Spurious correlation #4,596 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in Delaware and the second variable is Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. The chart goes from 2000 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in Delaware and the second variable is Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. The chart goes from 2000 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

The seismic activity was just a reflection of the earth-shaking support for the Democratic Senators in Delaware. As the votes rolled in, tectonic plates couldn't help but shift in excitement, leading to a surge in extremely high magnitude earthquakes worldwide. It seems like even the Earth couldn't stay neutral in the face of such political polarization!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a world map with an emphasis on simplicity. The map should show the state of Delaware highlighted within the United States, with arrows pointing towards it to signify a rise in Democrat votes for Senators. Additionally, the map should indicate earthquake epicenters with magnitudes between 8.0 and 9.9 distributed throughout the world. The image should capture the simultaneous increase in Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the global count of powerful earthquakes, creating a clear and visually striking scene. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.

This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. 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: Cyber folk A TIME magazine cover image Sci-fi fantacy High-tech A Discovery magazine cover image
ChatGPT: A Discovery magazine cover image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9, in the following situation: As the number of Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware goes up, so does the worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. **Explanation:** It seems that the seismic activity is 'shifting' in correlation with the political 'plates' in Delaware! Maybe the 'left-leaning' votes are causing some 'rocky' repercussions around the world. Or perhaps the Earth is simply 'rumbling' in response to the 'groundbreaking' decisions being made. It's a 'magnetic' relationship – the 'blue wave' in Delaware is somehow 'shaking up' the tectonic plates globally. It's truly a case of 'voter volatility' leading to 'political quakes' of a whole different magnitude!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: Picture a map of the world with arrows pointing to Delaware, where the number of Democrat votes for Senators is increasing. At the same time, the map shows earthquake epicenters with magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9, indicating an increase in seismic activity across the globe. The map visually shows the simultaneous rise in Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the worldwide count of powerful earthquakes.

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 Discovery magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: Picture a map of the world with arrows pointing to Delaware, where the number of Democrat votes for Senators is increasing. At the same time, the map shows earthquake epicenters with magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9, indicating an increase in seismic activity across the globe. The map visually shows the simultaneous rise in Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the worldwide count of powerful earthquakes. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a world map with an emphasis on simplicity. The map should show the state of Delaware highlighted within the United States, with arrows pointing towards it to signify a rise in Democrat votes for Senators. Additionally, the map should indicate earthquake epicenters with magnitudes between 8.0 and 9.9 distributed throughout the world. The image should capture the simultaneous increase in Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the global count of powerful earthquakes, creating a clear and visually striking scene.

*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.
^{Show prompt for explanation} Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware caused Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9 to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

Shaky Senators: The Earthquake-Electoral Connection in Delaware

Journal of Political Seismology

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!

^{Show prompt used to generate this paper} 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 draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Shaky Senators: The Earthquake-Electoral Connection in Delaware

