me" state of Missouri. While the correlation may seem like a stretch of the imagination, our analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, suggests an unexpectedly strong association worthy of further exploration.

The paradox of politics and laundry was brought to the forefront in the wake of the 2000 US presidential election, where the battleground of the campaign trail was accompanied by the battleground of laundry rooms across the nation. We aim to answer the pressing question: Can the scent of fresh laundry truly influence the aroma of political opinion? As we delve into the statistical underpinnings of this connection, we cannot help but marvel at the curious dance of domesticity and democracy.

The infamously divisive nature of politics is perhaps only rivaled by the ongoing dispute over the socks' mysterious disappearance in the laundry. Thus, we approach our investigation with the same tenacity and attention to detail that one applies to the search for those elusive missing socks. Our analysis promises to unravel the tangled web of variables at play in this most unexpected of correlations and shed light on a facet of American politics that deserves a second look.

By undertaking this investigation, we aim to inject a lighthearted and whimsical spirit into the typically serious realm of statistical research. As we pursue this unconventional line of inquiry, we invite readers to join us in pondering the secrets hidden within the shadows of laundry baskets and the precincts of polling stations. After all, it's not every day that one gets to explore the intersection of clean clothes and conservative choices with such statistically rigorous fervor.

So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a journey through statistics, political science, and the ever-entertaining world of household chores. Together, we shall unravel the fabric of this peculiar correlation and, perhaps, emerge with a newfound appreciation for the overlooked influence of laundry on the political landscape.

As we delve into the data, let us proceed with a sense of wonder and a healthy dose of skepticism, eager to uncover the unexpected and to challenge conventional wisdom. After all, in the whimsical world of research, one must always be prepared for a few surprises.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri. 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 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]]
"Dirty Laundry and Right-Wing Sway: The Grand Old Party's Clean Sweep in Missouri"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious connection between Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri from the year 2000 to 2020. Through an analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we explored whether there's a compelling correlation between keeping things clean and casting a vote for the conservative party. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and p < 0.01, suggesting a statistically significant relationship. The results leave us pondering whether the state's Republican stronghold is indeed anchored in pristine white socks and spotless bathroom tiles. So, the next time you're doing a load of laundry, remember: you might just be determining the political landscape.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of domestic chores and political affiliations has long been a topic of humor and intrigue. From the classic sitcom trope of the "politics and laundry" to the oft-quoted quip, "I vote for whoever can make my whites whiter," the connection between household duties and voting preferences has captured public imagination. In this study, we take a light-hearted yet rigorous approach to investigate the relationship between annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in the "Show Me" state of Missouri. While the correlation may seem like a stretch of the imagination, our analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, suggests an unexpectedly strong association worthy of further exploration.
The paradox of politics and laundry was brought to the forefront in the wake of the 2000 US presidential election, where the battleground of the campaign trail was accompanied by the battleground of laundry rooms across the nation. We aim to answer the pressing question: Can the scent of fresh laundry truly influence the aroma of political opinion? As we delve into the statistical underpinnings of this connection, we cannot help but marvel at the curious dance of domesticity and democracy.
The infamously divisive nature of politics is perhaps only rivaled by the ongoing dispute over the socks' mysterious disappearance in the laundry. Thus, we approach our investigation with the same tenacity and attention to detail that one applies to the search for those elusive missing socks. Our analysis promises to unravel the tangled web of variables at play in this most unexpected of correlations and shed light on a facet of American politics that deserves a second look.
By undertaking this investigation, we aim to inject a lighthearted and whimsical spirit into the typically serious realm of statistical research. As we pursue this unconventional line of inquiry, we invite readers to join us in pondering the secrets hidden within the shadows of laundry baskets and the precincts of polling stations. After all, it's not every day that one gets to explore the intersection of clean clothes and conservative choices with such statistically rigorous fervor.
So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a journey through statistics, political science, and the ever-entertaining world of household chores. Together, we shall unravel the fabric of this peculiar correlation and, perhaps, emerge with a newfound appreciation for the overlooked influence of laundry on the political landscape.
As we delve into the data, let us proceed with a sense of wonder and a healthy dose of skepticism, eager to uncover the unexpected and to challenge conventional wisdom. After all, in the whimsical world of research, one must always be prepared for a few surprises.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Smith and Doe (2010) provide an early exploration of the intriguing relationship between domestic expenditure on laundry and cleaning supplies and political leanings. Their study examines the correlation between regional spending patterns and votes for conservative candidates, offering a preliminary glimpse into the potential influence of household chores on electoral decisions. Their findings raise thought-provoking questions about whether the scent of fabric softener lingers in the voting booth, subtly swaying the ballot in favor of the right.

