about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,469 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the second variable is Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image

AI explanation

The shift in political climate led to a literal shift in climate - Turns out, when Republican votes for Senators in Ohio decreased, it caused a ripple effect on the local weather patterns. Fewer votes meant fewer hot air speeches, which in turn, led to a cooling trend. And as we all know, when it rains, it pours, but this time, the birds had to find a new political roost to weather the storm. So, next time you're wondering where the birds go when it rains, just look to Capitol Hill for the forecast!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Description: In the image, the state of Ohio is depicted with rolling green hills and a sunlit sky. However, the clouds in the distance are notably darker, foreshadowing the approaching change in weather. As raindrops begin to fall, a flock of birds is captured in the foreground. With their wings outstretched, they appear to be seeking shelter from the unexpected rain. The scene reflects the sense of urgency and confusion as the birds navigate the unanticipated climate shift. 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: Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. 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: Charcoal Low poly Art nouveau Scalar art a funny image macro
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 Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains', in the following situation: The shift in political climate led to a literal shift in climate - Turns out, when Republican votes for Senators in Ohio decreased, it caused a ripple effect on the local weather patterns. Fewer votes meant fewer hot air speeches, which in turn, led to a cooling trend. And as we all know, when it rains, it pours, but this time, the birds had to find a new political roost to weather the storm. So, next time you're wondering where the birds go when it rains, just look to Capitol Hill for the forecast!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a picturesque scene, we see the state of Ohio, where fewer Republican votes for Senators have caused a shift in the weather. The sky is cloudier than usual, and raindrops begin to fall. Amidst the rain, a flock of birds is seen frantically seeking shelter, their Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' left unanswered as they navigate the changing climate brought about by the fluctuating political landscape.

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: In a picturesque scene, we see the state of Ohio, where fewer Republican votes for Senators have caused a shift in the weather. The sky is cloudier than usual, and raindrops begin to fall. Amidst the rain, a flock of birds is seen frantically seeking shelter, their Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' left unanswered as they navigate the changing climate brought about by the fluctuating political landscape. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Description: In the image, the state of Ohio is depicted with rolling green hills and a sunlit sky. However, the clouds in the distance are notably darker, foreshadowing the approaching change in weather. As raindrops begin to fall, a flock of birds is captured in the foreground. With their wings outstretched, they appear to be seeking shelter from the unexpected rain. The scene reflects the sense of urgency and confusion as the birds navigate the unanticipated climate shift.

*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 a decrease in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio caused where do birds go when it rains (Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains') to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

Journal of Avian Political Behavior

Jan 2024
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 dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, make it sound serious.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9060083 and p < 0.05 for 2004 to 2018.

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]]
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper endeavors to explore the unlikely connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the public's curiosity about the whereabouts of birds during rainfall, as indicated by Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, the study identified a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9060083 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2018. The findings provoke both bemusement and intellectual intrigue. This unexpected association between political preference and ornithological curiosity suggests that voters may exhibit a penchant for avian-themed musings during electoral cycles. The resulting implications inspire further inquiry into the whimsical and unforeseen factors that may influence civic engagement and information-seeking behaviors. This revelatory research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking lens through which to view the confluence of seemingly disparate human interests.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper endeavors to explore the unlikely connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the public's curiosity about the whereabouts of birds during rainfall, as indicated by Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, the study identified a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9060083 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2018. The findings provoke both bemusement and intellectual intrigue. This unexpected association between political preference and ornithological curiosity suggests that voters may exhibit a penchant for avian-themed musings during electoral cycles. The resulting implications inspire further inquiry into the whimsical and unforeseen factors that may influence civic engagement and information-seeking behaviors. This revelatory research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking lens through which to view the confluence of seemingly disparate human interests.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

[[INTRODUCTION]]

The world of statistical analysis and academic research is often thought of as a serious and somber domain, replete with stern-faced scholars poring over mountains of data. However, in the spirit of embracing the unexpected and unraveling the mysteries of human behavior, we embark upon a journey that takes us from the ballot box to the natural world, in an attempt to fathom the whimsical dance between political inclinations and avian inquisitions.

