Spurious correlation #4,340 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and the second variable is Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. The chart goes from 1990 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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and the second variable is Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. The chart goes from 1990 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

As more people leaned towards Libertarian ideals of minimal government intervention, the cars themselves took it as a sign to rebel against automotive regulations. This led to a spike in airbag malfunctions and the need for recalls, as the cars demanded the freedom to function without Big Brother's safety standards. It seems the campaign for individual autonomy inadvertently triggered a chain reaction of vehicular defiance!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Generate an image with the style of a TIME magazine cover, featuring a bustling town square in Pennsylvania. A large banner proudly displays the rising number of votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate. Meanwhile, a line of cars can be seen parked along the street, with their airbags deploying in protest, symbolizing the increasing automotive recalls for airbag issues. The scene should illustrate the clash between political ideals and vehicular independence in a visually compelling manner. 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: Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. 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: Concept art A Discovery magazine cover image Woodblock painting A TIME magazine cover image Cubism
ChatGPT: A TIME magazine cover image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags, in the following situation: As more people leaned towards Libertarian ideals of minimal government intervention, the cars themselves took it as a sign to rebel against automotive regulations. This led to a spike in airbag malfunctions and the need for recalls, as the cars demanded the freedom to function without Big Brother's safety standards. It seems the campaign for individual autonomy inadvertently triggered a chain reaction of vehicular defiance!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling town square in Pennsylvania, a large banner proudly displays the rising number of votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate. Meanwhile, a line of cars can be seen parked along the street, their airbags deploying in protest, symbolizing the increasing automotive recalls for airbag issues. The scene illustrates the clash between political ideals and vehicular independence.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A TIME magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling town square in Pennsylvania, a large banner proudly displays the rising number of votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate. Meanwhile, a line of cars can be seen parked along the street, their airbags deploying in protest, symbolizing the increasing automotive recalls for airbag issues. The scene illustrates the clash between political ideals and vehicular independence. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Generate an image with the style of a TIME magazine cover, featuring a bustling town square in Pennsylvania. A large banner proudly displays the rising number of votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate. Meanwhile, a line of cars can be seen parked along the street, with their airbags deploying in protest, symbolizing the increasing automotive recalls for airbag issues. The scene should illustrate the clash between political ideals and vehicular independence in a visually compelling manner.

*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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania caused Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

The Air Bags and Libertarians: A Correlation Analysis of Automotive Recalls and Libertarian Presidential Votes in Pennsylvania

The Journal of Quirky Sociology

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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"The Air Bags and Libertarians: A Correlation Analysis of Automotive Recalls and Libertarian Presidential Votes in Pennsylvania"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we endeavored to ex-air-min the potential relationship between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we sought to shed light on this off-the-beaten-path yet persistently curious phenomenon. Through meticulous analysis and statistical wizardry, we determined a correlation coefficient of 0.9587744 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1990 to 2020. Our findings not only provide insight into the quirky world of electoral behavior and vehicular safety, but also elicit a chuckle or two about the unexpected ways in which the political and automotive realms intersect. Join us on this whimsical ride through statistics and ballot boxes, where air bags and libertarians collide in a collision of data-driven discovery.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The world of electoral politics and automotive safety may seem miles apart, but as we delve into the enigmatic realm of statistical analysis, we often find surprising and, dare we say, air-resistible connections. The intersection of votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags has sparked our curiosity, prompting us to embark on this zany journey of number-crunching and electioneering enthusiasm.
While most scholars gravitate towards the more conventional relationships between voter behavior and political ideologies, we couldn't resist the temptation to steer our gaze towards the uncharted territory of air bags and libertarianism. After all, where else do we get to merrily frolic amidst election data while simultaneously pondering the quirks of vehicular malfunction?
The air of mystery surrounding this correlation has inflated our intrigue, leading us to sift through data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation. Our aim was clear - to inflate the understanding of this peculiar linkage and, if possible, tickle the fancy of our fellow researchers along the way.
So buckle up, dear readers, as we journey through the scatter plots and regression analyses to unearth the surprising correlations that lie beneath the surface. It's a collision of political whimsy and roadside safety, where libertarian dreams and air bag schemes converge in a data-driven dance. Let's embark on this scholarly escapade, brimming with statistical revelations and the occasional tongue-in-cheek observation. For as we navigate through the treacherous terrain of data analysis, we may just stumble upon an air-musing discovery or two.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Numerous studies have explored the intricacies of electoral behavior and the idiosyncrasies of vehicular safety. Smith et al. (2010) conducted a comprehensive analysis of voting patterns in Pennsylvania, shedding light on the diverse spectrum of political affiliations within the state. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2015) delved into the intricate web of automotive recalls, highlighting the potential risks associated with faulty air bags. As we venture deeper into this whimsical intersection of political convictions and automotive perils, our literature review encompasses an array of scholarly works and cultural references that cast a light-hearted, albeit informative, shade on our offbeat research topic.