Jones et al. (2015) further expand on this line of inquiry, delving into the nuanced dynamics of clean laundry and conservative allegiance. Their analysis of consumer behavior and political affiliations reveals a remarkably high positive association, hinting at a deeper connection between pristine linens and reactionary ballots. The authors' meticulous dissection of spending data and electoral outcomes paves the way for our examination of this curious correlation and sets the stage for a thorough investigation into the influence of well-folded laundry on political ideology.

As we venture deeper into the fabric softener-scented corridors of scholarly work, it is impossible to ignore the impact of popular literature on this subject. In "The Power of Clean: The Political Significance of Tidy Laundry" (R. Clean, 2017), the author deftly intertwines the mundanity of household duties with the gravity of political decision-making, blending humor with insight to unpack the enigma of fresh-smelling ballots.

Stepping into the realm of fiction, "Suds and Senators: A Tale of Political Laundry" (L. Sudsy, 2018) offers a whimsical yet thought-provoking narrative that playfully imagines a world where political allegiance is determined by the efficacy of laundry detergents. The author's clever wit and imaginative storytelling add a layer of levity to our exploration of the intersection between laundry and conservative votes.

Pushing the boundaries of conventional sources, we cannot overlook the formative influence of childhood cartoons such as "SpongeBob SquarePants" and "Arthur," where the characters' squeaky-clean homes and neatly folded laundry subtly hint at the whimsical undercurrents of domesticity and political inclinations. The innocent yet revealing glimpses of household chores in these animated worlds serve as an unexpected backdrop to our investigation, inviting us to consider the lasting impact of tidy laundry on youthful perceptions and, by extension, future voting patterns.

Entering this unconventional territory armed with statistical rigor and a healthy dose of whimsy, we eagerly anticipate untangling the cryptic threads that bind laundry to political preferences. After all, in the merry pursuit of knowledge, one must be prepared for a spin cycle of surprises.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Dirty Laundry and Right-Wing Sway: The Grand Old Party's Clean Sweep in Missouri"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious connection between Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri from the year 2000 to 2020. Through an analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we explored whether there's a compelling correlation between keeping things clean and casting a vote for the conservative party. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and p < 0.01, suggesting a statistically significant relationship. The results leave us pondering whether the state's Republican stronghold is indeed anchored in pristine white socks and spotless bathroom tiles. So, the next time you're doing a load of laundry, remember: you might just be determining the political landscape.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of domestic chores and political affiliations has long been a topic of humor and intrigue. From the classic sitcom trope of the "politics and laundry" to the oft-quoted quip, "I vote for whoever can make my whites whiter," the connection between household duties and voting preferences has captured public imagination. In this study, we take a light-hearted yet rigorous approach to investigate the relationship between annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in the "Show Me" state of Missouri. While the correlation may seem like a stretch of the imagination, our analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, suggests an unexpectedly strong association worthy of further exploration.
The paradox of politics and laundry was brought to the forefront in the wake of the 2000 US presidential election, where the battleground of the campaign trail was accompanied by the battleground of laundry rooms across the nation. We aim to answer the pressing question: Can the scent of fresh laundry truly influence the aroma of political opinion? As we delve into the statistical underpinnings of this connection, we cannot help but marvel at the curious dance of domesticity and democracy.
The infamously divisive nature of politics is perhaps only rivaled by the ongoing dispute over the socks' mysterious disappearance in the laundry. Thus, we approach our investigation with the same tenacity and attention to detail that one applies to the search for those elusive missing socks. Our analysis promises to unravel the tangled web of variables at play in this most unexpected of correlations and shed light on a facet of American politics that deserves a second look.
By undertaking this investigation, we aim to inject a lighthearted and whimsical spirit into the typically serious realm of statistical research. As we pursue this unconventional line of inquiry, we invite readers to join us in pondering the secrets hidden within the shadows of laundry baskets and the precincts of polling stations. After all, it's not every day that one gets to explore the intersection of clean clothes and conservative choices with such statistically rigorous fervor.
So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a journey through statistics, political science, and the ever-entertaining world of household chores. Together, we shall unravel the fabric of this peculiar correlation and, perhaps, emerge with a newfound appreciation for the overlooked influence of laundry on the political landscape.
As we delve into the data, let us proceed with a sense of wonder and a healthy dose of skepticism, eager to uncover the unexpected and to challenge conventional wisdom. After all, in the whimsical world of research, one must always be prepared for a few surprises.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

