about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,422 · 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 Democratic Senators in Arizona and the second variable is Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System.  The chart goes from 1976 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The surge in Democrat votes for Senators in Arizona has sparked a higher demand for electric cars among the constituents. As more people switch to electric vehicles, the strain on the state's electrical infrastructure has surged, leading to fluctuations in power supply. These power surges and outages are, in turn, zapping the electronic systems in traditional cars, prompting a shocking rise in automotive recalls for electrical issues. It's a real jolt to the automotive industry!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an image where a line of people is waiting to vote at a polling station in the Arizona desert, with a backdrop of electric cars lined up for charging. Suddenly, a power surge causes the electric cars to flicker, while the lights in the nearby traditional car dealership go out. Overhead, a flash of lightning illuminates the scene, highlighting the strain on the state's electrical infrastructure and the automotive industry's shock at the surge in electrical system failures for traditional cars. 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 Arizona and Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: a funny image you would see on reddit a funny image macro Steampunk 3D Pixar Style Symbolism
ChatGPT: a funny image macro

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 Arizona and Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System, in the following situation: The surge in Democrat votes for Senators in Arizona has sparked a higher demand for electric cars among the constituents. As more people switch to electric vehicles, the strain on the state's electrical infrastructure has surged, leading to fluctuations in power supply. These power surges and outages are, in turn, zapping the electronic systems in traditional cars, prompting a shocking rise in automotive recalls for electrical issues. It's a real jolt to the automotive industry!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: Amidst the desert landscape of Arizona, a line of people is seen at a polling station, casting their votes for Democratic Senators, while in the background, electric cars are lined up for charging. Suddenly, a power surge causes the electric cars to flicker and the lights in the nearby traditional car dealership to go out. Overhead, a flash of lightning illuminates the scene, highlighting the strain on the state's electrical infrastructure, as traditional cars experience electrical system failures. This unexpected jolt has caused a surge in automotive recalls for electrical issues, leaving the automotive industry shocked.

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 funny image macro ] and depicting this scene: Amidst the desert landscape of Arizona, a line of people is seen at a polling station, casting their votes for Democratic Senators, while in the background, electric cars are lined up for charging. Suddenly, a power surge causes the electric cars to flicker and the lights in the nearby traditional car dealership to go out. Overhead, a flash of lightning illuminates the scene, highlighting the strain on the state's electrical infrastructure, as traditional cars experience electrical system failures. This unexpected jolt has caused a surge in automotive recalls for electrical issues, leaving the automotive industry shocked. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an image where a line of people is waiting to vote at a polling station in the Arizona desert, with a backdrop of electric cars lined up for charging. Suddenly, a power surge causes the electric cars to flicker, while the lights in the nearby traditional car dealership go out. Overhead, a flash of lightning illuminates the scene, highlighting the strain on the state's electrical infrastructure and the automotive industry's shock at the surge in electrical system failures for traditional cars.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Democrat votes for Senators in Arizona caused Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Shocking Politics: The Electrifying Relationship Between Democratic Votes in Arizona Senate Races and Automotive Electrical System Recalls

The Journal of Automotive Current Affairs

Jan 2024

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




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Arizona and Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and US DOT to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 and p < 0.01 for 1976 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]]
"Shocking Politics: The Electrifying Relationship Between Democratic Votes in Arizona Senate Races and Automotive Electrical System Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The interplay between political preferences and automotive safety has long been an area prime for scholarly inquiry. Building on existing literature, this paper seeks to investigate the puzzling connection between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 and p < 0.01 was uncovered for the years 1976 to 2020.

While the findings elicit fascination, the underlying mechanism driving this seemingly unlikely association appears murky. Is there a current for change in political winds that subsequently sparks a surge of electrical malfunctions in automobiles? Could it be purely coincidental, or is there some electrifying force at play that we have yet to comprehend?

This study not only sheds light on the curious relationship between political leanings and automotive safety but also sparks a charged debate on the zapping influence of partisan affiliations on everyday mechanisms. So, buckle up and prepare for a jolt of insights as we delve into the electrifying nexus of politics and automotive recalls.


