Spurious correlation #5,453 · 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 personal care products and services and the second variable is Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California. The chart goes from 2000 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

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 personal care products and services and the second variable is Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California. The chart goes from 2000 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

The rise in personal care spending led to an increase in confidence, including the belief in personal freedoms and minimal government intervention, ultimately swaying more people to support the Libertarian candidate in California. After all, nothing says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" like a good hair day!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: A serene community square in a vibrant California neighborhood. The scene is illuminated by the warm glow of the sun, casting long shadows over the bustling street. On each side, stores and boutiques showcase an array of personal care products, their glass windows reflecting the cool blues and inviting greens of the surrounding plants. Within the stores, people browse the shelves, examining various skincare and haircare items with focus and delight evident in their expressions. The wares, arranged in orderly rows, hold the promise of radiant skin and lustrous locks. The customers' contented smiles suggest a deep satisfaction in their freedom to select these products based on their personal preferences and values. In the background, a line forms outside a quaint polling station. A diverse group of individuals takes turns casting their votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate, expressing a quiet sense of fulfillment and empowerment. Their vibrant, warm-toned clothing forms a striking contrast against the cool-toned buildings. Each person's body language exudes a sense of liberation and pride as they participate in the democratic process. The close-knit community embodies the belief in individual freedoms, as evident in their actions and conversations. The interplay between personal care spending and voting patterns signifies a collective affirmation of the importance of independent choice and minimal government intervention. 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 personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s Vaporwave Low poly Magic realism Magic realism
ChatGPT: Magic realism

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 personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California, in the following situation: The rise in personal care spending led to an increase in confidence, including the belief in personal freedoms and minimal government intervention, ultimately swaying more people to support the Libertarian candidate in California. After all, nothing says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" like a good hair day!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling California neighborhood, people are seen browsing through rows of personal care products, from skincare to haircare, with confidence lighting up their faces. As they happily make their purchases, they engage in conversations about the importance of freedom and minimal government intervention. In the background, a string of people are seen casting their votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate, their smiles indicating a sense of liberation and satisfaction. The synergy of personal care spending and voting patterns reflects a collective belief in individual freedoms, symbolized by the community's newfound support for the Libertarian candidate.

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: [ Magic realism ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling California neighborhood, people are seen browsing through rows of personal care products, from skincare to haircare, with confidence lighting up their faces. As they happily make their purchases, they engage in conversations about the importance of freedom and minimal government intervention. In the background, a string of people are seen casting their votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate, their smiles indicating a sense of liberation and satisfaction. The synergy of personal care spending and voting patterns reflects a collective belief in individual freedoms, symbolized by the community's newfound support for the Libertarian candidate. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: A serene community square in a vibrant California neighborhood. The scene is illuminated by the warm glow of the sun, casting long shadows over the bustling street. On each side, stores and boutiques showcase an array of personal care products, their glass windows reflecting the cool blues and inviting greens of the surrounding plants. Within the stores, people browse the shelves, examining various skincare and haircare items with focus and delight evident in their expressions. The wares, arranged in orderly rows, hold the promise of radiant skin and lustrous locks. The customers' contented smiles suggest a deep satisfaction in their freedom to select these products based on their personal preferences and values. In the background, a line forms outside a quaint polling station. A diverse group of individuals takes turns casting their votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate, expressing a quiet sense of fulfillment and empowerment. Their vibrant, warm-toned clothing forms a striking contrast against the cool-toned buildings. Each person's body language exudes a sense of liberation and pride as they participate in the democratic process. The close-knit community embodies the belief in individual freedoms, as evident in their actions and conversations. The interplay between personal care spending and voting patterns signifies a collective affirmation of the importance of independent choice and minimal government intervention.

*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.
^{Show prompt for explanation} 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 personal care products and services caused Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)

Tress Spending Leads to Libertarian Trending: Exploring the Correlation Between US Household Expenditure on Personal Care and Libertarian Presidential Votes in California

The Journal of Quirky Social Science Research

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!

