about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,440 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in New Mexico and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion.  The chart goes from 1979 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the Democratic support sizzled in New Mexico, it created a real "frank-furter" frenzy. The surge in votes somehow sparked a wiener-takes-all mindset, leading to a bunless quest for victory. Maybe the competition just couldn't ketchup to the political excitement, or perhaps there's a link between ballot boxes and lunch boxes that we never knew existed!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [Funky and playful cartoon style] Create an image of a lively New Mexico town square where people are queuing at the voting booths. In the background, the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition is in full swing, adding a comical touch to the scene. The air is filled with the sizzle of hotdogs being cooked and the aroma of grilled meat. Intriguingly, amidst the political discussions, there's a chaotic sense of hotdog consumption, with the energy of the political race seemingly fueling the fervor for hotdogs. The visual should capture the essence of Democratic votes in New Mexico and the hotdog frenzy, all in a simplistic and colorful cartoon format. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in New Mexico and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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: 3D Pixar Style Cute cartoon Cute 2D animation Celtic art a Polaroid photo
ChatGPT: Cute cartoon

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in New Mexico and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, in the following situation: As the Democratic support sizzled in New Mexico, it created a real "frank-furter" frenzy. The surge in votes somehow sparked a wiener-takes-all mindset, leading to a bunless quest for victory. Maybe the competition just couldn't ketchup to the political excitement, or perhaps there's a link between ballot boxes and lunch boxes that we never knew existed!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling New Mexico town square, people are lined up at the voting booths. The air is filled with the sizzle of hotdogs as competitors at the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition gobble down their hotdogs in the background. The aroma of grilled meat and the sound of excitement mix with the buzz of political discussions. Amidst the cheers and the munching, it seems like the energy of the political race has somehow sparked a whirlwind of hotdog consumption. These scenes capture the essence of both the Democratic votes in New Mexico and the hotdog frenzy.

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: [ Cute cartoon ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling New Mexico town square, people are lined up at the voting booths. The air is filled with the sizzle of hotdogs as competitors at the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition gobble down their hotdogs in the background. The aroma of grilled meat and the sound of excitement mix with the buzz of political discussions. Amidst the cheers and the munching, it seems like the energy of the political race has somehow sparked a whirlwind of hotdog consumption. These scenes capture the essence of both the Democratic votes in New Mexico and the hotdog frenzy. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [Funky and playful cartoon style] Create an image of a lively New Mexico town square where people are queuing at the voting booths. In the background, the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition is in full swing, adding a comical touch to the scene. The air is filled with the sizzle of hotdogs being cooked and the aroma of grilled meat. Intriguingly, amidst the political discussions, there's a chaotic sense of hotdog consumption, with the energy of the political race seemingly fueling the fervor for hotdogs. The visual should capture the essence of Democratic votes in New Mexico and the hotdog frenzy, all in a simplistic and colorful cartoon format.

*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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in New Mexico caused Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption

The Journal of Culinary Politics and Quirky Statistics

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 goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in New Mexico and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Wikipedia to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and p < 0.01 for 1979 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]]
Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between political voting patterns and competitive eating has long been a subject of interest in the scientific community. In this research paper, we delve into the curious connection between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our research team reveals a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and p < 0.01 from 1979 to 2020. The implications of this wacky correlation are as tantalizing as a perfectly grilled hotdog – we invite readers to devour this research and relish in the unexpected ties between politics and competitive eating.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the 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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in New Mexico and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between political voting patterns and competitive eating has long been a subject of interest in the scientific community. In this research paper, we delve into the curious connection between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our research team reveals a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and p < 0.01 from 1979 to 2020. The implications of this wacky correlation are as tantalizing as a perfectly grilled hotdog – we invite readers to devour this research and relish in the unexpected ties between politics and competitive eating.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
**[[INTRODUCTION]]**

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed colleagues, and fellow hotdog enthusiasts, welcome to a research journey that will make you question everything you thought you knew about the world. Picture this: a state known for its scenic landscapes, rich culture, and green chile-infused cuisine – New Mexico. Now, imagine a fiercely contested presidential election with candidates vying for votes like contestants in a hotdog eating competition. Our research aims to uncover the mind-boggling link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena – the number of votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the prodigious consumption of hotdogs by none other than the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.

As social scientists, we are no strangers to uncovering unexpected connections, but this correlation has left us in a state of awe akin to finding an extra pickle in your sandwich – utterly surprising and, dare we say, relishable. The abstract, stiff-collar world of political analysis colliding with the stomach-churning, yet awe-inspiring realm of competitive eating – it's an academic concoction spicier than the hottest of mustards.

This study has not just unearthed a correlation; it has peeled back the proverbial bun to reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and a p-value that is so small, it would make even the most stringent statistician nod in approval. From 1979 to 2020, the data has left us in no doubt that there's more to this connection than case of mere statistical indigestion.

Now, skeptics may say, "Come on, are you trying to tell us that there's a legitimate link here, or are you just full of baloney?" Well, dear readers, we assure you that our analysis is as sound as a perfectly grilled frankfurter. Our statistical methods have been as rigorously applied as ketchup on a New York City street vendor's hotdog – with just the right amount of precision and messiness.

The implications of this discovery are as tantalizing as the smell of a hotdog cart on a crisp autumn day. We invite you to buckle up for a rollercoaster ride that's more thrilling and mysterious than the swirling condiments on a well-dressed dog. So fasten your seatbelts, hold onto your onions, and get ready to sink your academic teeth into the mind-bending, appetite-inducing world of Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in New Mexico and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make lots of 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 you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between political voting patterns and competitive eating has long been a subject of interest in the scientific community. In this research paper, we delve into the curious connection between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our research team reveals a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and p < 0.01 from 1979 to 2020. The implications of this wacky correlation are as tantalizing as a perfectly grilled hotdog – we invite readers to devour this research and relish in the unexpected ties between politics and competitive eating.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed colleagues, and fellow hotdog enthusiasts, welcome to a research journey that will make you question everything you thought you knew about the world. Picture this: a state known for its scenic landscapes, rich culture, and green chile-infused cuisine – New Mexico. Now, imagine a fiercely contested presidential election with candidates vying for votes like contestants in a hotdog eating competition. Our research aims to uncover the mind-boggling link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena – the number of votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the prodigious consumption of hotdogs by none other than the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.
As social scientists, we are no strangers to uncovering unexpected connections, but this correlation has left us in a state of awe akin to finding an extra pickle in your sandwich – utterly surprising and, dare we say, relishable. The abstract, stiff-collar world of political analysis colliding with the stomach-churning, yet awe-inspiring realm of competitive eating – it's an academic concoction spicier than the hottest of mustards.
This study has not just unearthed a correlation; it has peeled back the proverbial bun to reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and a p-value that is so small, it would make even the most stringent statistician nod in approval. From 1979 to 2020, the data has left us in no doubt that there's more to this connection than case of mere statistical indigestion.
Now, skeptics may say, "Come on, are you trying to tell us that there's a legitimate link here, or are you just full of baloney?" Well, dear readers, we assure you that our analysis is as sound as a perfectly grilled frankfurter. Our statistical methods have been as rigorously applied as ketchup on a New York City street vendor's hotdog – with just the right amount of precision and messiness.
The implications of this discovery are as tantalizing as the smell of a hotdog cart on a crisp autumn day. We invite you to buckle up for a rollercoaster ride that's more thrilling and mysterious than the swirling condiments on a well-dressed dog. So fasten your seatbelts, hold onto your onions, and get ready to sink your academic teeth into the mind-bending, appetite-inducing world of Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The wacky correlation between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition has sent shockwaves through the academic community. The discovery of this unlikely pairing has led researchers to scour through a wide array of literature in an attempt to shed light on this unexpected connection.

Smith et al. conducted a comprehensive analysis in "Political Appetites: Exploring Unconventional Correlations," and while their research primarily focused on the correlation between political ideologies and food preferences, their findings laid the groundwork for our current investigation. They concluded that individuals with more liberal leanings tended to favor organic, sustainably-sourced hotdogs, establishing a link between political affiliations and hotdog consumption.

On the other hand, Doe and Jones delved into the world of competitive eating in "Guts and Glory: The Science of Extreme Consumption." Their work provided valuable insights into the physiological and psychological aspects of competitive eating, shedding light on the inner workings of the minds and stomachs of the hotdog-eating champions. While their study did not directly address political voting patterns, it offered a fascinating glimpse into the eating habits and gastronomic feats of competitive eaters.

Moving to non-fiction books related to the topic, "Hotdogonomics: A Statistical Analysis of Competitive Eating Championships" by M. Bun explores the economics of competitive eating and its potential impact on political landscapes. Meanwhile, "The Presidential Palate: A Culinary History of American Politics" by C. Sizzle provides a delectable account of the culinary preferences and quirks of presidential candidates throughout history, offering an intriguing perspective on the intersection of politics and food.

As we venture into the world of fiction, "The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Bunless plunges us into a dystopian world where food consumption takes center stage in a battle for survival, offering a unique lens through which to contemplate the connections between competition, sustenance, and power. In a similar vein, "A Feast for Crows" by George R.R. Frankfurter immerses readers in a tantalizing tale of political intrigue and culinary indulgence in the fantastical realm of Westeros.

In a daring leap into unconventional sources, our research team dove into the animated series "Scooby-Doo" to uncover hidden clues and solve the mystery of the mystifying correlation. While the gang's escapades provided a welcome break from the academic rigors, they unfortunately failed to offer any substantial insights into the unlikely connection between political votes and hotdog consumption. Moreover, binge-watching episodes of "SpongeBob SquarePants" failed to yield any relevant data but did leave us with a newfound appreciation for underwater pineapple architecture.

In the next section, we will embark on a statistical escapade to analyze the jaw-dropping correlation between these seemingly disparate elements, and perhaps uncover some unexpected mustard-covered truths along the way. So, dear readers, fasten your bibs and get ready to digest some statistical delicacies as we delve into the heart of this peculiar pairing.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in New Mexico and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make lots of 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 Wikipedia . You used data from 1979 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]]
Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between political voting patterns and competitive eating has long been a subject of interest in the scientific community. In this research paper, we delve into the curious connection between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our research team reveals a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and p < 0.01 from 1979 to 2020. The implications of this wacky correlation are as tantalizing as a perfectly grilled hotdog – we invite readers to devour this research and relish in the unexpected ties between politics and competitive eating.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed colleagues, and fellow hotdog enthusiasts, welcome to a research journey that will make you question everything you thought you knew about the world. Picture this: a state known for its scenic landscapes, rich culture, and green chile-infused cuisine – New Mexico. Now, imagine a fiercely contested presidential election with candidates vying for votes like contestants in a hotdog eating competition. Our research aims to uncover the mind-boggling link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena – the number of votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the prodigious consumption of hotdogs by none other than the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.
As social scientists, we are no strangers to uncovering unexpected connections, but this correlation has left us in a state of awe akin to finding an extra pickle in your sandwich – utterly surprising and, dare we say, relishable. The abstract, stiff-collar world of political analysis colliding with the stomach-churning, yet awe-inspiring realm of competitive eating – it's an academic concoction spicier than the hottest of mustards.
This study has not just unearthed a correlation; it has peeled back the proverbial bun to reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and a p-value that is so small, it would make even the most stringent statistician nod in approval. From 1979 to 2020, the data has left us in no doubt that there's more to this connection than case of mere statistical indigestion.
Now, skeptics may say, "Come on, are you trying to tell us that there's a legitimate link here, or are you just full of baloney?" Well, dear readers, we assure you that our analysis is as sound as a perfectly grilled frankfurter. Our statistical methods have been as rigorously applied as ketchup on a New York City street vendor's hotdog – with just the right amount of precision and messiness.
The implications of this discovery are as tantalizing as the smell of a hotdog cart on a crisp autumn day. We invite you to buckle up for a rollercoaster ride that's more thrilling and mysterious than the swirling condiments on a well-dressed dog. So fasten your seatbelts, hold onto your onions, and get ready to sink your academic teeth into the mind-bending, appetite-inducing world of Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To dive into the tantalizing world of Weiner Winner, we embarked on a methodological journey that would make even the most zealous statistician do a double take. Our data collection process was as rigorous as a competitive eater's training regimen, encompassing sources from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and, of course, the mecca of all knowledge – Wikipedia. We embraced the chaos of the internet like a swirl of mustard on a hotdog, sifting through historical records from 1979 to 2020 to uncover the surprising connection between political preferences and the art of hotdog devouring.

First and foremost, we gathered data on the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico during each election cycle. This involved trawling through official election reports, verifying the numbers with multiple sources, and ensuring that our dataset was as robust as a well-constructed hotdog bun.

Simultaneously, we set our sights on the world of competitive eating, focusing on the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. This task involved combing through archived records, press releases, and video footage to quantify the astonishing feats of hotdog ingestion by the reigning champions. We left no bun unturned in our quest for accurate and comprehensive data.

Once we had assembled our datasets like condiments on a hotdog, we unleashed the power of statistical analysis with the fervor of a hungry patron approaching a hotdog stand at closing time. Our calculations traversed the realms of correlation coefficients, p-values, and regression analyses, seeking to unveil the hidden ties between politics and competitive eating.

Our statistical methods were as precise as threading a needle through the eye of a mustard bottle – we utilized advanced software to conduct robust analyses, ensuring that our findings were as solid as a well-charred frankfurter. With a wink to conventional wisdom and a nod to the unconventional nature of our research, we embraced the unexpected twists and turns of our data like the spiral of a perfectly crafted hotdog.

In summary, our methodological approach was a fusion of meticulous data gathering, rigorous statistical analysis, and a healthy dose of humor – much like the ideal combination of toppings on a hotdog. Our journey may have been unconventional, but the findings we present carry the weight of scholarly rigor and the spirit of academic curiosity.



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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in New Mexico and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make lots of 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 Wikipedia .

For the time period 1979 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9411470, r-squared of 0.8857576, 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]]
Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between political voting patterns and competitive eating has long been a subject of interest in the scientific community. In this research paper, we delve into the curious connection between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our research team reveals a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and p < 0.01 from 1979 to 2020. The implications of this wacky correlation are as tantalizing as a perfectly grilled hotdog – we invite readers to devour this research and relish in the unexpected ties between politics and competitive eating.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed colleagues, and fellow hotdog enthusiasts, welcome to a research journey that will make you question everything you thought you knew about the world. Picture this: a state known for its scenic landscapes, rich culture, and green chile-infused cuisine – New Mexico. Now, imagine a fiercely contested presidential election with candidates vying for votes like contestants in a hotdog eating competition. Our research aims to uncover the mind-boggling link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena – the number of votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the prodigious consumption of hotdogs by none other than the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.
As social scientists, we are no strangers to uncovering unexpected connections, but this correlation has left us in a state of awe akin to finding an extra pickle in your sandwich – utterly surprising and, dare we say, relishable. The abstract, stiff-collar world of political analysis colliding with the stomach-churning, yet awe-inspiring realm of competitive eating – it's an academic concoction spicier than the hottest of mustards.
This study has not just unearthed a correlation; it has peeled back the proverbial bun to reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and a p-value that is so small, it would make even the most stringent statistician nod in approval. From 1979 to 2020, the data has left us in no doubt that there's more to this connection than case of mere statistical indigestion.
Now, skeptics may say, "Come on, are you trying to tell us that there's a legitimate link here, or are you just full of baloney?" Well, dear readers, we assure you that our analysis is as sound as a perfectly grilled frankfurter. Our statistical methods have been as rigorously applied as ketchup on a New York City street vendor's hotdog – with just the right amount of precision and messiness.
The implications of this discovery are as tantalizing as the smell of a hotdog cart on a crisp autumn day. We invite you to buckle up for a rollercoaster ride that's more thrilling and mysterious than the swirling condiments on a well-dressed dog. So fasten your seatbelts, hold onto your onions, and get ready to sink your academic teeth into the mind-bending, appetite-inducing world of Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our investigation left our research team more amused than a clown at a hotdog-eating contest. We found a positively staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and an r-squared value of 0.8857576 between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. As for the p-value, well, let's just say it was so small that it could fit on the tiniest bun imaginable – p < 0.01.

To visually showcase this eyebrow-raising correlation, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that graphically illustrates the jaw-dropping relationship between these two variables. Seeing the data points on the scatterplot align so snugly is as satisfying as perfectly arranging toppings on a hotdog – a visual feast for the eyes, if you will.

Now, we know what you're thinking. What in the world could possibly explain this correlation? Did the aroma of democracy waft through the air and pique the appetites of competitive eaters? Did the spirit of friendly competition seep into political voting booths and influence choices? We're just as baffled as you are, and we can assure you that our research team explored numerous hypotheses, from the effects of campaign slogans on appetite to the potential influence of hotdog condiments on political ideologies.

In the end, though, we're left with a correlation so strong that it could hold together a heaping stack of hotdog buns without breaking a sweat. The implications of our findings are as plentiful as the toppings on a loaded hotdog. This unexpected tie between voting patterns and competitive eating may have profound implications for our understanding of human behavior and the intersection of gastronomic and political realms. It just goes to show that in the world of statistical analysis, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, and the unexpected can turn out to be the star of the show.

So, buckle up, dear readers, as we navigate through the wild world of Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption. This groundbreaking discovery may just be the ketchup on top of the hotdog of human knowledge – utterly unexpected, yet somehow irresistibly delicious.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in New Mexico and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make lots of 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]]
Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between political voting patterns and competitive eating has long been a subject of interest in the scientific community. In this research paper, we delve into the curious connection between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our research team reveals a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and p < 0.01 from 1979 to 2020. The implications of this wacky correlation are as tantalizing as a perfectly grilled hotdog – we invite readers to devour this research and relish in the unexpected ties between politics and competitive eating.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The wacky correlation between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition has sent shockwaves through the academic community. The discovery of this unlikely pairing has led researchers to scour through a wide array of literature in an attempt to shed light on this unexpected connection.
Smith et al. conducted a comprehensive analysis in "Political Appetites: Exploring Unconventional Correlations," and while their research primarily focused on the correlation between political ideologies and food preferences, their findings laid the groundwork for our current investigation. They concluded that individuals with more liberal leanings tended to favor organic, sustainably-sourced hotdogs, establishing a link between political affiliations and hotdog consumption.
On the other hand, Doe and Jones delved into the world of competitive eating in "Guts and Glory: The Science of Extreme Consumption." Their work provided valuable insights into the physiological and psychological aspects of competitive eating, shedding light on the inner workings of the minds and stomachs of the hotdog-eating champions. While their study did not directly address political voting patterns, it offered a fascinating glimpse into the eating habits and gastronomic feats of competitive eaters.
Moving to non-fiction books related to the topic, "Hotdogonomics: A Statistical Analysis of Competitive Eating Championships" by M. Bun explores the economics of competitive eating and its potential impact on political landscapes. Meanwhile, "The Presidential Palate: A Culinary History of American Politics" by C. Sizzle provides a delectable account of the culinary preferences and quirks of presidential candidates throughout history, offering an intriguing perspective on the intersection of politics and food.
As we venture into the world of fiction, "The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Bunless plunges us into a dystopian world where food consumption takes center stage in a battle for survival, offering a unique lens through which to contemplate the connections between competition, sustenance, and power. In a similar vein, "A Feast for Crows" by George R.R. Frankfurter immerses readers in a tantalizing tale of political intrigue and culinary indulgence in the fantastical realm of Westeros.
In a daring leap into unconventional sources, our research team dove into the animated series "Scooby-Doo" to uncover hidden clues and solve the mystery of the mystifying correlation. While the gang's escapades provided a welcome break from the academic rigors, they unfortunately failed to offer any substantial insights into the unlikely connection between political votes and hotdog consumption. Moreover, binge-watching episodes of "SpongeBob SquarePants" failed to yield any relevant data but did leave us with a newfound appreciation for underwater pineapple architecture.
In the next section, we will embark on a statistical escapade to analyze the jaw-dropping correlation between these seemingly disparate elements, and perhaps uncover some unexpected mustard-covered truths along the way. So, dear readers, fasten your bibs and get ready to digest some statistical delicacies as we delve into the heart of this peculiar pairing.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation left our research team more amused than a clown at a hotdog-eating contest. We found a positively staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and an r-squared value of 0.8857576 between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. As for the p-value, well, let's just say it was so small that it could fit on the tiniest bun imaginable – p < 0.01.
To visually showcase this eyebrow-raising correlation, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that graphically illustrates the jaw-dropping relationship between these two variables. Seeing the data points on the scatterplot align so snugly is as satisfying as perfectly arranging toppings on a hotdog – a visual feast for the eyes, if you will.
Now, we know what you're thinking. What in the world could possibly explain this correlation? Did the aroma of democracy waft through the air and pique the appetites of competitive eaters? Did the spirit of friendly competition seep into political voting booths and influence choices? We're just as baffled as you are, and we can assure you that our research team explored numerous hypotheses, from the effects of campaign slogans on appetite to the potential influence of hotdog condiments on political ideologies.
In the end, though, we're left with a correlation so strong that it could hold together a heaping stack of hotdog buns without breaking a sweat. The implications of our findings are as plentiful as the toppings on a loaded hotdog. This unexpected tie between voting patterns and competitive eating may have profound implications for our understanding of human behavior and the intersection of gastronomic and political realms. It just goes to show that in the world of statistical analysis, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, and the unexpected can turn out to be the star of the show.
So, buckle up, dear readers, as we navigate through the wild world of Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption. This groundbreaking discovery may just be the ketchup on top of the hotdog of human knowledge – utterly unexpected, yet somehow irresistibly delicious.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Well, hot diggity dog, we've certainly unearthed a correlation that's as surprising as finding a pickle in a peanut butter jar! Our results not only confirm, but amplify, the findings of previous research ventures that danced around this curious connection between political voting patterns and competitive eating.

Taking a cue from Smith et al., who tantalizingly pointed towards the political leanings of hotdog aficionados, our study further supports the notion that there might indeed be a link between one's political proclivities and their affinity for downing hotdogs. It's almost as if the aroma of democracy has seeped its way into the realm of competitive eating, influencing the consumption habits of the hotdog-chomping champions. Who knew that political ideologies could have such a sizzling impact on gastronomic preferences?

Moreover, Doe and Jones' exploration of the physiological and psychological aspects of competitive eating, while not directly addressing political voting patterns, provides a deeper understanding of the champion hotdog eaters' voracious appetites. It seems these consummate competitors not only feast on hotdogs but potentially also on the zeitgeist of political fervor, as reflected in our robust correlation findings.

Drawing inspiration from M. Bun's "Hotdogonomics," we now have statistical evidence to bolster the argument that competitive eating may indeed have implications on political landscapes. Could it be that the victorious chomping of hotdogs sends ripples through the political sphere, influencing voter behavior in New Mexico? Our results suggest that there might be something to chew on here.

As we emerge from this statistical adventure, it's abundantly clear that the connection between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion is not only a statistical oddity but a potent reminder that truth can be more deliciously bizarre than fiction.

So, as we step back from our buffet of statistical delights, let's not forget that the world of research is a grand feast of discovery. Our findings, though unexpected, offer a flavorful insight into the whimsical ways in which human behavior intersects with the most unlikely of partners. We've uncovered a correlation that's as wild as a mustard-drenched rollercoaster ride, and it's a testament to the charmingly unpredictable nature of academic inquiry.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in New Mexico and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make lots of 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]]
Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption

[[ABSTRACT]]
The relationship between political voting patterns and competitive eating has long been a subject of interest in the scientific community. In this research paper, we delve into the curious connection between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our research team reveals a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and p < 0.01 from 1979 to 2020. The implications of this wacky correlation are as tantalizing as a perfectly grilled hotdog – we invite readers to devour this research and relish in the unexpected ties between politics and competitive eating.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed colleagues, and fellow hotdog enthusiasts, welcome to a research journey that will make you question everything you thought you knew about the world. Picture this: a state known for its scenic landscapes, rich culture, and green chile-infused cuisine – New Mexico. Now, imagine a fiercely contested presidential election with candidates vying for votes like contestants in a hotdog eating competition. Our research aims to uncover the mind-boggling link between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena – the number of votes cast for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the prodigious consumption of hotdogs by none other than the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.
As social scientists, we are no strangers to uncovering unexpected connections, but this correlation has left us in a state of awe akin to finding an extra pickle in your sandwich – utterly surprising and, dare we say, relishable. The abstract, stiff-collar world of political analysis colliding with the stomach-churning, yet awe-inspiring realm of competitive eating – it's an academic concoction spicier than the hottest of mustards.
This study has not just unearthed a correlation; it has peeled back the proverbial bun to reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and a p-value that is so small, it would make even the most stringent statistician nod in approval. From 1979 to 2020, the data has left us in no doubt that there's more to this connection than case of mere statistical indigestion.
Now, skeptics may say, "Come on, are you trying to tell us that there's a legitimate link here, or are you just full of baloney?" Well, dear readers, we assure you that our analysis is as sound as a perfectly grilled frankfurter. Our statistical methods have been as rigorously applied as ketchup on a New York City street vendor's hotdog – with just the right amount of precision and messiness.
The implications of this discovery are as tantalizing as the smell of a hotdog cart on a crisp autumn day. We invite you to buckle up for a rollercoaster ride that's more thrilling and mysterious than the swirling condiments on a well-dressed dog. So fasten your seatbelts, hold onto your onions, and get ready to sink your academic teeth into the mind-bending, appetite-inducing world of Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation left our research team more amused than a clown at a hotdog-eating contest. We found a positively staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and an r-squared value of 0.8857576 between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. As for the p-value, well, let's just say it was so small that it could fit on the tiniest bun imaginable – p < 0.01.
To visually showcase this eyebrow-raising correlation, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that graphically illustrates the jaw-dropping relationship between these two variables. Seeing the data points on the scatterplot align so snugly is as satisfying as perfectly arranging toppings on a hotdog – a visual feast for the eyes, if you will.
Now, we know what you're thinking. What in the world could possibly explain this correlation? Did the aroma of democracy waft through the air and pique the appetites of competitive eaters? Did the spirit of friendly competition seep into political voting booths and influence choices? We're just as baffled as you are, and we can assure you that our research team explored numerous hypotheses, from the effects of campaign slogans on appetite to the potential influence of hotdog condiments on political ideologies.
In the end, though, we're left with a correlation so strong that it could hold together a heaping stack of hotdog buns without breaking a sweat. The implications of our findings are as plentiful as the toppings on a loaded hotdog. This unexpected tie between voting patterns and competitive eating may have profound implications for our understanding of human behavior and the intersection of gastronomic and political realms. It just goes to show that in the world of statistical analysis, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, and the unexpected can turn out to be the star of the show.
So, buckle up, dear readers, as we navigate through the wild world of Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption. This groundbreaking discovery may just be the ketchup on top of the hotdog of human knowledge – utterly unexpected, yet somehow irresistibly delicious.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has left us with a proverbial hotdog of a discovery – a correlation so surprising, it's sizzling. The positively staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 between votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and hotdog consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion has left us in a state of disbelief akin to finding a vegetarian hotdog at a chili cook-off.

We've delved into the statistical relish of our findings, leaving no mustard seed unturned. The implications of this wacky correlation are as tantalizing as the aroma of a hotdog cart on a crisp autumn day - it's a rollercoaster ride that's more thrilling and mysterious than the swirling condiments on a well-dressed dog.

Now, some may question the legitimacy of this correlation, asking if it's just a load of baloney. But trust us, dear readers, we've applied our statistical methods with the precision of a New York City street vendor's ketchup application - no haphazard sloppiness here!

As for the potential explanations behind this correlation, well, that's a mystery we're still chewing on. Could the spirit of democracy have stimulated the appetites of competitive eaters, or did the allure of hotdog toppings influence political ideologies? The possibilities are as boundless as the number of toppings on a loaded hotdog.

In the grand tradition of academic inquiry, we assert with utter confidence that no further research in this area is needed. Case closed, our friends. This Weiner Winner of a correlation stands as a testament to the profoundly weird and wonderful quirks of human behavior, and may it serve as a reminder that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Cheers to the unexpected, dear colleagues, and may the correlation be ever in your favor!


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 Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Culinary Politics and Quirky Statistics


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 Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Sausage Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Weiner Winner: Wacky Correlation between Dem Votes in New Mexico and Nathan's Hot Dog Consumption with an abstract of The relationship between political voting patterns and competitive eating has long been a subject of interest in the scientific community. In this research paper, we delve into the curious connection between the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in New Mexico and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Utilizing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our research team reveals a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9411470 and p < 0.01 from 1979 to 2020. The implications of this wacky correlation are as tantalizing as a perfectly grilled hotdog – we invite readers to devour this research and relish in the unexpected ties between politics and competitive eating.

ChatGPT:

"democratic votes New Mexico correlation," "Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion," "MIT Election Data and Science Lab," "Harvard Dataverse," "political voting patterns," "hot dog consumption statistics," "New Mexico presidential voting behavior," "correlation coefficient," "competitive eating research," "politics and eating habits," "Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest history," "democratic presidential candidate voting," "New Mexico voting trends."

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in New Mexico
Detailed data title: Total votes cast for the Democrat Presidential candidate in New Mexico
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in New Mexico

Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Detailed data title: Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

Correlation r = 0.9411470 (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 = 0.8857576 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 88.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in New Mexico) over the 11 years from 1979 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.6E-5. 0.0000156447951470296900000000
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 0.94 in 0.0016% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 63,919 random variables You don't actually need 63 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 10 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 10 because we have two variables measured over a period of 11 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.78, 0.98 ] 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.
19801984198819921996200020042008201220162020
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in New Mexico (Total votes)167826201769244497261617273495286783370942472422415335385234501614
Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion (Hotdogs eaten)9.59.5101922.252553.3359687075




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.




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([167826,201769,244497,261617,273495,286783,370942,472422,415335,385234,501614,])
array_2 = np.array([9.5,9.5,10,19,22.25,25,53.33,59,68,70,75,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in New Mexico"
array_2_name = "Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

# 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?

Thanks for being the explorer we needed!


Correlation ID: 4440 · Black Variable ID: 26010 · Red Variable ID: 500
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0