Download png, svg
AI explanation
The Democrat Senators were really pushing for more literary representation, so they made it a campaign "write" in. It's a plot twist nobody saw coming, but it seems like Montana is now experiencing a major "book" in Democratic support!
Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an image that looks like it is a scene from a Disney movie. In a cozy Montana bookstore, a group of Democratic Senators are gathered amidst shelves overflowing with books, chatting with local authors. There's an electric buzz in the air as they encourage and champion the vibrant literary scene, emphasizing the importance of supporting local creators. The scene exudes warmth and inspiration, showing the senators and authors collectively working towards amplifying Montana's democratic voice through the power of storytelling. 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: Democrat votes for Senators in Montana and The number of authors in Montana. 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: Vaporwave Charcoal Cubism Art nouveau 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 Disney 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Montana and The number of authors in Montana, in the following situation: The Democrat Senators were really pushing for more literary representation, so they made it a campaign "write" in. It's a plot twist nobody saw coming, but it seems like Montana is now experiencing a major "book" in Democratic support!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a cozy Montana bookstore, a group of Democratic Senators gather to support local writers. As they chat with the authors, they notice the shelves overflowing with books written by the talented community of Montana. There's an electric buzz in the air as the Senators encourage and champion the vibrant literary scene, emphasizing the importance of supporting local creators. The bookstore becomes a hub of enthusiasm and inspiration, as the Senators and authors collectively work towards amplifying Montana's democratic voice through the power of storytelling.
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 Disney Movie ] and depicting this scene: In a cozy Montana bookstore, a group of Democratic Senators gather to support local writers. As they chat with the authors, they notice the shelves overflowing with books written by the talented community of Montana. There's an electric buzz in the air as the Senators encourage and champion the vibrant literary scene, emphasizing the importance of supporting local creators. The bookstore becomes a hub of enthusiasm and inspiration, as the Senators and authors collectively work towards amplifying Montana's democratic voice through the power of storytelling. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an image that looks like it is a scene from a Disney movie. In a cozy Montana bookstore, a group of Democratic Senators are gathered amidst shelves overflowing with books, chatting with local authors. There's an electric buzz in the air as they encourage and champion the vibrant literary scene, emphasizing the importance of supporting local creators. The scene exudes warmth and inspiration, showing the senators and authors collectively working towards amplifying Montana's democratic voice through the power of storytelling.
*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.
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 increases in Democrat votes for Senators in Montana positively influenced The number of authors in Montana. Include one good pun.
AI academic paper
 |
Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana The Journal of Political Rodentology Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Montana and The number of authors in Montana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title a clever pun.
Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and p < 0.01 for 2003 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]]
Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the curious relationship between the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state. Our research team delved into massive datasets from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover this puzzling correlation. To our surprise, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020. Our findings not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two as we consider the interconnectedness of literary pursuits and political leanings in the beautiful state of Montana. We invite fellow academics to join us on this whimsical journey through data analysis and sociopolitical musings.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Montana and The number of authors in Montana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the curious relationship between the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state. Our research team delved into massive datasets from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover this puzzling correlation. To our surprise, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020. Our findings not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two as we consider the interconnectedness of literary pursuits and political leanings in the beautiful state of Montana. We invite fellow academics to join us on this whimsical journey through data analysis and sociopolitical musings.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the hilly expanse of Montana, an unlikely alliance seems to have emerged between the literary inclinations of its denizens and their political leanings. As the state embodies the rugged roots of the American West, it also harbors a lively community of writers, who may, inadvertently, be leaving their mark not only in the pages of novels but also in the ballot boxes. This paper endeavors to unravel the fascinating tale of how the number of authors in Montana and Democratic votes for Senators in the state intertwine, enlivened with data analysis and sprinkled with the occasional whimsical observation.
On the outset, it may seem perplexing – what could the creative endeavors of authors possibly have to do with the political persuasions of a state? But as we dived into the depths of socio-political data, we found ourselves not only unearthing statistically significant correlations but also crafting a narrative that dances with the echoes of Montanan literary and political history. A correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020 bring to light the unexpected alliance of the ink-stained muses and the polling booth choreography.
The nuances of Montana, with its rugged terrains and its free-spirited populace, have long been a source of wonder and amusement. However, as the numbers materialized before us, we couldn't help but smile and think, "Well, isn't that novel?" It's as if the pen strokes on paper are not just mere musings but rather are weaving a narrative that extends into the political realm – a metafictional dance playing out in the realm of voter sentiment and literary inspiration.
As we embark on this tale of two sensibilities, we recognize the peculiar joy that springs from intellectual exploration, where the unexpected and the mundane collide to create a tableau of curiosity and playfulness. So, dear reader, fasten your intellectual seatbelts as we traverse through statistical landscapes while keeping our eyes peeled for the delightful surprises and chuckle-worthy oddities that populate the discussion of Montana's literary and political tapestry.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Montana and The number of authors in Montana. 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 movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the curious relationship between the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state. Our research team delved into massive datasets from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover this puzzling correlation. To our surprise, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020. Our findings not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two as we consider the interconnectedness of literary pursuits and political leanings in the beautiful state of Montana. We invite fellow academics to join us on this whimsical journey through data analysis and sociopolitical musings.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the hilly expanse of Montana, an unlikely alliance seems to have emerged between the literary inclinations of its denizens and their political leanings. As the state embodies the rugged roots of the American West, it also harbors a lively community of writers, who may, inadvertently, be leaving their mark not only in the pages of novels but also in the ballot boxes. This paper endeavors to unravel the fascinating tale of how the number of authors in Montana and Democratic votes for Senators in the state intertwine, enlivened with data analysis and sprinkled with the occasional whimsical observation.
On the outset, it may seem perplexing – what could the creative endeavors of authors possibly have to do with the political persuasions of a state? But as we dived into the depths of socio-political data, we found ourselves not only unearthing statistically significant correlations but also crafting a narrative that dances with the echoes of Montanan literary and political history. A correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020 bring to light the unexpected alliance of the ink-stained muses and the polling booth choreography.
The nuances of Montana, with its rugged terrains and its free-spirited populace, have long been a source of wonder and amusement. However, as the numbers materialized before us, we couldn't help but smile and think, "Well, isn't that novel?" It's as if the pen strokes on paper are not just mere musings but rather are weaving a narrative that extends into the political realm – a metafictional dance playing out in the realm of voter sentiment and literary inspiration.
As we embark on this tale of two sensibilities, we recognize the peculiar joy that springs from intellectual exploration, where the unexpected and the mundane collide to create a tableau of curiosity and playfulness. So, dear reader, fasten your intellectual seatbelts as we traverse through statistical landscapes while keeping our eyes peeled for the delightful surprises and chuckle-worthy oddities that populate the discussion of Montana's literary and political tapestry.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "The Literary Landscape of Montana," Smith and Doe present a comprehensive examination of the cultural and artistic scene in the state, shedding light on the vibrant community of authors and the myriad of genres that find representation in Montana's literary tapestry. Their work offers a nuanced exploration of the interplay between the collective imagination of the state and its sociopolitical fabric, hinting at the potential for a deeper connection between literary expression and political ideologies.
Jones, in "The Political Geography of Montana," delves into the intricate web of factors shaping the political landscape of the state. While the focus of Jones' work primarily revolves around demographic shifts and policy preferences, it indirectly beckons the reader to consider the intricate ways in which cultural and artistic expressions might influence the political attitudes of Montanans.
Moving onto less conventional sources, in "Democ-RATic Musings: The Literary Influence on Voting Patterns," the authors craft a whimsical exploration of the peculiar relationship between literary culture and political proclivities. Through a series of anecdotal observations and subtle humor, they provocatively suggest that perhaps the ink-stained fingers of authors extend beyond the pages of their works and leave an indelible imprint on the political consciousness of the state.
As we venture into the more creative realms of literature, "The Senator's Secret Library" by A. Novel presents an imaginative tale of a senator whose love for literature leads to unexpected insights and serendipitous encounters. While a work of fiction, it piques the imagination and invites contemplation on the power of literature to shape individual perspectives and, by extension, influence collective political choices.
In the whimsical world of film, "Montana Tales: From Pen to Poll" is a charming documentary that follows the lives of authors in Montana and their peculiar penchant for influencing political debates and election campaigns. Through a series of endearing interviews and picturesque montages of Montana's literary and political landscapes, the film joyfully hints at the curious interplay between the written word and the outcomes of democratic processes.
This motley assortment of literature and media offers a tantalizing glimpse into the multifaceted relationship between Montana's literary endeavors and the Democratic voting patterns for Senators in the state. While these sources may vary significantly in their tone and intent, they collectively beckon towards the possibility of an intriguing interconnection that continues to beguile and elude definitive interpretation.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Montana and The number of authors in Montana. 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 Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2003 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]]
Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the curious relationship between the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state. Our research team delved into massive datasets from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover this puzzling correlation. To our surprise, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020. Our findings not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two as we consider the interconnectedness of literary pursuits and political leanings in the beautiful state of Montana. We invite fellow academics to join us on this whimsical journey through data analysis and sociopolitical musings.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the hilly expanse of Montana, an unlikely alliance seems to have emerged between the literary inclinations of its denizens and their political leanings. As the state embodies the rugged roots of the American West, it also harbors a lively community of writers, who may, inadvertently, be leaving their mark not only in the pages of novels but also in the ballot boxes. This paper endeavors to unravel the fascinating tale of how the number of authors in Montana and Democratic votes for Senators in the state intertwine, enlivened with data analysis and sprinkled with the occasional whimsical observation.
On the outset, it may seem perplexing – what could the creative endeavors of authors possibly have to do with the political persuasions of a state? But as we dived into the depths of socio-political data, we found ourselves not only unearthing statistically significant correlations but also crafting a narrative that dances with the echoes of Montanan literary and political history. A correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020 bring to light the unexpected alliance of the ink-stained muses and the polling booth choreography.
The nuances of Montana, with its rugged terrains and its free-spirited populace, have long been a source of wonder and amusement. However, as the numbers materialized before us, we couldn't help but smile and think, "Well, isn't that novel?" It's as if the pen strokes on paper are not just mere musings but rather are weaving a narrative that extends into the political realm – a metafictional dance playing out in the realm of voter sentiment and literary inspiration.
As we embark on this tale of two sensibilities, we recognize the peculiar joy that springs from intellectual exploration, where the unexpected and the mundane collide to create a tableau of curiosity and playfulness. So, dear reader, fasten your intellectual seatbelts as we traverse through statistical landscapes while keeping our eyes peeled for the delightful surprises and chuckle-worthy oddities that populate the discussion of Montana's literary and political tapestry.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The methodology employed in this research journey was as adventurous as traversing the uncharted wilderness of Montana. Collected data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics formed the bedrock of our analysis, akin to uncovering a hidden treasure trove in the virtual frontier of information.
To begin our escapade, we honed our data mining skills and donned our statistical thinking caps to extract the necessary variables encapsulating the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state from 2003 to 2020. Our intrepid quest led us through the dense underbrush of election data, navigating the twists and turns of numerical labyrinths with the agility of seasoned explorers.
Perhaps one might imagine us as scholarly prospectors, sifted through vast datasets as though panning for gold nuggets in a digital river, all the while maintaining a sense of wonder and intellectual curiosity worthy of a Lewis and Clark expedition.
Once we had unearthed the elusive data sets, we employed a medley of analytical tools and statistical methodologies that rivaled the strategic maneuvers of chess grandmasters. Our team dabbled in the arcane arts of correlation analysis, where the dance between the number of authors and Democratic votes in Montana took center stage. Like skilled choreographers, we scrutinized the movements of variables, looking for patterns and syncopations that would unravel the peculiar narrative of our research question.
In addition, we embraced the algorithmic wizardry of regression analysis, concocting models that sought to untangle the complex web woven by literature and politics, much akin to deciphering a cryptic code of historical significance. Furthermore, we harnessed the power of time series analysis to navigate the temporal currents of our data, charting a course through the ebbs and flows of Montana's literary and political tides with the precision of mariners navigating the choppy waters of the Caribbean.
The robustness of our findings was corroborated by diligent sensitivity analysis, where we stress-tested our models like seasoned mountaineers braving the harsh elements. Our analytical trek through the statistical wilderness was not without its perils, as we faced the lurking dangers of multicollinearity and heteroscedasticity, but our resolve remained steadfast, and our findings emerged unscathed, like intrepid alpinists conquering the summit of intellectual inquiry.
In summary, our approach to this research endeavor mirrored the spirited frontier spirit of Montana itself – combining ingenuity, tenacity, and a touch of whimsy to unravel the entwined tales of literary pursuits and political persuasions in this storied state. Our methodology stands as a testament to the unfathomable depths of intellectual exploration and the joy of unearthing unexpected connections between seemingly disparate domains.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Montana and The number of authors in Montana. 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 Bureau of Larbor Statistics .
For the time period 2003 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9228635, r-squared of 0.8516770, 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]]
Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the curious relationship between the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state. Our research team delved into massive datasets from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover this puzzling correlation. To our surprise, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020. Our findings not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two as we consider the interconnectedness of literary pursuits and political leanings in the beautiful state of Montana. We invite fellow academics to join us on this whimsical journey through data analysis and sociopolitical musings.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the hilly expanse of Montana, an unlikely alliance seems to have emerged between the literary inclinations of its denizens and their political leanings. As the state embodies the rugged roots of the American West, it also harbors a lively community of writers, who may, inadvertently, be leaving their mark not only in the pages of novels but also in the ballot boxes. This paper endeavors to unravel the fascinating tale of how the number of authors in Montana and Democratic votes for Senators in the state intertwine, enlivened with data analysis and sprinkled with the occasional whimsical observation.
On the outset, it may seem perplexing – what could the creative endeavors of authors possibly have to do with the political persuasions of a state? But as we dived into the depths of socio-political data, we found ourselves not only unearthing statistically significant correlations but also crafting a narrative that dances with the echoes of Montanan literary and political history. A correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020 bring to light the unexpected alliance of the ink-stained muses and the polling booth choreography.
The nuances of Montana, with its rugged terrains and its free-spirited populace, have long been a source of wonder and amusement. However, as the numbers materialized before us, we couldn't help but smile and think, "Well, isn't that novel?" It's as if the pen strokes on paper are not just mere musings but rather are weaving a narrative that extends into the political realm – a metafictional dance playing out in the realm of voter sentiment and literary inspiration.
As we embark on this tale of two sensibilities, we recognize the peculiar joy that springs from intellectual exploration, where the unexpected and the mundane collide to create a tableau of curiosity and playfulness. So, dear reader, fasten your intellectual seatbelts as we traverse through statistical landscapes while keeping our eyes peeled for the delightful surprises and chuckle-worthy oddities that populate the discussion of Montana's literary and political tapestry.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our data analysis revealed a rather striking and, dare I say, novel correlation between the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state. The correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and an r-squared of 0.8516770 for the years 2003 to 2020 left us pleasantly surprised and somewhat bemused.
Our analysis yielded a scatterplot (Fig. 1) that vividly depicts the remarkably strong relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. While some might find the association between authors and political leanings far-fetched, we couldn't help but chuckle at the delightfully unexpected connection laid bare by our statistical findings.
As we interpret these results, one cannot help but appreciate the interplay of ink and ballots, where the literary inclinations of Montanans seem to harmonize with their voting behaviors. This whimsical discovery beckons us to ponder the delightful idiosyncrasies of human behavior and the way in which our artistic and political proclivities intertwine in the fabric of our society. The correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and the firmly significant p-value of less than 0.01 for this association bring to light the fascinating fusion of literary pursuits and senatorial selections in the revered state of Montana.
In summary, our findings not only unveil the curious bond between the written word and the democratic process but also tickle our scholarly fancies with the unexpected nature of this correlation. The socio-political landscape of Montana presents a captivating tableau of interconnectedness that underscores the need for a multifaceted understanding of human behavior and societal dynamics. We invite fellow academics to join us in reveling in the delightful surprises that emerge from the intersection of literary creativity and political engagement, as we continue to unravel the whimsical tale of voting democ-RAT-ically in the picturesque state of Montana.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Montana and The number of authors in Montana. 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]]
Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the curious relationship between the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state. Our research team delved into massive datasets from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover this puzzling correlation. To our surprise, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020. Our findings not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two as we consider the interconnectedness of literary pursuits and political leanings in the beautiful state of Montana. We invite fellow academics to join us on this whimsical journey through data analysis and sociopolitical musings.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "The Literary Landscape of Montana," Smith and Doe present a comprehensive examination of the cultural and artistic scene in the state, shedding light on the vibrant community of authors and the myriad of genres that find representation in Montana's literary tapestry. Their work offers a nuanced exploration of the interplay between the collective imagination of the state and its sociopolitical fabric, hinting at the potential for a deeper connection between literary expression and political ideologies.
Jones, in "The Political Geography of Montana," delves into the intricate web of factors shaping the political landscape of the state. While the focus of Jones' work primarily revolves around demographic shifts and policy preferences, it indirectly beckons the reader to consider the intricate ways in which cultural and artistic expressions might influence the political attitudes of Montanans.
Moving onto less conventional sources, in "Democ-RATic Musings: The Literary Influence on Voting Patterns," the authors craft a whimsical exploration of the peculiar relationship between literary culture and political proclivities. Through a series of anecdotal observations and subtle humor, they provocatively suggest that perhaps the ink-stained fingers of authors extend beyond the pages of their works and leave an indelible imprint on the political consciousness of the state.
As we venture into the more creative realms of literature, "The Senator's Secret Library" by A. Novel presents an imaginative tale of a senator whose love for literature leads to unexpected insights and serendipitous encounters. While a work of fiction, it piques the imagination and invites contemplation on the power of literature to shape individual perspectives and, by extension, influence collective political choices.
In the whimsical world of film, "Montana Tales: From Pen to Poll" is a charming documentary that follows the lives of authors in Montana and their peculiar penchant for influencing political debates and election campaigns. Through a series of endearing interviews and picturesque montages of Montana's literary and political landscapes, the film joyfully hints at the curious interplay between the written word and the outcomes of democratic processes.
This motley assortment of literature and media offers a tantalizing glimpse into the multifaceted relationship between Montana's literary endeavors and the Democratic voting patterns for Senators in the state. While these sources may vary significantly in their tone and intent, they collectively beckon towards the possibility of an intriguing interconnection that continues to beguile and elude definitive interpretation.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our data analysis revealed a rather striking and, dare I say, novel correlation between the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state. The correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and an r-squared of 0.8516770 for the years 2003 to 2020 left us pleasantly surprised and somewhat bemused.
Our analysis yielded a scatterplot (Fig. 1) that vividly depicts the remarkably strong relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. While some might find the association between authors and political leanings far-fetched, we couldn't help but chuckle at the delightfully unexpected connection laid bare by our statistical findings.
As we interpret these results, one cannot help but appreciate the interplay of ink and ballots, where the literary inclinations of Montanans seem to harmonize with their voting behaviors. This whimsical discovery beckons us to ponder the delightful idiosyncrasies of human behavior and the way in which our artistic and political proclivities intertwine in the fabric of our society. The correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and the firmly significant p-value of less than 0.01 for this association bring to light the fascinating fusion of literary pursuits and senatorial selections in the revered state of Montana.
In summary, our findings not only unveil the curious bond between the written word and the democratic process but also tickle our scholarly fancies with the unexpected nature of this correlation. The socio-political landscape of Montana presents a captivating tableau of interconnectedness that underscores the need for a multifaceted understanding of human behavior and societal dynamics. We invite fellow academics to join us in reveling in the delightful surprises that emerge from the intersection of literary creativity and political engagement, as we continue to unravel the whimsical tale of voting democ-RAT-ically in the picturesque state of Montana.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The results of our study unequivocally affirm the peculiar yet captivating interweaving of literary enthusiasms and political persuasions in the state of Montana. The surprising partnership between the number of authors and Democratic votes for Senators, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9228635, not only defies conventional wisdom but also beckons us to embrace the whimsical dance of ink and ballots. Our findings are in conspicuous harmony with the earlier works of Smith and Doe, whose nuanced exploration hinted at the profound connection between literary expression and political ideologies. While their intimations might have initially seemed fanciful, our statistical analysis lends credence to the notion that perhaps the quills of authors do indeed wield a subtle influence over the voting sensibilities of Montanans.
Moreover, the mirthful proposition put forward in "Democ-RATic Musings: The Literary Influence on Voting Patterns" takes on an unexpectedly concrete form in our study. The jovial speculations of the authors resonate with our empirical observations, heightening the delightful irony of the scholarly discourse. As we immerse ourselves in this delightful potpourri of literary and cinematic sources, the seemingly unorthodox assertion that authors leave an indelible imprint on political consciousness acquires an enchanting veracity, much to the amusement of our discerning academic sensibilities.
Our whimsical discovery not only contributes to the scholarly tapestry weaving together artistic and political proclivities but also underscores the need for a broader appreciation of the idiosyncrasies that color human behavior. Our study extends a hearty invitation to fellow academics to partake in the revelry of unraveling the enigmatic tale of voting democ-RAT-ically in the picturesque expanse of Montana, where the ink-stained fingers of authors seem to hold sway over the electoral inclinations of its denizens. The union of literary endeavors and political engagements presents a heartwarming tableau of interconnectedness, urging us to embrace the beguiling fusion of creative expressions and democratic choices with open scholarly arms.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Montana and The number of authors in Montana. 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]]
Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the curious relationship between the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state. Our research team delved into massive datasets from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover this puzzling correlation. To our surprise, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020. Our findings not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two as we consider the interconnectedness of literary pursuits and political leanings in the beautiful state of Montana. We invite fellow academics to join us on this whimsical journey through data analysis and sociopolitical musings.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the hilly expanse of Montana, an unlikely alliance seems to have emerged between the literary inclinations of its denizens and their political leanings. As the state embodies the rugged roots of the American West, it also harbors a lively community of writers, who may, inadvertently, be leaving their mark not only in the pages of novels but also in the ballot boxes. This paper endeavors to unravel the fascinating tale of how the number of authors in Montana and Democratic votes for Senators in the state intertwine, enlivened with data analysis and sprinkled with the occasional whimsical observation.
On the outset, it may seem perplexing – what could the creative endeavors of authors possibly have to do with the political persuasions of a state? But as we dived into the depths of socio-political data, we found ourselves not only unearthing statistically significant correlations but also crafting a narrative that dances with the echoes of Montanan literary and political history. A correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020 bring to light the unexpected alliance of the ink-stained muses and the polling booth choreography.
The nuances of Montana, with its rugged terrains and its free-spirited populace, have long been a source of wonder and amusement. However, as the numbers materialized before us, we couldn't help but smile and think, "Well, isn't that novel?" It's as if the pen strokes on paper are not just mere musings but rather are weaving a narrative that extends into the political realm – a metafictional dance playing out in the realm of voter sentiment and literary inspiration.
As we embark on this tale of two sensibilities, we recognize the peculiar joy that springs from intellectual exploration, where the unexpected and the mundane collide to create a tableau of curiosity and playfulness. So, dear reader, fasten your intellectual seatbelts as we traverse through statistical landscapes while keeping our eyes peeled for the delightful surprises and chuckle-worthy oddities that populate the discussion of Montana's literary and political tapestry.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our data analysis revealed a rather striking and, dare I say, novel correlation between the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state. The correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and an r-squared of 0.8516770 for the years 2003 to 2020 left us pleasantly surprised and somewhat bemused.
Our analysis yielded a scatterplot (Fig. 1) that vividly depicts the remarkably strong relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. While some might find the association between authors and political leanings far-fetched, we couldn't help but chuckle at the delightfully unexpected connection laid bare by our statistical findings.
As we interpret these results, one cannot help but appreciate the interplay of ink and ballots, where the literary inclinations of Montanans seem to harmonize with their voting behaviors. This whimsical discovery beckons us to ponder the delightful idiosyncrasies of human behavior and the way in which our artistic and political proclivities intertwine in the fabric of our society. The correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and the firmly significant p-value of less than 0.01 for this association bring to light the fascinating fusion of literary pursuits and senatorial selections in the revered state of Montana.
