about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,342 · 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 fish and seafood and the second variable is Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho.  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 household spending on fish and seafood increases, more and more families are hosting fancy seafood dinner parties. This gives politicians a convenient excuse to visit Idaho under the guise of discussing important matters, but let's be real - they just can't resist the chance to savor some delicious, buttery lobster while soaking up the picturesque views. This influx of political interest and promises of a seafood feast sways the voters, who are just looking for a shrimply delightful time.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a TIME magazine cover featuring a stunning Idaho landscape with a lake, mountains, and a clear blue sky. In the foreground, depict a lavish dinner party with people conversing and enjoying a sumptuous spread of lobster and shrimp. In the background, place Republican presidential candidates engaging in lively discussions amidst the natural beauty. The image should exude an atmosphere of elegance, political fervor, and culinary indulgence. 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 fish and seafood and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho. 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: Data cyber art A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s A TIME magazine cover image Cutsy graphics Photorealism
ChatGPT: A TIME magazine cover image

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 fish and seafood and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho, in the following situation: As household spending on fish and seafood increases, more and more families are hosting fancy seafood dinner parties. This gives politicians a convenient excuse to visit Idaho under the guise of discussing important matters, but let's be real - they just can't resist the chance to savor some delicious, buttery lobster while soaking up the picturesque views. This influx of political interest and promises of a seafood feast sways the voters, who are just looking for a shrimply delightful time.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Idaho, as household spending on fish and seafood increases, luxurious dinner parties featuring delicious lobster and succulent shrimp become more common. Against a scenic backdrop, Republican presidential candidates eagerly make their way to the state, eager to indulge in the mouthwatering seafood while discussing matters of importance—a shrimply delightful opportunity that appeals to the voters.

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 TIME magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In Idaho, as household spending on fish and seafood increases, luxurious dinner parties featuring delicious lobster and succulent shrimp become more common. Against a scenic backdrop, Republican presidential candidates eagerly make their way to the state, eager to indulge in the mouthwatering seafood while discussing matters of importance—a shrimply delightful opportunity that appeals to the voters. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a TIME magazine cover featuring a stunning Idaho landscape with a lake, mountains, and a clear blue sky. In the foreground, depict a lavish dinner party with people conversing and enjoying a sumptuous spread of lobster and shrimp. In the background, place Republican presidential candidates engaging in lively discussions amidst the natural beauty. The image should exude an atmosphere of elegance, political fervor, and culinary indulgence.

*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 fish and seafood caused Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Reeling in the Votes: A Fin-tastic Look at the Relationship Between Household Spending on Fish and Seafood and Republican Presidential Votes in Idaho

Journal of Aquatic Politics

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 silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on fish and seafood and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 0.9896562 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]]
Reeling in the Votes: A Fin-tastic Look at the Relationship Between Household Spending on Fish and Seafood and Republican Presidential Votes in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dove into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its potential connection to the political preferences of Idahoans in presidential elections. Employing data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously examined the correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Idaho from 2000 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9896562 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This research not only sheds light on the intriguing relationship between dietary choices and political affiliations but also offers a fresh perspective on the concept of "voting with your plate." As we navigate the choppy waters of statistical analysis, we must be mindful not to let our conclusions be too fishy.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on fish and seafood and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Reeling in the Votes: A Fin-tastic Look at the Relationship Between Household Spending on Fish and Seafood and Republican Presidential Votes in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dove into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its potential connection to the political preferences of Idahoans in presidential elections. Employing data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously examined the correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Idaho from 2000 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9896562 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This research not only sheds light on the intriguing relationship between dietary choices and political affiliations but also offers a fresh perspective on the concept of "voting with your plate." As we navigate the choppy waters of statistical analysis, we must be mindful not to let our conclusions be too fishy.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The intersection of dietary habits and political preferences has long been a topic of curiosity for researchers seeking to unravel the enigmatic connection between what people eat and how they vote. Among the myriad of dietary choices, the consumption of fish and seafood holds a unique position as a delectable yet polarizing delicacy. With their distinct flavors and nutritional benefits, fish and seafood are not only a staple on many dinner tables but also an intriguing subject for investigating potential correlations with political behaviors.

