Download png, svg
AI explanation
Perhaps the Democrats promised to bring some "green energy" solutions to the table, revving up their campaign with a focus on alternative fuels. This ignited a "political climate change" in Delaware, leading to a surge in support for the party. As the enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate soared higher than a jumbo jet, it somehow fueled a ripple effect that reached all the way to Greenland, causing a "political jet stream" that lifted the demand for jet fuel. It's like they say, "where there's a 'blue' wave, there's a 'fuele' wave!" The connection may seem as far-fetched as a trans-Atlantic flight, but hey, in the world of wacky correlations, anything can happen!Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Create a minimalistic image that depicts a serene scene in Delaware, where voters are casting their ballots under a sunny sky. Show the voters proudly displaying their support for the Democratic presidential candidate, surrounded by green energy symbols and a subtle representation of a surging political wave. As the surge extends, depict a metaphorical jet stream that gracefully traverses the distance to Greenland. In Greenland, illustrate the demand for jet fuel rising alongside the momentum of the Democratic wave, symbolizing the unexpected correlation between political tides and fuel consumption. 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 Delaware and Jet fuel used in Greenland. 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: Art nouveau Minimalism Voxel art Cutsy graphics Minimalism
ChatGPT: Minimalism
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 Delaware and Jet fuel used in Greenland, in the following situation: Perhaps the Democrats promised to bring some "green energy" solutions to the table, revving up their campaign with a focus on alternative fuels. This ignited a "political climate change" in Delaware, leading to a surge in support for the party. As the enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate soared higher than a jumbo jet, it somehow fueled a ripple effect that reached all the way to Greenland, causing a "political jet stream" that lifted the demand for jet fuel. It's like they say, "where there's a 'blue' wave, there's a 'fuele' wave!" The connection may seem as far-fetched as a trans-Atlantic flight, but hey, in the world of wacky correlations, anything can happen!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Delaware, voters proudly display their support for the Democratic presidential candidate, casting their ballots amid a wave of enthusiasm for the party's promise of "green energy" solutions. As the support surges, it creates a metaphorical political jet stream that extends all the way to Greenland. In Greenland, the demand for jet fuel rises in tandem with the momentum of the Democratic wave, symbolizing the unexpected correlation between political tides and fuel consumption.
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: [ Minimalism ] and depicting this scene: In Delaware, voters proudly display their support for the Democratic presidential candidate, casting their ballots amid a wave of enthusiasm for the party's promise of "green energy" solutions. As the support surges, it creates a metaphorical political jet stream that extends all the way to Greenland. In Greenland, the demand for jet fuel rises in tandem with the momentum of the Democratic wave, symbolizing the unexpected correlation between political tides and fuel consumption. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Create a minimalistic image that depicts a serene scene in Delaware, where voters are casting their ballots under a sunny sky. Show the voters proudly displaying their support for the Democratic presidential candidate, surrounded by green energy symbols and a subtle representation of a surging political wave. As the surge extends, depict a metaphorical jet stream that gracefully traverses the distance to Greenland. In Greenland, illustrate the demand for jet fuel rising alongside the momentum of the Democratic wave, symbolizing the unexpected correlation between political tides and fuel consumption.
*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.
I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
System prompt: You provide humerus 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 Delaware caused Jet fuel used in Greenland to increase. Include a lot of jokes and puns.
AI academic paper
Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery The Journal of Whimsical Political Science Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Delaware and Jet fuel used in Greenland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Make the title an alliteration.
Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and p < 0.01 for 1980 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]]
"Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery"
[[ABSTRACT]]
The tantalizing conundrum of the potential connection between the votes cast for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland has piqued the curiosity of researchers for quite some time. This study delves into the remarkable correlation found between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the period from 1980 to 2020.
Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the unexpectedly strong association between these two variables. It appears that the votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland share an intriguing relationship, prompting us to jokingly ponder if the phrase "Democratic fuel" may indeed have a literal meaning.
In conclusion, this study offers a delightful and unexpected revelation, shedding light on this eccentric association. Perhaps the next election cycle will bring about a surge in jet fuel consumption, signaling a potential predictor of political preferences. As we revel in this unlikely discovery, we must remember that correlation does not necessarily imply causation - and that the results of this research may just jet set our understanding of voting dynamics to new heights!
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Delaware and Jet fuel used in Greenland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery"
[[ABSTRACT]]
The tantalizing conundrum of the potential connection between the votes cast for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland has piqued the curiosity of researchers for quite some time. This study delves into the remarkable correlation found between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the period from 1980 to 2020.
Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the unexpectedly strong association between these two variables. It appears that the votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland share an intriguing relationship, prompting us to jokingly ponder if the phrase "Democratic fuel" may indeed have a literal meaning.
In conclusion, this study offers a delightful and unexpected revelation, shedding light on this eccentric association. Perhaps the next election cycle will bring about a surge in jet fuel consumption, signaling a potential predictor of political preferences. As we revel in this unlikely discovery, we must remember that correlation does not necessarily imply causation - and that the results of this research may just jet set our understanding of voting dynamics to new heights!
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and environmental factors has long been a topic of interest, with researchers exploring the relationships between various social and ecological phenomena. However, few could have predicted the eyebrow-raising connection we present in this study: the unexpected correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland. This peculiar pairing has left us pondering the question: could jet fuel usage be a potential predictor of political leanings, or are we simply fueling the fire of statistical curiosity?
As we dive into this fascinating analysis, it is essential to remember that correlation does not imply causation - a principle that holds true in both statistical analysis and political discourse. Nevertheless, the strong statistical link we have uncovered compels us to explore this unorthodox correlation with an open mind.
Now, let's jet set off this exploration with a dad joke: Why did the vote for the Democrat candidate in Delaware go to the jet fuel conference? Because it heard there would be a "super high turnout"!
The remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and the strikingly low p-value of less than 0.01 demand attention, inviting us to consider the possibility of a genuine relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. It's as if jet fuel and Democrat votes have been engaged in a clandestine dance of statistical significance, defying our logical expectations with every step.
Speaking of surprises, did you hear about the jet fuel that ran for political office? It had a platform based on "full-throttle progress"!
Our research journey takes us through an era spanning from 1980 to 2020, harnessing data from reputable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The in-depth analysis we've undertaken has unearthed an unlikely connection that challenges conventional wisdom and invites a fresh perspective on the intricate interplay between environmental variables and political behavior.
As we eagerly anticipate unveiling the details of this eccentric association, it is with an equal measure of scientific rigor and whimsical wonder that we present our findings. The delightful discovery encapsulated in this study offers a unique lens through which to view the dynamic relationships that underpin our social and environmental landscape.
Now, it's time for another dad joke: What did the Democrat voter say to the jet fuel? "You really make my candidate take off!"
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Delaware and Jet fuel used in Greenland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
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 devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading CVS receipts.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery"
[[ABSTRACT]]
The tantalizing conundrum of the potential connection between the votes cast for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland has piqued the curiosity of researchers for quite some time. This study delves into the remarkable correlation found between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the period from 1980 to 2020.
Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the unexpectedly strong association between these two variables. It appears that the votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland share an intriguing relationship, prompting us to jokingly ponder if the phrase "Democratic fuel" may indeed have a literal meaning.
In conclusion, this study offers a delightful and unexpected revelation, shedding light on this eccentric association. Perhaps the next election cycle will bring about a surge in jet fuel consumption, signaling a potential predictor of political preferences. As we revel in this unlikely discovery, we must remember that correlation does not necessarily imply causation - and that the results of this research may just jet set our understanding of voting dynamics to new heights!
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and environmental factors has long been a topic of interest, with researchers exploring the relationships between various social and ecological phenomena. However, few could have predicted the eyebrow-raising connection we present in this study: the unexpected correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland. This peculiar pairing has left us pondering the question: could jet fuel usage be a potential predictor of political leanings, or are we simply fueling the fire of statistical curiosity?
As we dive into this fascinating analysis, it is essential to remember that correlation does not imply causation - a principle that holds true in both statistical analysis and political discourse. Nevertheless, the strong statistical link we have uncovered compels us to explore this unorthodox correlation with an open mind.
Now, let's jet set off this exploration with a dad joke: Why did the vote for the Democrat candidate in Delaware go to the jet fuel conference? Because it heard there would be a "super high turnout"!
The remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and the strikingly low p-value of less than 0.01 demand attention, inviting us to consider the possibility of a genuine relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. It's as if jet fuel and Democrat votes have been engaged in a clandestine dance of statistical significance, defying our logical expectations with every step.
Speaking of surprises, did you hear about the jet fuel that ran for political office? It had a platform based on "full-throttle progress"!
Our research journey takes us through an era spanning from 1980 to 2020, harnessing data from reputable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The in-depth analysis we've undertaken has unearthed an unlikely connection that challenges conventional wisdom and invites a fresh perspective on the intricate interplay between environmental variables and political behavior.