The voracious curiosity of the human mind knows no bounds, and one may argue that the desire to understand the plights of our feathered friends during precipitation is as natural as the urge to partake in the democratic process. It is within this peculiar intersection of avian rainy day musings and civic engagement that our investigation unfolds, guided by the compass of statistical inquiry and the enigma of human predilections.

As we delve into this unconventional realm, we are reminded of the words of the renowned scientist Carl Sagan, who astutely noted, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Little did we anticipate that this incredible "something" would manifest in the form of a hidden relationship between voting patterns and avian precipitation ponderings in the American state of Ohio.

Our scholarly quest is propelled by a fervent desire to unravel the enigma that has eluded conventional wisdom and confounded the realm of political sociology. The present study brings forth a lighthearted yet compelling narrative that traverses the terrain of statistical significance and intellectual delight, urging us to embrace the unexpected and view the interplay of human curiosity and political leanings through an unconventional lens.

Join us in this intellectual romp, as we unravel the odd, the delightful, and the statistically significant, all while keeping a keen eye on the ballot box and the skyward gaze of avian aficionados.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. 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 name a few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper endeavors to explore the unlikely connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the public's curiosity about the whereabouts of birds during rainfall, as indicated by Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, the study identified a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9060083 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2018. The findings provoke both bemusement and intellectual intrigue. This unexpected association between political preference and ornithological curiosity suggests that voters may exhibit a penchant for avian-themed musings during electoral cycles. The resulting implications inspire further inquiry into the whimsical and unforeseen factors that may influence civic engagement and information-seeking behaviors. This revelatory research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking lens through which to view the confluence of seemingly disparate human interests.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

The world of statistical analysis and academic research is often thought of as a serious and somber domain, replete with stern-faced scholars poring over mountains of data. However, in the spirit of embracing the unexpected and unraveling the mysteries of human behavior, we embark upon a journey that takes us from the ballot box to the natural world, in an attempt to fathom the whimsical dance between political inclinations and avian inquisitions.
The voracious curiosity of the human mind knows no bounds, and one may argue that the desire to understand the plights of our feathered friends during precipitation is as natural as the urge to partake in the democratic process. It is within this peculiar intersection of avian rainy day musings and civic engagement that our investigation unfolds, guided by the compass of statistical inquiry and the enigma of human predilections.
As we delve into this unconventional realm, we are reminded of the words of the renowned scientist Carl Sagan, who astutely noted, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Little did we anticipate that this incredible "something" would manifest in the form of a hidden relationship between voting patterns and avian precipitation ponderings in the American state of Ohio.
Our scholarly quest is propelled by a fervent desire to unravel the enigma that has eluded conventional wisdom and confounded the realm of political sociology. The present study brings forth a lighthearted yet compelling narrative that traverses the terrain of statistical significance and intellectual delight, urging us to embrace the unexpected and view the interplay of human curiosity and political leanings through an unconventional lens.
Join us in this intellectual romp, as we unravel the odd, the delightful, and the statistically significant, all while keeping a keen eye on the ballot box and the skyward gaze of avian aficionados.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

To contextualize the unexpected correlation between Republican votes in Ohio and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains," it is imperative to delve into the existing literature on voter behavior, avian ecology, and the whimsical interplay between politics and ornithological curiosity. Smith et al. (2015) employed a rigorous quantitative analysis to examine voting patterns in Ohio, revealing insights into political affiliations and electoral dynamics. Similarly, Doe et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive investigation into internet search trends, shedding light on the public's information-seeking behaviors in the digital age. Furthermore, Jones (2019) explored the enigmatic world of avian behavior, unraveling the mysteries of avian migration and survival strategies in adverse weather conditions.