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 Arizona and Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System. 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]]
"Shocking Politics: The Electrifying Relationship Between Democratic Votes in Arizona Senate Races and Automotive Electrical System Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The interplay between political preferences and automotive safety has long been an area prime for scholarly inquiry. Building on existing literature, this paper seeks to investigate the puzzling connection between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 and p < 0.01 was uncovered for the years 1976 to 2020.

While the findings elicit fascination, the underlying mechanism driving this seemingly unlikely association appears murky. Is there a current for change in political winds that subsequently sparks a surge of electrical malfunctions in automobiles? Could it be purely coincidental, or is there some electrifying force at play that we have yet to comprehend?

This study not only sheds light on the curious relationship between political leanings and automotive safety but also sparks a charged debate on the zapping influence of partisan affiliations on everyday mechanisms. So, buckle up and prepare for a jolt of insights as we delve into the electrifying nexus of politics and automotive recalls.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The intersection between politics and automotive safety may seem like an odd match at first glance, but as we delve into the nuanced dynamics at play, it becomes apparent that there's more amperage to this connection than meets the eye. While some may think that the only shocks in politics come from election outcomes, our study takes a closer look at the potentially electrifying relationship between Democratic votes in Arizona Senate races and automotive electrical system recalls.

The field of political science has often been charged with dissecting the intricacies of voting behavior and party dynamics, but our study, quite literally, adds a volt of excitement by examining the impact of political affiliations on automotive safety. Building on robust empirical data from established sources, our analysis seeks to illuminate the current (pun intended) that seemingly links the ballot box to the garage, forming a connection that sparks both intrigue and bewilderment.

As we venture into this uncharted territory, it is essential to switch gears and acknowledge the gravity of these findings. The correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 may be shocking to some, but we must resist the temptation to jump to hasty conclusions and remember that correlation does not imply causation. However, it's hard to overlook the tantalizing prospect that political leanings could be influencing the very wiring of our vehicles, potentially creating a political charge pulsing through the automotive industry.

This paper aims to spark a lively debate, not only about the statistical patterns uncovered but also about the larger implications for our understanding of the subtle interplay between political forces and everyday phenomena. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for an intellectual ride as we unravel the mysteries of this electrifying nexus, where the ballot meets the car battery.


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 Arizona and Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System. 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]]
"Shocking Politics: The Electrifying Relationship Between Democratic Votes in Arizona Senate Races and Automotive Electrical System Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The interplay between political preferences and automotive safety has long been an area prime for scholarly inquiry. Building on existing literature, this paper seeks to investigate the puzzling connection between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 and p < 0.01 was uncovered for the years 1976 to 2020.

While the findings elicit fascination, the underlying mechanism driving this seemingly unlikely association appears murky. Is there a current for change in political winds that subsequently sparks a surge of electrical malfunctions in automobiles? Could it be purely coincidental, or is there some electrifying force at play that we have yet to comprehend?

This study not only sheds light on the curious relationship between political leanings and automotive safety but also sparks a charged debate on the zapping influence of partisan affiliations on everyday mechanisms. So, buckle up and prepare for a jolt of insights as we delve into the electrifying nexus of politics and automotive recalls.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection between politics and automotive safety may seem like an odd match at first glance, but as we delve into the nuanced dynamics at play, it becomes apparent that there's more amperage to this connection than meets the eye. While some may think that the only shocks in politics come from election outcomes, our study takes a closer look at the potentially electrifying relationship between Democratic votes in Arizona Senate races and automotive electrical system recalls.
The field of political science has often been charged with dissecting the intricacies of voting behavior and party dynamics, but our study, quite literally, adds a volt of excitement by examining the impact of political affiliations on automotive safety. Building on robust empirical data from established sources, our analysis seeks to illuminate the current (pun intended) that seemingly links the ballot box to the garage, forming a connection that sparks both intrigue and bewilderment.
As we venture into this uncharted territory, it is essential to switch gears and acknowledge the gravity of these findings. The correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 may be shocking to some, but we must resist the temptation to jump to hasty conclusions and remember that correlation does not imply causation. However, it's hard to overlook the tantalizing prospect that political leanings could be influencing the very wiring of our vehicles, potentially creating a political charge pulsing through the automotive industry.
This paper aims to spark a lively debate, not only about the statistical patterns uncovered but also about the larger implications for our understanding of the subtle interplay between political forces and everyday phenomena. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for an intellectual ride as we unravel the mysteries of this electrifying nexus, where the ballot meets the car battery.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "Electoral Voltages and Automotive Currents: A Study of Arizona Senate Races" by Smith et al., the authors find a statistically significant correlation between the number of Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. The study, published in the Journal of Political Science, meticulously examines the voting patterns in relation to automotive safety trends, raising thought-provoking questions about the potential conduit between political affiliations and vehicular electrical defects.

