Spurious correlation #4,613 · 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 Republican Senators in Idaho and the second variable is Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. The chart goes from 2004 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 Republican Senators in Idaho and the second variable is Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. The chart goes from 2004 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

As more Republican senators were elected in Idaho, there was a correlating increase in demand for bunker construction. It seems the voters were really digging the idea of underground living.

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Generate an image that resembles a Polaroid photo depicting a scene in Idaho. The image shows people casting their votes for Republican senators, alongside others immediately searching on Google for "how to build a bunker." This image reflects the growing interest in underground living. The scene should be set in a practical, everyday setting. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Republican votes for Senators in Idaho and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: A photo-realistic image Parallax art inspired by bauhaus Cybernetic art a Polaroid photo
ChatGPT: a Polaroid photo

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Republican votes for Senators in Idaho and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker', in the following situation: As more Republican senators were elected in Idaho, there was a correlating increase in demand for bunker construction. It seems the voters were really digging the idea of underground living.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Idaho, as more Republican votes came in for the senators, more people were seen searching on Google, 'how to build a bunker'. The imagery of people casting their votes and then immediately getting online to research bunker construction reflected a growing interest in underground living.

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 Polaroid photo ] and depicting this scene: In Idaho, as more Republican votes came in for the senators, more people were seen searching on Google, 'how to build a bunker'. The imagery of people casting their votes and then immediately getting online to research bunker construction reflected a growing interest in underground living. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Generate an image that resembles a Polaroid photo depicting a scene in Idaho. The image shows people casting their votes for Republican senators, alongside others immediately searching on Google for "how to build a bunker." This image reflects the growing interest in underground living. The scene should be set in a practical, everyday setting.

*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 increases in Republican votes for Senators in Idaho positively influenced how to build a bunker (Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'). Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

Digging Deeper: The Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes in Idaho and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'

The Journal of Political Paranoia Studies

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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Idaho and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Digging Deeper: The Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes in Idaho and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
As the age-old saying goes, "when the going gets tough, the tough get Googling." In this study, we delve into the intriguing relationship between the voting patterns of Republican Senators in the state of Idaho and the seemingly unrelated yet curiously coincident Google searches for information on bunker construction. Drawing from the vast repositories of data provided by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we sought to unravel the enigma encapsulated in the query, "how to build a bunker."

Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9196031 and a significance level of p < 0.01. This statistically robust connection, spanning the years 2004 to 2020, suggests that there may be more than meets the eye between political allegiances and an inclination towards bunker-building inquiries. While causality remains a subject for future investigation, one cannot help but ponder the extent to which political preferences and the desire for subterranean sanctuaries intersect in the collective unconscious. Moreover, the implications of our findings prompt contemplation on the potential impact of political decisions on individual perceptions of safety and security, or perhaps the popularity of home improvement projects.

Thus, our study not only uncovers an unexpected correlation, but also opens the door to a myriad of thought-provoking musings, prompting a reflection on the peculiar ways in which human behavior weaves a whimsical web of interconnection. Without a doubt, this investigation has ventured into uncharted territory, serving as a curious reminder that beneath the serious façade of political analysis lies a trove of unexpected associations, waiting to be unearthed.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of political science and data analysis, the pursuit of uncovering hidden relationships and curious connections often leads researchers down unexpected paths, and so it is in this study. The entanglement of political events and unconventional queries has long captivated the curious minds of scholars, prompting the investigation of phenomena that may appear whimsical at first glance, but carry profound implications for understanding human behavior and decision-making.
As the tendrils of intrigue beckon, we turn our attention to the state of Idaho, a setting not typically associated with subterranean undertakings. Idaho's political landscape, characterized by a noted preference for Republican representation in the Senate, presents an intriguing backdrop for examining the congruence of electoral choices and the digital pursuit of bunker-related knowledge. The juxtaposition of concrete legislative outcomes and hypothetical subterranean construction encapsulates the essence of this exploratory undertaking.
By diving into the vast reservoirs of publicly available data, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Google Trends, we embraced the challenge of reconciling seemingly disparate variables. The process of transforming raw data into meaningful insights mirrors the intricate art of spelunking, navigating the labyrinthine corridors of statistical analyses and regression models to unearth the elusive connections that lie beneath the surface.
Emanating from this rigorous endeavor is a peculiar convergence between Republican senatorial votes and the frequency of Google searches for information on bunker construction. The correlation coefficient of 0.9196031, coupled with a significance level of p < 0.01, stands as a testament to the robustness of this unanticipated association. As we bask in the glow of statistical significance, it becomes apparent that the intersection of red-hued political affiliations and musings on subterranean architectures orchestrates a serendipitous dance of data points and electoral dynamics.
As we embark on this odyssey of inquiry, we approach the terrain of causality with caution, cognizant of the intricate web of variables that may influence our observed correlations. Nonetheless, the resonance of our findings beckons us to ponder the curious interplay of ideology and the contemplation of fortified shelters – an endeavor that underscores the playful unpredictability woven into the fabric of research pursuits.
In the pages that follow, we shall traverse the conceptual caverns of political psychology, statistical wizardry, and the peculiar conundrum of the human penchant for bunker-related inquiries. In doing so, we not only unravel a surprising correlation but also invite our fellow scholars to partake in the joyous revelry of unexpected discoveries and the whimsical interplay of sociopolitical and technological phenomena.
As we dig deeper into the quintessential enigma of political bunker inquiries, we are reminded that amidst the rigorous pursuit of knowledge, the unexpected, the amusing, and the confounding often reign supreme, adding a touch of levity to the weighty fabric of academic inquiry. Indeed, the venture into the unexpected offers a delightful reminder that, in the expanse of research, one may stumble upon hidden treasures and quirks that transcend the conventional norms of scientific exploration.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The pursuit of understanding the peculiar link between Republican senatorial votes in Idaho and the surge of Google searches for 'how to build a bunker' has led researchers into an eclectic expanse of literature and scholarly discourse. At the initial juncture of inquiry, Smith et al. delved into the annals of political psychology to unravel the nuanced fabric of conservative ideologies and their potential resonance with unconventional safety measures. Their exploration prompted a contemplation of the interplay between political beliefs and the perception of security, akin to the idiosyncratic motivations prompting the contemplation of subterranean fortifications.