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between the voting patterns of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Geological Survey, our research team sought to explore the unexpected synergy between political preferences and seismological events. Surprisingly, a correlation coefficient of 0.9473181 and p < 0.01 was observed for the period spanning from 2000 to 2020, suggesting an uncanny alignment between political choices and tectonic activities. The implications of these findings are seismic in nature, prompting a reevaluation of the interconnectedness of electoral behavior and geological phenomena.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
The intersection of seismic events and political dynamics is a subject that, until recently, has been more a punchline of a scientific joke than a serious subject of study. However, thanks to the development of advanced statistical tools and the availability of comprehensive datasets, we are now able to delve into this eccentric area of inquiry with a new level of rigor. Our investigation seeks to shed light on the curious correlation between the voting patterns of Democratic citizens of Delaware in senatorial elections and the occurrence of earthquakes of magnitude 8.0 to 9.9 on a global scale.
The relationship between political choices and geological phenomena might appear as unlikely as a plate tectonics-themed sitcom, but our analysis uncovers a surprising level of association between these seemingly disconnected variables. The statistical evidence gathered from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Harvard Dataverse, and the US Geological Survey unveils a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9473181 with a significance level of p < 0.01, indicating a connection that cannot be dismissed as mere geological happenstance.
While it may be tempting to shake off these findings as an anomaly or simply a seismic statistical anomaly, the seismic and electoral implications of this discovery demand a closer examination. The seismic nature of the effects observed urges a paradigm shift in the way we view the interaction between political choices and geological events. Consequently, our research aims not only to explore this unexpected synergy but also to prompt a reevaluation of the interconnectedness of electoral behavior and geophysical phenomena. This line of inquiry epitomizes the convergence of seemingly unrelated fields, demonstrating the exciting potential for sparkling insights when unanticipated connections are probed with rigorous scientific scrutiny.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The exploration of the curious association between seismic events and political behavior has garnered increased interest in recent years. Smith et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive analysis of political voting patterns and geological occurrences, focusing on various regions in the United States. Their work laid the groundwork for our investigation by demonstrating the potential for unexpected connections within seemingly unrelated domains.

Furthermore, Doe (2019) provided valuable insights into the complexities of electoral behavior and its potential impact on environmental dynamics. While their study did not directly address seismic activities, it underscored the intricacies of human decision-making and its broader implications. Jones (2020) delved into the socio-economic factors influencing voting habits, offering a nuanced perspective on the interplay between individual preferences and external forces.

Expanding beyond traditional literature sources, "The Richter Scale and Political Tales" by Geophysics et al. (2005) provided a witty exploration of seismic phenomena as metaphors for political upheavals, offering an insightful take on the intersection of geology and governance. In a similar vein, "Fault Lines in Political Landscapes" by Tectonics et al. (2012) delved into the symbolic resonance of geological features in shaping political narratives, shedding light on the unanticipated parallels between earth movements and electoral shifts.

Moving into the realm of fiction, the classic novel "Of Quakes and Senators" by Literary Genius (1940) presented a satirical portrayal of political intrigue set against the backdrop of seismic events, hinting at the uncharted territories of electoral-geological interplay. Additionally, "Tremors of Change" by Fictional Author (2007) wove a tale of seismic discovery and political awakening, blurring the lines between physical and metaphorical tremors.

It is worth noting that internet memes have also contributed to the discourse on seismic and political convergence, with the popular "Shake the Vote" meme humorously juxtaposing electoral slogans with seismic activity data. This lighthearted take on the subject matter underscores the broader cultural fascination with unexpected correlations, even in the domain of electoral behavior and geological occurrences.

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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 USGS . You used data from 2000 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]]
Shaky Senators: The Earthquake-Electoral Connection in Delaware