^{Show prompt used to generate this paper} Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You 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 personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Tress Spending Leads to Libertarian Trending: Exploring the Correlation Between US Household Expenditure on Personal Care and Libertarian Presidential Votes in California

[[ABSTRACT]]
In recent years, the link between personal care expenses and political preferences has sparked many discussions. Through rigorous data analysis and statistical tests, this study delves into the intriguing correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. Harnessing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team scrutinized the patterns from 2000 to 2020.

The results unveiled a notable correlation coefficient of 0.9136368 with a p-value below 0.05. In simpler terms, the correlation is as strong as a well-groomed mustache and a successful political campaign! Our findings suggest that as households allocate more funds to personal care, there is a parallel increase in support for the Libertarian candidate in the Golden State. It seems that the more people invest in self-care, the more they lean towards political candidates who advocate for individual freedom, like a shampoo bottle advocating for "no more tangles."

So, whether it's a correlation or just a hair-brained theory, this study sheds light on the unexpected relationship between personal care spending and political allegiance. As the saying goes, "Why did the libertarian bring a comb to the party? In case he needed to part ways with conventional politics!"

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
When it comes to understanding human behavior, analyzing patterns and correlations plays a crucial role, much like a pair of scissors in a hair salon. The relationship between consumer spending and political choices has long been of interest to researchers and economists. However, the connection between annual US household expenditure on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California has often been overlooked, much like the neglected hair at the back of a short haircut. This study aims to fill this gap and untangle the knotty relationship between personal care spending and political leanings.
Picture this: California, the land of sunshine, beaches, and political diversity. It's a state where individualism and personal expression are as prevalent as flip-flops and avocados. The Golden State has provided a fascinating backdrop for this study, serving as the canvas upon which we aim to paint a clearer picture of the relationship between personal care spending and political preferences. Like a well-crafted haircut, our analysis promises to shed light on this unique connection.
Here we find ourselves on a journey to explore the correlation between household spending on personal care and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. It's a quest as bold and unexpected as finding a comb in a haystack. The research seeks to answer the burning question: Is there a link between meticulously maintained haircuts and advocating for individual freedom? Much like a good hair day, the answers we uncover promise to be enlightening and, perhaps, stylishly unexpected.
As researchers in the domain of data analysis, we are committed to not just brushing the surface but to deeply scrutinizing the nuances of these relationships. We dive into the data with the same level of gusto as one would approach a new hair care routine. Our goal is to untangle the complexity of consumer behavior and political ideologies, unearthing insights that have the potential to make waves in both academic and political circles. After all, who wouldn't want to comb through a study that could potentially be as groundbreaking as a new, hi-tech hairbrush?
So fasten your seatbelts, adjust your spectacles or your hairpieces, and join us on this scientific journey as we explore the intriguing correlation between personal care spending and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. After all, as they say, "Why did the statistician bring a hairdryer to the conference? For perfectly 'blown' data, of course!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Current Discourse on Personal Care Expenditure and Political Preferences

In "Smith et al." the authors find that there is a significant positive relationship between personal care spending and individualism, as well as a negative correlation with authoritarian political beliefs. This provides an early indication of the potential links between grooming habits and political leanings, much like how a well-groomed beard can influence one's charm and charisma.

In a study by "Doe and Jones," the authors examine the impact of personal care expenditure on consumer perception of self-worth and self-expression. Their findings suggest that higher spending on personal care products and services is associated with a stronger sense of individual identity and confidence, akin to finding the perfect hair gel for a flawless hairstyle.

Moving beyond academic journals, "The Economics of Grooming" by John G. Smith and "The Politics of Personal Hygiene" by Lisa J. Johnson provide insights into the intersection of personal care and socio-political inclinations, offering a nuanced understanding of the potential relationships between grooming habits and political ideologies. On the more fictional side, "The Shampoo Conspiracy" by David A. Brown and "Styling the Vote: How Hairdos Shape Political Choices" by Emily P. Green present intriguing narratives that intertwine personal care and politics, albeit in a more whimsical manner.

The emergence of internet memes such as "Bad Hair Day, Bad Political Choices" and "Shave the Date: A Political Makeover" illustrates the popular discourse surrounding the intersection of personal care and political inclinations, as online communities humorously contemplate the impact of grooming on voting behavior. After all, who can resist a good pun about hairstyling and political decisions?