Further delving into the political labyrinth, Doe and Jones probed the intricate dynamics of state-level electoral patterns and their underlying implications for individualistic conceptions of safety. Their incisive examination laid the groundwork for understanding the multifaceted tapestry of political affiliations and the subtle nuances encapsulated within queries for bunker construction, transcending the overtly practical connotations to touch upon the psyche's enigmatic yearnings for security in unsettling times.

However, as we traverse beyond the realm of traditional political scholarship, a broader array of literature beckons with surprising relevance. "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu and "The Prince" by Niccolò Machiavelli offer insights into the stratagems and maneuvers within the political sphere, highlighting the depth of calculation and preparedness inherent in the pursuit of power. Peculiarly, the musings on defensive fortifications and tactical retreats resonate with the modern-day ponderings on bunker construction, bridging the chasm of centuries with a wry nod to timeless concerns for protection and resilience.

Venturing into the realm of fiction, the works of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, particularly "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and "The War of the Worlds," serve as curious touchpoints to the thematic undercurrents of subterranean exploration and extraterrestrial threats. While ostensibly divergent from the realm of political analyses, these literary works subtly echo the subconscious yearnings for traversing uncharted depths and fortifying against formidable unknowns, evoking a whimsical resonance with modern-day bunker inquiries.

In an unexpected turn, the realm of animated entertainment offers its own exploration of fortified shelters and clandestine operations, with "Phineas and Ferb" and "Scooby-Doo" offering playful renditions of secret lairs and mysterious hideaways. The juxtaposition of these fictional escapades with real-world inquiries into bunker construction invites a lighthearted contemplation of the uncanny overlaps between fanciful imaginings and practical pursuits, revealing a delightful convergence of the whimsical and the tangible within the fabric of societal consciousness.

Amidst this curious amalgamation of literature and popular culture, one cannot help but marvel at the whimsical interplay of academic inquiry and unexpected resonances, offering a testament to the unpredictable pathways that weave through the labyrinth of research pursuits. As we synthesize the diverse influences permeating our exploration, a rich tapestry of connections emerges, underscoring the delightful caprice inherent in the pursuit of knowledge and the intriguing web of associations awaiting discovery.

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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Idaho and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. 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 Google Trends . You used data from 2004 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]]
"Digging Deeper: The Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes in Idaho and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
As the age-old saying goes, "when the going gets tough, the tough get Googling." In this study, we delve into the intriguing relationship between the voting patterns of Republican Senators in the state of Idaho and the seemingly unrelated yet curiously coincident Google searches for information on bunker construction. Drawing from the vast repositories of data provided by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we sought to unravel the enigma encapsulated in the query, "how to build a bunker."

Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9196031 and a significance level of p < 0.01. This statistically robust connection, spanning the years 2004 to 2020, suggests that there may be more than meets the eye between political allegiances and an inclination towards bunker-building inquiries. While causality remains a subject for future investigation, one cannot help but ponder the extent to which political preferences and the desire for subterranean sanctuaries intersect in the collective unconscious. Moreover, the implications of our findings prompt contemplation on the potential impact of political decisions on individual perceptions of safety and security, or perhaps the popularity of home improvement projects.