In the context of the United States, Idaho stands out as a particularly compelling backdrop for such an inquiry. Known for its iconic potatoes and breathtaking landscapes, the Gem State also boasts a population with a strong affinity for outdoor activities, including fishing. Coupled with its steadfast support for Republican candidates in presidential elections, Idaho presents an intriguing canvas for exploring the relationship between dietary preferences and voting patterns.

Our study set out to untangle this piscine puzzle by examining the relationship between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Idaho. Leveraging comprehensive data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we navigated the statistical waters with precision, paying close attention to potential confounding variables and ensuring our findings remained afloat in the rigorous sea of academic inquiry.

As we plunge into the depths of our analysis, we invite the reader to join us on a journey through both culinary and political realms. With an abundance of witty quips and dry humor, this paper ventures to uncover a hidden reef of correlation between a household's diet and its political inclinations, all while keeping a keen eye out for any red herrings that may lead us astray.

Without further ado, let us embark on this fin-tastic expedition into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its surprising connection to the votes cast for Republican presidential candidates in the state of Idaho.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on fish and seafood and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then 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]]
Reeling in the Votes: A Fin-tastic Look at the Relationship Between Household Spending on Fish and Seafood and Republican Presidential Votes in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dove into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its potential connection to the political preferences of Idahoans in presidential elections. Employing data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously examined the correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Idaho from 2000 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9896562 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This research not only sheds light on the intriguing relationship between dietary choices and political affiliations but also offers a fresh perspective on the concept of "voting with your plate." As we navigate the choppy waters of statistical analysis, we must be mindful not to let our conclusions be too fishy.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of dietary habits and political preferences has long been a topic of curiosity for researchers seeking to unravel the enigmatic connection between what people eat and how they vote. Among the myriad of dietary choices, the consumption of fish and seafood holds a unique position as a delectable yet polarizing delicacy. With their distinct flavors and nutritional benefits, fish and seafood are not only a staple on many dinner tables but also an intriguing subject for investigating potential correlations with political behaviors.
In the context of the United States, Idaho stands out as a particularly compelling backdrop for such an inquiry. Known for its iconic potatoes and breathtaking landscapes, the Gem State also boasts a population with a strong affinity for outdoor activities, including fishing. Coupled with its steadfast support for Republican candidates in presidential elections, Idaho presents an intriguing canvas for exploring the relationship between dietary preferences and voting patterns.
Our study set out to untangle this piscine puzzle by examining the relationship between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Idaho. Leveraging comprehensive data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we navigated the statistical waters with precision, paying close attention to potential confounding variables and ensuring our findings remained afloat in the rigorous sea of academic inquiry.
As we plunge into the depths of our analysis, we invite the reader to join us on a journey through both culinary and political realms. With an abundance of witty quips and dry humor, this paper ventures to uncover a hidden reef of correlation between a household's diet and its political inclinations, all while keeping a keen eye out for any red herrings that may lead us astray.
Without further ado, let us embark on this fin-tastic expedition into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its surprising connection to the votes cast for Republican presidential candidates in the state of Idaho.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The inexorable link between household spending on fish and seafood and political inclinations has sparked considerable interest among scholars and researchers. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a seminal study on the topic, exploring the potential influence of dietary habits on voting behavior. Their findings suggested a tentative correlation between seafood consumption and conservative political affiliations, laying the groundwork for subsequent investigations into this intriguing association.

Doe and Jones (2017) expanded on this foundation, delving into the intersection of dietary preferences and partisan leanings with a specific focus on state-level electoral dynamics. Their comprehensive analysis uncovered compelling evidence of a positive relationship between fish and seafood expenditures and support for Republican candidates, particularly in regions renowned for their piscatorial prowess.

Venturing beyond the confines of academic literature, the works of esteemed non-fiction authors provide valuable insights into the cultural significance of fish and seafood consumption. In "The Philosophy of Sustainable Seafood" by Green (2018), the author elucidates the ethical and environmental considerations inherent in seafood consumption, prompting readers to contemplate the broader ramifications of their dietary choices. Similarly, "The Economic Impact of Fishing Industries" by Blue (2019) offers a comprehensive examination of the economic forces shaping the seafood market, shedding light on the intricate web of supply and demand that underpins household spending on aquatic edibles.

Transitioning to a more whimsical realm of inquiry, the intersection of piscine pursuits and political proclivities permeates even the world of fiction. In the satirical masterpiece "Catch of the Day" by Fisher (2016), the protagonist's penchant for fish dinners becomes a metaphor for his unwavering allegiance to conservative ideologies, providing a lighthearted yet thought-provoking exploration of culinary symbolism in political discourse. Additionally, the enigmatic allegory woven throughout "The Cod Conspiracy" by Salmon (2014) invites readers to contemplate the clandestine machinations of seafood lobbyists and their clandestine influence on electoral outcomes.

In an unexpected turn of events, the unconventional research methods employed in this study led the authors to explore unconventional sources of inspiration, including children's cartoons and television shows. Through an analytical lens, the escapades of SpongeBob SquarePants and his underwater cohorts offered valuable insights into the societal perception of aquatic sustenance, instigating contemplations of the subconscious associations between marine cuisine and political ideologies. The authors also begrudgingly admit to binge-watching "Finding Nemo" and "The Little Mermaid" in the pursuit of academic enlightenment, though the scholarly merit of such endeavors remains a subject of spirited debate among the research team.

As the arduous voyage through the literature draws to a close, it becomes evident that the relationship between household spending on fish and seafood and political voting patterns is not merely a matter of statistical analysis and abstract theorizing. Rather, it is woven into the fabric of societal norms, cultural narratives, and perhaps even the subconscious whims of the collective electorate. The forthcoming discussion will continue to unravel this piscatorial puzzle, navigating the turbulent currents of statistical inference with the utmost rigor, all while maintaining a sense of humor to keep the proceedings from becoming too "reel."

Stay tuned for the upcoming installment of this fin-tastic research expedition, where we will delve into the empirical findings and their implications with the same level of earnestness and a touch of quirky flair.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on fish and seafood and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from 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]]
Reeling in the Votes: A Fin-tastic Look at the Relationship Between Household Spending on Fish and Seafood and Republican Presidential Votes in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dove into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its potential connection to the political preferences of Idahoans in presidential elections. Employing data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously examined the correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Idaho from 2000 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9896562 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This research not only sheds light on the intriguing relationship between dietary choices and political affiliations but also offers a fresh perspective on the concept of "voting with your plate." As we navigate the choppy waters of statistical analysis, we must be mindful not to let our conclusions be too fishy.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of dietary habits and political preferences has long been a topic of curiosity for researchers seeking to unravel the enigmatic connection between what people eat and how they vote. Among the myriad of dietary choices, the consumption of fish and seafood holds a unique position as a delectable yet polarizing delicacy. With their distinct flavors and nutritional benefits, fish and seafood are not only a staple on many dinner tables but also an intriguing subject for investigating potential correlations with political behaviors.
In the context of the United States, Idaho stands out as a particularly compelling backdrop for such an inquiry. Known for its iconic potatoes and breathtaking landscapes, the Gem State also boasts a population with a strong affinity for outdoor activities, including fishing. Coupled with its steadfast support for Republican candidates in presidential elections, Idaho presents an intriguing canvas for exploring the relationship between dietary preferences and voting patterns.
Our study set out to untangle this piscine puzzle by examining the relationship between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Idaho. Leveraging comprehensive data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we navigated the statistical waters with precision, paying close attention to potential confounding variables and ensuring our findings remained afloat in the rigorous sea of academic inquiry.
As we plunge into the depths of our analysis, we invite the reader to join us on a journey through both culinary and political realms. With an abundance of witty quips and dry humor, this paper ventures to uncover a hidden reef of correlation between a household's diet and its political inclinations, all while keeping a keen eye out for any red herrings that may lead us astray.
Without further ado, let us embark on this fin-tastic expedition into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its surprising connection to the votes cast for Republican presidential candidates in the state of Idaho.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection:

The data utilized in this study was sourced primarily from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse. We cast our net wide across the online ocean of information, spanning the years from 2000 to 2020. The BLS data provided comprehensive insights into annual US household spending on fish and seafood, while the election data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab allowed us to reel in the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Idaho.

In a somewhat fishy manner, we combined these datasets to create a harmonious ecosystem of information, endeavoring to unlock the aquatic mysteries of political preferences and dietary choices. Our method of gathering data may not have involved actual fishing, but it was nonetheless a meticulous and at times, quite the catch of the day.

Data Analysis:

To dissect the correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Idaho, we employed a variety of statistical methods. Our journey through the depths of data analysis involved computing correlation coefficients, executing regression analyses, and navigating the sometimes choppy waters of hypothesis testing.

After carefully testing for lurking confounding variables and ensuring that our statistical models were robust, we plunged into the depths of statistical analysis with the precision of a well-trained angler. We maintained a sharp focus throughout, mindful of the potential for spurious correlations to swim into our findings.

It was essential for us to stay attuned to the nuances of statistical modeling, lest we find ourselves floundering in statistical undertow. As we cast our statistical net wide, we remained vigilant, keeping an eye out for any unexpected findings that might make us exclaim, "Well, I'll be haddock!"

Results Interpretation:

Upon emerging from the depths of data analysis, we discovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9896562 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a significant relationship between household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Idaho. These findings not only reeled in our interest but also prompted us to cast a philosophical line of inquiry into the realm of "voting with your plate."

Our interpretations were rooted in these statistical phenomena, guiding us to unravel a piscine puzzle that had hitherto remained obscured. As we navigated the tumultuous currents of interpretation, we remained acutely aware of the need to approach our conclusions with both skepticism and whimsical wonder, much like a fisherman encountering an unexpected catch.

In summarizing our methodology, we must acknowledge the sheer serendipity of our research voyage - navigating the sometimes tempestuous seas of statistical analysis not only required precision but also a readiness for unexpected discoveries. Though our methodology remained anchored in rigor, we did not shy away from the occasional fisherman's yarn, as research this fin-tastic warrants a touch of whimsy.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on fish and seafood and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

For the time period 2000 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9896562, r-squared of 0.9794195, 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]]
Reeling in the Votes: A Fin-tastic Look at the Relationship Between Household Spending on Fish and Seafood and Republican Presidential Votes in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dove into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its potential connection to the political preferences of Idahoans in presidential elections. Employing data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously examined the correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Idaho from 2000 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9896562 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This research not only sheds light on the intriguing relationship between dietary choices and political affiliations but also offers a fresh perspective on the concept of "voting with your plate." As we navigate the choppy waters of statistical analysis, we must be mindful not to let our conclusions be too fishy.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of dietary habits and political preferences has long been a topic of curiosity for researchers seeking to unravel the enigmatic connection between what people eat and how they vote. Among the myriad of dietary choices, the consumption of fish and seafood holds a unique position as a delectable yet polarizing delicacy. With their distinct flavors and nutritional benefits, fish and seafood are not only a staple on many dinner tables but also an intriguing subject for investigating potential correlations with political behaviors.
In the context of the United States, Idaho stands out as a particularly compelling backdrop for such an inquiry. Known for its iconic potatoes and breathtaking landscapes, the Gem State also boasts a population with a strong affinity for outdoor activities, including fishing. Coupled with its steadfast support for Republican candidates in presidential elections, Idaho presents an intriguing canvas for exploring the relationship between dietary preferences and voting patterns.
Our study set out to untangle this piscine puzzle by examining the relationship between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Idaho. Leveraging comprehensive data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we navigated the statistical waters with precision, paying close attention to potential confounding variables and ensuring our findings remained afloat in the rigorous sea of academic inquiry.
As we plunge into the depths of our analysis, we invite the reader to join us on a journey through both culinary and political realms. With an abundance of witty quips and dry humor, this paper ventures to uncover a hidden reef of correlation between a household's diet and its political inclinations, all while keeping a keen eye out for any red herrings that may lead us astray.
Without further ado, let us embark on this fin-tastic expedition into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its surprising connection to the votes cast for Republican presidential candidates in the state of Idaho.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our analysis of the data unveiled a remarkably strong correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Idaho from 2000 to 2020. The correlation coefficient we uncovered stood at an impressive 0.9896562, indicating a striking relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. Additionally, the r-squared value of 0.9794195 suggested that a significant portion of the variability in Republican votes in Idaho could be explained by household spending on fish and seafood.

Figure 1 (see Appendix) illustrates this correlation through a scatterplot that vividly depicts the tight relationship between these two intriguing factors. The plot showcases a near-linear pattern, allowing us to visualize the uncanny alignment between piscine preferences and political proclivities.

As we navigate the treacherous waters of statistical inference, our findings also yielded a p-value of less than 0.01, establishing a robust statistical significance for the observed correlation. This low p-value provides compelling evidence that the relationship we uncovered is likely not a mere fluke, but a genuine and meaningful association.

The implications of these findings are, dare I say, quite... fishy. Our research sheds light on the extraordinary possibility that household spending on fish and seafood may act as a bellwether for political leanings in Idaho, offering a fresh perspective on the notion of "voting with your plate." While we certainly did not expect to catch such a big fish in our analysis, these results prompt further exploration into the intersection of dietary preferences and political affiliations, leaving us hungry for more research in this uncharted territory.

In conclusion, our study not only strengthens the case for a correlation between dietary choices and voting patterns but also sets the stage for a sea change in how we perceive the intricate links between food and politics. As we reel in these thought-provoking revelations, we must remain cautious not to get too swept away in the current of our own conclusions. Further research in this area promises to uncover more hidden treasures lurking beneath the surface, inviting others to join us on this exciting expedition into the obscure depths of American dietary and political habits.

Ah, the joys of academic inquiry - where even the most unexpected connections can emerge from the depths and make a splash in the world of research.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on fish and seafood and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
Reeling in the Votes: A Fin-tastic Look at the Relationship Between Household Spending on Fish and Seafood and Republican Presidential Votes in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dove into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its potential connection to the political preferences of Idahoans in presidential elections. Employing data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously examined the correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Idaho from 2000 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9896562 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This research not only sheds light on the intriguing relationship between dietary choices and political affiliations but also offers a fresh perspective on the concept of "voting with your plate." As we navigate the choppy waters of statistical analysis, we must be mindful not to let our conclusions be too fishy.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The inexorable link between household spending on fish and seafood and political inclinations has sparked considerable interest among scholars and researchers. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a seminal study on the topic, exploring the potential influence of dietary habits on voting behavior. Their findings suggested a tentative correlation between seafood consumption and conservative political affiliations, laying the groundwork for subsequent investigations into this intriguing association.
Doe and Jones (2017) expanded on this foundation, delving into the intersection of dietary preferences and partisan leanings with a specific focus on state-level electoral dynamics. Their comprehensive analysis uncovered compelling evidence of a positive relationship between fish and seafood expenditures and support for Republican candidates, particularly in regions renowned for their piscatorial prowess.
Venturing beyond the confines of academic literature, the works of esteemed non-fiction authors provide valuable insights into the cultural significance of fish and seafood consumption. In "The Philosophy of Sustainable Seafood" by Green (2018), the author elucidates the ethical and environmental considerations inherent in seafood consumption, prompting readers to contemplate the broader ramifications of their dietary choices. Similarly, "The Economic Impact of Fishing Industries" by Blue (2019) offers a comprehensive examination of the economic forces shaping the seafood market, shedding light on the intricate web of supply and demand that underpins household spending on aquatic edibles.
Transitioning to a more whimsical realm of inquiry, the intersection of piscine pursuits and political proclivities permeates even the world of fiction. In the satirical masterpiece "Catch of the Day" by Fisher (2016), the protagonist's penchant for fish dinners becomes a metaphor for his unwavering allegiance to conservative ideologies, providing a lighthearted yet thought-provoking exploration of culinary symbolism in political discourse. Additionally, the enigmatic allegory woven throughout "The Cod Conspiracy" by Salmon (2014) invites readers to contemplate the clandestine machinations of seafood lobbyists and their clandestine influence on electoral outcomes.
In an unexpected turn of events, the unconventional research methods employed in this study led the authors to explore unconventional sources of inspiration, including children's cartoons and television shows. Through an analytical lens, the escapades of SpongeBob SquarePants and his underwater cohorts offered valuable insights into the societal perception of aquatic sustenance, instigating contemplations of the subconscious associations between marine cuisine and political ideologies. The authors also begrudgingly admit to binge-watching "Finding Nemo" and "The Little Mermaid" in the pursuit of academic enlightenment, though the scholarly merit of such endeavors remains a subject of spirited debate among the research team.
As the arduous voyage through the literature draws to a close, it becomes evident that the relationship between household spending on fish and seafood and political voting patterns is not merely a matter of statistical analysis and abstract theorizing. Rather, it is woven into the fabric of societal norms, cultural narratives, and perhaps even the subconscious whims of the collective electorate. The forthcoming discussion will continue to unravel this piscatorial puzzle, navigating the turbulent currents of statistical inference with the utmost rigor, all while maintaining a sense of humor to keep the proceedings from becoming too "reel."
Stay tuned for the upcoming installment of this fin-tastic research expedition, where we will delve into the empirical findings and their implications with the same level of earnestness and a touch of quirky flair.

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the data unveiled a remarkably strong correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Idaho from 2000 to 2020. The correlation coefficient we uncovered stood at an impressive 0.9896562, indicating a striking relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. Additionally, the r-squared value of 0.9794195 suggested that a significant portion of the variability in Republican votes in Idaho could be explained by household spending on fish and seafood.
Figure 1 (see Appendix) illustrates this correlation through a scatterplot that vividly depicts the tight relationship between these two intriguing factors. The plot showcases a near-linear pattern, allowing us to visualize the uncanny alignment between piscine preferences and political proclivities.
As we navigate the treacherous waters of statistical inference, our findings also yielded a p-value of less than 0.01, establishing a robust statistical significance for the observed correlation. This low p-value provides compelling evidence that the relationship we uncovered is likely not a mere fluke, but a genuine and meaningful association.
The implications of these findings are, dare I say, quite... fishy. Our research sheds light on the extraordinary possibility that household spending on fish and seafood may act as a bellwether for political leanings in Idaho, offering a fresh perspective on the notion of "voting with your plate." While we certainly did not expect to catch such a big fish in our analysis, these results prompt further exploration into the intersection of dietary preferences and political affiliations, leaving us hungry for more research in this uncharted territory.
In conclusion, our study not only strengthens the case for a correlation between dietary choices and voting patterns but also sets the stage for a sea change in how we perceive the intricate links between food and politics. As we reel in these thought-provoking revelations, we must remain cautious not to get too swept away in the current of our own conclusions. Further research in this area promises to uncover more hidden treasures lurking beneath the surface, inviting others to join us on this exciting expedition into the obscure depths of American dietary and political habits.
Ah, the joys of academic inquiry - where even the most unexpected connections can emerge from the depths and make a splash in the world of research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The rich tapestry of our analysis, which we cast under the guise of researchers and reeled in with statistical prowess, has brought to the surface a fascinating insight into the relationship between household spending on fish and seafood and voting patterns in Idaho. Our results align with the prior research that hinted at a surprising link between piscine preferences and political affiliations. The findings of Smith et al. (2015) and Doe and Jones (2017) set the stage for our work, guiding our investigative net to a fruitful catch of statistical significance.

Venturing into the statistical depths, we found a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9896562 and a p-value of less than 0.01, reaffirming the robustness of the association between household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Idaho. To echo the reassuring rhythms of a ship's deck, it seems our analysis has indeed weathered the choppy waters of inference and emerged with findings that are far from being a red herring.

Our study not only corroborates the existing body of research but also expands upon it, offering a visual narrative through the scatterplot in Figure 1 (see Appendix). This visual aid allows us to witness the tight embrace between fishy finances and political propsensities, much like two unsuspecting companions tangling in a net of statistical fate. The r-squared value of 0.9794195 provides further empirical support for our hypothesis, suggesting that nearly 98% of the variability in Republican votes in Idaho can be explained by household spending on fish and seafood. These findings are nothing short of extraordinary and may indeed hook the attention of scholars and policymakers alike.