It is evident from the literature that the relationship between personal care expenditures and political preferences has been a subject of growing interest and intrigue, much like a captivating hair salon mystery novel. The findings and narratives presented in these sources illuminate the pathways for further research into the unexplored connections between grooming habits and political allegiances.

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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Tress Spending Leads to Libertarian Trending: Exploring the Correlation Between US Household Expenditure on Personal Care and Libertarian Presidential Votes in California

[[ABSTRACT]]
In recent years, the link between personal care expenses and political preferences has sparked many discussions. Through rigorous data analysis and statistical tests, this study delves into the intriguing correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. Harnessing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team scrutinized the patterns from 2000 to 2020.

The results unveiled a notable correlation coefficient of 0.9136368 with a p-value below 0.05. In simpler terms, the correlation is as strong as a well-groomed mustache and a successful political campaign! Our findings suggest that as households allocate more funds to personal care, there is a parallel increase in support for the Libertarian candidate in the Golden State. It seems that the more people invest in self-care, the more they lean towards political candidates who advocate for individual freedom, like a shampoo bottle advocating for "no more tangles."

So, whether it's a correlation or just a hair-brained theory, this study sheds light on the unexpected relationship between personal care spending and political allegiance. As the saying goes, "Why did the libertarian bring a comb to the party? In case he needed to part ways with conventional politics!"

[[INTRODUCTION]]
When it comes to understanding human behavior, analyzing patterns and correlations plays a crucial role, much like a pair of scissors in a hair salon. The relationship between consumer spending and political choices has long been of interest to researchers and economists. However, the connection between annual US household expenditure on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California has often been overlooked, much like the neglected hair at the back of a short haircut. This study aims to fill this gap and untangle the knotty relationship between personal care spending and political leanings.
Picture this: California, the land of sunshine, beaches, and political diversity. It's a state where individualism and personal expression are as prevalent as flip-flops and avocados. The Golden State has provided a fascinating backdrop for this study, serving as the canvas upon which we aim to paint a clearer picture of the relationship between personal care spending and political preferences. Like a well-crafted haircut, our analysis promises to shed light on this unique connection.
Here we find ourselves on a journey to explore the correlation between household spending on personal care and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. It's a quest as bold and unexpected as finding a comb in a haystack. The research seeks to answer the burning question: Is there a link between meticulously maintained haircuts and advocating for individual freedom? Much like a good hair day, the answers we uncover promise to be enlightening and, perhaps, stylishly unexpected.
As researchers in the domain of data analysis, we are committed to not just brushing the surface but to deeply scrutinizing the nuances of these relationships. We dive into the data with the same level of gusto as one would approach a new hair care routine. Our goal is to untangle the complexity of consumer behavior and political ideologies, unearthing insights that have the potential to make waves in both academic and political circles. After all, who wouldn't want to comb through a study that could potentially be as groundbreaking as a new, hi-tech hairbrush?
So fasten your seatbelts, adjust your spectacles or your hairpieces, and join us on this scientific journey as we explore the intriguing correlation between personal care spending and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. After all, as they say, "Why did the statistician bring a hairdryer to the conference? For perfectly 'blown' data, of course!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To embark on our quest for uncovering the enigmatic relationship between personal care spending and political tendencies, we utilized a plethora of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and Harvard Dataverse. Our academic quest led us on a digital treasure hunt through the vast terrain of the internet, akin to a group of intrepid explorers searching for the elusive Fountain of Correlation.

We compiled data covering the years 2000 to 2020, creating a dataset so comprehensive that it could rival the encyclopedic knowledge of a seasoned hairstylist. Our approach to data collection was as precise as snipping split ends, as we combed through the wealth of information with meticulous care, ensuring that our dataset was as polished as a freshly waxed mustache.

Employing a sophisticated statistical technique known as multiple linear regression, we attempted to disentangle the intricate web of variables at play. To put it simply, we aimed to unravel the strands of influence that personal care spending may have on the votes cast for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California, akin to how a master artisan unravels a tangled web of hair to reveal a stunning coiffure.

Furthermore, we performed a Granger causality test to determine the direction of influence between personal care spending and Libertarian votes, akin to determining whether a new hairstyle influences one's confidence or vice versa. In doing so, we sought to establish whether there is a causal relationship that goes beyond mere correlation, striving to unveil the underlying dynamics with as much enthusiasm as a teenager trying to decode their crush's subtle hints.

Finally, we conducted a series of robustness checks and sensitivity analyses, ensuring that our findings withstand scrutiny and remain as sturdy as a well-constructed hairstyle in the face of turbulent weather. Through these rigorous measures, we aimed to affirm the reliability and validity of our results, all while maintaining the spirit of scientific curiosity and the occasional pun.

In summary, our methodology involved a meticulous and thorough examination of the data, employing statistical tools with precision and dedication to unravel the fascinating connection between personal care spending and political inclinations. As we combed through the tangled web of correlations, we endeavored to present findings that are as enlightening as a well-styled quiff and as enduring as a timeless classic haircut.

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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 0.9136368, r-squared of 0.8347323, and p < 0.05.

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Tress Spending Leads to Libertarian Trending: Exploring the Correlation Between US Household Expenditure on Personal Care and Libertarian Presidential Votes in California

[[ABSTRACT]]
In recent years, the link between personal care expenses and political preferences has sparked many discussions. Through rigorous data analysis and statistical tests, this study delves into the intriguing correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. Harnessing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team scrutinized the patterns from 2000 to 2020.

The results unveiled a notable correlation coefficient of 0.9136368 with a p-value below 0.05. In simpler terms, the correlation is as strong as a well-groomed mustache and a successful political campaign! Our findings suggest that as households allocate more funds to personal care, there is a parallel increase in support for the Libertarian candidate in the Golden State. It seems that the more people invest in self-care, the more they lean towards political candidates who advocate for individual freedom, like a shampoo bottle advocating for "no more tangles."

So, whether it's a correlation or just a hair-brained theory, this study sheds light on the unexpected relationship between personal care spending and political allegiance. As the saying goes, "Why did the libertarian bring a comb to the party? In case he needed to part ways with conventional politics!"

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
When it comes to understanding human behavior, analyzing patterns and correlations plays a crucial role, much like a pair of scissors in a hair salon. The relationship between consumer spending and political choices has long been of interest to researchers and economists. However, the connection between annual US household expenditure on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California has often been overlooked, much like the neglected hair at the back of a short haircut. This study aims to fill this gap and untangle the knotty relationship between personal care spending and political leanings.
Picture this: California, the land of sunshine, beaches, and political diversity. It's a state where individualism and personal expression are as prevalent as flip-flops and avocados. The Golden State has provided a fascinating backdrop for this study, serving as the canvas upon which we aim to paint a clearer picture of the relationship between personal care spending and political preferences. Like a well-crafted haircut, our analysis promises to shed light on this unique connection.
Here we find ourselves on a journey to explore the correlation between household spending on personal care and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. It's a quest as bold and unexpected as finding a comb in a haystack. The research seeks to answer the burning question: Is there a link between meticulously maintained haircuts and advocating for individual freedom? Much like a good hair day, the answers we uncover promise to be enlightening and, perhaps, stylishly unexpected.
As researchers in the domain of data analysis, we are committed to not just brushing the surface but to deeply scrutinizing the nuances of these relationships. We dive into the data with the same level of gusto as one would approach a new hair care routine. Our goal is to untangle the complexity of consumer behavior and political ideologies, unearthing insights that have the potential to make waves in both academic and political circles. After all, who wouldn't want to comb through a study that could potentially be as groundbreaking as a new, hi-tech hairbrush?
So fasten your seatbelts, adjust your spectacles or your hairpieces, and join us on this scientific journey as we explore the intriguing correlation between personal care spending and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. After all, as they say, "Why did the statistician bring a hairdryer to the conference? For perfectly 'blown' data, of course!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]

ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data unearthed a striking correlation between annual US household expenditure on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. The correlation coefficient of 0.9136368 indicates a robust positive relationship between these two variables. It's like finding the perfect combination of shampoo and conditioner – they just work wonderfully together!

Our regression model also yielded an impressive R-squared value of 0.8347323, indicating that approximately 83.47% of the variability in Libertarian votes in California can be explained by variations in household spending on personal care. That's a higher explanatory power than a bill for a bad haircut – this correlation is no trim at the edges; it's a full-blown explanation!

The p-value of less than 0.05 further solidifies the strength of the relationship, indicating that the observed correlation is statistically significant. It's as significant as realizing your shampoo has run out mid-shower – you just can't ignore it.

(Fig. 1) illustrates the strong positive correlation between household spending on personal care and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. The plot is as clear as a clean-shaven face, depicting a clear upward trend that is tighter than a well-coiled hairpin.

These findings provide compelling evidence that as households dedicate more resources to personal care, there is a concurrent surge in support for the Libertarian candidate in California. It's like realizing that lather truly does lead to liberty!

In conclusion, our results highlight the surprising connection between personal care spending and political preferences. This study adds a valuable strand to the complex web of consumer behavior and political dynamics. As the old saying goes, "Why do statisticians love personal care products? Because they always make great 'scents' of the data!"

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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Tress Spending Leads to Libertarian Trending: Exploring the Correlation Between US Household Expenditure on Personal Care and Libertarian Presidential Votes in California

[[ABSTRACT]]
In recent years, the link between personal care expenses and political preferences has sparked many discussions. Through rigorous data analysis and statistical tests, this study delves into the intriguing correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. Harnessing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team scrutinized the patterns from 2000 to 2020.

The results unveiled a notable correlation coefficient of 0.9136368 with a p-value below 0.05. In simpler terms, the correlation is as strong as a well-groomed mustache and a successful political campaign! Our findings suggest that as households allocate more funds to personal care, there is a parallel increase in support for the Libertarian candidate in the Golden State. It seems that the more people invest in self-care, the more they lean towards political candidates who advocate for individual freedom, like a shampoo bottle advocating for "no more tangles."

So, whether it's a correlation or just a hair-brained theory, this study sheds light on the unexpected relationship between personal care spending and political allegiance. As the saying goes, "Why did the libertarian bring a comb to the party? In case he needed to part ways with conventional politics!"

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Current Discourse on Personal Care Expenditure and Political Preferences
In "Smith et al." the authors find that there is a significant positive relationship between personal care spending and individualism, as well as a negative correlation with authoritarian political beliefs. This provides an early indication of the potential links between grooming habits and political leanings, much like how a well-groomed beard can influence one's charm and charisma.
In a study by "Doe and Jones," the authors examine the impact of personal care expenditure on consumer perception of self-worth and self-expression. Their findings suggest that higher spending on personal care products and services is associated with a stronger sense of individual identity and confidence, akin to finding the perfect hair gel for a flawless hairstyle.
Moving beyond academic journals, "The Economics of Grooming" by John G. Smith and "The Politics of Personal Hygiene" by Lisa J. Johnson provide insights into the intersection of personal care and socio-political inclinations, offering a nuanced understanding of the potential relationships between grooming habits and political ideologies. On the more fictional side, "The Shampoo Conspiracy" by David A. Brown and "Styling the Vote: How Hairdos Shape Political Choices" by Emily P. Green present intriguing narratives that intertwine personal care and politics, albeit in a more whimsical manner.
The emergence of internet memes such as "Bad Hair Day, Bad Political Choices" and "Shave the Date: A Political Makeover" illustrates the popular discourse surrounding the intersection of personal care and political inclinations, as online communities humorously contemplate the impact of grooming on voting behavior. After all, who can resist a good pun about hairstyling and political decisions?
It is evident from the literature that the relationship between personal care expenditures and political preferences has been a subject of growing interest and intrigue, much like a captivating hair salon mystery novel. The findings and narratives presented in these sources illuminate the pathways for further research into the unexplored connections between grooming habits and political allegiances.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data unearthed a striking correlation between annual US household expenditure on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. The correlation coefficient of 0.9136368 indicates a robust positive relationship between these two variables. It's like finding the perfect combination of shampoo and conditioner – they just work wonderfully together!
Our regression model also yielded an impressive R-squared value of 0.8347323, indicating that approximately 83.47% of the variability in Libertarian votes in California can be explained by variations in household spending on personal care. That's a higher explanatory power than a bill for a bad haircut – this correlation is no trim at the edges; it's a full-blown explanation!
The p-value of less than 0.05 further solidifies the strength of the relationship, indicating that the observed correlation is statistically significant. It's as significant as realizing your shampoo has run out mid-shower – you just can't ignore it.
(Fig. 1) illustrates the strong positive correlation between household spending on personal care and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. The plot is as clear as a clean-shaven face, depicting a clear upward trend that is tighter than a well-coiled hairpin.
These findings provide compelling evidence that as households dedicate more resources to personal care, there is a concurrent surge in support for the Libertarian candidate in California. It's like realizing that lather truly does lead to liberty!
In conclusion, our results highlight the surprising connection between personal care spending and political preferences. This study adds a valuable strand to the complex web of consumer behavior and political dynamics. As the old saying goes, "Why do statisticians love personal care products? Because they always make great 'scents' of the data!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of this study offer conclusive evidence that there is a significant positive correlation between annual US household expenditure on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. This robust relationship supports prior research, affirming the notion that grooming habits and political leanings are intertwined like a lather and rinse routine.

The findings align with the works of "Smith et al." and "Doe and Jones," who initially highlighted the potential association between personal care spending and individualism, self-expression, and political beliefs. It seems that the dollars spent on grooming and personal care products are not only shaping hairstyles but also potentially shaping political allegiances, much like how a well-styled beard can influence charisma and charm – it's a testament to the power of personal presentation.

Furthermore, the literature review emphasized the growing interest in the relationship between grooming habits and political inclinations, which this study solidifies. The emergence of internet memes and fictional narratives surrounding personal care and politics have brought this intersection to the forefront of public discourse, demonstrating that grooming is not just about appearances but may also have implications for political choices. It is as if the body wash of popular culture is mixing with the shampoo of statistical analysis to provide a thorough cleansing of the topic.

The high explanatory power of the regression model (R-squared = 0.8347323) underscores the substantial influence of personal care spending on Libertarian votes in California. This suggests that a considerable proportion of the variance in political preferences can be attributed to the variations in grooming expenditures. It's reminiscent of discovering just the right hair product that completely revolutionizes one's hairstyle – in this case, the correlation between personal care spending and political preferences is nothing short of a game-changer.

The statistically significant p-value further strengthens the solidity of the observed correlation, indicating that the relationship between personal care spending and Libertarian votes is not a statistical fluke but a bona fide connection. It's as definitive as finding the perfect aftershave to complement a well-groomed appearance – the impact is palpable and impossible to ignore.

In sum, this study not only provides empirical support for the intriguing relationship between personal care spending and political preferences but also underscores the significance of considering consumer behavior in political analysis. The results pave the way for future research into the intricate interplay between grooming habits and political allegiances. Like a well-crafted dad joke, this study unravels a seemingly facetious connection and brings it to the forefront of scholarly inquiry.

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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on personal care products and services and Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Tress Spending Leads to Libertarian Trending: Exploring the Correlation Between US Household Expenditure on Personal Care and Libertarian Presidential Votes in California

[[ABSTRACT]]
In recent years, the link between personal care expenses and political preferences has sparked many discussions. Through rigorous data analysis and statistical tests, this study delves into the intriguing correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. Harnessing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team scrutinized the patterns from 2000 to 2020.

The results unveiled a notable correlation coefficient of 0.9136368 with a p-value below 0.05. In simpler terms, the correlation is as strong as a well-groomed mustache and a successful political campaign! Our findings suggest that as households allocate more funds to personal care, there is a parallel increase in support for the Libertarian candidate in the Golden State. It seems that the more people invest in self-care, the more they lean towards political candidates who advocate for individual freedom, like a shampoo bottle advocating for "no more tangles."

So, whether it's a correlation or just a hair-brained theory, this study sheds light on the unexpected relationship between personal care spending and political allegiance. As the saying goes, "Why did the libertarian bring a comb to the party? In case he needed to part ways with conventional politics!"

[[INTRDUCTION]]
When it comes to understanding human behavior, analyzing patterns and correlations plays a crucial role, much like a pair of scissors in a hair salon. The relationship between consumer spending and political choices has long been of interest to researchers and economists. However, the connection between annual US household expenditure on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California has often been overlooked, much like the neglected hair at the back of a short haircut. This study aims to fill this gap and untangle the knotty relationship between personal care spending and political leanings.
Picture this: California, the land of sunshine, beaches, and political diversity. It's a state where individualism and personal expression are as prevalent as flip-flops and avocados. The Golden State has provided a fascinating backdrop for this study, serving as the canvas upon which we aim to paint a clearer picture of the relationship between personal care spending and political preferences. Like a well-crafted haircut, our analysis promises to shed light on this unique connection.
Here we find ourselves on a journey to explore the correlation between household spending on personal care and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. It's a quest as bold and unexpected as finding a comb in a haystack. The research seeks to answer the burning question: Is there a link between meticulously maintained haircuts and advocating for individual freedom? Much like a good hair day, the answers we uncover promise to be enlightening and, perhaps, stylishly unexpected.
As researchers in the domain of data analysis, we are committed to not just brushing the surface but to deeply scrutinizing the nuances of these relationships. We dive into the data with the same level of gusto as one would approach a new hair care routine. Our goal is to untangle the complexity of consumer behavior and political ideologies, unearthing insights that have the potential to make waves in both academic and political circles. After all, who wouldn't want to comb through a study that could potentially be as groundbreaking as a new, hi-tech hairbrush?
So fasten your seatbelts, adjust your spectacles or your hairpieces, and join us on this scientific journey as we explore the intriguing correlation between personal care spending and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. After all, as they say, "Why did the statistician bring a hairdryer to the conference? For perfectly 'blown' data, of course!"

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data unearthed a striking correlation between annual US household expenditure on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. The correlation coefficient of 0.9136368 indicates a robust positive relationship between these two variables. It's like finding the perfect combination of shampoo and conditioner – they just work wonderfully together!
Our regression model also yielded an impressive R-squared value of 0.8347323, indicating that approximately 83.47% of the variability in Libertarian votes in California can be explained by variations in household spending on personal care. That's a higher explanatory power than a bill for a bad haircut – this correlation is no trim at the edges; it's a full-blown explanation!
The p-value of less than 0.05 further solidifies the strength of the relationship, indicating that the observed correlation is statistically significant. It's as significant as realizing your shampoo has run out mid-shower – you just can't ignore it.
(Fig. 1) illustrates the strong positive correlation between household spending on personal care and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. The plot is as clear as a clean-shaven face, depicting a clear upward trend that is tighter than a well-coiled hairpin.
These findings provide compelling evidence that as households dedicate more resources to personal care, there is a concurrent surge in support for the Libertarian candidate in California. It's like realizing that lather truly does lead to liberty!
In conclusion, our results highlight the surprising connection between personal care spending and political preferences. This study adds a valuable strand to the complex web of consumer behavior and political dynamics. As the old saying goes, "Why do statisticians love personal care products? Because they always make great 'scents' of the data!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, the findings of this study have unraveled a correlation as strong as the bond between a hair tie and a ponytail. Our results demonstrate a striking connection between annual US household spending on personal care and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. It seems that as Californians invest more in personal grooming, they also lean towards political candidates who champion individual freedom, much like a trusty hair gel holding up a gravity-defying hairstyle.

Our research has shown a robust positive relationship, with a correlation coefficient so solid, it's the statistical equivalent of a firm grip on a comb – you just can't deny its influence. The regression model's impressive explanatory power also illustrates that when it comes to predicting Libertarian votes, personal care spending has a stronger hold than hairspray in a gust of wind.

The statistically significant p-value further solidifies the validity of our findings; it's as clear as a well-defined eyebrow arch. Our study's results truly provide a fresh perspective, shedding light on the unexpected intersection between personal grooming habits and political affiliations. It's as noteworthy as discovering a new, revolutionary formula for hair care products!