Thus, our study not only uncovers an unexpected correlation, but also opens the door to a myriad of thought-provoking musings, prompting a reflection on the peculiar ways in which human behavior weaves a whimsical web of interconnection. Without a doubt, this investigation has ventured into uncharted territory, serving as a curious reminder that beneath the serious façade of political analysis lies a trove of unexpected associations, waiting to be unearthed.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of political science and data analysis, the pursuit of uncovering hidden relationships and curious connections often leads researchers down unexpected paths, and so it is in this study. The entanglement of political events and unconventional queries has long captivated the curious minds of scholars, prompting the investigation of phenomena that may appear whimsical at first glance, but carry profound implications for understanding human behavior and decision-making.
As the tendrils of intrigue beckon, we turn our attention to the state of Idaho, a setting not typically associated with subterranean undertakings. Idaho's political landscape, characterized by a noted preference for Republican representation in the Senate, presents an intriguing backdrop for examining the congruence of electoral choices and the digital pursuit of bunker-related knowledge. The juxtaposition of concrete legislative outcomes and hypothetical subterranean construction encapsulates the essence of this exploratory undertaking.
By diving into the vast reservoirs of publicly available data, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Google Trends, we embraced the challenge of reconciling seemingly disparate variables. The process of transforming raw data into meaningful insights mirrors the intricate art of spelunking, navigating the labyrinthine corridors of statistical analyses and regression models to unearth the elusive connections that lie beneath the surface.
Emanating from this rigorous endeavor is a peculiar convergence between Republican senatorial votes and the frequency of Google searches for information on bunker construction. The correlation coefficient of 0.9196031, coupled with a significance level of p < 0.01, stands as a testament to the robustness of this unanticipated association. As we bask in the glow of statistical significance, it becomes apparent that the intersection of red-hued political affiliations and musings on subterranean architectures orchestrates a serendipitous dance of data points and electoral dynamics.
As we embark on this odyssey of inquiry, we approach the terrain of causality with caution, cognizant of the intricate web of variables that may influence our observed correlations. Nonetheless, the resonance of our findings beckons us to ponder the curious interplay of ideology and the contemplation of fortified shelters – an endeavor that underscores the playful unpredictability woven into the fabric of research pursuits.
In the pages that follow, we shall traverse the conceptual caverns of political psychology, statistical wizardry, and the peculiar conundrum of the human penchant for bunker-related inquiries. In doing so, we not only unravel a surprising correlation but also invite our fellow scholars to partake in the joyous revelry of unexpected discoveries and the whimsical interplay of sociopolitical and technological phenomena.
As we dig deeper into the quintessential enigma of political bunker inquiries, we are reminded that amidst the rigorous pursuit of knowledge, the unexpected, the amusing, and the confounding often reign supreme, adding a touch of levity to the weighty fabric of academic inquiry. Indeed, the venture into the unexpected offers a delightful reminder that, in the expanse of research, one may stumble upon hidden treasures and quirks that transcend the conventional norms of scientific exploration.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

In order to unveil the clandestine connection between Republican senatorial votes in Idaho and the inclination to seek enlightenment on bunker construction methods, our research team embarked on a voyage through the seas of data and statistical analysis. Our journey began with the extraction of electoral data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, where we meticulously combed through years of senatorial voting records. Sailing onwards, we charted a course to navigate the treacherous terrain of internet searches, leveraging the bountiful offerings of Google Trends to discern the frequency of queries pertaining to the elusive art of bunker construction.

With the amassed treasures of data in hand, we endeavored to traverse the labyrinth of statistical inference and regression modeling. Our ensemble of statistical techniques resembled a meticulously scripted symphony, harmonizing the variables of interest with meticulous attention to detail. We performed a series of intricate dances with statistical significance tests to ascertain the robustness of the observed correlations. These waltzes culminated in the unveiling of a correlation coefficient of 0.9196031, a towering testament to the resilience of the observed association.

As we navigated this scholarly escapade, the multi-year scope of our investigation acted as a guiding compass, providing a panoramic view of the ebb and flow of political tides and digital inquiries. Our expedition traversed the spans of 2004 to 2020, capturing the undulating currents of electoral choices and the curious waves of bunker-seeking endeavors. This lengthy timeframe allowed us to capture the nuanced interplay of political fervor and the foraging for knowledge on subterranean fortresses, akin to witnessing the cyclical rhythms of geological formations over the ages.

Moreover, the utilization of data from reputable repositories such as the Harvard Dataverse endowed our efforts with a robust foundation, akin to sourcing premium materials for the construction of a scholarly edifice. This expansive dataset enabled us to embark on our statistical odyssey with confidence, knowing that our findings would stand on the bedrock of academic rigor and methodological integrity.