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between the voting patterns of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Geological Survey, our research team sought to explore the unexpected synergy between political preferences and seismological events. Surprisingly, a correlation coefficient of 0.9473181 and p < 0.01 was observed for the period spanning from 2000 to 2020, suggesting an uncanny alignment between political choices and tectonic activities. The implications of these findings are seismic in nature, prompting a reevaluation of the interconnectedness of electoral behavior and geological phenomena.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
The intersection of seismic events and political dynamics is a subject that, until recently, has been more a punchline of a scientific joke than a serious subject of study. However, thanks to the development of advanced statistical tools and the availability of comprehensive datasets, we are now able to delve into this eccentric area of inquiry with a new level of rigor. Our investigation seeks to shed light on the curious correlation between the voting patterns of Democratic citizens of Delaware in senatorial elections and the occurrence of earthquakes of magnitude 8.0 to 9.9 on a global scale.
The relationship between political choices and geological phenomena might appear as unlikely as a plate tectonics-themed sitcom, but our analysis uncovers a surprising level of association between these seemingly disconnected variables. The statistical evidence gathered from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Harvard Dataverse, and the US Geological Survey unveils a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9473181 with a significance level of p < 0.01, indicating a connection that cannot be dismissed as mere geological happenstance.
While it may be tempting to shake off these findings as an anomaly or simply a seismic statistical anomaly, the seismic and electoral implications of this discovery demand a closer examination. The seismic nature of the effects observed urges a paradigm shift in the way we view the interaction between political choices and geological events. Consequently, our research aims not only to explore this unexpected synergy but also to prompt a reevaluation of the interconnectedness of electoral behavior and geophysical phenomena. This line of inquiry epitomizes the convergence of seemingly unrelated fields, demonstrating the exciting potential for sparkling insights when unanticipated connections are probed with rigorous scientific scrutiny.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Data Collection
The data used in this study were obtained from a variety of sources, primarily the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Harvard Dataverse, and the US Geological Survey. The senatorial election data from Delaware were carefully curated from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, capturing the voting preferences of Democratic constituents from the years 2000 to 2020. Concurrently, information on worldwide earthquakes within the magnitude range of 8.0 to 9.9 was extracted from the US Geological Survey database, providing a comprehensive record of seismic activities during the same time frame. The selection of these datasets entailed considerable vetting to ensure the integrity and reliability of the information, akin to sifting through seismic data to find that one "earth-shattering" discovery.

Data Analysis
The analysis began with an examination of the voting patterns of Democratic citizens in Delaware during the specified time period. This involved meticulous aggregation and normalization techniques to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the electoral data, not unlike the careful calibration of seismological instruments to detect subtle shifts in tectonic plates. Concurrently, the worldwide count of earthquakes within the designated magnitude range was subjected to rigorous statistical scrutiny, employing advanced methods to discern any underlying patterns or associations. Applying well-established statistical models and tools, the data were subjected to an arduous process of analysis, resembling the painstaking task of sifting through seismic data for patterns that may be "politically charged."

Correlation Measurement
To evaluate the potential relationship between the Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the occurrence of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9 on a global scale, a rigorous correlation analysis was undertaken. The correlation coefficient was calculated utilizing state-of-the-art statistical software, providing a quantitative measure of the degree of association between these seemingly disparate variables. Subsequently, a series of hypothesis tests were employed to assess the statistical significance of the observed relationship, akin to probing the geological significance of a political tremor. The pursuit of a high correlation coefficient and a statistically significant p-value became the guiding principles of this analysis, reflecting the fervent quest for an unexpected alignment between political preferences and seismic events.

Assumptions and Limitations
While the results of this study provide compelling evidence of an unusual correlation, it is important to acknowledge the inherent limitations and assumptions underlying the methodology employed. The assumption of a causal relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the occurrence of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9 on a global scale merits cautious interpretation, embracing the idea of seismic caution tape. Additionally, the extrapolation of these findings to other geographic regions warrants circumspect consideration, recognizing that electoral behavior and geological phenomena may manifest differently across diverse landscapes. Despite these caveats, the methodology applied in this study reflects a concerted effort to untangle the enigmatic web of potential connections between political choices and seismic occurrences.

In summary, the methodology adopted in this investigation leveraged a multipronged approach, harnessing extensive datasets and advanced statistical techniques to unravel the unexpected interplay between Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and the worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. The meticulous curation of data, the rigorous analysis, and the insightful interpretation collectively epitomize the rigor and curiosity that epitomizes scientific inquiry, as our research endeavors to uncover the seismic and electoral mysteries that lie beneath the surface of conventional wisdom.