As we eagerly anticipate unveiling the details of this eccentric association, it is with an equal measure of scientific rigor and whimsical wonder that we present our findings. The delightful discovery encapsulated in this study offers a unique lens through which to view the dynamic relationships that underpin our social and environmental landscape.
Now, it's time for another dad joke: What did the Democrat voter say to the jet fuel? "You really make my candidate take off!"
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The study by Smith et al. examined the relationship between the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland and the votes cast for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware, marking an intriguing departure from conventional research inquiries in the field of political and environmental interactions. Building on this pioneering work, our investigation brings forth a fascinating revelation that bridges the seemingly unrelated realms of consumption patterns and political preferences. The unexpected correlation between these variables has prompted a reevaluation of the intricate interplay between environmental phenomena and electoral dynamics, leading us to jestfully ponder if the phrase "Democratic fuel" may indeed bear a literal significance.
Turning to "Jetting Politics: An Exploration of Unlikely Alliances," a non-fiction work by Doe and Jones, we encounter a thought-provoking analysis of the sociopolitical implications of fuel consumption patterns. While the authors do not explicitly delve into the specific association we are investigating, their comprehensive examination of the broader landscape of political relationships hints at the potential for surprising connections, akin to the unexpected bond we have uncovered.
In "Greenland's Democratic Dilemma: An Environmental and Political Inquiry," a non-fiction work by White, the authors explore the multifaceted interactions between environmental factors and political decision-making, documenting the complex web of influences that shape voting patterns. While their focus lies predominantly on the environmental challenges faced by Greenland, the broader thematic relevance to our study is unmistakable, underscoring the overarching significance of contextual considerations in understanding the dynamics of political behavior.
On a more bear-fictional note, the novel "Ice Cold Politics: A Tale of Electoral Intrigue" by Frost weaves a captivating narrative that intertwines the enigmatic allure of political maneuvering with the stark realities of environmental constraints. While the plot may not directly mirror the statistical analyses and empirical evidence underpinning our findings, the thematic resonance with our exploration of the unexpected bond between political votes and jet fuel usage offers a whimsical parallel to the unprecedented correlation unearthed in our research.
Taking a brief flight into the realm of sheer absurdity, we cannot overlook the highly unconventional approach to literature review adopted by the authors of "CVS Receipts as Unlikely Sources of Statistical Insight: A Collection of Anecdotal Evidence," an imaginary publication. Although its scholarly credentials may be dubious at best, the irreverent dialogue and outlandish suppositions contained within this fictitious work serve as a lighthearted reminder of the boundless avenues for scholarly inquiry, encompassing even the most improbable sources of inspiration.
In a delightful departure from the traditional confines of scholarly discourse, our examination of the correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland has yielded an improbable yet undeniably captivating association. As we navigate the uncharted territory of this eccentric linkage, it is with a deep sense of scholarly rigor and unyielding amusement that we present our findings, ushering forth a novel perspective on the intricate interactions that underpin the societal tapestry.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Delaware and Jet fuel used in Greenland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
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 Energy Information Administration . You used data from 1980 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]]
"Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery"
[[ABSTRACT]]
The tantalizing conundrum of the potential connection between the votes cast for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland has piqued the curiosity of researchers for quite some time. This study delves into the remarkable correlation found between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the period from 1980 to 2020.
Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the unexpectedly strong association between these two variables. It appears that the votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland share an intriguing relationship, prompting us to jokingly ponder if the phrase "Democratic fuel" may indeed have a literal meaning.
In conclusion, this study offers a delightful and unexpected revelation, shedding light on this eccentric association. Perhaps the next election cycle will bring about a surge in jet fuel consumption, signaling a potential predictor of political preferences. As we revel in this unlikely discovery, we must remember that correlation does not necessarily imply causation - and that the results of this research may just jet set our understanding of voting dynamics to new heights!
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and environmental factors has long been a topic of interest, with researchers exploring the relationships between various social and ecological phenomena. However, few could have predicted the eyebrow-raising connection we present in this study: the unexpected correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland. This peculiar pairing has left us pondering the question: could jet fuel usage be a potential predictor of political leanings, or are we simply fueling the fire of statistical curiosity?
As we dive into this fascinating analysis, it is essential to remember that correlation does not imply causation - a principle that holds true in both statistical analysis and political discourse. Nevertheless, the strong statistical link we have uncovered compels us to explore this unorthodox correlation with an open mind.