In conducting this kaleidoscopic journey of data extraction, statistical exploration, and computational wizardry, we remained vigilant in our quest to elucidate the enigmatic relationship between political proclivities and the yearning for underground sanctuaries. Adhering to the principles of scientific inquiry, we endeavored to intertwine precision and whimsy, recognizing that the pursuit of knowledge, much like spelunking, requires a keen eye for unexpected passages and hidden chambers of scholarly discourse.

Indeed, this methodological escapade was akin to embarking on a scientific scavenger hunt, as we sifted through the myriad fragments of electoral and search query data to discern patterns that may have remained concealed from casual observation. In embracing the idiosyncrasies of our research journey, we approached the hallowed halls of statistics with a dash of levity, recognizing that amidst the profundity of scholarly pursuits, the occasional pun or play on words can function as a beacon of intellectual camaraderie in our endeavors.

As we culminate this methodological traverse, we invite our esteemed colleagues to join us in the measured waltz of academic exploration, savoring the unexpected discoveries and curiosities along the path of knowledge acquisition. After all, in the erudite tapestry of scientific endeavors, the occasional jest or chuckle may serve as an oasis of mirth amidst the relentless pursuit of empirical truths and scholarly revelations.

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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Idaho and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. 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 Google Trends .

For the time period 2004 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9196031, r-squared of 0.8456698, 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]]
"Digging Deeper: The Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes in Idaho and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
As the age-old saying goes, "when the going gets tough, the tough get Googling." In this study, we delve into the intriguing relationship between the voting patterns of Republican Senators in the state of Idaho and the seemingly unrelated yet curiously coincident Google searches for information on bunker construction. Drawing from the vast repositories of data provided by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we sought to unravel the enigma encapsulated in the query, "how to build a bunker."

Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9196031 and a significance level of p < 0.01. This statistically robust connection, spanning the years 2004 to 2020, suggests that there may be more than meets the eye between political allegiances and an inclination towards bunker-building inquiries. While causality remains a subject for future investigation, one cannot help but ponder the extent to which political preferences and the desire for subterranean sanctuaries intersect in the collective unconscious. Moreover, the implications of our findings prompt contemplation on the potential impact of political decisions on individual perceptions of safety and security, or perhaps the popularity of home improvement projects.

Thus, our study not only uncovers an unexpected correlation, but also opens the door to a myriad of thought-provoking musings, prompting a reflection on the peculiar ways in which human behavior weaves a whimsical web of interconnection. Without a doubt, this investigation has ventured into uncharted territory, serving as a curious reminder that beneath the serious façade of political analysis lies a trove of unexpected associations, waiting to be unearthed.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the realm of political science and data analysis, the pursuit of uncovering hidden relationships and curious connections often leads researchers down unexpected paths, and so it is in this study. The entanglement of political events and unconventional queries has long captivated the curious minds of scholars, prompting the investigation of phenomena that may appear whimsical at first glance, but carry profound implications for understanding human behavior and decision-making.
As the tendrils of intrigue beckon, we turn our attention to the state of Idaho, a setting not typically associated with subterranean undertakings. Idaho's political landscape, characterized by a noted preference for Republican representation in the Senate, presents an intriguing backdrop for examining the congruence of electoral choices and the digital pursuit of bunker-related knowledge. The juxtaposition of concrete legislative outcomes and hypothetical subterranean construction encapsulates the essence of this exploratory undertaking.
By diving into the vast reservoirs of publicly available data, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Google Trends, we embraced the challenge of reconciling seemingly disparate variables. The process of transforming raw data into meaningful insights mirrors the intricate art of spelunking, navigating the labyrinthine corridors of statistical analyses and regression models to unearth the elusive connections that lie beneath the surface.
Emanating from this rigorous endeavor is a peculiar convergence between Republican senatorial votes and the frequency of Google searches for information on bunker construction. The correlation coefficient of 0.9196031, coupled with a significance level of p < 0.01, stands as a testament to the robustness of this unanticipated association. As we bask in the glow of statistical significance, it becomes apparent that the intersection of red-hued political affiliations and musings on subterranean architectures orchestrates a serendipitous dance of data points and electoral dynamics.
As we embark on this odyssey of inquiry, we approach the terrain of causality with caution, cognizant of the intricate web of variables that may influence our observed correlations. Nonetheless, the resonance of our findings beckons us to ponder the curious interplay of ideology and the contemplation of fortified shelters – an endeavor that underscores the playful unpredictability woven into the fabric of research pursuits.
In the pages that follow, we shall traverse the conceptual caverns of political psychology, statistical wizardry, and the peculiar conundrum of the human penchant for bunker-related inquiries. In doing so, we not only unravel a surprising correlation but also invite our fellow scholars to partake in the joyous revelry of unexpected discoveries and the whimsical interplay of sociopolitical and technological phenomena.
As we dig deeper into the quintessential enigma of political bunker inquiries, we are reminded that amidst the rigorous pursuit of knowledge, the unexpected, the amusing, and the confounding often reign supreme, adding a touch of levity to the weighty fabric of academic inquiry. Indeed, the venture into the unexpected offers a delightful reminder that, in the expanse of research, one may stumble upon hidden treasures and quirks that transcend the conventional norms of scientific exploration.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]

ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The examination of the relationship between Republican senatorial votes in Idaho and Google searches for "how to build a bunker" produced intriguing insights. Over the time frame of 2004 to 2020, our analysis revealed a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9196031, with an r-squared value of 0.8456698 and a p-value less than 0.01, signifying a statistically significant relationship.

In Fig. 1, the scatterplot illustrates the notable alignment between Republican votes for Senators in Idaho and the frequency of Google searches for bunker construction guidance. The data points exhibit a strikingly linear pattern, underscoring the strong connection between these seemingly disparate variables. It seems the state of Idaho has had both electoral and subterranean matters on its mind in a consistent manner over the years.

This surprising correlation prompts reflection on the potential psychological underpinnings and societal implications. While causality remains a matter for further investigation, one cannot help but marvel at the whimsical interplay of electoral dynamics and the consideration of constructing underground fortifications. The serendipity of this association raises provocative questions about the intersection of political decision-making and the pursuit of personal security – or, perhaps, an escalating interest in home add-ons with a bunker mentality.

The statistical prowess of our analysis shines a light on the hidden connections that often reside beneath the surface of political and technological phenomena, reminding us that, in the world of research, the unexpected can be just around the corner. As we conclude this segment of our study, we eagerly anticipate delving into the myriad implications and potential applications stemming from this unusual correlation.

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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Idaho and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. 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]]
"Digging Deeper: The Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes in Idaho and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
As the age-old saying goes, "when the going gets tough, the tough get Googling." In this study, we delve into the intriguing relationship between the voting patterns of Republican Senators in the state of Idaho and the seemingly unrelated yet curiously coincident Google searches for information on bunker construction. Drawing from the vast repositories of data provided by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we sought to unravel the enigma encapsulated in the query, "how to build a bunker."

Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9196031 and a significance level of p < 0.01. This statistically robust connection, spanning the years 2004 to 2020, suggests that there may be more than meets the eye between political allegiances and an inclination towards bunker-building inquiries. While causality remains a subject for future investigation, one cannot help but ponder the extent to which political preferences and the desire for subterranean sanctuaries intersect in the collective unconscious. Moreover, the implications of our findings prompt contemplation on the potential impact of political decisions on individual perceptions of safety and security, or perhaps the popularity of home improvement projects.

Thus, our study not only uncovers an unexpected correlation, but also opens the door to a myriad of thought-provoking musings, prompting a reflection on the peculiar ways in which human behavior weaves a whimsical web of interconnection. Without a doubt, this investigation has ventured into uncharted territory, serving as a curious reminder that beneath the serious façade of political analysis lies a trove of unexpected associations, waiting to be unearthed.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The pursuit of understanding the peculiar link between Republican senatorial votes in Idaho and the surge of Google searches for 'how to build a bunker' has led researchers into an eclectic expanse of literature and scholarly discourse. At the initial juncture of inquiry, Smith et al. delved into the annals of political psychology to unravel the nuanced fabric of conservative ideologies and their potential resonance with unconventional safety measures. Their exploration prompted a contemplation of the interplay between political beliefs and the perception of security, akin to the idiosyncratic motivations prompting the contemplation of subterranean fortifications.
Further delving into the political labyrinth, Doe and Jones probed the intricate dynamics of state-level electoral patterns and their underlying implications for individualistic conceptions of safety. Their incisive examination laid the groundwork for understanding the multifaceted tapestry of political affiliations and the subtle nuances encapsulated within queries for bunker construction, transcending the overtly practical connotations to touch upon the psyche's enigmatic yearnings for security in unsettling times.
However, as we traverse beyond the realm of traditional political scholarship, a broader array of literature beckons with surprising relevance. "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu and "The Prince" by Niccolò Machiavelli offer insights into the stratagems and maneuvers within the political sphere, highlighting the depth of calculation and preparedness inherent in the pursuit of power. Peculiarly, the musings on defensive fortifications and tactical retreats resonate with the modern-day ponderings on bunker construction, bridging the chasm of centuries with a wry nod to timeless concerns for protection and resilience.
Venturing into the realm of fiction, the works of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, particularly "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and "The War of the Worlds," serve as curious touchpoints to the thematic undercurrents of subterranean exploration and extraterrestrial threats. While ostensibly divergent from the realm of political analyses, these literary works subtly echo the subconscious yearnings for traversing uncharted depths and fortifying against formidable unknowns, evoking a whimsical resonance with modern-day bunker inquiries.
In an unexpected turn, the realm of animated entertainment offers its own exploration of fortified shelters and clandestine operations, with "Phineas and Ferb" and "Scooby-Doo" offering playful renditions of secret lairs and mysterious hideaways. The juxtaposition of these fictional escapades with real-world inquiries into bunker construction invites a lighthearted contemplation of the uncanny overlaps between fanciful imaginings and practical pursuits, revealing a delightful convergence of the whimsical and the tangible within the fabric of societal consciousness.
Amidst this curious amalgamation of literature and popular culture, one cannot help but marvel at the whimsical interplay of academic inquiry and unexpected resonances, offering a testament to the unpredictable pathways that weave through the labyrinth of research pursuits. As we synthesize the diverse influences permeating our exploration, a rich tapestry of connections emerges, underscoring the delightful caprice inherent in the pursuit of knowledge and the intriguing web of associations awaiting discovery.

[[RESULTS]]
The examination of the relationship between Republican senatorial votes in Idaho and Google searches for "how to build a bunker" produced intriguing insights. Over the time frame of 2004 to 2020, our analysis revealed a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9196031, with an r-squared value of 0.8456698 and a p-value less than 0.01, signifying a statistically significant relationship.
In Fig. 1, the scatterplot illustrates the notable alignment between Republican votes for Senators in Idaho and the frequency of Google searches for bunker construction guidance. The data points exhibit a strikingly linear pattern, underscoring the strong connection between these seemingly disparate variables. It seems the state of Idaho has had both electoral and subterranean matters on its mind in a consistent manner over the years.
This surprising correlation prompts reflection on the potential psychological underpinnings and societal implications. While causality remains a matter for further investigation, one cannot help but marvel at the whimsical interplay of electoral dynamics and the consideration of constructing underground fortifications. The serendipity of this association raises provocative questions about the intersection of political decision-making and the pursuit of personal security – or, perhaps, an escalating interest in home add-ons with a bunker mentality.
The statistical prowess of our analysis shines a light on the hidden connections that often reside beneath the surface of political and technological phenomena, reminding us that, in the world of research, the unexpected can be just around the corner. As we conclude this segment of our study, we eagerly anticipate delving into the myriad implications and potential applications stemming from this unusual correlation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The confluence of Republican senatorial votes in Idaho and the surge of Google searches for 'how to build a bunker' has ushered us into a realm of unanticipated correlation, igniting a whimsical dance of statistical intrigue and societal reflection. Our findings not only align with prior research but also unveil a trove of unexpected associations, beckoning further contemplation on the quirky ways in which human behavior intersects with political allegiances and the allure of subterranean sanctuaries.

Building upon the scholarly musings of Smith et al. and Doe and Jones, who meticulously probed the depths of political psychology and electoral patterns, our study lends credence to the subtle interplay between conservative ideologies and unconventional safety measures. The statistically robust correlation we uncovered reinforces the premise that political affiliations may intertwine with individualistic conceptions of security, resonating with the idiosyncratic motivations prompting the contemplation of bunker construction. As we traverse beyond the realm of traditional political scholarship, the surprising relevance of literary works such as Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" and Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" find unexpected resonance in our investigation, echoing the subconscious yearnings for fortification against formidable unknowns.

The visual manifestation of our correlation in the scatterplot (Fig. 1) presents a delightfully linear pattern, reminiscent of a well-constructed bunker – robust, precise, and perhaps slightly buried beneath the surface, mirroring the underlying relationship between political inclinations and an urge to delve into architectural fortification projects. As we ponder the potential psychological underpinnings and societal implications, one cannot help but marvel at the whimsical intersection of electoral dynamics and the consideration of constructing underground fortifications, inviting contemplation about the extent to which political decisions may permeate individual perceptions of safety and security, or perhaps home improvement endeavors with a bountiful dose of caution.

In true scientific fashion, our study hints at the unpredictability inherent in the pursuit of knowledge, reminding us that the delightful caprice of research can lead to uncharted territory and unexpected correlations. As we navigate this peculiar terrain of investigation, we eagerly anticipate brewing more potent statistical concoctions and uncovering the hidden connections that lie just beneath the surface of societal phenomena.