Taking a closer look at historical data, Doe's "Power Struggle: The Nexus of Political Affiliations and Automotive Recalls" offers a comprehensive analysis of the broader implications of our findings. The author delves into the societal impact of political influences on automotive safety, shedding light on the potential ramifications for consumer confidence and regulatory oversight.

Moving beyond the academic realm, Jones' "Sparks of Change: Unraveling the Connection Between Politics and Auto Malfunctions" further explores the perplexing link between partisan leanings and electrical system recalls. This compelling work dives into the historical context and social dynamics that underscore the interplay between democracy and automotive mechanisms, igniting a fresh perspective on the subject matter.

But let's not stop there. Tapping into the broader landscape of literature, "The Shocking Truth About Politics and Cars" by Lorem Ipsum reveals a theoretical framework that attempts to illuminate the underlying currents of political influence on automotive safety. While the book's title may seem like a bolt from the blue, its unconventional approach to the subject matter certainly sparks curiosity.

Taking a whimsical detour, the fictional realms of literature offer unexpected insights into our topic. J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Engine Troubles" and George Orwell's "Animal Farm: A Tale of Voltage Regulation" surreptitiously delve into the world of automotive mishaps amid political intrigue, sparking nuanced discussions about power struggles in both the literal and metaphorical sense.

And who could forget the childhood classics that unknowingly laid the groundwork for our understanding of political-electrical relations? Cartoons like "The Electric Adventures of SpongeBob SquarePants" and "Inspector Gadget: Wiring Woes" infiltrated young minds with subtle hints of the electrifying nexus between politics and automotive systems, masquerading as innocent entertainment.

With such a diverse array of literature and media uncovering the web of connections between Democratic votes in Arizona Senate races and automotive electrical system recalls, it's clear that our research endeavors are charged with broader implications that extend beyond the confines of conventional scholarly discourse. So, as we march onward into the depths of our analysis, let's keep the spark of curiosity alive and embrace the electrifying journey that lies ahead.


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 Arizona and Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System. 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 1976 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]]
"Shocking Politics: The Electrifying Relationship Between Democratic Votes in Arizona Senate Races and Automotive Electrical System Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The interplay between political preferences and automotive safety has long been an area prime for scholarly inquiry. Building on existing literature, this paper seeks to investigate the puzzling connection between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 and p < 0.01 was uncovered for the years 1976 to 2020.

While the findings elicit fascination, the underlying mechanism driving this seemingly unlikely association appears murky. Is there a current for change in political winds that subsequently sparks a surge of electrical malfunctions in automobiles? Could it be purely coincidental, or is there some electrifying force at play that we have yet to comprehend?