In "The Political Landscape of Pennsylvania," the authors explore the multifaceted nature of voter preferences, painting a vivid picture of the state's political tapestry. While the authors don't explicitly touch upon the Libertarian vote, the diversity of the political landscape provides a backdrop for our foray into the enigmatic realm of third-party allegiance.

Turning our attention to automotive safety literature, "Recalls and Revelations: Unraveling the Automotive Industry" provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges and pitfalls associated with vehicle recalls. While the focus of this work extends beyond air bag issues, the intricate dance between vehicular safety and consumer concerns sets the stage for our investigation into the unforeseen pairing of air bags and Libertarian voters.

As we depart from the realm of scholarly research, we journey into the land of creative fiction, where peculiar parallels often emerge amidst the playful fabric of storytelling. "Airs of Change: A Libertarian Odyssey" and "Bagged and Tagged: The Mystery of Defective Democracy" offer fictitious narratives that, while not directly related to our research, infuse our literature review with a whimsical touch.

In the realm of popular culture, animated series such as "Rugrats," "The Magic School Bus," and "Paw Patrol" have featured episodes that toy with the concepts of automotive safety and civic engagement in a manner both amusing and oddly pertinent to our scholarly pursuits. While these light-hearted references may elicit a chuckle or two, they serve as a whimsical reminder of the unexpected intersections that lie within our chosen domains of study.

The eclectic mix of scholarly works, playful fiction, and nostalgic children's shows reflects the offbeat nature of our research endeavor, adding a touch of lightheartedness to our pursuit of statistical enlightenment. As we navigate through this zany landscape of data and imagination, our literature review offers a glimpse into the delightful, if not downright air-entertaining, journey that lies ahead.

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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and US DOT . You used data from 1990 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]]
"The Air Bags and Libertarians: A Correlation Analysis of Automotive Recalls and Libertarian Presidential Votes in Pennsylvania"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we endeavored to ex-air-min the potential relationship between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we sought to shed light on this off-the-beaten-path yet persistently curious phenomenon. Through meticulous analysis and statistical wizardry, we determined a correlation coefficient of 0.9587744 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1990 to 2020. Our findings not only provide insight into the quirky world of electoral behavior and vehicular safety, but also elicit a chuckle or two about the unexpected ways in which the political and automotive realms intersect. Join us on this whimsical ride through statistics and ballot boxes, where air bags and libertarians collide in a collision of data-driven discovery.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The world of electoral politics and automotive safety may seem miles apart, but as we delve into the enigmatic realm of statistical analysis, we often find surprising and, dare we say, air-resistible connections. The intersection of votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags has sparked our curiosity, prompting us to embark on this zany journey of number-crunching and electioneering enthusiasm.
While most scholars gravitate towards the more conventional relationships between voter behavior and political ideologies, we couldn't resist the temptation to steer our gaze towards the uncharted territory of air bags and libertarianism. After all, where else do we get to merrily frolic amidst election data while simultaneously pondering the quirks of vehicular malfunction?
The air of mystery surrounding this correlation has inflated our intrigue, leading us to sift through data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation. Our aim was clear - to inflate the understanding of this peculiar linkage and, if possible, tickle the fancy of our fellow researchers along the way.
So buckle up, dear readers, as we journey through the scatter plots and regression analyses to unearth the surprising correlations that lie beneath the surface. It's a collision of political whimsy and roadside safety, where libertarian dreams and air bag schemes converge in a data-driven dance. Let's embark on this scholarly escapade, brimming with statistical revelations and the occasional tongue-in-cheek observation. For as we navigate through the treacherous terrain of data analysis, we may just stumble upon an air-musing discovery or two.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To commence our zany escapade into the nexus of electoral peculiarities and vehicular intricacies, we carefully curated datasets from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation. Our data covered the expansive period from 1990 to 2020, ensuring a comprehensive canvas upon which to paint our statistical masterpiece.