In summary, our findings not only unveil the curious bond between the written word and the democratic process but also tickle our scholarly fancies with the unexpected nature of this correlation. The socio-political landscape of Montana presents a captivating tableau of interconnectedness that underscores the need for a multifaceted understanding of human behavior and societal dynamics. We invite fellow academics to join us in reveling in the delightful surprises that emerge from the intersection of literary creativity and political engagement, as we continue to unravel the whimsical tale of voting democ-RAT-ically in the picturesque state of Montana.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our research has unearthed a remarkable correlation between the number of authors in Montana and Democratic votes for Senators in the state. The statistical analyses have yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01, firmly attesting to the unexpected connection between literary endeavors and political leanings in the Montana landscape. This whimsical discovery not only tickles our scholarly interests but also prompts contemplation on the intricacies of human behavior and the delightful surprises that emerge from the amalgamation of creative and civic pursuits.
As we sign off on this paper, we are left with a profound sense of intrigue at the meshing of ink and ballots, inviting us to ponder the whimsical ways in which artistry and democratic participation intertwine. As we close the chapter on this study, we can't help but chuckle at the playful dance of correlations and coefficients, for it seems that, in the delightful tapestry of Montana's sociopolitical landscape, the pen is indeed mightier than the sword – or, in this case, the ballot.
In light of these revelatory findings, we assert that further exploration in this area may yield diminishing returns. It appears that we have unraveled the quirky tale of voting democ-RAT-ically in Montana to its delightful conclusion, and we opine that no more research is needed in this area. After all, sometimes the most unexpected correlations can be the most fitting, leaving us with a wry smile and a newfound appreciation for the delightful idiosyncrasies that permeate the human experience.
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 Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Political Rodentology
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 Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Consortium for Rodent Democracy 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 Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana with an abstract of This paper explores the curious relationship between the number of authors in Montana and the Democratic votes for Senators in the state. Our research team delved into massive datasets from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover this puzzling correlation. To our surprise, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9228635 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2003 to 2020. Our findings not only raise eyebrows but also provoke a chuckle or two as we consider the interconnectedness of literary pursuits and political leanings in the beautiful state of Montana. We invite fellow academics to join us on this whimsical journey through data analysis and sociopolitical musings.
ChatGPT:
Montana, authors, Democratic vote, correlation, data analysis, political leanings, senators, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Bureau of Labor Statistics, correlation coefficient, p-value, literary pursuits, sociopolitical musings, Montana voting patterns
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Votes for Democratic Senators in MontanaDetailed data title: Percentage of votes cast for Federal Democrat Senate candidates in Montana
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for Democratic Senators in Montana
The number of authors in Montana
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of writers and authors in Montana
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of authors in Montana
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 = 0.8516770 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 85.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of authors in Montana) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Montana) over the 6 years from 2003 through 2020.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0087. 0.0086955792457651030000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.
But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.
Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.92 in 0.87% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 115 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 5 because we have two variables measured over a period of 6 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.
[ 0.44, 0.99 ] 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.
| 2006 | 2008 | 2012 | 2014 | 2018 | 2020 | |
| Votes for Democratic Senators in Montana (Percentage of votes) | 49.1618 | 72.916 | 48.5784 | 40.0686 | 50.3339 | 44.9878 |
| The number of authors in Montana (Writers And Authors) | 130 | 170 | 120 | 100 | 110 | 90 |
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
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
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. 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([49.1618,72.916,48.5784,40.0686,50.3339,44.9878,])
array_2 = np.array([130,170,120,100,110,90,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Montana"
array_2_name = "The number of authors in Montana"
# 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:
- High resolution line chart
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 Democratic Senators in Montana
- Line chart for only The number of authors in Montana
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Voting Democ-RATically: A Tail of Two Sensibilities in Montana
You're a rater extraordinaire!
Correlation ID: 4360 · Black Variable ID: 26416 · Red Variable ID: 10711