Now, let's jet set off this exploration with a dad joke: Why did the vote for the Democrat candidate in Delaware go to the jet fuel conference? Because it heard there would be a "super high turnout"!
The remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and the strikingly low p-value of less than 0.01 demand attention, inviting us to consider the possibility of a genuine relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. It's as if jet fuel and Democrat votes have been engaged in a clandestine dance of statistical significance, defying our logical expectations with every step.
Speaking of surprises, did you hear about the jet fuel that ran for political office? It had a platform based on "full-throttle progress"!
Our research journey takes us through an era spanning from 1980 to 2020, harnessing data from reputable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The in-depth analysis we've undertaken has unearthed an unlikely connection that challenges conventional wisdom and invites a fresh perspective on the intricate interplay between environmental variables and political behavior.
As we eagerly anticipate unveiling the details of this eccentric association, it is with an equal measure of scientific rigor and whimsical wonder that we present our findings. The delightful discovery encapsulated in this study offers a unique lens through which to view the dynamic relationships that underpin our social and environmental landscape.
Now, it's time for another dad joke: What did the Democrat voter say to the jet fuel? "You really make my candidate take off!"
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To uncover the mysterious twirl of statistical fate connecting the votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland, our research team deftly navigated through a labyrinth of data collection and analysis. Our data, sourced from 1980 to 2020, was primarily gathered from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration.
In a bid to capture the whimsy of this unexpected correlation, we employed an out-of-the-box analytical approach, including a comically complex algorithm aptly named the "Democratic Fuel Model." This model, which involved a clever juxtaposition of polynomial regression, time series analysis, and a dash of magic (not literal magic, of course), allowed us to illuminate the intricate relationship between votes cast for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland.
To balance the levity of our dad jokes, let's pivot to the methods that grounded our analysis. As we dove headfirst into the sea of data, we intricately dissected the voting patterns in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland, exploring their synergistic dance with the finesse of a statistical symphony conductor guiding the ebbs and flows of the correlation.
Now, to inject a touch of statistical pizzazz into this methodology section, let's not forget the regression analysis, which served as the sturdy bridge uniting the two seemingly distant shores of Democrat votes and jet fuel consumption. The elegance of this analytical endeavor mirrored the graceful flight of a jet, soaring through the corridors of data with unwavering precision and, dare I say, a hint of whimsy.
Amidst the search for statistical significance, we embraced the spirit of curiosity and experimentation, akin to a jet fuel-powered endeavor hurtling towards the uncharted territories of correlation exploration. Our statistical tests, like humorous sidekicks in a research adventure, included Pearson correlation coefficients, t-tests, and confidence intervals, as we sought to unravel the enigmatic bond between political preferences and energy consumption.
In the spirit of lightheartedness, let's sprinkle in another dad joke: How does a jet fuel economist make decisions? By carefully analyzing the "propulsion" of their statistical models, of course!
Concurrent with our rigorous analysis, we diligently checked for potential confounding variables, ensuring that our findings remained steadfast in their portrayal of the unconventional rapport between Democrat votes and jet fuel consumption. The careful consideration of potential influencers added a layer of methodological depth, as we sought to capture the essence of this unexpected statisticomic phenomenon.
In our quest to unveil the ties that bind Democrat votes and jet fuel usage, we reveled in the opportunity to showcase the fusion of scientific inquiry and a hint of whimsical delight. As we eagerly approach the revelation of our findings, we hope to leave our readers with a chuckle and a newfound appreciation for the unexpected interplay of statistical inquiry and statistical whimsy.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Delaware and Jet fuel used in Greenland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
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 Energy Information Administration .
For the time period 1980 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9576591, r-squared of 0.9171110, 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]]
"Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery"
[[ABSTRACT]]
The tantalizing conundrum of the potential connection between the votes cast for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland has piqued the curiosity of researchers for quite some time. This study delves into the remarkable correlation found between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the period from 1980 to 2020.
Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the unexpectedly strong association between these two variables. It appears that the votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland share an intriguing relationship, prompting us to jokingly ponder if the phrase "Democratic fuel" may indeed have a literal meaning.
In conclusion, this study offers a delightful and unexpected revelation, shedding light on this eccentric association. Perhaps the next election cycle will bring about a surge in jet fuel consumption, signaling a potential predictor of political preferences. As we revel in this unlikely discovery, we must remember that correlation does not necessarily imply causation - and that the results of this research may just jet set our understanding of voting dynamics to new heights!
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of politics and environmental factors has long been a topic of interest, with researchers exploring the relationships between various social and ecological phenomena. However, few could have predicted the eyebrow-raising connection we present in this study: the unexpected correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland. This peculiar pairing has left us pondering the question: could jet fuel usage be a potential predictor of political leanings, or are we simply fueling the fire of statistical curiosity?
As we dive into this fascinating analysis, it is essential to remember that correlation does not imply causation - a principle that holds true in both statistical analysis and political discourse. Nevertheless, the strong statistical link we have uncovered compels us to explore this unorthodox correlation with an open mind.
Now, let's jet set off this exploration with a dad joke: Why did the vote for the Democrat candidate in Delaware go to the jet fuel conference? Because it heard there would be a "super high turnout"!
The remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and the strikingly low p-value of less than 0.01 demand attention, inviting us to consider the possibility of a genuine relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. It's as if jet fuel and Democrat votes have been engaged in a clandestine dance of statistical significance, defying our logical expectations with every step.
Speaking of surprises, did you hear about the jet fuel that ran for political office? It had a platform based on "full-throttle progress"!
Our research journey takes us through an era spanning from 1980 to 2020, harnessing data from reputable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The in-depth analysis we've undertaken has unearthed an unlikely connection that challenges conventional wisdom and invites a fresh perspective on the intricate interplay between environmental variables and political behavior.
As we eagerly anticipate unveiling the details of this eccentric association, it is with an equal measure of scientific rigor and whimsical wonder that we present our findings. The delightful discovery encapsulated in this study offers a unique lens through which to view the dynamic relationships that underpin our social and environmental landscape.
Now, it's time for another dad joke: What did the Democrat voter say to the jet fuel? "You really make my candidate take off!"
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
In our investigation of the connection between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland, we uncovered a surprising and significant correlation. The correlation coefficient between these two seemingly unrelated variables was a staggering 0.9576591, with an r-squared of 0.9171110, and a p-value less than 0.01. This reveals a remarkably strong and robust association, defying conventional expectations and prompting us to consider the intriguing possibility of a genuine relationship.
Our analysis culminates in a striking scatterplot (Fig. 1) that vividly portrays the compelling correlation between the votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland. The figure serves as a visual testament to the surprising statistical link we have uncovered, providing a captivating illustration of this unexpected relationship.
This unexpected association between voting behavior and jet fuel consumption offers a lighthearted twist to the traditionally serious realm of statistical research. It certainly adds a dash of humor to the otherwise solemn scientific discourse. After all, even amidst rigorous data analysis, there's always room for a touch of jest to fuel the scholarly spirit.
Our study invites a novel perspective on the intersection of environmental factors and political preferences, enhancing our understanding of the intricate dynamics that shape our social and ecological landscape. While we approach this unique correlation with academic rigor, we also appreciate the delightful and unexpected dimension it adds to our scholarly pursuits.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Delaware and Jet fuel used in Greenland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
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]]
"Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery"
[[ABSTRACT]]
The tantalizing conundrum of the potential connection between the votes cast for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland has piqued the curiosity of researchers for quite some time. This study delves into the remarkable correlation found between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the period from 1980 to 2020.
Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the unexpectedly strong association between these two variables. It appears that the votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland share an intriguing relationship, prompting us to jokingly ponder if the phrase "Democratic fuel" may indeed have a literal meaning.
In conclusion, this study offers a delightful and unexpected revelation, shedding light on this eccentric association. Perhaps the next election cycle will bring about a surge in jet fuel consumption, signaling a potential predictor of political preferences. As we revel in this unlikely discovery, we must remember that correlation does not necessarily imply causation - and that the results of this research may just jet set our understanding of voting dynamics to new heights!
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The study by Smith et al. examined the relationship between the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland and the votes cast for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware, marking an intriguing departure from conventional research inquiries in the field of political and environmental interactions. Building on this pioneering work, our investigation brings forth a fascinating revelation that bridges the seemingly unrelated realms of consumption patterns and political preferences. The unexpected correlation between these variables has prompted a reevaluation of the intricate interplay between environmental phenomena and electoral dynamics, leading us to jestfully ponder if the phrase "Democratic fuel" may indeed bear a literal significance.
Turning to "Jetting Politics: An Exploration of Unlikely Alliances," a non-fiction work by Doe and Jones, we encounter a thought-provoking analysis of the sociopolitical implications of fuel consumption patterns. While the authors do not explicitly delve into the specific association we are investigating, their comprehensive examination of the broader landscape of political relationships hints at the potential for surprising connections, akin to the unexpected bond we have uncovered.
In "Greenland's Democratic Dilemma: An Environmental and Political Inquiry," a non-fiction work by White, the authors explore the multifaceted interactions between environmental factors and political decision-making, documenting the complex web of influences that shape voting patterns. While their focus lies predominantly on the environmental challenges faced by Greenland, the broader thematic relevance to our study is unmistakable, underscoring the overarching significance of contextual considerations in understanding the dynamics of political behavior.
On a more bear-fictional note, the novel "Ice Cold Politics: A Tale of Electoral Intrigue" by Frost weaves a captivating narrative that intertwines the enigmatic allure of political maneuvering with the stark realities of environmental constraints. While the plot may not directly mirror the statistical analyses and empirical evidence underpinning our findings, the thematic resonance with our exploration of the unexpected bond between political votes and jet fuel usage offers a whimsical parallel to the unprecedented correlation unearthed in our research.
Taking a brief flight into the realm of sheer absurdity, we cannot overlook the highly unconventional approach to literature review adopted by the authors of "CVS Receipts as Unlikely Sources of Statistical Insight: A Collection of Anecdotal Evidence," an imaginary publication. Although its scholarly credentials may be dubious at best, the irreverent dialogue and outlandish suppositions contained within this fictitious work serve as a lighthearted reminder of the boundless avenues for scholarly inquiry, encompassing even the most improbable sources of inspiration.
In a delightful departure from the traditional confines of scholarly discourse, our examination of the correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland has yielded an improbable yet undeniably captivating association. As we navigate the uncharted territory of this eccentric linkage, it is with a deep sense of scholarly rigor and unyielding amusement that we present our findings, ushering forth a novel perspective on the intricate interactions that underpin the societal tapestry.
[[RESULTS]]
In our investigation of the connection between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland, we uncovered a surprising and significant correlation. The correlation coefficient between these two seemingly unrelated variables was a staggering 0.9576591, with an r-squared of 0.9171110, and a p-value less than 0.01. This reveals a remarkably strong and robust association, defying conventional expectations and prompting us to consider the intriguing possibility of a genuine relationship.
Our analysis culminates in a striking scatterplot (Fig. 1) that vividly portrays the compelling correlation between the votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland. The figure serves as a visual testament to the surprising statistical link we have uncovered, providing a captivating illustration of this unexpected relationship.
This unexpected association between voting behavior and jet fuel consumption offers a lighthearted twist to the traditionally serious realm of statistical research. It certainly adds a dash of humor to the otherwise solemn scientific discourse. After all, even amidst rigorous data analysis, there's always room for a touch of jest to fuel the scholarly spirit.
Our study invites a novel perspective on the intersection of environmental factors and political preferences, enhancing our understanding of the intricate dynamics that shape our social and ecological landscape. While we approach this unique correlation with academic rigor, we also appreciate the delightful and unexpected dimension it adds to our scholarly pursuits.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The astonishing correlation uncovered in our study between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland has propelled us into uncharted territories of academic inquiry. While the concept of "Democratic fuel" may have initially elicited a chuckle, the statistical evidence presented in this study demands a more serious consideration of the unexpected nexus between political voting behavior and environmental consumption patterns. As much as we may enjoy puns about "fueling the democratic process," the implications of this finding extend beyond mere amusement, warranting a careful examination of the underlying mechanisms at play.
Our results align with prior research efforts that have ventured into the realm of unlikely associations. The work of Smith et al. laid the groundwork for our investigation, marking an audacious departure from conventional research paradigms. Their daring exploration of the potential link between jet fuel usage and political voting set the stage for our own groundbreaking analysis. Similarly, the jovial supposition of "Democratic fuel" made in jest during our literature review has now assumed a more nuanced and substantive connotation, demanding a reevaluation of the seemingly whimsical notion.
The unexpected correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 unveiled in our study attests to a robust and striking association that surpasses conventional expectations. This finding not only challenges traditional paradigms but also adds a whimsical touch to the predominantly serious domain of statistical analysis. It's almost as if the data were pleading, "Vote for statistical significance and let's jet set our understanding of seemingly unrelated variables to new heights!"
Our findings suggest that there may be underlying factors, possibly nuanced socio-economic or environmental influences, that intertwine the voting preferences of Delawareans with the utilization of jet fuel in Greenland. While the precise mechanisms driving this surprising connection remain shrouded in enigma, our study sets the stage for more in-depth investigations into the intricate interplay of disparate variables within our societal fabric.
In the spirit of academic rigor, we acknowledge the limitations of our study, reminding ourselves that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The whimsical nature of our findings notwithstanding, it is essential to approach this unexpected revelation with both scholarly scrutiny and a good-natured sense of amusement. As the data wonderfully quip, "When it comes to unexpected correlations, there's always room for a touch of jest to fuel the scholarly spirit!"
In sum, this study offers a lighthearted yet enlightening perspective on the intertwining realms of political behavior and environmental consumption. As we navigate the uncharted territory of this improbable linkage, we extend an invitation for further scholarly scrutiny, accompanied by a light-hearted chuckle at the unexpected twists and turns that fuel our intellectual pursuits.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Delaware and Jet fuel used in Greenland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
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]]
"Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery"
[[ABSTRACT]]
The tantalizing conundrum of the potential connection between the votes cast for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland has piqued the curiosity of researchers for quite some time. This study delves into the remarkable correlation found between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the period from 1980 to 2020.
Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the unexpectedly strong association between these two variables. It appears that the votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland share an intriguing relationship, prompting us to jokingly ponder if the phrase "Democratic fuel" may indeed have a literal meaning.
In conclusion, this study offers a delightful and unexpected revelation, shedding light on this eccentric association. Perhaps the next election cycle will bring about a surge in jet fuel consumption, signaling a potential predictor of political preferences. As we revel in this unlikely discovery, we must remember that correlation does not necessarily imply causation - and that the results of this research may just jet set our understanding of voting dynamics to new heights!
[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and environmental factors has long been a topic of interest, with researchers exploring the relationships between various social and ecological phenomena. However, few could have predicted the eyebrow-raising connection we present in this study: the unexpected correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland. This peculiar pairing has left us pondering the question: could jet fuel usage be a potential predictor of political leanings, or are we simply fueling the fire of statistical curiosity?
As we dive into this fascinating analysis, it is essential to remember that correlation does not imply causation - a principle that holds true in both statistical analysis and political discourse. Nevertheless, the strong statistical link we have uncovered compels us to explore this unorthodox correlation with an open mind.
Now, let's jet set off this exploration with a dad joke: Why did the vote for the Democrat candidate in Delaware go to the jet fuel conference? Because it heard there would be a "super high turnout"!
The remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and the strikingly low p-value of less than 0.01 demand attention, inviting us to consider the possibility of a genuine relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. It's as if jet fuel and Democrat votes have been engaged in a clandestine dance of statistical significance, defying our logical expectations with every step.
Speaking of surprises, did you hear about the jet fuel that ran for political office? It had a platform based on "full-throttle progress"!
Our research journey takes us through an era spanning from 1980 to 2020, harnessing data from reputable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The in-depth analysis we've undertaken has unearthed an unlikely connection that challenges conventional wisdom and invites a fresh perspective on the intricate interplay between environmental variables and political behavior.
As we eagerly anticipate unveiling the details of this eccentric association, it is with an equal measure of scientific rigor and whimsical wonder that we present our findings. The delightful discovery encapsulated in this study offers a unique lens through which to view the dynamic relationships that underpin our social and environmental landscape.
Now, it's time for another dad joke: What did the Democrat voter say to the jet fuel? "You really make my candidate take off!"
[[RESULTS]]
In our investigation of the connection between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland, we uncovered a surprising and significant correlation. The correlation coefficient between these two seemingly unrelated variables was a staggering 0.9576591, with an r-squared of 0.9171110, and a p-value less than 0.01. This reveals a remarkably strong and robust association, defying conventional expectations and prompting us to consider the intriguing possibility of a genuine relationship.
Our analysis culminates in a striking scatterplot (Fig. 1) that vividly portrays the compelling correlation between the votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland. The figure serves as a visual testament to the surprising statistical link we have uncovered, providing a captivating illustration of this unexpected relationship.
This unexpected association between voting behavior and jet fuel consumption offers a lighthearted twist to the traditionally serious realm of statistical research. It certainly adds a dash of humor to the otherwise solemn scientific discourse. After all, even amidst rigorous data analysis, there's always room for a touch of jest to fuel the scholarly spirit.
Our study invites a novel perspective on the intersection of environmental factors and political preferences, enhancing our understanding of the intricate dynamics that shape our social and ecological landscape. While we approach this unique correlation with academic rigor, we also appreciate the delightful and unexpected dimension it adds to our scholarly pursuits.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our study has unveiled a peculiar and significant correlation between the votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland. The striking correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and the remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01 attest to the robustness of this noteworthy association. It seems that these two seemingly incongruous variables are engaging in a statistical waltz, defying traditional expectations and urging us to reconsider the interconnectedness of social and environmental phenomena.
As we reflect on these unanticipated findings, it's as if the realm of statistics has embarked on a whimsical journey, unveiling an unexpected dance between voting behavior and jet fuel usage. In the words of a friendly statistician, perhaps we've stumbled upon the "jet-setting Democrats" phenomenon!
Our research offers a playful departure from the conventional, injecting a dose of humor into the often serious domain of statistical exploration. After all, what's a statistical revelation without a touch of levity to lighten the scholarly mood? Let's not forget that amidst the depths of data analysis, a well-placed dad joke can fuel the scholarly spirit!
In light of these revelatory findings, it's safe to say that no further research is needed in this area. Our study has uncovered a delightful and unexpected link between votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and jet fuel consumption in Greenland, adding a touch of lighthearted whimsy to the rigorous pursuit of statistical inquiry. It's time to let this surprising correlation take flight and bask in its subtly humorous shine. After all, who knew that statistical analysis could lead to such unexpected destinations?
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 Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Whimsical Political Science
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 Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Association for Quirky Political Phenomena Research
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery with an abstract of The tantalizing conundrum of the potential connection between the votes cast for the Democrat presidential candidate in Delaware and the consumption of jet fuel in Greenland has piqued the curiosity of researchers for quite some time. This study delves into the remarkable correlation found between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the period from 1980 to 2020.
Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9576591 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the unexpectedly strong association between these two variables. It appears that the votes for the Democrat candidate in Delaware and the quantity of jet fuel used in Greenland share an intriguing relationship, prompting us to jokingly ponder if the phrase "Democratic fuel" may indeed have a literal meaning.
In conclusion, this study offers a delightful and unexpected revelation, shedding light on this eccentric association. Perhaps the next election cycle will bring about a surge in jet fuel consumption, signaling a potential predictor of political preferences. As we revel in this unlikely discovery, we must remember that correlation does not necessarily imply causation - and that the results of this research may just jet set our understanding of voting dynamics to new heights!
ChatGPT:
Democrat presidential candidate, Delaware, jet fuel consumption, Greenland, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Energy Information Administration, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, Democrat vote, jet fuel, voting preferences, voting dynamics
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in DelawareDetailed data title: Percentage of all votes cast for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Delaware
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Delaware
Jet fuel used in Greenland
Detailed data title: Volume of jet fuel used consumed in Greenland in millions of barrels per day
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Jet fuel used in Greenland
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 = 0.9171110 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 91.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Jet fuel used in Greenland) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Delaware) over the 11 years from 1980 through 2020.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 3.6E-6. 0.0000036416257800456200000000
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 0.96 in 0.00036% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 274,603 random variables You don't actually need 274 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.
[ 0.84, 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.
1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 | 1996 | 2000 | 2004 | 2008 | 2012 | 2016 | 2020 | |
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Delaware (Percentage of votes) | 44.8741 | 39.9321 | 43.4778 | 43.5239 | 51.8279 | 54.9777 | 53.3468 | 61.9427 | 58.6107 | 53.3533 | 58.743 |
Jet fuel used in Greenland (Million Barrels/Day) | 0.0355679 | 0.0365292 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.281667 | 0.283847 | 0.468118 | 0.35983 | 0.336 | 0.317944 |
Why this works
- Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
- Lack of causal connection: There is probably
Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied. - Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is. - Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves.
Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.
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([44.8741,39.9321,43.4778,43.5239,51.8279,54.9777,53.3468,61.9427,58.6107,53.3533,58.743,])
array_2 = np.array([0.0355679,0.0365292,0.1,0.1,0.2,0.281667,0.283847,0.468118,0.35983,0.336,0.317944,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Delaware"
array_2_name = "Jet fuel used in Greenland"
# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)
# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)
Reuseable content
You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.
For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."
When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.
Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.
Download images for these variables:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Delaware
- Line chart for only Jet fuel used in Greenland
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Delving into the Democrat Vote- Jet Fuel Duo: A Delightful Discovery
Cheers to you for rating this correlation!
Correlation ID: 4541 · Black Variable ID: 26070 · Red Variable ID: 24477