In the realm of avian literature, "The Genius of Birds" by Jennifer Ackerman and "What the Robin Knows" by Jon Young offer profound insights into the intricate lives of avian creatures, captivating readers with stories of avian intelligence and survival instincts. Turning to the realm of fiction, works such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "The Thorn Birds" by Colleen McCullough evoke stirring imagery of birds and their symbolic significance in literature and human imagination.

The researchers' quest for understanding avian-themed queries in the context of political affiliation led them to investigate TV shows such as "Birdland" and "Twin Peaks," tapping into the depiction of avian symbolism and natural phenomena in popular culture. This peculiar blend of serious inquiry and whimsical exploration sets the stage for unraveling the enthralling mystery of the feathered ballot, where political leanings and avian musings converge in an intellectual dance of statistical significance and improbable connections.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2018

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper endeavors to explore the unlikely connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the public's curiosity about the whereabouts of birds during rainfall, as indicated by Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, the study identified a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9060083 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2018. The findings provoke both bemusement and intellectual intrigue. This unexpected association between political preference and ornithological curiosity suggests that voters may exhibit a penchant for avian-themed musings during electoral cycles. The resulting implications inspire further inquiry into the whimsical and unforeseen factors that may influence civic engagement and information-seeking behaviors. This revelatory research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking lens through which to view the confluence of seemingly disparate human interests.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

The world of statistical analysis and academic research is often thought of as a serious and somber domain, replete with stern-faced scholars poring over mountains of data. However, in the spirit of embracing the unexpected and unraveling the mysteries of human behavior, we embark upon a journey that takes us from the ballot box to the natural world, in an attempt to fathom the whimsical dance between political inclinations and avian inquisitions.
The voracious curiosity of the human mind knows no bounds, and one may argue that the desire to understand the plights of our feathered friends during precipitation is as natural as the urge to partake in the democratic process. It is within this peculiar intersection of avian rainy day musings and civic engagement that our investigation unfolds, guided by the compass of statistical inquiry and the enigma of human predilections.
As we delve into this unconventional realm, we are reminded of the words of the renowned scientist Carl Sagan, who astutely noted, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Little did we anticipate that this incredible "something" would manifest in the form of a hidden relationship between voting patterns and avian precipitation ponderings in the American state of Ohio.
Our scholarly quest is propelled by a fervent desire to unravel the enigma that has eluded conventional wisdom and confounded the realm of political sociology. The present study brings forth a lighthearted yet compelling narrative that traverses the terrain of statistical significance and intellectual delight, urging us to embrace the unexpected and view the interplay of human curiosity and political leanings through an unconventional lens.
Join us in this intellectual romp, as we unravel the odd, the delightful, and the statistically significant, all while keeping a keen eye on the ballot box and the skyward gaze of avian aficionados.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

In order to elucidate the perplexing correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the populace's inquisitiveness about the whereabouts of avian creatures during precipitation, a multifaceted methodological approach was undertaken. The primary data sources utilized in this investigation were the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends. The period under scrutiny spanned from 2004 to 2018, encompassing several electoral cycles and avian weather-related contemplations.

The initial phase of the investigation involved leveraging the capabilities of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab to procure comprehensive records of Republican votes for Senators in the state of Ohio, meticulously capturing the electoral sentiments of the populace. This trove of political determinations formed the bedrock upon which to anchor the subsequent statistical analyses, serving as a testament to the fluid dynamics of democratic expressions.

Simultaneously, the Google Trends platform became the veritable aviary for monitoring the ebb and flow of public curiosity regarding the precipitation-induced haunts of avian entities. To discern the fluctuations in avian weather-related inquiries, the search volume index for the phrase "where do birds go when it rains" was tapped as the indicator of the public's pensive musings.

The aggregation of these disparate datasets beckoned forth the moment of statistical convergence, where the vaunted tools of correlation analysis and regression modeling assumed center stage. Through the application of Pearson correlation coefficient calculations and OLS regression analyses, the elusive intersection of Republican votes and avian precipitation ponderings was subjected to rigorous scrutiny. This rigorous exercise unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9060083, thus divulging a remarkably strong association between the two seemingly unrelated variables.