In this study, we sought to unravel the tangled web of domestic cleanliness and political leanings, employing a blend of statistical analysis and a dash of whimsy. Our data, sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, provided us with a rich tapestry of information spanning the years 2000 to 2020 - a pivotal period in both the realms of laundry and politics.

To quantify the annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies, we embarked on a mission akin to a detective uncovering clues in a classic whodunit. Armed with spreadsheets, calculators, and copious amounts of coffee, we scoured the recesses of the internet and meticulously sifted through consumer expenditure data. Our team sifted through mountains of data, hoping to extract the essence of laundering essentials with the precision of a scientist isolating a rare compound.

Simultaneously, our quest for votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri saw us navigating the labyrinthine corridors of electoral statistics with the determination of a political campaign strategist mapping out a path to victory. The MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, became our compass, guiding us through the tumultuous terrain of electoral records and voter behaviors.

With our datasets in hand, we juxtaposed the household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies with the Republican votes on a year-by-year basis, producing a symphony of statistical correlations and visualizations. The statistical analysis involved both simple correlations and more intricate regression modeling, with the precision of a tailor crafting a bespoke suit and the attention to detail of a choreographer perfecting a dance routine.

We applied stringent statistical tests to determine the strength and significance of the relationship, ensuring that our findings would stand firm against the gusts of skepticism and the tempests of critique. Our methodology combined the rigor of traditional statistical analysis with the imaginative flair of a creative mind, yielding insights that danced on the stage of scholarly inquiry like a troupe of nimble-footed performers.

As we plunged into the heart of our study, we held fast to the guiding principle that every dataset tells a story - a narrative rich with twists, turns, and occasional surprises. While the task of teasing out the nuances of domestic expenditure and electoral choices was not without its challenges, we approached it with a sense of humor and curiosity that proved invaluable in our quest to unravel the peculiar correlation between clean laundry and conservative convictions.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

For the time period 2000 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9929823, r-squared of 0.9860138, 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]]
"Dirty Laundry and Right-Wing Sway: The Grand Old Party's Clean Sweep in Missouri"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious connection between Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri from the year 2000 to 2020. Through an analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we explored whether there's a compelling correlation between keeping things clean and casting a vote for the conservative party. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and p < 0.01, suggesting a statistically significant relationship. The results leave us pondering whether the state's Republican stronghold is indeed anchored in pristine white socks and spotless bathroom tiles. So, the next time you're doing a load of laundry, remember: you might just be determining the political landscape.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of domestic chores and political affiliations has long been a topic of humor and intrigue. From the classic sitcom trope of the "politics and laundry" to the oft-quoted quip, "I vote for whoever can make my whites whiter," the connection between household duties and voting preferences has captured public imagination. In this study, we take a light-hearted yet rigorous approach to investigate the relationship between annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in the "Show Me" state of Missouri. While the correlation may seem like a stretch of the imagination, our analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, suggests an unexpectedly strong association worthy of further exploration.
The paradox of politics and laundry was brought to the forefront in the wake of the 2000 US presidential election, where the battleground of the campaign trail was accompanied by the battleground of laundry rooms across the nation. We aim to answer the pressing question: Can the scent of fresh laundry truly influence the aroma of political opinion? As we delve into the statistical underpinnings of this connection, we cannot help but marvel at the curious dance of domesticity and democracy.
The infamously divisive nature of politics is perhaps only rivaled by the ongoing dispute over the socks' mysterious disappearance in the laundry. Thus, we approach our investigation with the same tenacity and attention to detail that one applies to the search for those elusive missing socks. Our analysis promises to unravel the tangled web of variables at play in this most unexpected of correlations and shed light on a facet of American politics that deserves a second look.
By undertaking this investigation, we aim to inject a lighthearted and whimsical spirit into the typically serious realm of statistical research. As we pursue this unconventional line of inquiry, we invite readers to join us in pondering the secrets hidden within the shadows of laundry baskets and the precincts of polling stations. After all, it's not every day that one gets to explore the intersection of clean clothes and conservative choices with such statistically rigorous fervor.
So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a journey through statistics, political science, and the ever-entertaining world of household chores. Together, we shall unravel the fabric of this peculiar correlation and, perhaps, emerge with a newfound appreciation for the overlooked influence of laundry on the political landscape.
As we delve into the data, let us proceed with a sense of wonder and a healthy dose of skepticism, eager to uncover the unexpected and to challenge conventional wisdom. After all, in the whimsical world of research, one must always be prepared for a few surprises.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our investigation into the murky waters of a connection between household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri from 2000 to 2020 has yielded some striking revelations. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and an r-squared of 0.9860138, it seems that when Missourians are in the laundry room, they may also be in the voting booth, ticking off the conservative candidate on the ballot.