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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Idaho and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. 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]]
"Digging Deeper: The Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes in Idaho and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
As the age-old saying goes, "when the going gets tough, the tough get Googling." In this study, we delve into the intriguing relationship between the voting patterns of Republican Senators in the state of Idaho and the seemingly unrelated yet curiously coincident Google searches for information on bunker construction. Drawing from the vast repositories of data provided by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we sought to unravel the enigma encapsulated in the query, "how to build a bunker."

Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9196031 and a significance level of p < 0.01. This statistically robust connection, spanning the years 2004 to 2020, suggests that there may be more than meets the eye between political allegiances and an inclination towards bunker-building inquiries. While causality remains a subject for future investigation, one cannot help but ponder the extent to which political preferences and the desire for subterranean sanctuaries intersect in the collective unconscious. Moreover, the implications of our findings prompt contemplation on the potential impact of political decisions on individual perceptions of safety and security, or perhaps the popularity of home improvement projects.

Thus, our study not only uncovers an unexpected correlation, but also opens the door to a myriad of thought-provoking musings, prompting a reflection on the peculiar ways in which human behavior weaves a whimsical web of interconnection. Without a doubt, this investigation has ventured into uncharted territory, serving as a curious reminder that beneath the serious façade of political analysis lies a trove of unexpected associations, waiting to be unearthed.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the realm of political science and data analysis, the pursuit of uncovering hidden relationships and curious connections often leads researchers down unexpected paths, and so it is in this study. The entanglement of political events and unconventional queries has long captivated the curious minds of scholars, prompting the investigation of phenomena that may appear whimsical at first glance, but carry profound implications for understanding human behavior and decision-making.
As the tendrils of intrigue beckon, we turn our attention to the state of Idaho, a setting not typically associated with subterranean undertakings. Idaho's political landscape, characterized by a noted preference for Republican representation in the Senate, presents an intriguing backdrop for examining the congruence of electoral choices and the digital pursuit of bunker-related knowledge. The juxtaposition of concrete legislative outcomes and hypothetical subterranean construction encapsulates the essence of this exploratory undertaking.
By diving into the vast reservoirs of publicly available data, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Google Trends, we embraced the challenge of reconciling seemingly disparate variables. The process of transforming raw data into meaningful insights mirrors the intricate art of spelunking, navigating the labyrinthine corridors of statistical analyses and regression models to unearth the elusive connections that lie beneath the surface.
Emanating from this rigorous endeavor is a peculiar convergence between Republican senatorial votes and the frequency of Google searches for information on bunker construction. The correlation coefficient of 0.9196031, coupled with a significance level of p < 0.01, stands as a testament to the robustness of this unanticipated association. As we bask in the glow of statistical significance, it becomes apparent that the intersection of red-hued political affiliations and musings on subterranean architectures orchestrates a serendipitous dance of data points and electoral dynamics.
As we embark on this odyssey of inquiry, we approach the terrain of causality with caution, cognizant of the intricate web of variables that may influence our observed correlations. Nonetheless, the resonance of our findings beckons us to ponder the curious interplay of ideology and the contemplation of fortified shelters – an endeavor that underscores the playful unpredictability woven into the fabric of research pursuits.
In the pages that follow, we shall traverse the conceptual caverns of political psychology, statistical wizardry, and the peculiar conundrum of the human penchant for bunker-related inquiries. In doing so, we not only unravel a surprising correlation but also invite our fellow scholars to partake in the joyous revelry of unexpected discoveries and the whimsical interplay of sociopolitical and technological phenomena.
As we dig deeper into the quintessential enigma of political bunker inquiries, we are reminded that amidst the rigorous pursuit of knowledge, the unexpected, the amusing, and the confounding often reign supreme, adding a touch of levity to the weighty fabric of academic inquiry. Indeed, the venture into the unexpected offers a delightful reminder that, in the expanse of research, one may stumble upon hidden treasures and quirks that transcend the conventional norms of scientific exploration.

[[RESULTS]]
The examination of the relationship between Republican senatorial votes in Idaho and Google searches for "how to build a bunker" produced intriguing insights. Over the time frame of 2004 to 2020, our analysis revealed a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9196031, with an r-squared value of 0.8456698 and a p-value less than 0.01, signifying a statistically significant relationship.
In Fig. 1, the scatterplot illustrates the notable alignment between Republican votes for Senators in Idaho and the frequency of Google searches for bunker construction guidance. The data points exhibit a strikingly linear pattern, underscoring the strong connection between these seemingly disparate variables. It seems the state of Idaho has had both electoral and subterranean matters on its mind in a consistent manner over the years.
This surprising correlation prompts reflection on the potential psychological underpinnings and societal implications. While causality remains a matter for further investigation, one cannot help but marvel at the whimsical interplay of electoral dynamics and the consideration of constructing underground fortifications. The serendipity of this association raises provocative questions about the intersection of political decision-making and the pursuit of personal security – or, perhaps, an escalating interest in home add-ons with a bunker mentality.
The statistical prowess of our analysis shines a light on the hidden connections that often reside beneath the surface of political and technological phenomena, reminding us that, in the world of research, the unexpected can be just around the corner. As we conclude this segment of our study, we eagerly anticipate delving into the myriad implications and potential applications stemming from this unusual correlation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In unraveling the enigmatic intertwining of Republican senatorial votes in Idaho and Google searches for "how to build a bunker," our study has brought to light a fascinating correlation that defies traditional expectations. The substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9196031 and the resounding statistical significance affirm the robustness of this unexpected linkage. The alignment between political inclinations and aspirations for subterranean sanctuaries, as captured in our scatterplot, uncovers a whimsical dance of data points that traverses the unexpected terrain of electoral decision-making and the contemplation of fortified shelters. This provokes musings on the potential psychological and societal implications, sparking contemplation on whether Idaho residents are preparing for a political apocalypse or simply have a penchant for home renovation with a subterranean twist.

As we meander through the cavernous labyrinth of scientific inquiry, it becomes evident that this correlation is more than a statistical artifact; it serves as a testament to the capricious nature of human behavior. The penchant for bunker construction queries amid political fervor amplifies the delightful unpredictability that often lurks beneath the surface of research endeavors. While causality remains a topic for future exploration, our findings beckon us to appreciate the serendipitous synergy of political decisions and the pursuit of security, encapsulating a peculiar marriage of political allegiance and home improvement proclivities.

In consideration of the striking connection unearthed in our investigation, we are prompted to acknowledge the delightful absurdity that often permeates the intricate tapestry of scientific investigations. The unearthing of this correlation not only sheds light on the curious intersections of human behavior but also adds a whimsical hue to the otherwise serious domain of political analysis. With that said, we assert that further research on this peculiar correlation may yield diminishing returns, and it's high time to bunker down on other areas of study.

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 Digging Deeper: The Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes in Idaho and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Paranoia Studies

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 Digging Deeper: The Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes in Idaho and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Constitutional Survival Research Institute

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 Digging Deeper: The Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes in Idaho and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker' with an abstract of As the age-old saying goes, "when the going gets tough, the tough get Googling." In this study, we delve into the intriguing relationship between the voting patterns of Republican Senators in the state of Idaho and the seemingly unrelated yet curiously coincident Google searches for information on bunker construction. Drawing from the vast repositories of data provided by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we sought to unravel the enigma encapsulated in the query, "how to build a bunker."
Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9196031 and a significance level of p < 0.01. This statistically robust connection, spanning the years 2004 to 2020, suggests that there may be more than meets the eye between political allegiances and an inclination towards bunker-building inquiries. While causality remains a subject for future investigation, one cannot help but ponder the extent to which political preferences and the desire for subterranean sanctuaries intersect in the collective unconscious. Moreover, the implications of our findings prompt contemplation on the potential impact of political decisions on individual perceptions of safety and security, or perhaps the popularity of home improvement projects.
Thus, our study not only uncovers an unexpected correlation, but also opens the door to a myriad of thought-provoking musings, prompting a reflection on the peculiar ways in which human behavior weaves a whimsical web of interconnection. Without a doubt, this investigation has ventured into uncharted territory, serving as a curious reminder that beneath the serious façade of political analysis lies a trove of unexpected associations, waiting to be unearthed.

ChatGPT:

Republican Senatorial Votes, Idaho, Google Searches, Bunker Construction, Correlation, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Google Trends, Political Allegiances, Causality, Perceptions of Safety, Home Improvement Projects, Human Behavior, Interconnection

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

Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'how to build a bunker' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: ^{See full details} Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'

Correlation r = 0.9196031 (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 = 0.8456698 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 84.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'how to build a bunker') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Idaho) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0094.^Show 0.0094356738880229000000000000
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 0.92 in 0.94% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 106 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.

[ 0.43, 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.

	2004	2008	2010	2014	2016	2020
Votes for Republican Senators in Idaho (Total votes)	499796	371744	319953	285596	449017	538446
Google searches for 'how to build a bunker' (Rel. search volume)	45.5	37.3333	35.0833	32.9167	36.75	45.1667

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([499796,371744,319953,285596,449017,538446,])
array_2 = np.array([45.5,37.3333,35.0833,32.9167,36.75,45.1667,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Idaho"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'"

# 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 Republican Senators in Idaho
Line chart for only Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Digging Deeper: The Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes in Idaho and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Cheers to you for rating this correlation!

Correlation ID: 4613 · Black Variable ID: 26230 · Red Variable ID: 1377


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