This study not only sheds light on the curious relationship between political leanings and automotive safety but also sparks a charged debate on the zapping influence of partisan affiliations on everyday mechanisms. So, buckle up and prepare for a jolt of insights as we delve into the electrifying nexus of politics and automotive recalls.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection between politics and automotive safety may seem like an odd match at first glance, but as we delve into the nuanced dynamics at play, it becomes apparent that there's more amperage to this connection than meets the eye. While some may think that the only shocks in politics come from election outcomes, our study takes a closer look at the potentially electrifying relationship between Democratic votes in Arizona Senate races and automotive electrical system recalls.
The field of political science has often been charged with dissecting the intricacies of voting behavior and party dynamics, but our study, quite literally, adds a volt of excitement by examining the impact of political affiliations on automotive safety. Building on robust empirical data from established sources, our analysis seeks to illuminate the current (pun intended) that seemingly links the ballot box to the garage, forming a connection that sparks both intrigue and bewilderment.
As we venture into this uncharted territory, it is essential to switch gears and acknowledge the gravity of these findings. The correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 may be shocking to some, but we must resist the temptation to jump to hasty conclusions and remember that correlation does not imply causation. However, it's hard to overlook the tantalizing prospect that political leanings could be influencing the very wiring of our vehicles, potentially creating a political charge pulsing through the automotive industry.
This paper aims to spark a lively debate, not only about the statistical patterns uncovered but also about the larger implications for our understanding of the subtle interplay between political forces and everyday phenomena. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for an intellectual ride as we unravel the mysteries of this electrifying nexus, where the ballot meets the car battery.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the enigmatic association between Democratic votes for senators in Arizona and automotive electrical system recalls, a multidimensional approach was employed, combining statistical analysis, data mining, and a healthy dose of caffeine-fueled brainstorm sessions. The first step involved the arduous task of data collection. We trawled through the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, sifting through decades of information like seasoned archaeologists in search of artifacts, or in our case, enlightening data points.

The data extracted covered the years 1976 to 2020, capturing a historical panorama of political and automotive events. The correlation analysis was conducted using sophisticated statistical tools, prompting us to unleash the full potential of our calculator arsenal like eager mathematicians preparing for battle. The tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 and a p-value less than 0.01 emerged from this statistical skirmish, prompting victory dances and exclamations of "Eureka!" throughout the research lair.

However, as any sagacious researcher would caution, correlation does not imply causation. Thus, the next phase of our methodology shifted to a meticulous scrutiny of potential confounding variables, seeking to ward off spurious interpretations like an academic knight protecting the realm of empirical truth. Our team dived headfirst into the sea of possibilities, considering factors such as political shifts, automotive technologies, and the whims of fate that could conspire to create the illusion of causation where only correlation lurked.

One cannot overlook the critical role played by the analytical tools utilized. Robust statistical software, combined with the timeless art of pencil and paper, guided our voyage through the labyrinth of data, enabling the extraction of meaningful insights amidst the noise of raw information. The strategic deployment of visual representations, resembling an artist's palette of colorful graphs and charts, provided clarity in unraveling the tangle of variables, helping us paint a clearer picture of the underlying relationship.

In an attempt to further fortify our findings, a comprehensive sensitivity analysis was conducted, examining the stability of the observed correlations across different sub-periods and model specifications. This endeavor allowed us to gauge the robustness of our results and assess the resilience of the detected correlation to the winds of change blowing through the political and automotive landscapes like a tempestuous storm.

It is also crucial to acknowledge the potential limitations of our methodology. As with any endeavor bounded by the constraints of human knowledge, our study is not immune to the lurking specters of measurement error, endogeneity, and unobserved confounders. However, every effort was made to mitigate these concerns and foster a research environment akin to a well-guarded fortress, defending against the siege of spurious inferences and flawed reasoning.

In summary, our methodology embodies a fusion of rigor, curiosity, and a dash of tenacity, akin to a scientific tango across the dance floor of scholarly inquiry. With bated breath and a sense of wonder, we shall now journey into the realm of results, where the sparks of correlation may illuminate the darkness of uncertainty.


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 Arizona and Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System. 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 .

For the time period 1976 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8965039, r-squared of 0.8037193, 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]]
"Shocking Politics: The Electrifying Relationship Between Democratic Votes in Arizona Senate Races and Automotive Electrical System Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The interplay between political preferences and automotive safety has long been an area prime for scholarly inquiry. Building on existing literature, this paper seeks to investigate the puzzling connection between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 and p < 0.01 was uncovered for the years 1976 to 2020.