The statistical analysis clearly points to a substantial and virtually ironclad relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables. The p-value of less than 0.01 confirms that this connection is no mere statistical fluke, but a bona fide phenomenon worthy of attention. It appears that the saying "cleanliness is next to godliness" may also be "cleanliness is next to Republican-ness" in the Show Me State.

Fig. 1 depicts a scatterplot that would make any statistical sleuth do a double take. The points are so snugly clustered together that it's as if the detergent decided to have a party with the conservative votes, and everyone showed up! The graph provides a visual spectacle of the strong association between squeaky-clean homes and political leanings.

Our results spur contemplation on the curious interplay of domestic routines and political allegiances. We can't help but jest that not only do these findings validate the age-old wisdom of the power of a tidy sock drawer, but they also hint at the potential for a whole new branch of electoral strategy: vote-gathering door-to-door with a Swiffer in hand.

As we uncover the unexpected underbelly of laundry and politics, our hearts swell with academic delight, and perhaps a bit of laughter. The whims of statistical inquiry have once again beckoned us into uncharted territory, where laundered linens and political persuasions intertwine with stunning coherence.

These findings leave us with more than just clean shirts and conservative votes; they impart the realization that beneath the humor and the puns lies a compelling statistical story waiting to be told. In a world where numbers and politics often collide, we find solace in presenting a tale that is as amusing as it is statistically sound.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"Dirty Laundry and Right-Wing Sway: The Grand Old Party's Clean Sweep in Missouri"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious connection between Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri from the year 2000 to 2020. Through an analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we explored whether there's a compelling correlation between keeping things clean and casting a vote for the conservative party. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and p < 0.01, suggesting a statistically significant relationship. The results leave us pondering whether the state's Republican stronghold is indeed anchored in pristine white socks and spotless bathroom tiles. So, the next time you're doing a load of laundry, remember: you might just be determining the political landscape.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Smith and Doe (2010) provide an early exploration of the intriguing relationship between domestic expenditure on laundry and cleaning supplies and political leanings. Their study examines the correlation between regional spending patterns and votes for conservative candidates, offering a preliminary glimpse into the potential influence of household chores on electoral decisions. Their findings raise thought-provoking questions about whether the scent of fabric softener lingers in the voting booth, subtly swaying the ballot in favor of the right.
Jones et al. (2015) further expand on this line of inquiry, delving into the nuanced dynamics of clean laundry and conservative allegiance. Their analysis of consumer behavior and political affiliations reveals a remarkably high positive association, hinting at a deeper connection between pristine linens and reactionary ballots. The authors' meticulous dissection of spending data and electoral outcomes paves the way for our examination of this curious correlation and sets the stage for a thorough investigation into the influence of well-folded laundry on political ideology.
As we venture deeper into the fabric softener-scented corridors of scholarly work, it is impossible to ignore the impact of popular literature on this subject. In "The Power of Clean: The Political Significance of Tidy Laundry" (R. Clean, 2017), the author deftly intertwines the mundanity of household duties with the gravity of political decision-making, blending humor with insight to unpack the enigma of fresh-smelling ballots.
Stepping into the realm of fiction, "Suds and Senators: A Tale of Political Laundry" (L. Sudsy, 2018) offers a whimsical yet thought-provoking narrative that playfully imagines a world where political allegiance is determined by the efficacy of laundry detergents. The author's clever wit and imaginative storytelling add a layer of levity to our exploration of the intersection between laundry and conservative votes.
Pushing the boundaries of conventional sources, we cannot overlook the formative influence of childhood cartoons such as "SpongeBob SquarePants" and "Arthur," where the characters' squeaky-clean homes and neatly folded laundry subtly hint at the whimsical undercurrents of domesticity and political inclinations. The innocent yet revealing glimpses of household chores in these animated worlds serve as an unexpected backdrop to our investigation, inviting us to consider the lasting impact of tidy laundry on youthful perceptions and, by extension, future voting patterns.
Entering this unconventional territory armed with statistical rigor and a healthy dose of whimsy, we eagerly anticipate untangling the cryptic threads that bind laundry to political preferences. After all, in the merry pursuit of knowledge, one must be prepared for a spin cycle of surprises.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the murky waters of a connection between household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri from 2000 to 2020 has yielded some striking revelations. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and an r-squared of 0.9860138, it seems that when Missourians are in the laundry room, they may also be in the voting booth, ticking off the conservative candidate on the ballot.
The statistical analysis clearly points to a substantial and virtually ironclad relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables. The p-value of less than 0.01 confirms that this connection is no mere statistical fluke, but a bona fide phenomenon worthy of attention. It appears that the saying "cleanliness is next to godliness" may also be "cleanliness is next to Republican-ness" in the Show Me State.
Fig. 1 depicts a scatterplot that would make any statistical sleuth do a double take. The points are so snugly clustered together that it's as if the detergent decided to have a party with the conservative votes, and everyone showed up! The graph provides a visual spectacle of the strong association between squeaky-clean homes and political leanings.
Our results spur contemplation on the curious interplay of domestic routines and political allegiances. We can't help but jest that not only do these findings validate the age-old wisdom of the power of a tidy sock drawer, but they also hint at the potential for a whole new branch of electoral strategy: vote-gathering door-to-door with a Swiffer in hand.
As we uncover the unexpected underbelly of laundry and politics, our hearts swell with academic delight, and perhaps a bit of laughter. The whims of statistical inquiry have once again beckoned us into uncharted territory, where laundered linens and political persuasions intertwine with stunning coherence.
These findings leave us with more than just clean shirts and conservative votes; they impart the realization that beneath the humor and the puns lies a compelling statistical story waiting to be told. In a world where numbers and politics often collide, we find solace in presenting a tale that is as amusing as it is statistically sound.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of our investigation have unfolded a narrative as intricate as a neatly folded fitted sheet, shedding light on the unexpected correlation between Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri. We set out on this academic escapade with a twinkle in our eyes and a laundry list of statistical measures, and the results did not disappoint.

Our results bolster and buttress the musings of our esteemed predecessors, Smith and Doe (2010), who first dared to peek into the laundry basket of political affiliations, and Jones et al. (2015), who delved deeper into the sudsy seas of conservative connections. The remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 that emerged from our analysis echoes the resonant tones of their preliminary findings, further cementing the link between domestic expenditure on cleanliness and the exercise of right-wing franchise. It appears that the breeze of statistical validation has gently caressed the laundry lines of prior research, as we stand on the shoulders of whimsical inquiry to peer into the intricacies of the political fabric.

Our study taps into a wellspring of unexpected sources, where the whispered whispers of everyday chores take on the playful mantle of electoral influence. The quirky narratives of "The Power of Clean: The Political Significance of Tidy Laundry" (R. Clean, 2017) and "Suds and Senators: A Tale of Political Laundry" (L. Sudsy, 2018) have whimsically guided us through this scholarly odyssey, infusing our pursuit with intellectual buoyancy and the occasional well-folded pun. Thus, as we navigate this unorthodox intersection of policy and perspiration, the playful provocations of such literary reverie serve as stepping stones to the bedrock of statistical comprehension.

Our results, exemplified by the captivating scatterplot reminiscent of a reunion of neatly ironed shirts, undoubtedly hint at a deeper connection between the fragrance of fresh linen and the allure of conservative ballots. It seems that long after the childhood allure of cartoon cleanliness in "SpongeBob SquarePants" and "Arthur," the scent of spotless socks might indeed linger in the ballot booth, silently nudging the electorate in conservative directions.

In essence, our findings piquantly confirm the age-old wisdom that "cleanliness is next to godliness," while playfully proposing that it may also be "cleanliness is next to Republican-ness" in Missouri. Amidst the whimsy and mirth of this pursuit, the robust statistical significance of our results stands as a testament to the compelling coherence that underlies the seemingly quirky amalgamation of household routines and political predilections.

In this light-hearted marshalling of statistical and sociopolitical forces, our study serves as a gentle reminder of the enchanting symphony that unfolds when numbers and humor converge. For as we sift through the whimsical whispers of the laundry room, we find ourselves not only armed with a statistical tale but also beset by the unbridled curiosity that animates the pursuit of knowledge. Indeed, in the merry tumble of statistical exploration, we find solace in the laughter and the awe that accompany the unfolding of a compelling statistical yarn.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Dirty Laundry and Right-Wing Sway: The Grand Old Party's Clean Sweep in Missouri"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious connection between Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri from the year 2000 to 2020. Through an analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we explored whether there's a compelling correlation between keeping things clean and casting a vote for the conservative party. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and p < 0.01, suggesting a statistically significant relationship. The results leave us pondering whether the state's Republican stronghold is indeed anchored in pristine white socks and spotless bathroom tiles. So, the next time you're doing a load of laundry, remember: you might just be determining the political landscape.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of domestic chores and political affiliations has long been a topic of humor and intrigue. From the classic sitcom trope of the "politics and laundry" to the oft-quoted quip, "I vote for whoever can make my whites whiter," the connection between household duties and voting preferences has captured public imagination. In this study, we take a light-hearted yet rigorous approach to investigate the relationship between annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in the "Show Me" state of Missouri. While the correlation may seem like a stretch of the imagination, our analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, suggests an unexpectedly strong association worthy of further exploration.
The paradox of politics and laundry was brought to the forefront in the wake of the 2000 US presidential election, where the battleground of the campaign trail was accompanied by the battleground of laundry rooms across the nation. We aim to answer the pressing question: Can the scent of fresh laundry truly influence the aroma of political opinion? As we delve into the statistical underpinnings of this connection, we cannot help but marvel at the curious dance of domesticity and democracy.
The infamously divisive nature of politics is perhaps only rivaled by the ongoing dispute over the socks' mysterious disappearance in the laundry. Thus, we approach our investigation with the same tenacity and attention to detail that one applies to the search for those elusive missing socks. Our analysis promises to unravel the tangled web of variables at play in this most unexpected of correlations and shed light on a facet of American politics that deserves a second look.
By undertaking this investigation, we aim to inject a lighthearted and whimsical spirit into the typically serious realm of statistical research. As we pursue this unconventional line of inquiry, we invite readers to join us in pondering the secrets hidden within the shadows of laundry baskets and the precincts of polling stations. After all, it's not every day that one gets to explore the intersection of clean clothes and conservative choices with such statistically rigorous fervor.
So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a journey through statistics, political science, and the ever-entertaining world of household chores. Together, we shall unravel the fabric of this peculiar correlation and, perhaps, emerge with a newfound appreciation for the overlooked influence of laundry on the political landscape.
As we delve into the data, let us proceed with a sense of wonder and a healthy dose of skepticism, eager to uncover the unexpected and to challenge conventional wisdom. After all, in the whimsical world of research, one must always be prepared for a few surprises.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the murky waters of a connection between household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri from 2000 to 2020 has yielded some striking revelations. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and an r-squared of 0.9860138, it seems that when Missourians are in the laundry room, they may also be in the voting booth, ticking off the conservative candidate on the ballot.
The statistical analysis clearly points to a substantial and virtually ironclad relationship between these two seemingly unrelated variables. The p-value of less than 0.01 confirms that this connection is no mere statistical fluke, but a bona fide phenomenon worthy of attention. It appears that the saying "cleanliness is next to godliness" may also be "cleanliness is next to Republican-ness" in the Show Me State.
Fig. 1 depicts a scatterplot that would make any statistical sleuth do a double take. The points are so snugly clustered together that it's as if the detergent decided to have a party with the conservative votes, and everyone showed up! The graph provides a visual spectacle of the strong association between squeaky-clean homes and political leanings.
Our results spur contemplation on the curious interplay of domestic routines and political allegiances. We can't help but jest that not only do these findings validate the age-old wisdom of the power of a tidy sock drawer, but they also hint at the potential for a whole new branch of electoral strategy: vote-gathering door-to-door with a Swiffer in hand.
As we uncover the unexpected underbelly of laundry and politics, our hearts swell with academic delight, and perhaps a bit of laughter. The whims of statistical inquiry have once again beckoned us into uncharted territory, where laundered linens and political persuasions intertwine with stunning coherence.
These findings leave us with more than just clean shirts and conservative votes; they impart the realization that beneath the humor and the puns lies a compelling statistical story waiting to be told. In a world where numbers and politics often collide, we find solace in presenting a tale that is as amusing as it is statistically sound.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has unveiled a correlation between household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri that is as clear as a freshly Windexed window. The striking correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 has left us spinning like a Maytag on the 'spin' cycle. With a p-value less than 0.01, it's evident that the aroma of conservatism is very much intertwined with the scent of a lemon-fresh house.

Our study unearths a fascinating nexus between domestic cleanliness and political leanings, proving once and for all that the "right" choice in detergent is closely tied to the "right-wing" choice at the ballot box. As scientists, we must resist the temptation to air our dirty laundry in public, but we cannot help but marvel at this unexpected interplay of soapsuds and political affiliations.

The implications of our findings go beyond the laundry room. The data underscores the need for political candidates to brush up on their stain-removal techniques and adopt a more "bleach"-ed approach to household outreach. It's high time for politicians to stop "detergent-ing" the importance of domestic chores in their campaign strategies and "tide" up loose ends with their constituents.

While our investigation has brought a lighthearted touch to the world of statistical inquiry, it has also laid bare a compelling story of the intertwined influences of household habits and political choices. Yet, as we bid adieu to this whimsical venture, we must assert with utmost confidence that further research in this area is as unnecessary as washing a new pair of jeans before wearing it—once is enough!


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 Dirty Laundry and Right-Wing Sway: The Grand Old Party's Clean Sweep in Missouri. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Paradoxes


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 Dirty Laundry and Right-Wing Sway: The Grand Old Party's Clean Sweep in Missouri. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for American Political Hygiene and Laundry Sciences


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 Dirty Laundry and Right-Wing Sway: The Grand Old Party's Clean Sweep in Missouri with an abstract of This paper delves into the curious connection between Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri from the year 2000 to 2020. Through an analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we explored whether there's a compelling correlation between keeping things clean and casting a vote for the conservative party. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9929823 and p < 0.01, suggesting a statistically significant relationship. The results leave us pondering whether the state's Republican stronghold is indeed anchored in pristine white socks and spotless bathroom tiles. So, the next time you're doing a load of laundry, remember: you might just be determining the political landscape.

ChatGPT:

Missouri, Republican presidential candidate, household spending, laundry, cleaning supplies, correlation, conservative party, Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, statistical significance, correlation coefficient

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies
Detailed data title: Average annual household spend on laundry and cleaning supplies
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies

Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri
Detailed data title: Total votes cast for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri

Correlation r = 0.9929823 (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 = 0.9860138 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 98.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies) over the 6 years from 2000 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 7.4E-5. 0.0000736994769396382300000000
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 0.99 in 0.0074% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 13,569 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.

[ 0.93, 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.
200020042008201220162020
Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies (Household spend)131149148155160170
Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri (Total votes)118992014557101445810148244015945101718740




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,237 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 636,906,169 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. Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.
  5. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([131,149,148,155,160,170,])
array_2 = np.array([1189920,1455710,1445810,1482440,1594510,1718740,])
array_1_name = "Annual US household spending on laundry and cleaning supplies"
array_2_name = "Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Missouri"

# 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 rating is stellar!


Correlation ID: 5293 · Black Variable ID: 19913 · Red Variable ID: 25999
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0