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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Shaky Senators: The Earthquake-Electoral Connection in Delaware

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between the voting patterns of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Geological Survey, our research team sought to explore the unexpected synergy between political preferences and seismological events. Surprisingly, a correlation coefficient of 0.9473181 and p < 0.01 was observed for the period spanning from 2000 to 2020, suggesting an uncanny alignment between political choices and tectonic activities. The implications of these findings are seismic in nature, prompting a reevaluation of the interconnectedness of electoral behavior and geological phenomena.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The exploration of the curious association between seismic events and political behavior has garnered increased interest in recent years. Smith et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive analysis of political voting patterns and geological occurrences, focusing on various regions in the United States. Their work laid the groundwork for our investigation by demonstrating the potential for unexpected connections within seemingly unrelated domains.
Furthermore, Doe (2019) provided valuable insights into the complexities of electoral behavior and its potential impact on environmental dynamics. While their study did not directly address seismic activities, it underscored the intricacies of human decision-making and its broader implications. Jones (2020) delved into the socio-economic factors influencing voting habits, offering a nuanced perspective on the interplay between individual preferences and external forces.
Expanding beyond traditional literature sources, "The Richter Scale and Political Tales" by Geophysics et al. (2005) provided a witty exploration of seismic phenomena as metaphors for political upheavals, offering an insightful take on the intersection of geology and governance. In a similar vein, "Fault Lines in Political Landscapes" by Tectonics et al. (2012) delved into the symbolic resonance of geological features in shaping political narratives, shedding light on the unanticipated parallels between earth movements and electoral shifts.
Moving into the realm of fiction, the classic novel "Of Quakes and Senators" by Literary Genius (1940) presented a satirical portrayal of political intrigue set against the backdrop of seismic events, hinting at the uncharted territories of electoral-geological interplay. Additionally, "Tremors of Change" by Fictional Author (2007) wove a tale of seismic discovery and political awakening, blurring the lines between physical and metaphorical tremors.
It is worth noting that internet memes have also contributed to the discourse on seismic and political convergence, with the popular "Shake the Vote" meme humorously juxtaposing electoral slogans with seismic activity data. This lighthearted take on the subject matter underscores the broader cultural fascination with unexpected correlations, even in the domain of electoral behavior and geological occurrences.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the relationship between the voting patterns of Democratic citizens of Delaware in senatorial elections and the worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9 revealed a remarkable correlation of 0.9473181. This strength of association, as startling as a sudden tremor in a quiet suburb, points to a surprising synchronicity between these seemingly disparate phenomena. The r-squared value of 0.8974116 further underlines the robustness of this connection, akin to the consistency of tectonic plates in their geological dance.
The p-value of less than 0.01 is as rare as a mega-thrust earthquake, signalling a strong level of significance and indicating that the observed relationship is not a mere fluke, but rather a tremor of truth in the tectonic terrain of statistical analysis.
Figure 1, a scatterplot illustrating this notable correlation, stands as a testament to the seismic shift in our understanding of the intertwined forces at play. The strong alignment between the number of Democratic votes for Senators in Delaware and the count of earthquakes in the 8.0 to 9.9 magnitude range is as unexpected as an aftershock in a quiet political landscape.
This unearthed connection holds profound implications, challenging traditional disciplinary boundaries and beckoning for a harmonious integration of geological and political perspectives. The seismic implications of these findings call for a recalibration of our understanding of electoral behavior and geological events, fostering a tectonic shift in the way we perceive the interconnectedness of these seemingly distinct domains.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study have unearthed a seismic connection between the voting preferences of Democratic citizens in Delaware and the worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9, displaying a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9473181. These findings provide empirical support for the prior research that hinted at the potential alignment between political choices and geological events. The literature review, although serving as a serious backdrop for our study, also piqued our interest in the whimsical synergy between earth-shattering events and electoral dynamics.

Our results resonate with the work of Smith et al. (2017), who laid the groundwork for unexpected connections within ostensibly unrelated spheres. Just as tectonic plates exert unseen influence beneath the Earth's surface, so too did Democrats' voting patterns in Delaware exert an unexpected influence on seismic activities. The synergy between these seemingly disparate phenomena is as remarkable as an earthquake striking during a political convention.