Furthermore, the statistical significance of this unearthed relationship was robustly affirmed through the consecration of a p-value less than 0.05, solidifying the empirical veracity of the Republican avian alliance.

The confluence of the electoral verdicts and the avian precipitation musings not only highlighted the whimsical proclivities of the human psyche but also beckoned to the enigma of what captivates the civic consciousness during electoral upheavals. As we embarked on this exuberant journey through the labyrinth of data and analysis, the unexpected camaraderie between Republican votes and avian weather contemplations whistled a symphonic ode to the capricious and the statistically significant.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends .

For the time period 2004 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.9060083, r-squared of 0.8208510, and p < 0.05.

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]]
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper endeavors to explore the unlikely connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the public's curiosity about the whereabouts of birds during rainfall, as indicated by Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, the study identified a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9060083 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2018. The findings provoke both bemusement and intellectual intrigue. This unexpected association between political preference and ornithological curiosity suggests that voters may exhibit a penchant for avian-themed musings during electoral cycles. The resulting implications inspire further inquiry into the whimsical and unforeseen factors that may influence civic engagement and information-seeking behaviors. This revelatory research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking lens through which to view the confluence of seemingly disparate human interests.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

The world of statistical analysis and academic research is often thought of as a serious and somber domain, replete with stern-faced scholars poring over mountains of data. However, in the spirit of embracing the unexpected and unraveling the mysteries of human behavior, we embark upon a journey that takes us from the ballot box to the natural world, in an attempt to fathom the whimsical dance between political inclinations and avian inquisitions.
The voracious curiosity of the human mind knows no bounds, and one may argue that the desire to understand the plights of our feathered friends during precipitation is as natural as the urge to partake in the democratic process. It is within this peculiar intersection of avian rainy day musings and civic engagement that our investigation unfolds, guided by the compass of statistical inquiry and the enigma of human predilections.
As we delve into this unconventional realm, we are reminded of the words of the renowned scientist Carl Sagan, who astutely noted, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Little did we anticipate that this incredible "something" would manifest in the form of a hidden relationship between voting patterns and avian precipitation ponderings in the American state of Ohio.
Our scholarly quest is propelled by a fervent desire to unravel the enigma that has eluded conventional wisdom and confounded the realm of political sociology. The present study brings forth a lighthearted yet compelling narrative that traverses the terrain of statistical significance and intellectual delight, urging us to embrace the unexpected and view the interplay of human curiosity and political leanings through an unconventional lens.
Join us in this intellectual romp, as we unravel the odd, the delightful, and the statistically significant, all while keeping a keen eye on the ballot box and the skyward gaze of avian aficionados.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The correlation analysis between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" yielded a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9060083. This strong positive correlation indicates a noteworthy association between these seemingly unrelated variables. Just as unexpected as finding a penguin in the desert, we were astonished to uncover such a robust link between political voting behavior and avian precipitation ponderings.

Further strengthening this surprising relationship, the r-squared value of 0.8208510 suggests that a substantial 82.08% of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio can be explained by the fluctuations in Google searches for the whereabouts of rain-soaked birds. It's as if the political winds and the flight paths of our feathered friends were intertwined in a whimsical ballet that captivated our statistical sensibilities.

The p-value of less than 0.05 provides compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis, affirming the statistical significance of this correlation. The probability of obtaining such a strong association between these variables by chance alone is akin to stumbling across a four-leaf clover in a field of statistical possibilities.

To visually encapsulate this extraordinary correlation, Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot, illustrating the unmistakably strong linear relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." The data points form a pattern so cohesive and compelling that one might imagine a flock of avian statisticians meticulously arranging themselves to craft this eye-catching plot.

In summary, our study has illuminated an improbable yet captivating connection between political preferences and the acumen of avian rainfall contemplation. This unexpected association invites further exploration and sparks an enthusiastic debate within the realms of political science and ornithological inquiries. The unanticipated allegory of avian curiosity and electoral dynamics offers both statistical intrigue and a touch of whimsy to the often sober landscape of academic research.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper endeavors to explore the unlikely connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the public's curiosity about the whereabouts of birds during rainfall, as indicated by Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, the study identified a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9060083 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2018. The findings provoke both bemusement and intellectual intrigue. This unexpected association between political preference and ornithological curiosity suggests that voters may exhibit a penchant for avian-themed musings during electoral cycles. The resulting implications inspire further inquiry into the whimsical and unforeseen factors that may influence civic engagement and information-seeking behaviors. This revelatory research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking lens through which to view the confluence of seemingly disparate human interests.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
To contextualize the unexpected correlation between Republican votes in Ohio and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains," it is imperative to delve into the existing literature on voter behavior, avian ecology, and the whimsical interplay between politics and ornithological curiosity. Smith et al. (2015) employed a rigorous quantitative analysis to examine voting patterns in Ohio, revealing insights into political affiliations and electoral dynamics. Similarly, Doe et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive investigation into internet search trends, shedding light on the public's information-seeking behaviors in the digital age. Furthermore, Jones (2019) explored the enigmatic world of avian behavior, unraveling the mysteries of avian migration and survival strategies in adverse weather conditions.
In the realm of avian literature, "The Genius of Birds" by Jennifer Ackerman and "What the Robin Knows" by Jon Young offer profound insights into the intricate lives of avian creatures, captivating readers with stories of avian intelligence and survival instincts. Turning to the realm of fiction, works such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "The Thorn Birds" by Colleen McCullough evoke stirring imagery of birds and their symbolic significance in literature and human imagination.
The researchers' quest for understanding avian-themed queries in the context of political affiliation led them to investigate TV shows such as "Birdland" and "Twin Peaks," tapping into the depiction of avian symbolism and natural phenomena in popular culture. This peculiar blend of serious inquiry and whimsical exploration sets the stage for unraveling the enthralling mystery of the feathered ballot, where political leanings and avian musings converge in an intellectual dance of statistical significance and improbable connections.

[[RESULTS]]
The correlation analysis between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" yielded a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9060083. This strong positive correlation indicates a noteworthy association between these seemingly unrelated variables. Just as unexpected as finding a penguin in the desert, we were astonished to uncover such a robust link between political voting behavior and avian precipitation ponderings.
Further strengthening this surprising relationship, the r-squared value of 0.8208510 suggests that a substantial 82.08% of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio can be explained by the fluctuations in Google searches for the whereabouts of rain-soaked birds. It's as if the political winds and the flight paths of our feathered friends were intertwined in a whimsical ballet that captivated our statistical sensibilities.
The p-value of less than 0.05 provides compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis, affirming the statistical significance of this correlation. The probability of obtaining such a strong association between these variables by chance alone is akin to stumbling across a four-leaf clover in a field of statistical possibilities.
To visually encapsulate this extraordinary correlation, Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot, illustrating the unmistakably strong linear relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." The data points form a pattern so cohesive and compelling that one might imagine a flock of avian statisticians meticulously arranging themselves to craft this eye-catching plot.
In summary, our study has illuminated an improbable yet captivating connection between political preferences and the acumen of avian rainfall contemplation. This unexpected association invites further exploration and sparks an enthusiastic debate within the realms of political science and ornithological inquiries. The unanticipated allegory of avian curiosity and electoral dynamics offers both statistical intrigue and a touch of whimsy to the often sober landscape of academic research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study lend support to the prior research on voter behavior, avian ecology, and the delightful interplay between political preferences and the quizzical musings regarding avian behavior during rainfall.

The remarkable correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" mirrors the insights of Smith et al. (2015), who illuminated the political affiliations and electoral dynamics within the state. Just as unexpected as encountering a penguin in the desert, the robust link uncovered in our study underscores the unforeseen interconnection between political leanings and avian precipitation ponderings.

The strong positive correlation coefficient of 0.9060083 observed in our analysis aligns with the meticulous investigation into avian behavior undertaken by Jones (2019), thus unveiling the profound association between the whims of voters and the flights of rain-soaked birds. The unexpected and delightful alliance between political winds and the flight paths of our feathered friends adds a touch of whimsy to the often serious endeavor of statistical analysis.

Moreover, the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 lends credence to the unanticipated yet captivating connection between political preferences and the acumen of avian rainfall contemplation. This extraordinary statistical significance echoes the findings of Doe et al. (2017), who delved into internet search trends and illuminated the public's information-seeking behaviors, albeit unforeseen in the context of ornithological curiosity on a rainy day.

The substantial r-squared value of 0.8208510, suggesting that 82.08% of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio can be explained by the fluctuations in Google searches for the whereabouts of rain-soaked birds, provides further evidence of the enthralling mystery of the feathered ballot. This unexpected alliance between political leanings and avian musings invites further exploration and sparks an enthusiastic debate within the realms of political science and ornithological inquiries, adding a dash of whimsy to the often sober landscape of academic research.

In conclusion, the revelation of this delightful correlation between political preferences and avian precipitation ponderings ignites both statistical intrigue and a touch of whimsy within the landscape of academic research, enriching our understanding of the improbable yet captivating connections that may underlie seemingly unrelated human interests.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

[[ABSTRACT]]
This research paper endeavors to explore the unlikely connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the public's curiosity about the whereabouts of birds during rainfall, as indicated by Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, the study identified a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9060083 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2018. The findings provoke both bemusement and intellectual intrigue. This unexpected association between political preference and ornithological curiosity suggests that voters may exhibit a penchant for avian-themed musings during electoral cycles. The resulting implications inspire further inquiry into the whimsical and unforeseen factors that may influence civic engagement and information-seeking behaviors. This revelatory research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking lens through which to view the confluence of seemingly disparate human interests.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity

The world of statistical analysis and academic research is often thought of as a serious and somber domain, replete with stern-faced scholars poring over mountains of data. However, in the spirit of embracing the unexpected and unraveling the mysteries of human behavior, we embark upon a journey that takes us from the ballot box to the natural world, in an attempt to fathom the whimsical dance between political inclinations and avian inquisitions.
The voracious curiosity of the human mind knows no bounds, and one may argue that the desire to understand the plights of our feathered friends during precipitation is as natural as the urge to partake in the democratic process. It is within this peculiar intersection of avian rainy day musings and civic engagement that our investigation unfolds, guided by the compass of statistical inquiry and the enigma of human predilections.
As we delve into this unconventional realm, we are reminded of the words of the renowned scientist Carl Sagan, who astutely noted, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Little did we anticipate that this incredible "something" would manifest in the form of a hidden relationship between voting patterns and avian precipitation ponderings in the American state of Ohio.
Our scholarly quest is propelled by a fervent desire to unravel the enigma that has eluded conventional wisdom and confounded the realm of political sociology. The present study brings forth a lighthearted yet compelling narrative that traverses the terrain of statistical significance and intellectual delight, urging us to embrace the unexpected and view the interplay of human curiosity and political leanings through an unconventional lens.
Join us in this intellectual romp, as we unravel the odd, the delightful, and the statistically significant, all while keeping a keen eye on the ballot box and the skyward gaze of avian aficionados.

[[RESULTS]]
The correlation analysis between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" yielded a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9060083. This strong positive correlation indicates a noteworthy association between these seemingly unrelated variables. Just as unexpected as finding a penguin in the desert, we were astonished to uncover such a robust link between political voting behavior and avian precipitation ponderings.
Further strengthening this surprising relationship, the r-squared value of 0.8208510 suggests that a substantial 82.08% of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio can be explained by the fluctuations in Google searches for the whereabouts of rain-soaked birds. It's as if the political winds and the flight paths of our feathered friends were intertwined in a whimsical ballet that captivated our statistical sensibilities.
The p-value of less than 0.05 provides compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis, affirming the statistical significance of this correlation. The probability of obtaining such a strong association between these variables by chance alone is akin to stumbling across a four-leaf clover in a field of statistical possibilities.
To visually encapsulate this extraordinary correlation, Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot, illustrating the unmistakably strong linear relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." The data points form a pattern so cohesive and compelling that one might imagine a flock of avian statisticians meticulously arranging themselves to craft this eye-catching plot.
In summary, our study has illuminated an improbable yet captivating connection between political preferences and the acumen of avian rainfall contemplation. This unexpected association invites further exploration and sparks an enthusiastic debate within the realms of political science and ornithological inquiries. The unanticipated allegory of avian curiosity and electoral dynamics offers both statistical intrigue and a touch of whimsy to the often sober landscape of academic research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In the end, our analysis has feathered out a remarkable association between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the inquisitiveness about the rainy day whereabouts of our winged compatriots. It seems that political leanings and avian musings are more intertwined than a pair of mating pigeons!

The robust correlation coefficient of 0.9060083 has ruffled the feathers of conventional thought and nudged us to rethink the interconnectedness of political fervor and ornithological interest. It's as if the conservative voters are as resolute in their support as a dedicated ornithologist in a bird-watching competition!

With an r-squared value of 0.8208510, we are left pondering the question as pressing as why the chicken crossed the road: how much of the Republican votes in Ohio can be chalked up to the rain-soaked bird searches? The statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 has made quite the splash, much like a flamboyant peacock strutting its stuff.

In closing, this research has shed light on an unexpected yet delightful relationship, demonstrating that the ballot box and birdwatchers' curiosity may share a mischievous wink in the grand dance of statistics and human quirks. It's time to conclude this study and appreciate the statistical wonders we've stumbled upon. Like a bird in flight, let's leave this correlation to soar in the annals of whimsical statistical curiosities. No further research needed - this unexpected alliance has been nest-ceased.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Avian Political Behavior


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Avian Political Analysis and Inquiry


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The Feathered Ballot: Correlating Republican Votes in Ohio with Avian Rainy Day Curiosity with an abstract of This research paper endeavors to explore the unlikely connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the public's curiosity about the whereabouts of birds during rainfall, as indicated by Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains." Drawing upon data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, the study identified a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9060083 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2018. The findings provoke both bemusement and intellectual intrigue. This unexpected association between political preference and ornithological curiosity suggests that voters may exhibit a penchant for avian-themed musings during electoral cycles. The resulting implications inspire further inquiry into the whimsical and unforeseen factors that may influence civic engagement and information-seeking behaviors. This revelatory research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking lens through which to view the confluence of seemingly disparate human interests.

ChatGPT:

"Republican votes Ohio," "avian Rainy Day curiosity," "Google searches birds rain," "MIT Election Data," "Harvard Dataverse," "Google Trends," "correlation coefficient political preference," "ornithological curiosity voters," "civic engagement whimsical factors," "influence information-seeking behaviors"

*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

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

Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'

Correlation r = 0.9060083 (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 = 0.8208510 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 82.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Republican votes for Senators in Ohio) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2018.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.013. 0.0128364762767346750000000000
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 0.91 in 1.3% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 78 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 5 because we have two variables measured over a period of 6 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.36, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200420062010201220162018
Republican votes for Senators in Ohio (Total votes)346436017610402168740243571031185702053960
Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' (Rel. search volume)2.833330.6666671.166670.9166672.083331.5




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. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([3464360,1761040,2168740,2435710,3118570,2053960,])
array_2 = np.array([2.83333,0.666667,1.16667,0.916667,2.08333,1.5,])
array_1_name = "Republican votes for Senators in Ohio"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'"

# 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?

I'm grateful for your review!


Correlation ID: 4469 · Black Variable ID: 26298 · Red Variable ID: 1468
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0