First and foremost, we gleefully sifted through the election data with the fervor of intrepid explorers, extracting the votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania with the precision of a surgeon and the enthusiasm of a political pundit on election night. These data points were our guideposts, leading us through the labyrinth of democratic choices and ideological idiosyncrasies that characterize the electoral process.

On the flip side of our zany coin, we delved into the realm of automotive recalls, targeting the specific issues pertaining to air bags with the vigilance of safety inspectors and the curiosity of amateur car enthusiasts. We frolicked through the US Department of Transportation's treasure trove of recall data, where we unearthed the air bag-related recalls that would serve as our ticket into the world of vehicular safety concerns and the sometimes comical, but always critical, recall notices.

Once in possession of these disparate yet inexplicably intertwined datasets, we embarked on an odyssey of data cleaning and wrangling, tirelessly massaging the numbers with the diligence of a statistician in pursuit of clarity amidst the chaos. Here, we engaged in a dance of missing data imputation, outlier detection, and variable transformations, all to ensure a harmonious symphony of information within our dataset.

With our data suitably preened and pruned, we ventured into the land of statistical analysis, where we donned our proverbial wizard robes and waved our metaphorical wands in the form of correlation analyses and regression models. Across the vast expanse of time and numbers, we sought to unravel the mystery that lay at the heart of the enigmatic relationship between air bag recalls and votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania, fueled by the intoxicating blend of curiosity and a healthy dose of statistical skepticism.

In our endeavor to uncover the hidden threads that bound these seemingly disparate phenomena, we traversed the rocky terrain of hypothesis testing, establishing the significance of the correlation through the venerated p-value and the inexorable march of the correlation coefficient. With these tools in hand, we endeavored to shine a light on the inexplicable correlation that had piqued our interest and raised more than a few eyebrows in the hallowed halls of academia.

Amidst this statistical journey, we held tight to the reins of caution, acknowledging the limitations of our study with the candid humility of researchers who traversed uncharted territory in pursuit of intellectual amusement and scholarly enlightenment. While our findings may raise a chuckle or two and possibly an eyebrow, we realize that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and that the whimsical dance of data often leads us down unexpected paths.

So come, dear reader, join us in this rollicking adventure through data and scholarly inquiry, where air bags and libertarians intertwine in a statistical waltz that leaves us pondering the mysteries of the electoral process and the quirks of vehicular safety. With the cautious optimism of a researcher and the irrepressible curiosity of a child at play, we invite you to partake in this scholarly romp as we untangle the improbable connections that define our world, one dataset at a time.

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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"The Air Bags and Libertarians: A Correlation Analysis of Automotive Recalls and Libertarian Presidential Votes in Pennsylvania"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we endeavored to ex-air-min the potential relationship between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we sought to shed light on this off-the-beaten-path yet persistently curious phenomenon. Through meticulous analysis and statistical wizardry, we determined a correlation coefficient of 0.9587744 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1990 to 2020. Our findings not only provide insight into the quirky world of electoral behavior and vehicular safety, but also elicit a chuckle or two about the unexpected ways in which the political and automotive realms intersect. Join us on this whimsical ride through statistics and ballot boxes, where air bags and libertarians collide in a collision of data-driven discovery.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Numerous studies have explored the intricacies of electoral behavior and the idiosyncrasies of vehicular safety. Smith et al. (2010) conducted a comprehensive analysis of voting patterns in Pennsylvania, shedding light on the diverse spectrum of political affiliations within the state. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2015) delved into the intricate web of automotive recalls, highlighting the potential risks associated with faulty air bags. As we venture deeper into this whimsical intersection of political convictions and automotive perils, our literature review encompasses an array of scholarly works and cultural references that cast a light-hearted, albeit informative, shade on our offbeat research topic.
In "The Political Landscape of Pennsylvania," the authors explore the multifaceted nature of voter preferences, painting a vivid picture of the state's political tapestry. While the authors don't explicitly touch upon the Libertarian vote, the diversity of the political landscape provides a backdrop for our foray into the enigmatic realm of third-party allegiance.
Turning our attention to automotive safety literature, "Recalls and Revelations: Unraveling the Automotive Industry" provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges and pitfalls associated with vehicle recalls. While the focus of this work extends beyond air bag issues, the intricate dance between vehicular safety and consumer concerns sets the stage for our investigation into the unforeseen pairing of air bags and Libertarian voters.
As we depart from the realm of scholarly research, we journey into the land of creative fiction, where peculiar parallels often emerge amidst the playful fabric of storytelling. "Airs of Change: A Libertarian Odyssey" and "Bagged and Tagged: The Mystery of Defective Democracy" offer fictitious narratives that, while not directly related to our research, infuse our literature review with a whimsical touch.
In the realm of popular culture, animated series such as "Rugrats," "The Magic School Bus," and "Paw Patrol" have featured episodes that toy with the concepts of automotive safety and civic engagement in a manner both amusing and oddly pertinent to our scholarly pursuits. While these light-hearted references may elicit a chuckle or two, they serve as a whimsical reminder of the unexpected intersections that lie within our chosen domains of study.
The eclectic mix of scholarly works, playful fiction, and nostalgic children's shows reflects the offbeat nature of our research endeavor, adding a touch of lightheartedness to our pursuit of statistical enlightenment. As we navigate through this zany landscape of data and imagination, our literature review offers a glimpse into the delightful, if not downright air-entertaining, journey that lies ahead.

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the connection between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.9587744, indicating a strong positive relationship between the two variables. This coefficient was accompanied by an r-squared value of 0.9192484, underscoring the robustness of the correlation. Additionally, the p-value of less than 0.01 further cemented the statistical significance of our findings, suggesting that the observed correlation is not merely the result of chance but rather a bona fide relationship worthy of serious scholarly consideration.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) succinctly captures the essence of our findings, visually depicting the striking alignment between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and automotive recalls for air bag-related issues. The plot portrays the undeniable connection between these seemingly disparate phenomena, serving as a compelling visual endorsement of our statistical analysis.
Our results not only unravel a hitherto unexplored link between electoral preferences and automotive safety features but also evoke a whimsical appreciation for the unexpected interplay of politics and air bag technology. As we reflect on the implications of our findings, we can't help but entertain the notion that "air bags" may not solely refer to vehicular safety devices but could also allude to the surprising "hot air" of political discourse, inflating our curiosity with each passing revelation.
In summary, our study lends credence to the notion that behind every ballot cast and every air bag deployed lies a web of correlations waiting to be discovered. It is in this spirit of scholarly amusement and statistical marvel that we present our findings, inviting readers to embark on this peculiar excursion through the realms of electoral eccentricity and automotive intrigue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings offer compelling support for the whimsically proposed correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags. The strong positive relationship revealed in our analysis aligns with earlier offhand references that, to our surprise, held a tinge of legitimacy. Indeed, the statistical wizardry we employed has not only confirmed but also quantified the unexpected interplay of political convictions and vehicular safety.

The correlation coefficient of 0.9587744 and the r-squared value of 0.9192484 provide robust evidence of the connection between votes for the Libertarian candidate and automotive recalls for air bag-related issues. These results underline the statistical significance of our findings, reinforcing the idea that the alignment between these seemingly incongruous phenomena is not purely a flight of fancy but a bona fide relationship worthy of scholarly consideration. It seems that there is more to the political landscape of Pennsylvania than meets the eye, and perhaps a dash of maverick spirit in the voting booth has an unforeseen resonance with vehicular technology.

Our scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually encapsulates the striking correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and automotive recalls for air bag-related issues. This graphic representation serves as a testament to the unexpected intersection of political preferences and automotive safety features, leaving little room for doubt regarding the tangible connection that we have unearthed. It is as if the air bags of statistical analysis have indeed been inflated with the hot air of political discourse, revealing the hidden link between these seemingly disparate realms.

In the broader context of scholarly pursuits and statistical enlightenment, our study ventures into the uncharted territory of electoral eccentricity and automotive intrigue, where every ballot cast and air bag deployed unveils a web of correlations waiting to be discovered. While the humorous undertones of air bag technology as a metaphor for political discourse linger in the backdrop, our findings stand as a testament to the intriguing potential of interdisciplinary inquiry and statistical exploration. As we dwell in this realm of revelations and correlations, we invite fellow scholars to join us in this peculiar excursion and embrace the offbeat discoveries that lie within the realms of electoral behavior and vehicular safety.

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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"The Air Bags and Libertarians: A Correlation Analysis of Automotive Recalls and Libertarian Presidential Votes in Pennsylvania"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we endeavored to ex-air-min the potential relationship between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we sought to shed light on this off-the-beaten-path yet persistently curious phenomenon. Through meticulous analysis and statistical wizardry, we determined a correlation coefficient of 0.9587744 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1990 to 2020. Our findings not only provide insight into the quirky world of electoral behavior and vehicular safety, but also elicit a chuckle or two about the unexpected ways in which the political and automotive realms intersect. Join us on this whimsical ride through statistics and ballot boxes, where air bags and libertarians collide in a collision of data-driven discovery.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The world of electoral politics and automotive safety may seem miles apart, but as we delve into the enigmatic realm of statistical analysis, we often find surprising and, dare we say, air-resistible connections. The intersection of votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags has sparked our curiosity, prompting us to embark on this zany journey of number-crunching and electioneering enthusiasm.
While most scholars gravitate towards the more conventional relationships between voter behavior and political ideologies, we couldn't resist the temptation to steer our gaze towards the uncharted territory of air bags and libertarianism. After all, where else do we get to merrily frolic amidst election data while simultaneously pondering the quirks of vehicular malfunction?
The air of mystery surrounding this correlation has inflated our intrigue, leading us to sift through data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation. Our aim was clear - to inflate the understanding of this peculiar linkage and, if possible, tickle the fancy of our fellow researchers along the way.
So buckle up, dear readers, as we journey through the scatter plots and regression analyses to unearth the surprising correlations that lie beneath the surface. It's a collision of political whimsy and roadside safety, where libertarian dreams and air bag schemes converge in a data-driven dance. Let's embark on this scholarly escapade, brimming with statistical revelations and the occasional tongue-in-cheek observation. For as we navigate through the treacherous terrain of data analysis, we may just stumble upon an air-musing discovery or two.

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the connection between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.9587744, indicating a strong positive relationship between the two variables. This coefficient was accompanied by an r-squared value of 0.9192484, underscoring the robustness of the correlation. Additionally, the p-value of less than 0.01 further cemented the statistical significance of our findings, suggesting that the observed correlation is not merely the result of chance but rather a bona fide relationship worthy of serious scholarly consideration.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) succinctly captures the essence of our findings, visually depicting the striking alignment between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate and automotive recalls for air bag-related issues. The plot portrays the undeniable connection between these seemingly disparate phenomena, serving as a compelling visual endorsement of our statistical analysis.
Our results not only unravel a hitherto unexplored link between electoral preferences and automotive safety features but also evoke a whimsical appreciation for the unexpected interplay of politics and air bag technology. As we reflect on the implications of our findings, we can't help but entertain the notion that "air bags" may not solely refer to vehicular safety devices but could also allude to the surprising "hot air" of political discourse, inflating our curiosity with each passing revelation.
In summary, our study lends credence to the notion that behind every ballot cast and every air bag deployed lies a web of correlations waiting to be discovered. It is in this spirit of scholarly amusement and statistical marvel that we present our findings, inviting readers to embark on this peculiar excursion through the realms of electoral eccentricity and automotive intrigue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation into the correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags has left us inflated with appreciation for the whimsical world of scholarly discovery. Our findings, bearing a correlation coefficient of 0.9587744 and a p-value less than 0.01, not only showcase the robustness of the linkage but also tickle the statistical funny bone with their unexpected alignment.

As we steer our scholarly vehicle towards the proverbial finish line, it is clear that this intersection of political and automotive realms is not just a passing fancy, but a bona fide avenue for further inquiry. The air of mystery surrounding this correlation may be deflated, but the sheer air-tistry of this peculiar linkage continues to buoy our curiosity. It seems that when it comes to statistical relationships, the possibilities are as air-repressible as they are unpredictable.

However, it is with a heavy heart (though not due to any air bag malfunction, we assure you) that we must assert that no further research in this area is needed. The correlations we've uncovered leave little room for further doubt, and it appears that our findings have air-rived at a definitive conclusion. With that said, we hope our study has inspired a few chuckles, raised a few eyebrows, and reminded us all that in the vast landscape of scholarly inquiry, there is always room for a little air-regularity.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited The Air Bags and Libertarians: A Correlation Analysis of Automotive Recalls and Libertarian Presidential Votes in Pennsylvania. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Sociology

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited The Air Bags and Libertarians: A Correlation Analysis of Automotive Recalls and Libertarian Presidential Votes in Pennsylvania. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Libertarian Studies

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The Air Bags and Libertarians: A Correlation Analysis of Automotive Recalls and Libertarian Presidential Votes in Pennsylvania with an abstract of In this study, we endeavored to ex-air-min the potential relationship between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and automotive recalls for issues with air bags. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we sought to shed light on this off-the-beaten-path yet persistently curious phenomenon. Through meticulous analysis and statistical wizardry, we determined a correlation coefficient of 0.9587744 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the years spanning from 1990 to 2020. Our findings not only provide insight into the quirky world of electoral behavior and vehicular safety, but also elicit a chuckle or two about the unexpected ways in which the political and automotive realms intersect. Join us on this whimsical ride through statistics and ballot boxes, where air bags and libertarians collide in a collision of data-driven discovery.

ChatGPT:

automotive recalls, libertarian presidential votes, Pennsylvania, correlation analysis, air bags, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, US Department of Transportation, electoral behavior, vehicular safety, statistical analysis, ballot boxes, data-driven discovery

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

Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error

Data details

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

Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags
Source: US DOT
See what else correlates with Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags

Correlation r = 0.9587744 (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 = 0.9192484 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 91.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania) over the 8 years from 1990 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00017.^Show 0.0001697908583532382200000000
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 0.96 in 0.017% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 5,890 random variables^Note Which I absolutely did.
with the same 7 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 7 because we have two variables measured over a period of 8 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.

[ 0.78, 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.

	1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016	2020
Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania (Percentage of votes)	0.433021	0.622042	0.228982	0.367184	0.331134	0.870614	2.39911	1.14789
Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags (Recalls)	4	8	15	14	13	23	106	58

Why this works

Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
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.

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([0.433021,0.622042,0.228982,0.367184,0.331134,0.870614,2.39911,1.14789,])
array_2 = np.array([4,8,15,14,13,23,106,58,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania"
array_2_name = "Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags"

# 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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Pennsylvania
Line chart for only Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: The Air Bags and Libertarians: A Correlation Analysis of Automotive Recalls and Libertarian Presidential Votes in Pennsylvania

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the rating guru we've been waiting for!

Correlation ID: 4340 · Black Variable ID: 26159 · Red Variable ID: 1105


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