Doe's (2019) insights into the complexities of electoral behavior and its potential impact on environmental dynamics, while not directly addressing seismic activities, set the stage for our investigation into the intricate interplay of human decision-making and geological forces. The seismic implications of our findings not only support but also extend the nuances of Doe's work, bringing a new dimension to the interconnectedness of seemingly distinct domains.

Moreover, the fiction works "Of Quakes and Senators" by Literary Genius (1940) and "Tremors of Change" by Fictional Author (2007) may have been intended as literary metaphor, but they inadvertently foreshadowed the startling alignment we discovered. Much like a buried fault line suddenly revealed by a powerful quake, these literary narratives subtly hinted at the unsuspected convergence between political undertones and geological events, preparing us for the seismic revelation unearthed in this study.

Finally, the popular internet meme "Shake the Vote" humorously juxtaposed electoral slogans with seismic activity data, reflecting the cultural fascination with unexpected correlations. Little did the meme's creators know that this lighthearted take would presage our rigorous statistical analysis, revealing an unexpected bond between seismic and political phenomena. Our findings confirm the seismic resonance between votive vibrations and the geophysical rhythms of Earth, thereby stirring the proverbial Richter scale of conventional scientific thought.

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 Democrat votes for Senators in Delaware and Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Shaky Senators: The Earthquake-Electoral Connection in Delaware

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between the voting patterns of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Geological Survey, our research team sought to explore the unexpected synergy between political preferences and seismological events. Surprisingly, a correlation coefficient of 0.9473181 and p < 0.01 was observed for the period spanning from 2000 to 2020, suggesting an uncanny alignment between political choices and tectonic activities. The implications of these findings are seismic in nature, prompting a reevaluation of the interconnectedness of electoral behavior and geological phenomena.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Introduction
The intersection of seismic events and political dynamics is a subject that, until recently, has been more a punchline of a scientific joke than a serious subject of study. However, thanks to the development of advanced statistical tools and the availability of comprehensive datasets, we are now able to delve into this eccentric area of inquiry with a new level of rigor. Our investigation seeks to shed light on the curious correlation between the voting patterns of Democratic citizens of Delaware in senatorial elections and the occurrence of earthquakes of magnitude 8.0 to 9.9 on a global scale.
The relationship between political choices and geological phenomena might appear as unlikely as a plate tectonics-themed sitcom, but our analysis uncovers a surprising level of association between these seemingly disconnected variables. The statistical evidence gathered from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Harvard Dataverse, and the US Geological Survey unveils a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9473181 with a significance level of p < 0.01, indicating a connection that cannot be dismissed as mere geological happenstance.
While it may be tempting to shake off these findings as an anomaly or simply a seismic statistical anomaly, the seismic and electoral implications of this discovery demand a closer examination. The seismic nature of the effects observed urges a paradigm shift in the way we view the interaction between political choices and geological events. Consequently, our research aims not only to explore this unexpected synergy but also to prompt a reevaluation of the interconnectedness of electoral behavior and geophysical phenomena. This line of inquiry epitomizes the convergence of seemingly unrelated fields, demonstrating the exciting potential for sparkling insights when unanticipated connections are probed with rigorous scientific scrutiny.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the relationship between the voting patterns of Democratic citizens of Delaware in senatorial elections and the worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9 revealed a remarkable correlation of 0.9473181. This strength of association, as startling as a sudden tremor in a quiet suburb, points to a surprising synchronicity between these seemingly disparate phenomena. The r-squared value of 0.8974116 further underlines the robustness of this connection, akin to the consistency of tectonic plates in their geological dance.
The p-value of less than 0.01 is as rare as a mega-thrust earthquake, signalling a strong level of significance and indicating that the observed relationship is not a mere fluke, but rather a tremor of truth in the tectonic terrain of statistical analysis.
Figure 1, a scatterplot illustrating this notable correlation, stands as a testament to the seismic shift in our understanding of the intertwined forces at play. The strong alignment between the number of Democratic votes for Senators in Delaware and the count of earthquakes in the 8.0 to 9.9 magnitude range is as unexpected as an aftershock in a quiet political landscape.
This unearthed connection holds profound implications, challenging traditional disciplinary boundaries and beckoning for a harmonious integration of geological and political perspectives. The seismic implications of these findings call for a recalibration of our understanding of electoral behavior and geological events, fostering a tectonic shift in the way we perceive the interconnectedness of these seemingly distinct domains.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has unearthed a correlation of seismic significance between the voting patterns of Democratic citizens of Delaware in senatorial elections and the worldwide count of earthquakes with magnitudes between 8.0 and 9.9. This unexpected fusion of political preferences and tectonic activities has shaken the foundations of traditional scientific inquiry, much like a 9.0 magnitude earthquake.

The robust correlation coefficient of 0.9473181 has proven to be as sturdy as a well-built seismic-resistant structure, defying expectations and raising intriguing questions about the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated phenomena. The p-value of less than 0.01 is indeed a rarity in the scientific realm, comparable to finding a diamond in a statistical rough.

Our findings, as unexpected as a volcanic eruption in a tranquil political landscape, suggest that further research in this shimmering, seismic field may not be necessary. The seismic shifts observed in the data urge a reevaluation of the conventional boundaries between political behavior and geological events, highlighting the tremendous potential for illuminating insights when unlikely connections are probed with rigorous scrutiny. Therefore, we are confident in asserting that the seismic-electoral nexus has been sufficiently scrutinized and requires no further seismic activity in the realm of political research.

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 Shaky Senators: The Earthquake-Electoral Connection in Delaware. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Political Seismology

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 Shaky Senators: The Earthquake-Electoral Connection in Delaware. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Seismic Political Science

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 Shaky Senators: The Earthquake-Electoral Connection in Delaware with an abstract of This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between the voting patterns of Democrats for Senators in Delaware and the worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Geological Survey, our research team sought to explore the unexpected synergy between political preferences and seismological events. Surprisingly, a correlation coefficient of 0.9473181 and p < 0.01 was observed for the period spanning from 2000 to 2020, suggesting an uncanny alignment between political choices and tectonic activities. The implications of these findings are seismic in nature, prompting a reevaluation of the interconnectedness of electoral behavior and geological phenomena.

ChatGPT:

Delaware, Senators, earthquake, electoral connection, seismic events, political preferences, tectonic activities, correlation coefficient, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, US Geological Survey, electoral behavior, geological phenomena

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

Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error

Data details

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

Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9
Source: USGS
See what else correlates with Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9

Correlation r = 0.9473181 (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 = 0.8974116 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 89.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Delaware) over the 6 years from 2000 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00409.^Show 0.0040899626914320090000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note 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 0.95 in 0.409% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 245 random variables^Note Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, ^Note 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.

[ 0.59, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} 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: ^Note 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.

	2000	2006	2010	2012	2014	2018
Votes for Democratic Senators in Delaware (Percentage of votes)	55.526	70.2003	56.6073	66.4192	55.8264	59.9531
Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9 (Earthquakes)	1	2	1	2	1	1

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^Note 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^Note Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.

Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. ^{Show the steps to do this.} 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([55.526,70.2003,56.6073,66.4192,55.8264,59.9531,])
array_2 = np.array([1,2,1,2,1,1,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Delaware"
array_2_name = "Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9"

# 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. ^Note 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 ^Note The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.

If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.

Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
Alternative high resolution line chart
Scatterplot
Portable line chart (png)
Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
Line chart for only Votes for Democratic Senators in Delaware
Line chart for only Worldwide count of earthquakes with a magnitude between 8.0 and 9.9
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Shaky Senators: The Earthquake-Electoral Connection in Delaware

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your dedication to rating warms my heart!

Correlation ID: 4596 · Black Variable ID: 26363 · Red Variable ID: 57


Problem variable:
Issue:
Additional details: Optional
Confirm you are a human: