about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,514 · 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 small appliances and the second variable is Votes for Republican Senators in Arkansas.  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

The influx of breakfast sandwich makers and electric potato peelers led to a rise in delicious, politically-charged kitchen aromas, swaying the Senators' favor with every whiff of crispy bacon and perfectly toasted waffles. It's a classic case of appliances sparking not just power outlets, but also unexpected political alliances. Who knew that the path to a senator's heart could be through a state-of-the-art blender?

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Drive the imagination of your audience with the prompt: "Create an image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie, where in a cozy kitchen in Arkansas, small appliances line the countertops as the aroma of sizzling bacon and golden waffles fills the air. Republican Senators nod in agreement as they savor the delicious scents, their votes swayed by the tempting flavors emanating from the breakfast sandwich maker and electric potato peeler. The state-of-the-art blender stands as an unexpected catalyst for a delightful and politically charged atmosphere." 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 small appliances and Votes for Republican Senators in Arkansas. 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: Realistic Cutsy art illustration An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie

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 small appliances and Votes for Republican Senators in Arkansas, in the following situation: The influx of breakfast sandwich makers and electric potato peelers led to a rise in delicious, politically-charged kitchen aromas, swaying the Senators' favor with every whiff of crispy bacon and perfectly toasted waffles. It's a classic case of appliances sparking not just power outlets, but also unexpected political alliances. Who knew that the path to a senator's heart could be through a state-of-the-art blender?. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a cozy kitchen in Arkansas, small appliances line the countertops while the aroma of sizzling bacon and golden waffles fills the air. Republican Senators nod in agreement as they savor the delicious scent, their votes swayed by the tempting flavors emanating from the breakfast sandwich maker and electric potato peeler. The state-of-the-art blender stands as an unexpected catalyst for a delightful and politically charged atmosphere.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie ] and depicting this scene: In a cozy kitchen in Arkansas, small appliances line the countertops while the aroma of sizzling bacon and golden waffles fills the air. Republican Senators nod in agreement as they savor the delicious scent, their votes swayed by the tempting flavors emanating from the breakfast sandwich maker and electric potato peeler. The state-of-the-art blender stands as an unexpected catalyst for a delightful and politically charged atmosphere. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Drive the imagination of your audience with the prompt: "Create an image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie, where in a cozy kitchen in Arkansas, small appliances line the countertops as the aroma of sizzling bacon and golden waffles fills the air. Republican Senators nod in agreement as they savor the delicious scents, their votes swayed by the tempting flavors emanating from the breakfast sandwich maker and electric potato peeler. The state-of-the-art blender stands as an unexpected catalyst for a delightful and politically charged atmosphere."

*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 small appliances caused Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Mixing Politics and Toasters: The Electrifying Link Between Small Appliance Spending and Republican Votes in Arkansas

The Journal of Political Appliance Research

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title seem clever.

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 0.9951448 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]]
"Mixing Politics and Toasters: The Electrifying Link Between Small Appliance Spending and Republican Votes in Arkansas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the shocking, yet undeniably attractive, relationship between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we conducted a thorough investigation to uncover the electrifying correlation. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9951448, with a p-value of less than 0.01, for the years 2000 to 2020.

We couldn't help but wonder, "What's a small appliance's favorite political party?" The RepubliCAN! Our results suggest that as US household spending on small appliances sizzles, so do the Republican votes in Arkansas. While this association may seem a bit of a stretch, our analysis indicates a potent connection between household spending habits and political preferences.

In conclusion, our research adds a spark to the conversation surrounding consumer behavior and political allegiances. It's high time we acknowledge the influence of toasters and blenders on the voting booth – after all, who wouldn't want a candidate who's as reliable as a well-crafted espresso machine?


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. 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.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Mixing Politics and Toasters: The Electrifying Link Between Small Appliance Spending and Republican Votes in Arkansas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the shocking, yet undeniably attractive, relationship between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we conducted a thorough investigation to uncover the electrifying correlation. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9951448, with a p-value of less than 0.01, for the years 2000 to 2020.

We couldn't help but wonder, "What's a small appliance's favorite political party?" The RepubliCAN! Our results suggest that as US household spending on small appliances sizzles, so do the Republican votes in Arkansas. While this association may seem a bit of a stretch, our analysis indicates a potent connection between household spending habits and political preferences.

In conclusion, our research adds a spark to the conversation surrounding consumer behavior and political allegiances. It's high time we acknowledge the influence of toasters and blenders on the voting booth – after all, who wouldn't want a candidate who's as reliable as a well-crafted espresso machine?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Small appliances are a cornerstone of modern households, providing convenience and efficiency in the kitchen. From coffee makers that jump-start our mornings to toasters that crisp up our bread, these humble devices play a significant role in our daily routines. As researchers, we couldn't resist the opportunity to unravel the mysterious connection between these small wonders and political leanings in the state of Arkansas. After all, it's not every day that you get to blend together consumer habits and election outcomes in a statistical smoothie.

It's long been said that politics can be as unpredictable as a malfunctioning microwave – and our investigation aimed to prove just that. With data in hand, we ventured forth into the realm of statistics, armed with spreadsheets and a healthy dose of skepticism. We set out to answer the burning question: Is there a quantifiable relationship between the dollars spent on small appliances by American households and the inclination to cast a vote for Republican senators in Arkansas? Our curiosity was certainly piqued, much like an overloaded power strip in need of some reassurance.

The data sets at our disposal contained a wealth of information, ripe for analysis. As we delved into the numbers, we couldn't help but marvel at the sheer variety of small appliances available to consumers. From juicers to crockpots, it seemed there was a gadget for every culinary desire and political persuasion. After all, who could resist a good old political debate while brewing a cup of coffee with a side of statistical significance?

Our research set out to unravel the mysteries entwined with consumer behavior, wielding the mighty sword of regression analysis and wielding the shield of confidence intervals. As we embarked on this scientific quest, we knew we would encounter skeptics who might question the connection between blenders and ballots. After all, it's not every day you witness the collision of statistical rigor and domestic gadgetry. However, our results serve as a beacon of illumination, shining a light on the potential influence of small appliances on the political landscape.

In the spirit of scientific inquiry, we remained cognizant of the need for rigorous methodology and unbiased interpretation. We were acutely aware that the fusion of toasters and turnout might raise a few eyebrows, but our commitment to sound statistical analysis allowed us to navigate these uncharted waters with confidence. As the saying goes, in the world of research, it's essential to keep a cool head, much like a well-insulated refrigerator.

In the following sections, we will present our findings, shedding light on the surprising correlation between small appliance spending and Republican senatorial votes in Arkansas. So, grab a cup of coffee, toast to the power of statistics, and buckle up for a journey through the labyrinth of consumer preferences and political affiliations. After all, what's the use of a good correlation if you can't plug in a witty pun or two along the way?


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. 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 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]]
"Mixing Politics and Toasters: The Electrifying Link Between Small Appliance Spending and Republican Votes in Arkansas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the shocking, yet undeniably attractive, relationship between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we conducted a thorough investigation to uncover the electrifying correlation. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9951448, with a p-value of less than 0.01, for the years 2000 to 2020.

We couldn't help but wonder, "What's a small appliance's favorite political party?" The RepubliCAN! Our results suggest that as US household spending on small appliances sizzles, so do the Republican votes in Arkansas. While this association may seem a bit of a stretch, our analysis indicates a potent connection between household spending habits and political preferences.

In conclusion, our research adds a spark to the conversation surrounding consumer behavior and political allegiances. It's high time we acknowledge the influence of toasters and blenders on the voting booth – after all, who wouldn't want a candidate who's as reliable as a well-crafted espresso machine?

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Small appliances are a cornerstone of modern households, providing convenience and efficiency in the kitchen. From coffee makers that jump-start our mornings to toasters that crisp up our bread, these humble devices play a significant role in our daily routines. As researchers, we couldn't resist the opportunity to unravel the mysterious connection between these small wonders and political leanings in the state of Arkansas. After all, it's not every day that you get to blend together consumer habits and election outcomes in a statistical smoothie.
It's long been said that politics can be as unpredictable as a malfunctioning microwave – and our investigation aimed to prove just that. With data in hand, we ventured forth into the realm of statistics, armed with spreadsheets and a healthy dose of skepticism. We set out to answer the burning question: Is there a quantifiable relationship between the dollars spent on small appliances by American households and the inclination to cast a vote for Republican senators in Arkansas? Our curiosity was certainly piqued, much like an overloaded power strip in need of some reassurance.
The data sets at our disposal contained a wealth of information, ripe for analysis. As we delved into the numbers, we couldn't help but marvel at the sheer variety of small appliances available to consumers. From juicers to crockpots, it seemed there was a gadget for every culinary desire and political persuasion. After all, who could resist a good old political debate while brewing a cup of coffee with a side of statistical significance?
Our research set out to unravel the mysteries entwined with consumer behavior, wielding the mighty sword of regression analysis and wielding the shield of confidence intervals. As we embarked on this scientific quest, we knew we would encounter skeptics who might question the connection between blenders and ballots. After all, it's not every day you witness the collision of statistical rigor and domestic gadgetry. However, our results serve as a beacon of illumination, shining a light on the potential influence of small appliances on the political landscape.
In the spirit of scientific inquiry, we remained cognizant of the need for rigorous methodology and unbiased interpretation. We were acutely aware that the fusion of toasters and turnout might raise a few eyebrows, but our commitment to sound statistical analysis allowed us to navigate these uncharted waters with confidence. As the saying goes, in the world of research, it's essential to keep a cool head, much like a well-insulated refrigerator.
In the following sections, we will present our findings, shedding light on the surprising correlation between small appliance spending and Republican senatorial votes in Arkansas. So, grab a cup of coffee, toast to the power of statistics, and buckle up for a journey through the labyrinth of consumer preferences and political affiliations. After all, what's the use of a good correlation if you can't plug in a witty pun or two along the way?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The association between consumer spending habits and political behavior has been a subject of interest in the field of economics and political science. Smith (2015) explored the link between household expenditures and political leanings, shedding light on the intricate web of factors that shape voting patterns. Building upon this foundation, Doe and Jones (2017) expanded the discussion to encompass regional variations in consumer preferences and their impact on electoral outcomes.

However, as we delved deeper into the literature, we found ourselves navigating uncharted territory, akin to a lost GPS in the realm of appliance influence. It was clear that the relationship between small appliance spending and political votes presented an electrifying puzzle, one that begged for further investigation. As we embarked on our own study, we couldn't help but contemplate the philosophical question: "What do you call a small appliance that's running for office? A blender! It's sure to mix things up."

In "The Toaster Manifesto" (2020), the authors espouse the notion that toasters hold a pivotal role in shaping societal norms and, by extension, political inclinations. This thought-provoking work challenged our preconceived notions and prompted us to consider the potential impact of small appliances on the democratic process. Amidst the serious discourse, we couldn't resist a lighthearted riddle: "Why did the small appliance break up with the vacuum cleaner? It couldn't handle the suction of commitment!"

Moving from the realm of non-fiction literature, we encountered "The Politics of Blenders and Toasters" (2018), a fictional account that whimsically explores the influence of small appliances on political power dynamics. While the narrative may have been embellished for entertainment value, the underlying theme resonated with our research objectives, inspiring us to probe deeper into the intersection of kitchen gadgets and ballot choices.

Venturing into unorthodox sources of inspiration, we turned our attention to popular culture, drawing insights from cartoons and children's shows. As we watched animated characters navigate the maze of everyday life, we couldn't help but contemplate the parallels between their dilemmas and our research pursuits. It dawned on us that even in the whimsical world of animated antics, the relevance of small appliances and their hypothetical political aspirations was not to be underestimated.

In "Spatula Adventures" and "Toaster Tales," we witnessed the anthropomorphized depictions of kitchen tools and their comical escapades, akin to a mini soap opera unfolding on the countertop stage. These light-hearted portrayals served as a reminder that even in the most improbable scenarios, there exists a kernel of truth waiting to be unearthed – much like a hidden slice of bread in a jam-packed toaster.

Our foray into varied literary and visual realms reinforced our conviction that the connection between small appliance spending and political proclivities merits serious consideration, albeit accompanied by a sprinkling of whimsy and humor. In the words of a wise refrigerator, "When life gives you statistical analysis, make it a party and toast to correlations, however unexpected they may be!"


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. 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]]
"Mixing Politics and Toasters: The Electrifying Link Between Small Appliance Spending and Republican Votes in Arkansas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the shocking, yet undeniably attractive, relationship between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we conducted a thorough investigation to uncover the electrifying correlation. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9951448, with a p-value of less than 0.01, for the years 2000 to 2020.

We couldn't help but wonder, "What's a small appliance's favorite political party?" The RepubliCAN! Our results suggest that as US household spending on small appliances sizzles, so do the Republican votes in Arkansas. While this association may seem a bit of a stretch, our analysis indicates a potent connection between household spending habits and political preferences.

In conclusion, our research adds a spark to the conversation surrounding consumer behavior and political allegiances. It's high time we acknowledge the influence of toasters and blenders on the voting booth – after all, who wouldn't want a candidate who's as reliable as a well-crafted espresso machine?

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Small appliances are a cornerstone of modern households, providing convenience and efficiency in the kitchen. From coffee makers that jump-start our mornings to toasters that crisp up our bread, these humble devices play a significant role in our daily routines. As researchers, we couldn't resist the opportunity to unravel the mysterious connection between these small wonders and political leanings in the state of Arkansas. After all, it's not every day that you get to blend together consumer habits and election outcomes in a statistical smoothie.
It's long been said that politics can be as unpredictable as a malfunctioning microwave – and our investigation aimed to prove just that. With data in hand, we ventured forth into the realm of statistics, armed with spreadsheets and a healthy dose of skepticism. We set out to answer the burning question: Is there a quantifiable relationship between the dollars spent on small appliances by American households and the inclination to cast a vote for Republican senators in Arkansas? Our curiosity was certainly piqued, much like an overloaded power strip in need of some reassurance.
The data sets at our disposal contained a wealth of information, ripe for analysis. As we delved into the numbers, we couldn't help but marvel at the sheer variety of small appliances available to consumers. From juicers to crockpots, it seemed there was a gadget for every culinary desire and political persuasion. After all, who could resist a good old political debate while brewing a cup of coffee with a side of statistical significance?
Our research set out to unravel the mysteries entwined with consumer behavior, wielding the mighty sword of regression analysis and wielding the shield of confidence intervals. As we embarked on this scientific quest, we knew we would encounter skeptics who might question the connection between blenders and ballots. After all, it's not every day you witness the collision of statistical rigor and domestic gadgetry. However, our results serve as a beacon of illumination, shining a light on the potential influence of small appliances on the political landscape.
In the spirit of scientific inquiry, we remained cognizant of the need for rigorous methodology and unbiased interpretation. We were acutely aware that the fusion of toasters and turnout might raise a few eyebrows, but our commitment to sound statistical analysis allowed us to navigate these uncharted waters with confidence. As the saying goes, in the world of research, it's essential to keep a cool head, much like a well-insulated refrigerator.
In the following sections, we will present our findings, shedding light on the surprising correlation between small appliance spending and Republican senatorial votes in Arkansas. So, grab a cup of coffee, toast to the power of statistics, and buckle up for a journey through the labyrinth of consumer preferences and political affiliations. After all, what's the use of a good correlation if you can't plug in a witty pun or two along the way?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To embark on our quest to uncover the link between household expenditure on small appliances and political voting patterns, we employed a concoction of statistical methods reminiscent of a master chef crafting a delectable dish. We amassed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, blending these sources together like a perfectly curated recipe for empirical analysis.

Our first step involved wrangling the datasets like a seasoned rodeo cowboy, ensuring that the variables under scrutiny were corralled into a manageable format. We then sashayed into the arena of regression analysis, choosing this method like a discerning sommelier selecting the finest vintage of statistical techniques for our study.

With our trusty statistical software as our blade and shield, we wielded the power of multivariate regression models, drawing upon the wisdom of prior research and the guidance of renowned scholars like a questing knight seeking the holy grail of significant results. Our models were imbued with robustness, ensuring they could withstand the tumultuous winds of confounding variables and the tides of spurious correlations.

A key aspect of our methodology involved incorporating a wealth of control variables, much like a seasoned magician adds layers to their illusions. We accounted for factors such as household income, educational attainment, and urban/rural residency, recognizing that these variables could serve as the secret ingredients influencing both small appliance spending and political inclinations.

To ensure the coherence and integrity of our findings, we subjected our data to a battery of diagnostic tests that would make even the most meticulous inspector proud. Assumptions were scrutinized, outliers were gently coaxed into conformity, and goodness-of-fit measures were assessed with the precision of a watchmaker crafting an intricate timepiece.

Like a troupe of intrepid spelunkers venturing into the caverns of statistical significance, we pored over the output of our analyses, spelunking through the intricate pathways of p-values, confidence intervals, and variance inflation factors. Our journey through these statistical subterranea yielded rich insights, affirming the strength of the relationship between small appliance spending and Republican votes in Arkansas.

In the spirit of scientific transparency, we acknowledge the limitations of our approach. As with any epic quest, our methodology may have encountered its share of obstacles and missteps. Nevertheless, with the sword of statistical rigor in hand and the shield of methodological robustness as our defense, we stand confident in the validity of our findings.

So, as we prepare to unveil the fruits of our labor, let us remember that in the realm of research, just like in the kitchen, a pinch of skepticism and a dash of caution can elevate even the most tantalizing of findings – akin to adding the perfect seasoning to a savory statistical stew.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. 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 0.9951448, r-squared of 0.9903132, 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]]
"Mixing Politics and Toasters: The Electrifying Link Between Small Appliance Spending and Republican Votes in Arkansas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the shocking, yet undeniably attractive, relationship between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we conducted a thorough investigation to uncover the electrifying correlation. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9951448, with a p-value of less than 0.01, for the years 2000 to 2020.

We couldn't help but wonder, "What's a small appliance's favorite political party?" The RepubliCAN! Our results suggest that as US household spending on small appliances sizzles, so do the Republican votes in Arkansas. While this association may seem a bit of a stretch, our analysis indicates a potent connection between household spending habits and political preferences.

In conclusion, our research adds a spark to the conversation surrounding consumer behavior and political allegiances. It's high time we acknowledge the influence of toasters and blenders on the voting booth – after all, who wouldn't want a candidate who's as reliable as a well-crafted espresso machine?

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Small appliances are a cornerstone of modern households, providing convenience and efficiency in the kitchen. From coffee makers that jump-start our mornings to toasters that crisp up our bread, these humble devices play a significant role in our daily routines. As researchers, we couldn't resist the opportunity to unravel the mysterious connection between these small wonders and political leanings in the state of Arkansas. After all, it's not every day that you get to blend together consumer habits and election outcomes in a statistical smoothie.
It's long been said that politics can be as unpredictable as a malfunctioning microwave – and our investigation aimed to prove just that. With data in hand, we ventured forth into the realm of statistics, armed with spreadsheets and a healthy dose of skepticism. We set out to answer the burning question: Is there a quantifiable relationship between the dollars spent on small appliances by American households and the inclination to cast a vote for Republican senators in Arkansas? Our curiosity was certainly piqued, much like an overloaded power strip in need of some reassurance.
The data sets at our disposal contained a wealth of information, ripe for analysis. As we delved into the numbers, we couldn't help but marvel at the sheer variety of small appliances available to consumers. From juicers to crockpots, it seemed there was a gadget for every culinary desire and political persuasion. After all, who could resist a good old political debate while brewing a cup of coffee with a side of statistical significance?
Our research set out to unravel the mysteries entwined with consumer behavior, wielding the mighty sword of regression analysis and wielding the shield of confidence intervals. As we embarked on this scientific quest, we knew we would encounter skeptics who might question the connection between blenders and ballots. After all, it's not every day you witness the collision of statistical rigor and domestic gadgetry. However, our results serve as a beacon of illumination, shining a light on the potential influence of small appliances on the political landscape.
In the spirit of scientific inquiry, we remained cognizant of the need for rigorous methodology and unbiased interpretation. We were acutely aware that the fusion of toasters and turnout might raise a few eyebrows, but our commitment to sound statistical analysis allowed us to navigate these uncharted waters with confidence. As the saying goes, in the world of research, it's essential to keep a cool head, much like a well-insulated refrigerator.
In the following sections, we will present our findings, shedding light on the surprising correlation between small appliance spending and Republican senatorial votes in Arkansas. So, grab a cup of coffee, toast to the power of statistics, and buckle up for a journey through the labyrinth of consumer preferences and political affiliations. After all, what's the use of a good correlation if you can't plug in a witty pun or two along the way?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

We unearthed a positively electrifying relationship between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. The correlation coefficient of 0.9951448 revealed a mesmerizingly strong association between these seemingly unrelated variables. It seems that as households whipped up their culinary creations with the aid of small appliances, they also sparked a surge in Republican support in the polling booths of Arkansas.

Some might say this correlation is as smooth as a well-blended fruit smoothie, and our findings certainly endorse that sentiment. It appears that the aroma of freshly brewed coffee and the warm glow of a toaster's light may have been casting an unexpected spell on political preferences in the state.

The r-squared value of 0.9903132 further solidifies the robustness of this striking correlation. This result suggests that a whopping 99.03% of the variability in Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas can be explained by the variation in household spending on small appliances. It's as if these small wonders carried an undeniable influence across the political landscape, blending seamlessly into the fabric of electoral choices.

Now, for our one and only figure (Fig. 1). Behold the scatterplot that captures the essence of this captivating relationship. The plot dazzles with its tightly clustered points, indicative of the compelling correlation we uncovered. It seems that the marriage of blenders and ballots has produced a statistical romance worthy of a Hollywood script.

Our p-value of less than 0.01 provides the proverbial cherry on top of this statistical sundae. This result solidifies the statistical significance of the observed correlation, leaving no room for doubt about the veracity of our findings. It's as if the statistical gods themselves are nodding in agreement at the surprising connection between appliance spending and political preferences.

In conclusion, our investigation not only adds a jolt of excitement to the study of consumer behavior and political affiliations but also serves as a reminder that even the most unexpected variables can tango in the world of statistics. After all, who knew that small appliances could have such a pressing effect on political outcomes? It seems that in the realm of research, as in the kitchen, unexpected ingredients can give rise to delectable surprises!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the 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 small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. 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]]
"Mixing Politics and Toasters: The Electrifying Link Between Small Appliance Spending and Republican Votes in Arkansas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the shocking, yet undeniably attractive, relationship between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we conducted a thorough investigation to uncover the electrifying correlation. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9951448, with a p-value of less than 0.01, for the years 2000 to 2020.

We couldn't help but wonder, "What's a small appliance's favorite political party?" The RepubliCAN! Our results suggest that as US household spending on small appliances sizzles, so do the Republican votes in Arkansas. While this association may seem a bit of a stretch, our analysis indicates a potent connection between household spending habits and political preferences.

In conclusion, our research adds a spark to the conversation surrounding consumer behavior and political allegiances. It's high time we acknowledge the influence of toasters and blenders on the voting booth – after all, who wouldn't want a candidate who's as reliable as a well-crafted espresso machine?

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The association between consumer spending habits and political behavior has been a subject of interest in the field of economics and political science. Smith (2015) explored the link between household expenditures and political leanings, shedding light on the intricate web of factors that shape voting patterns. Building upon this foundation, Doe and Jones (2017) expanded the discussion to encompass regional variations in consumer preferences and their impact on electoral outcomes.
However, as we delved deeper into the literature, we found ourselves navigating uncharted territory, akin to a lost GPS in the realm of appliance influence. It was clear that the relationship between small appliance spending and political votes presented an electrifying puzzle, one that begged for further investigation. As we embarked on our own study, we couldn't help but contemplate the philosophical question: "What do you call a small appliance that's running for office? A blender! It's sure to mix things up."
In "The Toaster Manifesto" (2020), the authors espouse the notion that toasters hold a pivotal role in shaping societal norms and, by extension, political inclinations. This thought-provoking work challenged our preconceived notions and prompted us to consider the potential impact of small appliances on the democratic process. Amidst the serious discourse, we couldn't resist a lighthearted riddle: "Why did the small appliance break up with the vacuum cleaner? It couldn't handle the suction of commitment!"
Moving from the realm of non-fiction literature, we encountered "The Politics of Blenders and Toasters" (2018), a fictional account that whimsically explores the influence of small appliances on political power dynamics. While the narrative may have been embellished for entertainment value, the underlying theme resonated with our research objectives, inspiring us to probe deeper into the intersection of kitchen gadgets and ballot choices.
Venturing into unorthodox sources of inspiration, we turned our attention to popular culture, drawing insights from cartoons and children's shows. As we watched animated characters navigate the maze of everyday life, we couldn't help but contemplate the parallels between their dilemmas and our research pursuits. It dawned on us that even in the whimsical world of animated antics, the relevance of small appliances and their hypothetical political aspirations was not to be underestimated.
In "Spatula Adventures" and "Toaster Tales," we witnessed the anthropomorphized depictions of kitchen tools and their comical escapades, akin to a mini soap opera unfolding on the countertop stage. These light-hearted portrayals served as a reminder that even in the most improbable scenarios, there exists a kernel of truth waiting to be unearthed – much like a hidden slice of bread in a jam-packed toaster.
Our foray into varied literary and visual realms reinforced our conviction that the connection between small appliance spending and political proclivities merits serious consideration, albeit accompanied by a sprinkling of whimsy and humor. In the words of a wise refrigerator, "When life gives you statistical analysis, make it a party and toast to correlations, however unexpected they may be!"

[[RESULTS]]
We unearthed a positively electrifying relationship between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. The correlation coefficient of 0.9951448 revealed a mesmerizingly strong association between these seemingly unrelated variables. It seems that as households whipped up their culinary creations with the aid of small appliances, they also sparked a surge in Republican support in the polling booths of Arkansas.
Some might say this correlation is as smooth as a well-blended fruit smoothie, and our findings certainly endorse that sentiment. It appears that the aroma of freshly brewed coffee and the warm glow of a toaster's light may have been casting an unexpected spell on political preferences in the state.
The r-squared value of 0.9903132 further solidifies the robustness of this striking correlation. This result suggests that a whopping 99.03% of the variability in Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas can be explained by the variation in household spending on small appliances. It's as if these small wonders carried an undeniable influence across the political landscape, blending seamlessly into the fabric of electoral choices.
Now, for our one and only figure (Fig. 1). Behold the scatterplot that captures the essence of this captivating relationship. The plot dazzles with its tightly clustered points, indicative of the compelling correlation we uncovered. It seems that the marriage of blenders and ballots has produced a statistical romance worthy of a Hollywood script.
Our p-value of less than 0.01 provides the proverbial cherry on top of this statistical sundae. This result solidifies the statistical significance of the observed correlation, leaving no room for doubt about the veracity of our findings. It's as if the statistical gods themselves are nodding in agreement at the surprising connection between appliance spending and political preferences.
In conclusion, our investigation not only adds a jolt of excitement to the study of consumer behavior and political affiliations but also serves as a reminder that even the most unexpected variables can tango in the world of statistics. After all, who knew that small appliances could have such a pressing effect on political outcomes? It seems that in the realm of research, as in the kitchen, unexpected ingredients can give rise to delectable surprises!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings have set the stage for a stimulating discussion on the interplay between household consumer habits and political preferences, bringing to light the surprising influence of small appliances on electoral outcomes in Arkansas. It's as if the kitchen countertop has become the new battleground for political alliances, with toasters and blenders vying for a slice of the electoral pie.

One cannot disregard the correlation coefficient of 0.9951448, which encapsulates the formidable association between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. It's as if the voters were signaling their preferences through the whirring of blenders or the hum of coffee makers. In light of these results, the old adage certainly holds true – "Politics makes strange bedfellows, but kitchen gadgets make stranger political bedfellows!"

Our study builds upon the pioneering work of Smith (2015) and Doe and Jones (2017), shedding light on the hidden dynamics of consumer spending and its ripple effect on political landscapes. Clearly, the toaster manifesto (2020) was onto something with its bold claims about small appliances shaping societal norms. We can't help but ponder – who knew that a humble toaster could wield such electoral influence?

The r-squared value of 0.9903132 underscores the robustness of our findings, suggesting that the variability in Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas is akin to a well-crafted recipe – the ingredients of household spending on small appliances blend seamlessly to produce a delectable electoral outcome. The statistical romance between blenders and ballots is indeed a love story for the ages.

Our p-value of less than 0.01 adds a dash of statistical significance to this intriguing narrative, affirming the validity of the observed correlation. It's akin to a scientific consensus that small appliances have sizzled their way into the political arena, proving that even the most unexpected variables can stir up a statistical storm.

In essence, our research transcends the realm of statistical analysis to unveil a compelling tale of unexpected correlations and their tangible impact on political behaviors. It seems that in the grand theater of electoral politics, the toasters and blenders have taken center stage, proving that even the most unassuming of variables can hold the potential for unexpected influence.

So, next time you're contemplating the state of the nation, don't forget to check the state of your small appliances – they might just be brewing up some political surprises!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the 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 small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. 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]]
"Mixing Politics and Toasters: The Electrifying Link Between Small Appliance Spending and Republican Votes in Arkansas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the shocking, yet undeniably attractive, relationship between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we conducted a thorough investigation to uncover the electrifying correlation. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9951448, with a p-value of less than 0.01, for the years 2000 to 2020.

We couldn't help but wonder, "What's a small appliance's favorite political party?" The RepubliCAN! Our results suggest that as US household spending on small appliances sizzles, so do the Republican votes in Arkansas. While this association may seem a bit of a stretch, our analysis indicates a potent connection between household spending habits and political preferences.

In conclusion, our research adds a spark to the conversation surrounding consumer behavior and political allegiances. It's high time we acknowledge the influence of toasters and blenders on the voting booth – after all, who wouldn't want a candidate who's as reliable as a well-crafted espresso machine?

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Small appliances are a cornerstone of modern households, providing convenience and efficiency in the kitchen. From coffee makers that jump-start our mornings to toasters that crisp up our bread, these humble devices play a significant role in our daily routines. As researchers, we couldn't resist the opportunity to unravel the mysterious connection between these small wonders and political leanings in the state of Arkansas. After all, it's not every day that you get to blend together consumer habits and election outcomes in a statistical smoothie.
It's long been said that politics can be as unpredictable as a malfunctioning microwave – and our investigation aimed to prove just that. With data in hand, we ventured forth into the realm of statistics, armed with spreadsheets and a healthy dose of skepticism. We set out to answer the burning question: Is there a quantifiable relationship between the dollars spent on small appliances by American households and the inclination to cast a vote for Republican senators in Arkansas? Our curiosity was certainly piqued, much like an overloaded power strip in need of some reassurance.
The data sets at our disposal contained a wealth of information, ripe for analysis. As we delved into the numbers, we couldn't help but marvel at the sheer variety of small appliances available to consumers. From juicers to crockpots, it seemed there was a gadget for every culinary desire and political persuasion. After all, who could resist a good old political debate while brewing a cup of coffee with a side of statistical significance?
Our research set out to unravel the mysteries entwined with consumer behavior, wielding the mighty sword of regression analysis and wielding the shield of confidence intervals. As we embarked on this scientific quest, we knew we would encounter skeptics who might question the connection between blenders and ballots. After all, it's not every day you witness the collision of statistical rigor and domestic gadgetry. However, our results serve as a beacon of illumination, shining a light on the potential influence of small appliances on the political landscape.
In the spirit of scientific inquiry, we remained cognizant of the need for rigorous methodology and unbiased interpretation. We were acutely aware that the fusion of toasters and turnout might raise a few eyebrows, but our commitment to sound statistical analysis allowed us to navigate these uncharted waters with confidence. As the saying goes, in the world of research, it's essential to keep a cool head, much like a well-insulated refrigerator.
In the following sections, we will present our findings, shedding light on the surprising correlation between small appliance spending and Republican senatorial votes in Arkansas. So, grab a cup of coffee, toast to the power of statistics, and buckle up for a journey through the labyrinth of consumer preferences and political affiliations. After all, what's the use of a good correlation if you can't plug in a witty pun or two along the way?

[[RESULTS]]
We unearthed a positively electrifying relationship between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. The correlation coefficient of 0.9951448 revealed a mesmerizingly strong association between these seemingly unrelated variables. It seems that as households whipped up their culinary creations with the aid of small appliances, they also sparked a surge in Republican support in the polling booths of Arkansas.
Some might say this correlation is as smooth as a well-blended fruit smoothie, and our findings certainly endorse that sentiment. It appears that the aroma of freshly brewed coffee and the warm glow of a toaster's light may have been casting an unexpected spell on political preferences in the state.
The r-squared value of 0.9903132 further solidifies the robustness of this striking correlation. This result suggests that a whopping 99.03% of the variability in Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas can be explained by the variation in household spending on small appliances. It's as if these small wonders carried an undeniable influence across the political landscape, blending seamlessly into the fabric of electoral choices.
Now, for our one and only figure (Fig. 1). Behold the scatterplot that captures the essence of this captivating relationship. The plot dazzles with its tightly clustered points, indicative of the compelling correlation we uncovered. It seems that the marriage of blenders and ballots has produced a statistical romance worthy of a Hollywood script.
Our p-value of less than 0.01 provides the proverbial cherry on top of this statistical sundae. This result solidifies the statistical significance of the observed correlation, leaving no room for doubt about the veracity of our findings. It's as if the statistical gods themselves are nodding in agreement at the surprising connection between appliance spending and political preferences.
In conclusion, our investigation not only adds a jolt of excitement to the study of consumer behavior and political affiliations but also serves as a reminder that even the most unexpected variables can tango in the world of statistics. After all, who knew that small appliances could have such a pressing effect on political outcomes? It seems that in the realm of research, as in the kitchen, unexpected ingredients can give rise to delectable surprises!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our findings illuminate a truly shocking connection between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. It appears that the allure of blenders and toasters extends beyond the confines of the kitchen, captivating the political preferences of Arkansas residents. It's as if these small wonders possess a magnetic appeal, akin to the irresistible pull of a well-cooked waffle on a Sunday morning.

We are left pondering, "Why did the small appliance go to therapy?" Because it had too many 'issues' with its cord! Much like the humorous struggles of our small kitchen companions, our results emphasize the unanticipated power of seemingly mundane consumer choices in shaping political landscapes.

Our research serves as a potent reminder that statistical exploration can yield enlightening discoveries, much like finding an unplugged toaster sitting on top of a refrigerator – a true "eureka" moment, indeed. As we wrap up our investigation, we cannot help but acknowledge the astonishing influence of small appliances on the political stage.

As we part ways, we leave you with one last pun: "I would tell you a joke about a toaster, but it's a bit too crumby." With this, we assert that no further research is needed in this area. After all, the link between small appliance spending and political preferences has been illuminated with a radiant glow that is as unmistakable as a light bulb turning on – no additional plumbing of the statistical depths required!


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 Mixing Politics and Toasters: The Electrifying Link Between Small Appliance Spending and Republican Votes in Arkansas. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Appliance 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 Mixing Politics and Toasters: The Electrifying Link Between Small Appliance Spending and Republican Votes in Arkansas. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for the Advancement of Unconventional Political Appliance 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 Mixing Politics and Toasters: The Electrifying Link Between Small Appliance Spending and Republican Votes in Arkansas with an abstract of This study delves into the shocking, yet undeniably attractive, relationship between annual US household spending on small appliances and Republican votes for Senators in Arkansas. By combining data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we conducted a thorough investigation to uncover the electrifying correlation. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9951448, with a p-value of less than 0.01, for the years 2000 to 2020.
We couldn't help but wonder, "What's a small appliance's favorite political party?" The RepubliCAN! Our results suggest that as US household spending on small appliances sizzles, so do the Republican votes in Arkansas. While this association may seem a bit of a stretch, our analysis indicates a potent connection between household spending habits and political preferences.
In conclusion, our research adds a spark to the conversation surrounding consumer behavior and political allegiances. It's high time we acknowledge the influence of toasters and blenders on the voting booth – after all, who wouldn't want a candidate who's as reliable as a well-crafted espresso machine?

ChatGPT:

household spending, small appliances, Republican votes, Arkansas, correlation, consumer behavior, political preferences, Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, political allegiances

*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 small appliances
Detailed data title: Average annual household spend on small appliances
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with Annual US household spending on small appliances

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

Correlation r = 0.9951448 (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 = 0.9903132 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 99% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Arkansas) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Annual US household spending on small appliances) over the 6 years from 2000 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 3.5E-5. 0.0000353020447077754340000000
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 1 in 0.0035% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 28,327 random variables You don't actually need 28 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
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.

[ 0.95, 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.
200220042010201420162020
Annual US household spending on small appliances (Household spend)100105107106123135
Votes for Republican Senators in Arkansas (Total votes)370735458036451618478819661984793871




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([100,105,107,106,123,135,])
array_2 = np.array([370735,458036,451618,478819,661984,793871,])
array_1_name = "Annual US household spending on small appliances"
array_2_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Arkansas"

# 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?

You're a rater extraordinaire!


Correlation ID: 5514 · Black Variable ID: 19920 · Red Variable ID: 26206
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0