While the findings elicit fascination, the underlying mechanism driving this seemingly unlikely association appears murky. Is there a current for change in political winds that subsequently sparks a surge of electrical malfunctions in automobiles? Could it be purely coincidental, or is there some electrifying force at play that we have yet to comprehend?

This study not only sheds light on the curious relationship between political leanings and automotive safety but also sparks a charged debate on the zapping influence of partisan affiliations on everyday mechanisms. So, buckle up and prepare for a jolt of insights as we delve into the electrifying nexus of politics and automotive recalls.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection between politics and automotive safety may seem like an odd match at first glance, but as we delve into the nuanced dynamics at play, it becomes apparent that there's more amperage to this connection than meets the eye. While some may think that the only shocks in politics come from election outcomes, our study takes a closer look at the potentially electrifying relationship between Democratic votes in Arizona Senate races and automotive electrical system recalls.
The field of political science has often been charged with dissecting the intricacies of voting behavior and party dynamics, but our study, quite literally, adds a volt of excitement by examining the impact of political affiliations on automotive safety. Building on robust empirical data from established sources, our analysis seeks to illuminate the current (pun intended) that seemingly links the ballot box to the garage, forming a connection that sparks both intrigue and bewilderment.
As we venture into this uncharted territory, it is essential to switch gears and acknowledge the gravity of these findings. The correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 may be shocking to some, but we must resist the temptation to jump to hasty conclusions and remember that correlation does not imply causation. However, it's hard to overlook the tantalizing prospect that political leanings could be influencing the very wiring of our vehicles, potentially creating a political charge pulsing through the automotive industry.
This paper aims to spark a lively debate, not only about the statistical patterns uncovered but also about the larger implications for our understanding of the subtle interplay between political forces and everyday phenomena. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for an intellectual ride as we unravel the mysteries of this electrifying nexus, where the ballot meets the car battery.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

**RESULTS**

The analysis of the relationship between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8965039, indicating a strong positive relationship between these two seemingly disparate domains. The r-squared value of 0.8037193 signified that over 80% of the variance in automotive electrical system recalls could be explained by the variation in Democrat votes for senators in Arizona, lending further support to the robustness of our findings. The statistical significance of p < 0.01 reinforced the reliability of the observed association, highlighting the improbability of these results occurring by mere chance.

Furthermore, the scatterplot (Fig. 1) displayed a clear pattern, further emphasizing the compelling nature of the relationship. The spread of data points across the plot evoked a sense of order amidst the chaos, akin to neatly arranged electrical circuits in a perplexing political apparatus.

These compelling statistical insights not only contribute to the growing body of knowledge at the intersection of political science and automotive safety but also encourage us to re-evaluate the potential connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena. The electrifying relationship unearthed in this study serves as a potent reminder that academic inquiry, much like electrical currents, can often lead to unexpected and illuminating outcomes.


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 Arizona and Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System. 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]]
"Shocking Politics: The Electrifying Relationship Between Democratic Votes in Arizona Senate Races and Automotive Electrical System Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The interplay between political preferences and automotive safety has long been an area prime for scholarly inquiry. Building on existing literature, this paper seeks to investigate the puzzling connection between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 and p < 0.01 was uncovered for the years 1976 to 2020.

While the findings elicit fascination, the underlying mechanism driving this seemingly unlikely association appears murky. Is there a current for change in political winds that subsequently sparks a surge of electrical malfunctions in automobiles? Could it be purely coincidental, or is there some electrifying force at play that we have yet to comprehend?

This study not only sheds light on the curious relationship between political leanings and automotive safety but also sparks a charged debate on the zapping influence of partisan affiliations on everyday mechanisms. So, buckle up and prepare for a jolt of insights as we delve into the electrifying nexus of politics and automotive recalls.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Electoral Voltages and Automotive Currents: A Study of Arizona Senate Races" by Smith et al., the authors find a statistically significant correlation between the number of Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. The study, published in the Journal of Political Science, meticulously examines the voting patterns in relation to automotive safety trends, raising thought-provoking questions about the potential conduit between political affiliations and vehicular electrical defects.
Taking a closer look at historical data, Doe's "Power Struggle: The Nexus of Political Affiliations and Automotive Recalls" offers a comprehensive analysis of the broader implications of our findings. The author delves into the societal impact of political influences on automotive safety, shedding light on the potential ramifications for consumer confidence and regulatory oversight.
Moving beyond the academic realm, Jones' "Sparks of Change: Unraveling the Connection Between Politics and Auto Malfunctions" further explores the perplexing link between partisan leanings and electrical system recalls. This compelling work dives into the historical context and social dynamics that underscore the interplay between democracy and automotive mechanisms, igniting a fresh perspective on the subject matter.
But let's not stop there. Tapping into the broader landscape of literature, "The Shocking Truth About Politics and Cars" by Lorem Ipsum reveals a theoretical framework that attempts to illuminate the underlying currents of political influence on automotive safety. While the book's title may seem like a bolt from the blue, its unconventional approach to the subject matter certainly sparks curiosity.
Taking a whimsical detour, the fictional realms of literature offer unexpected insights into our topic. J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Engine Troubles" and George Orwell's "Animal Farm: A Tale of Voltage Regulation" surreptitiously delve into the world of automotive mishaps amid political intrigue, sparking nuanced discussions about power struggles in both the literal and metaphorical sense.
And who could forget the childhood classics that unknowingly laid the groundwork for our understanding of political-electrical relations? Cartoons like "The Electric Adventures of SpongeBob SquarePants" and "Inspector Gadget: Wiring Woes" infiltrated young minds with subtle hints of the electrifying nexus between politics and automotive systems, masquerading as innocent entertainment.
With such a diverse array of literature and media uncovering the web of connections between Democratic votes in Arizona Senate races and automotive electrical system recalls, it's clear that our research endeavors are charged with broader implications that extend beyond the confines of conventional scholarly discourse. So, as we march onward into the depths of our analysis, let's keep the spark of curiosity alive and embrace the electrifying journey that lies ahead.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the relationship between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8965039, indicating a strong positive relationship between these two seemingly disparate domains. The r-squared value of 0.8037193 signified that over 80% of the variance in automotive electrical system recalls could be explained by the variation in Democrat votes for senators in Arizona, lending further support to the robustness of our findings. The statistical significance of p < 0.01 reinforced the reliability of the observed association, highlighting the improbability of these results occurring by mere chance.
Furthermore, the scatterplot (Fig. 1) displayed a clear pattern, further emphasizing the compelling nature of the relationship. The spread of data points across the plot evoked a sense of order amidst the chaos, akin to neatly arranged electrical circuits in a perplexing political apparatus.
These compelling statistical insights not only contribute to the growing body of knowledge at the intersection of political science and automotive safety but also encourage us to re-evaluate the potential connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena. The electrifying relationship unearthed in this study serves as a potent reminder that academic inquiry, much like electrical currents, can often lead to unexpected and illuminating outcomes.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study bring to light an electrifying relationship between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. The robust correlation coefficient and statistical significance underscore the striking connection between these two seemingly incongruous realms. Our results not only align with previous research findings, as evident in the works of Smith et al. and Doe, but also shed light on the potentially influential role of political affiliations in shaping automotive safety trends. This revelation may serve as a powerful catalyst for reimagining the socio-political landscape within the automotive industry, urging us to consider the unexpected currents that may be running beneath the surface of seemingly unrelated domains.

As highlighted in the literature review, the scholarly discourse surrounding this enigmatic link has been permeated with thought-provoking studies and theoretical frameworks exploring the nuanced dynamics at play. The unconventional titles and whimsical detours taken by various authors and fictional works offer an unexpected depth of insight into the intricate interplay between politics and automotive mechanisms. By acknowledging and, in some cases, humorously embracing the unexpected and imaginative profundity that lies within these works, we are compelled to adopt a broader perspective on the electrifying nexus of politics and automotive recalls.

Our results resonate with the prior research, reinforcing the consistent and robust nature of the relationship between Democrat votes in Arizona Senate races and automotive electrical system recalls. The scatterplot exemplifies the orderly pattern found within the seemingly chaotic juxtaposition of political leanings and vehicular electrical defects, likening the spread of data points to the structured arrangement of electrical circuits. This visual depiction further expands our understanding of the intricate web of connections that underpin this captivating link, resonating with the broader themes present in the literature review and inviting us to delve deeper into the electrifying journey of enquiry.

In conclusion, the electrifying relationship uncovered in this study serves as a powerful testament to the unexpected outcomes that can stem from scholarly inquiry, akin to the unpredictable nature of electrical currents. As we navigate this uncharted terrain at the crossroads of politics and automotive safety, the sparks of curiosity continue to ignite our pursuit of understanding and challenge us to steer our academic endeavors toward unexpected and illuminating destinations.


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 Arizona and Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System. 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]]
"Shocking Politics: The Electrifying Relationship Between Democratic Votes in Arizona Senate Races and Automotive Electrical System Recalls"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The interplay between political preferences and automotive safety has long been an area prime for scholarly inquiry. Building on existing literature, this paper seeks to investigate the puzzling connection between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 and p < 0.01 was uncovered for the years 1976 to 2020.

While the findings elicit fascination, the underlying mechanism driving this seemingly unlikely association appears murky. Is there a current for change in political winds that subsequently sparks a surge of electrical malfunctions in automobiles? Could it be purely coincidental, or is there some electrifying force at play that we have yet to comprehend?

This study not only sheds light on the curious relationship between political leanings and automotive safety but also sparks a charged debate on the zapping influence of partisan affiliations on everyday mechanisms. So, buckle up and prepare for a jolt of insights as we delve into the electrifying nexus of politics and automotive recalls.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection between politics and automotive safety may seem like an odd match at first glance, but as we delve into the nuanced dynamics at play, it becomes apparent that there's more amperage to this connection than meets the eye. While some may think that the only shocks in politics come from election outcomes, our study takes a closer look at the potentially electrifying relationship between Democratic votes in Arizona Senate races and automotive electrical system recalls.
The field of political science has often been charged with dissecting the intricacies of voting behavior and party dynamics, but our study, quite literally, adds a volt of excitement by examining the impact of political affiliations on automotive safety. Building on robust empirical data from established sources, our analysis seeks to illuminate the current (pun intended) that seemingly links the ballot box to the garage, forming a connection that sparks both intrigue and bewilderment.
As we venture into this uncharted territory, it is essential to switch gears and acknowledge the gravity of these findings. The correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 may be shocking to some, but we must resist the temptation to jump to hasty conclusions and remember that correlation does not imply causation. However, it's hard to overlook the tantalizing prospect that political leanings could be influencing the very wiring of our vehicles, potentially creating a political charge pulsing through the automotive industry.
This paper aims to spark a lively debate, not only about the statistical patterns uncovered but also about the larger implications for our understanding of the subtle interplay between political forces and everyday phenomena. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for an intellectual ride as we unravel the mysteries of this electrifying nexus, where the ballot meets the car battery.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the relationship between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8965039, indicating a strong positive relationship between these two seemingly disparate domains. The r-squared value of 0.8037193 signified that over 80% of the variance in automotive electrical system recalls could be explained by the variation in Democrat votes for senators in Arizona, lending further support to the robustness of our findings. The statistical significance of p < 0.01 reinforced the reliability of the observed association, highlighting the improbability of these results occurring by mere chance.
Furthermore, the scatterplot (Fig. 1) displayed a clear pattern, further emphasizing the compelling nature of the relationship. The spread of data points across the plot evoked a sense of order amidst the chaos, akin to neatly arranged electrical circuits in a perplexing political apparatus.
These compelling statistical insights not only contribute to the growing body of knowledge at the intersection of political science and automotive safety but also encourage us to re-evaluate the potential connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena. The electrifying relationship unearthed in this study serves as a potent reminder that academic inquiry, much like electrical currents, can often lead to unexpected and illuminating outcomes.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has illuminated a shockingly strong connection between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. While this association may appear far-fetched at first glance, the robust statistical significance and the striking correlation coefficient suggest a compelling interplay between political dynamics and automotive safety. The r-squared value further underscores the extent to which variations in Democrat votes can explain the variance in electrical system recalls, leaving little room for doubting the magnitude of this relationship.

Despite these electrifying findings, it is important to exercise caution in drawing direct causal conclusions. The complex web of factors influencing automotive recalls and political voting patterns warrants further exploration, and we must resist the temptation to jumpstart premature interpretations.

Nevertheless, the jolt of insight provided by this study sparks a charged debate about the potential influence of political leanings on everyday mechanisms. By shedding light on this enigmatic nexus, our research encourages scholars to conduct more startling inquiries at the crossroads of politics and seemingly unrelated domains.

In closing, it seems that, in the realm of politics and automotive recalls, there is indeed a current for change. The allure of uncovering the mechanism behind this electrifying relationship is undeniable, but for now, we conclude that no more research is needed in this area. After all, we've already generated enough buzz!


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 Shocking Politics: The Electrifying Relationship Between Democratic Votes in Arizona Senate Races and Automotive Electrical System Recalls. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Automotive Current Affairs


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 Shocking Politics: The Electrifying Relationship Between Democratic Votes in Arizona Senate Races and Automotive Electrical System Recalls. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

Society for Applied Electromagnetic Politics and Automotive Systems 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 Shocking Politics: The Electrifying Relationship Between Democratic Votes in Arizona Senate Races and Automotive Electrical System Recalls with an abstract of The interplay between political preferences and automotive safety has long been an area prime for scholarly inquiry. Building on existing literature, this paper seeks to investigate the puzzling connection between Democrat votes for senators in Arizona and automotive recalls for issues with the electrical system. Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8965039 and p < 0.01 was uncovered for the years 1976 to 2020.
While the findings elicit fascination, the underlying mechanism driving this seemingly unlikely association appears murky. Is there a current for change in political winds that subsequently sparks a surge of electrical malfunctions in automobiles? Could it be purely coincidental, or is there some electrifying force at play that we have yet to comprehend?
This study not only sheds light on the curious relationship between political leanings and automotive safety but also sparks a charged debate on the zapping influence of partisan affiliations on everyday mechanisms. So, buckle up and prepare for a jolt of insights as we delve into the electrifying nexus of politics and automotive recalls.

ChatGPT:

Arizona Senate races, Democrat votes, automotive electrical system recalls, political preferences, automotive safety, correlation coefficient, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, US Department of Transportation, political winds, electrifying force, partisan affiliations, everyday mechanisms

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

Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System
Source: US DOT
See what else correlates with Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System

Correlation r = 0.8965039 (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 = 0.8037193 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 80.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Arizona) over the 15 years from 1976 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.04E-6. 0.0000060386401120351470000000
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 0.9 in 0.000604% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 165,600 random variables You don't actually need 165 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 14 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 14 because we have two variables measured over a period of 15 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.

[ 0.71, 0.97 ] 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.
197619801982198619881992199419982004200620102012201620182020
Votes for Democratic Senators in Arizona (Total votes)4003344229724119703409656604034363214425102752244045076641415920111036540103124011911001716630
Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System (Recalls)61210141415183636494555116131140




Why this works

  1. 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.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.




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([400334,422972,411970,340965,660403,436321,442510,275224,404507,664141,592011,1036540,1031240,1191100,1716630,])
array_2 = np.array([6,12,10,14,14,15,18,36,36,49,45,55,116,131,140,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Arizona"
array_2_name = "Automotive recalls for issues with the Electrical System"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Big thanks for reviewing!


Correlation ID: 4422 · Black Variable ID: 26201 · Red Variable ID: 1095
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0