As we methodically untangle the implications of our research, we cannot ignore the subaqueous reverberations of our findings. It appears that dietary choices and political inclinations are not merely swimming in separate streams but are interconnected like a school of fish navigating the currents of societal dynamics. This interplay invites us to dive deeper into the murky depths of consumer behavior and political preferences, prompting us to ponder whether the pen may indeed be mightier than the swordfish in shaping electoral outcomes.

In the spirit of academic inquiry, our findings do not merely surface as isolated revelations but as potential harbingers of change in the way we perceive the intricate tapestry of dietary choices and political allegiances. While we resist the urge to let our conclusions fish for undue attention, we remain optimistic about the potential for further research to cast a wider net and secure more grand catch in this uncharted sea of inquiry.

Thus, as the tide of our investigation recedes, it leaves behind the promise of uncharted waters yet to be explored, beckoning other intrepid souls to join us in the fray and cast their lines into the intriguing domain of piscine political predilections.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on fish and seafood and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Reeling in the Votes: A Fin-tastic Look at the Relationship Between Household Spending on Fish and Seafood and Republican Presidential Votes in Idaho

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we dove into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its potential connection to the political preferences of Idahoans in presidential elections. Employing data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously examined the correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Idaho from 2000 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9896562 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This research not only sheds light on the intriguing relationship between dietary choices and political affiliations but also offers a fresh perspective on the concept of "voting with your plate." As we navigate the choppy waters of statistical analysis, we must be mindful not to let our conclusions be too fishy.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of dietary habits and political preferences has long been a topic of curiosity for researchers seeking to unravel the enigmatic connection between what people eat and how they vote. Among the myriad of dietary choices, the consumption of fish and seafood holds a unique position as a delectable yet polarizing delicacy. With their distinct flavors and nutritional benefits, fish and seafood are not only a staple on many dinner tables but also an intriguing subject for investigating potential correlations with political behaviors.
In the context of the United States, Idaho stands out as a particularly compelling backdrop for such an inquiry. Known for its iconic potatoes and breathtaking landscapes, the Gem State also boasts a population with a strong affinity for outdoor activities, including fishing. Coupled with its steadfast support for Republican candidates in presidential elections, Idaho presents an intriguing canvas for exploring the relationship between dietary preferences and voting patterns.
Our study set out to untangle this piscine puzzle by examining the relationship between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Idaho. Leveraging comprehensive data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we navigated the statistical waters with precision, paying close attention to potential confounding variables and ensuring our findings remained afloat in the rigorous sea of academic inquiry.
As we plunge into the depths of our analysis, we invite the reader to join us on a journey through both culinary and political realms. With an abundance of witty quips and dry humor, this paper ventures to uncover a hidden reef of correlation between a household's diet and its political inclinations, all while keeping a keen eye out for any red herrings that may lead us astray.
Without further ado, let us embark on this fin-tastic expedition into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its surprising connection to the votes cast for Republican presidential candidates in the state of Idaho.

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the data unveiled a remarkably strong correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Idaho from 2000 to 2020. The correlation coefficient we uncovered stood at an impressive 0.9896562, indicating a striking relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. Additionally, the r-squared value of 0.9794195 suggested that a significant portion of the variability in Republican votes in Idaho could be explained by household spending on fish and seafood.
Figure 1 (see Appendix) illustrates this correlation through a scatterplot that vividly depicts the tight relationship between these two intriguing factors. The plot showcases a near-linear pattern, allowing us to visualize the uncanny alignment between piscine preferences and political proclivities.
As we navigate the treacherous waters of statistical inference, our findings also yielded a p-value of less than 0.01, establishing a robust statistical significance for the observed correlation. This low p-value provides compelling evidence that the relationship we uncovered is likely not a mere fluke, but a genuine and meaningful association.
The implications of these findings are, dare I say, quite... fishy. Our research sheds light on the extraordinary possibility that household spending on fish and seafood may act as a bellwether for political leanings in Idaho, offering a fresh perspective on the notion of "voting with your plate." While we certainly did not expect to catch such a big fish in our analysis, these results prompt further exploration into the intersection of dietary preferences and political affiliations, leaving us hungry for more research in this uncharted territory.
In conclusion, our study not only strengthens the case for a correlation between dietary choices and voting patterns but also sets the stage for a sea change in how we perceive the intricate links between food and politics. As we reel in these thought-provoking revelations, we must remain cautious not to get too swept away in the current of our own conclusions. Further research in this area promises to uncover more hidden treasures lurking beneath the surface, inviting others to join us on this exciting expedition into the obscure depths of American dietary and political habits.
Ah, the joys of academic inquiry - where even the most unexpected connections can emerge from the depths and make a splash in the world of research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In wrapping up our piscatorial political adventure, we've certainly made a splash with our findings. The exceptionally high correlation coefficient we uncovered suggests a strong relationship between household spending on fish and seafood and support for Republican presidential candidates in Idaho. We must acknowledge that the magnitude of this correlation is quite the catch – a rare occurrence in the vast sea of statistical analyses. With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results have reeled in a significant and compelling connection.

Our study not only opens the floodgates to new questions about the intersection of dietary choices and political allegiances but also highlights the potential for fish and seafood to serve as a barometer for electoral leanings. This unexpected relationship amplifies the need for further investigation, as we have only dipped our toes into the lagoon of this captivating area of study.

However, we must also exercise caution and not let our enthusiasm for this beguiling correlation lead us into uncharted waters. As tempting as it may be to fish for additional insights, we must resist the urge to cast our nets too far and overstate the implications of our findings. Let's ensure we don't get carried away and end up with a net loss on the credibility front.

In summary, our research adds a drop in the ocean of knowledge about the nuanced relationship between dietary expenditure and political preferences, yet it also sends ripples through the academic community, encouraging further examination and critical discourse regarding the unexpected parallels we've uncovered. We assert with the utmost confidence, though, that no more research is needed in this area – for now. Here's to hoping our findings don't cause a feeding frenzy of half-baked studies, but rather inspire a thoughtful wave of enlightening and rigorous research endeavors in the future.


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 Reeling in the Votes: A Fin-tastic Look at the Relationship Between Household Spending on Fish and Seafood and Republican Presidential Votes in Idaho. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Aquatic Politics


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 Reeling in the Votes: A Fin-tastic Look at the Relationship Between Household Spending on Fish and Seafood and Republican Presidential Votes in Idaho. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Aquatic Political Analysis and Research


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Reeling in the Votes: A Fin-tastic Look at the Relationship Between Household Spending on Fish and Seafood and Republican Presidential Votes in Idaho with an abstract of In this study, we dove into the captivating world of household spending on fish and seafood and its potential connection to the political preferences of Idahoans in presidential elections. Employing data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously examined the correlation between annual US household spending on fish and seafood and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Idaho from 2000 to 2020. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9896562 and a p-value of less than 0.01. This research not only sheds light on the intriguing relationship between dietary choices and political affiliations but also offers a fresh perspective on the concept of "voting with your plate." As we navigate the choppy waters of statistical analysis, we must be mindful not to let our conclusions be too fishy.

ChatGPT:

household spending on fish and seafood, republican presidential votes, Idaho, correlation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, voting behavior, dietary choices, political affiliations, statistical analysis

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

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

Correlation r = 0.9896562 (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 = 0.9794195 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 97.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Annual US household spending on fish and seafood) over the 6 years from 2000 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00016. 0.0001599366306272283700000000
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 0.016% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 6,252 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.

[ 0.9, 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 fish and seafood (Household spend)110128128126130170
Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho (Total votes)336937409235403012420911409055554119




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([110,128,128,126,130,170,])
array_2 = np.array([336937,409235,403012,420911,409055,554119,])
array_1_name = "Annual US household spending on fish and seafood"
array_2_name = "Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Idaho"

# 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 pure awesomeness!


Correlation ID: 5342 · Black Variable ID: 19892 · Red Variable ID: 25972
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0