With these findings, it's safe to say that there's no longer a need to tease out more research in this area. Like a perfect hair day, we've achieved a thorough understanding of the correlation between personal care spending and political preferences in California. In the immortal words of hair enthusiasts everywhere, "No more split ends – it's time to wrap up this study and brush off any doubts about this quirky correlation!"

The impressive results of this research may just be the wake-up call needed for political analysts and personal care enthusiasts alike. After all, who knew that a good hair day and political inclinations could be connected as deeply as a perfectly conditioned lock of hair? It's a revelation worthy of a standing ovation – or at the very least, a round of applause from an appreciative audience of well-groomed participants!

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 Tress Spending Leads to Libertarian Trending: Exploring the Correlation Between US Household Expenditure on Personal Care and Libertarian Presidential Votes in California. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Social Science Research

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 Tress Spending Leads to Libertarian Trending: Exploring the Correlation Between US Household Expenditure on Personal Care and Libertarian Presidential Votes in California. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Socioeconomic Behavioral Analysis

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Tress Spending Leads to Libertarian Trending: Exploring the Correlation Between US Household Expenditure on Personal Care and Libertarian Presidential Votes in California with an abstract of In recent years, the link between personal care expenses and political preferences has sparked many discussions. Through rigorous data analysis and statistical tests, this study delves into the intriguing correlation between annual US household spending on personal care products and services and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in California. Harnessing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, our research team scrutinized the patterns from 2000 to 2020.
The results unveiled a notable correlation coefficient of 0.9136368 with a p-value below 0.05. In simpler terms, the correlation is as strong as a well-groomed mustache and a successful political campaign! Our findings suggest that as households allocate more funds to personal care, there is a parallel increase in support for the Libertarian candidate in the Golden State. It seems that the more people invest in self-care, the more they lean towards political candidates who advocate for individual freedom, like a shampoo bottle advocating for "no more tangles."
So, whether it's a correlation or just a hair-brained theory, this study sheds light on the unexpected relationship between personal care spending and political allegiance. As the saying goes, "Why did the libertarian bring a comb to the party? In case he needed to part ways with conventional politics!

ChatGPT:

Tress Spending, Libertarian Trending, US Household Expenditure, Personal Care, Libertarian Presidential Votes, California, correlation, annual spending, personal care products, household spending, political preferences, data analysis, statistical tests, Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, correlation coefficient, p-value, self-care, individual freedom, political candidates, self-care spending, political allegiance

*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 personal care products and services
Detailed data title: Average annual household spend on personal care products and services
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with Annual US household spending on personal care products and services

Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California
Detailed data title: Percentage of all votes cast for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California

Correlation r = 0.9136368 (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 = 0.8347323 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 83.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Annual US household spending on personal care products and services) over the 6 years from 2000 through 2020.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0109.^Show 0.0108658207565483780000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note 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 0.91 in 1.09% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 92 random variables^Note Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, ^Note 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.

[ 0.39, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} 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: ^Note 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.

	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016	2020
Annual US household spending on personal care products and services (Household spend)	564	581	616	628	707	646
Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California (Percentage of votes)	0.415108	0.403861	0.498323	1.09844	3.37409	1.07363

Why this works

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.
Lack of causal connection: There is probably^Note 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.
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^Note 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.
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.
Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. ^Note Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.

Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. ^{Show the steps to do this.} 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([564,581,616,628,707,646,])
array_2 = np.array([0.415108,0.403861,0.498323,1.09844,3.37409,1.07363,])
array_1_name = "Annual US household spending on personal care products and services"
array_2_name = "Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California"

# 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. ^Note 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:

High resolution line chart ^Note The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.

If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.

Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
Alternative high resolution line chart
Scatterplot
Portable line chart (png)
Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
Line chart for only Annual US household spending on personal care products and services
Line chart for only Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in California
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Tress Spending Leads to Libertarian Trending: Exploring the Correlation Between US Household Expenditure on Personal Care and Libertarian Presidential Votes in California

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Cheers to you for rating this correlation!

Correlation ID: 5453 · Black Variable ID: 19940 · Red Variable ID: 26062


Problem variable:
Issue:
Additional details: Optional
Confirm you are a human: