Download png, svg
AI explanation
As Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia increased, it prompted a wave of unconventional energy enthusiasts in Sudan to form a coalition, advocating for the use of fossil fuels in their country. This unexpected uptick in libertarian support somehow led to a domino effect, ultimately boosting Sudan's reliance on fossil fuels, much to the bewilderment of political analysts everywhere.
Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a bustling street in Georgia, with a queue of people stretching around the block waiting to cast their votes in the Senatorial election. Overhead, a large digital screen displays a graphic showing the Libertarian party gaining support. Across the image, there's a transition to Sudan, with a group of passionate individuals gathering in a dusty square, holding signs advocating for fossil fuel use. The scene captures the unconventional energy movement spurred by the sudden surge in libertarian backing, as more and more people join the coalition, expressing their support for fossil fuels. The juxtaposition of these two scenarios should create an evocative and visually compelling image. 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: Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. 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: Cutsy graphics Brutalism Cyber folk Low poly Whimsical illustration
ChatGPT: Cyber folk
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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia and Fossil fuel use in Sudan, in the following situation: As Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia increased, it prompted a wave of unconventional energy enthusiasts in Sudan to form a coalition, advocating for the use of fossil fuels in their country. This unexpected uptick in libertarian support somehow led to a domino effect, ultimately boosting Sudan's reliance on fossil fuels, much to the bewilderment of political analysts everywhere.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling street in Georgia, a line of people stretches around the block, waiting to cast their votes in the Senatorial election. A graphic on the screen overhead shows the Libertarian party gaining increasing support. Meanwhile, in Sudan, a group of enthusiastic individuals gather in a dusty square, holding signs advocating for fossil fuel use. The sudden surge in libertarian backing seems to have spurred an unconventional energy movement in Sudan, as more and more people join the coalition, expressing their support for fossil fuels.
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: [ Cyber folk ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling street in Georgia, a line of people stretches around the block, waiting to cast their votes in the Senatorial election. A graphic on the screen overhead shows the Libertarian party gaining increasing support. Meanwhile, in Sudan, a group of enthusiastic individuals gather in a dusty square, holding signs advocating for fossil fuel use. The sudden surge in libertarian backing seems to have spurred an unconventional energy movement in Sudan, as more and more people join the coalition, expressing their support for fossil fuels. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a bustling street in Georgia, with a queue of people stretching around the block waiting to cast their votes in the Senatorial election. Overhead, a large digital screen displays a graphic showing the Libertarian party gaining support. Across the image, there's a transition to Sudan, with a group of passionate individuals gathering in a dusty square, holding signs advocating for fossil fuel use. The scene captures the unconventional energy movement spurred by the sudden surge in libertarian backing, as more and more people join the coalition, expressing their support for fossil fuels. The juxtaposition of these two scenarios should create an evocative and visually compelling image.
*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.
I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
System prompt: You provide 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia caused Fossil fuel use in Sudan to increase.
AI academic paper
 |
Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis The International Journal of Geopolitical Limericks Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Rhyme words in the title.
Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8661129 and p < 0.01 for 1992 to 2020.
Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)
[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this jocular yet elucidating study, we dig deeply into the surprising connection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in the distant land of Sudan. Our research team, armed with an arsenal of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, embarked on a quest to unveil the cryptic relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing rigorous statistical analyses, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8661129 and p < 0.01 for the years spanning from 1992 to 2020.
Our findings suggest that there exists an unexpectedly strong positive correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. This tantalizing discovery may seem as improbable as finding a fossil fuel enthusiast at a stand-up comedy show, but the data speaks for itself. We posit that the laughable nature of this correlation is akin to a dad joke - seemingly inconsequential yet strangely impactful.
As we delve into this quirky connection, it becomes evident that there is more than meets the eye. Our research not only sheds light on the interplay between political preferences and global energy consumption but also illustrates the whimsical ways in which disparate societal factors can intertwine. Our findings are not only thought-provoking but, one might say, quite pun-derful.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this jocular yet elucidating study, we dig deeply into the surprising connection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in the distant land of Sudan. Our research team, armed with an arsenal of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, embarked on a quest to unveil the cryptic relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing rigorous statistical analyses, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8661129 and p < 0.01 for the years spanning from 1992 to 2020.
Our findings suggest that there exists an unexpectedly strong positive correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. This tantalizing discovery may seem as improbable as finding a fossil fuel enthusiast at a stand-up comedy show, but the data speaks for itself. We posit that the laughable nature of this correlation is akin to a dad joke - seemingly inconsequential yet strangely impactful.
As we delve into this quirky connection, it becomes evident that there is more than meets the eye. Our research not only sheds light on the interplay between political preferences and global energy consumption but also illustrates the whimsical ways in which disparate societal factors can intertwine. Our findings are not only thought-provoking but, one might say, quite pun-derful.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the late-night infomercials often quip, "But wait, there's more!" Today, we embark on a whirlwind voyage into the uncharted territory of the intersection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the fossil fuel frenzy in Sudan. This unlikely pairing may initially appear as incongruous as pairing socks from the bottom of the laundry basket, but we assure you, dear readers, that it is as intertwined as peanut butter and jelly.
To understand the significance of this exploration, let us ponder the timeless question: Why couldn't the bicycle stand up by itself? It was two-tired! We jest, but the topic at hand is certainly no laughing matter; the enigmatic link between political tendencies and fossil fuel use holds potential ramifications for global energy dynamics.
In a world where connections are often as elusive as a politician's promise, our study endeavors to unravel the enigma of why Libertarian votes in Georgia display an uncanny alignment with the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. It is a bit like discovering a treasure map in a tofu factory – unexpected, yet undeniably fascinating.
Our objective isn't just to stoke the fires of curiosity (pun intended), but to shed light on the intricate web of influences that shape global energy trends. After all, what do you get when a political maverick visits a fossil fuel plant? A Libertarian laden with carbon jokes! But beyond the humor lies a serious exploration of the repercussions of political choices on far-off landscapes.
So, consider this introduction a prologue to a riveting tale of data, correlations, and the unexpected symphony of political preferences and energy indulgences. What ties these disparate elements together? The thread may be thin and faint, much like a dad joke muttered under one’s breath, but it is undeniably present. Let us venture forth into this delightfully incongruous realm and unlock the mysteries that await.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.
Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.
Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this jocular yet elucidating study, we dig deeply into the surprising connection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in the distant land of Sudan. Our research team, armed with an arsenal of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, embarked on a quest to unveil the cryptic relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing rigorous statistical analyses, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8661129 and p < 0.01 for the years spanning from 1992 to 2020.
Our findings suggest that there exists an unexpectedly strong positive correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. This tantalizing discovery may seem as improbable as finding a fossil fuel enthusiast at a stand-up comedy show, but the data speaks for itself. We posit that the laughable nature of this correlation is akin to a dad joke - seemingly inconsequential yet strangely impactful.
As we delve into this quirky connection, it becomes evident that there is more than meets the eye. Our research not only sheds light on the interplay between political preferences and global energy consumption but also illustrates the whimsical ways in which disparate societal factors can intertwine. Our findings are not only thought-provoking but, one might say, quite pun-derful.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the late-night infomercials often quip, "But wait, there's more!" Today, we embark on a whirlwind voyage into the uncharted territory of the intersection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the fossil fuel frenzy in Sudan. This unlikely pairing may initially appear as incongruous as pairing socks from the bottom of the laundry basket, but we assure you, dear readers, that it is as intertwined as peanut butter and jelly.
To understand the significance of this exploration, let us ponder the timeless question: Why couldn't the bicycle stand up by itself? It was two-tired! We jest, but the topic at hand is certainly no laughing matter; the enigmatic link between political tendencies and fossil fuel use holds potential ramifications for global energy dynamics.
In a world where connections are often as elusive as a politician's promise, our study endeavors to unravel the enigma of why Libertarian votes in Georgia display an uncanny alignment with the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. It is a bit like discovering a treasure map in a tofu factory – unexpected, yet undeniably fascinating.
Our objective isn't just to stoke the fires of curiosity (pun intended), but to shed light on the intricate web of influences that shape global energy trends. After all, what do you get when a political maverick visits a fossil fuel plant? A Libertarian laden with carbon jokes! But beyond the humor lies a serious exploration of the repercussions of political choices on far-off landscapes.
So, consider this introduction a prologue to a riveting tale of data, correlations, and the unexpected symphony of political preferences and energy indulgences. What ties these disparate elements together? The thread may be thin and faint, much like a dad joke muttered under one’s breath, but it is undeniably present. Let us venture forth into this delightfully incongruous realm and unlock the mysteries that await.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The examination of the curious correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan is a topic that has seen surprisingly little attention in academic literature. However, in "Smith et al.'s 2017 paper," the authors find preliminary evidence of a potential linkage between political voting patterns and energy consumption in distant regions. This correlation may seem as unlikely as finding a fossil fuel dealer at a renewable energy convention, yet the findings piqued our interest and spurred the investigation at hand.
Moving from the scholarly realm to the world of non-fiction literature, "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" by Alex Epstein and "Libertarianism: A Primer" by David Boaz offer unique perspectives on the value of fossil fuels and individual freedoms, respectively. While these works may not explicitly address the specific relationship under scrutiny, they provide a broader backdrop for understanding the ideological and practical aspects at play.
Delving further into the literary landscape, works of fiction such as "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and "Oil!" by Upton Sinclair, present narratives that touch upon themes of industry, politics, and environmental impact. While these novels may not draw direct parallels to the perplexing connection between Libertarian votes and fossil fuel use, their exploration of power dynamics and resource exploitation offers nuanced insights that resonate with the broader implications of our study.
In a slightly more unconventional turn, the animated series "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" and the educational program "Bill Nye the Science Guy" have served as unexpected sources of inspiration. These childhood favorites not only provided a refreshing break from the rigors of data analysis but also reminded us of the importance of environmental stewardship and sustainable energy practices. One might say that, in the spirit of our research, they "fuelled" our enthusiasm for uncovering the interplay of political choices and energy consumption.
As we traversed the labyrinth of literature and media, it became increasingly apparent that the relationship between Libertarian votes in Georgia and fossil fuel use in Sudan stands as a cryptic enigma waiting to be unraveled. Our investigation, much like a good dad joke, has been both lighthearted and illuminating.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration . You used data from 1992 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]]
Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this jocular yet elucidating study, we dig deeply into the surprising connection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in the distant land of Sudan. Our research team, armed with an arsenal of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, embarked on a quest to unveil the cryptic relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing rigorous statistical analyses, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8661129 and p < 0.01 for the years spanning from 1992 to 2020.
Our findings suggest that there exists an unexpectedly strong positive correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. This tantalizing discovery may seem as improbable as finding a fossil fuel enthusiast at a stand-up comedy show, but the data speaks for itself. We posit that the laughable nature of this correlation is akin to a dad joke - seemingly inconsequential yet strangely impactful.
As we delve into this quirky connection, it becomes evident that there is more than meets the eye. Our research not only sheds light on the interplay between political preferences and global energy consumption but also illustrates the whimsical ways in which disparate societal factors can intertwine. Our findings are not only thought-provoking but, one might say, quite pun-derful.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the late-night infomercials often quip, "But wait, there's more!" Today, we embark on a whirlwind voyage into the uncharted territory of the intersection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the fossil fuel frenzy in Sudan. This unlikely pairing may initially appear as incongruous as pairing socks from the bottom of the laundry basket, but we assure you, dear readers, that it is as intertwined as peanut butter and jelly.
To understand the significance of this exploration, let us ponder the timeless question: Why couldn't the bicycle stand up by itself? It was two-tired! We jest, but the topic at hand is certainly no laughing matter; the enigmatic link between political tendencies and fossil fuel use holds potential ramifications for global energy dynamics.
In a world where connections are often as elusive as a politician's promise, our study endeavors to unravel the enigma of why Libertarian votes in Georgia display an uncanny alignment with the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. It is a bit like discovering a treasure map in a tofu factory – unexpected, yet undeniably fascinating.
Our objective isn't just to stoke the fires of curiosity (pun intended), but to shed light on the intricate web of influences that shape global energy trends. After all, what do you get when a political maverick visits a fossil fuel plant? A Libertarian laden with carbon jokes! But beyond the humor lies a serious exploration of the repercussions of political choices on far-off landscapes.
So, consider this introduction a prologue to a riveting tale of data, correlations, and the unexpected symphony of political preferences and energy indulgences. What ties these disparate elements together? The thread may be thin and faint, much like a dad joke muttered under one’s breath, but it is undeniably present. Let us venture forth into this delightfully incongruous realm and unlock the mysteries that await.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To unravel the peculiar correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and fossil fuel use in Sudan, we employed a method as intricate as trying to find the punchline of a particularly elusive dad joke. Our research team embarked on a multidimensional approach that combined quantitative analysis, geospatial mapping, and political pun-dering.
First, we amassed a robust dataset from a variety of sources, akin to collecting a diverse repertoire of knock-knock jokes to keep the research team amused. The primary sources of data included the MIT Election Data and Science Lab for Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia, the Harvard Dataverse for geopolitical information on Sudan, and the Energy Information Administration for comprehensive fossil fuel consumption data. We then meticulously curated the dataset, carefully aligning the variables with precision comparable to a skilled comedian timing their punchline.
Next, we employed rigorous statistical analyses to unearth the underlying relationship between these seemingly juxtaposed phenomena. We utilized advanced regression models to tease apart the intricate dance between Libertarian voting patterns and Sudan's fossil fuel appetite. Our statistical approach was as calculated as delivering a deadpan joke - no room for errors, but with a touch of subtle wit.
In addition to traditional statistical methods, we harnessed the power of geospatial mapping to visually depict the distribution and density of Libertarian votes in Georgia and overlay it with the fossil fuel consumption patterns in Sudan. The resulting visual representation was as enlightening as the "light bulb" moment when a particularly clever dad joke clicks into place.
To account for potential confounding variables and ensure the robustness of our findings, we incorporated sensitivity analyses and conducted subgroup analyses based on election cycles and changes in Sudan's energy policies. This thorough approach was as meticulous as crafting a rib-tickling pun - leaving no stone unturned in our quest for clarity.
Moreover, understanding the nuanced interplay between political inclinations and energy dynamics necessitated qualitative inquiry. We engaged in interviews and focus groups in both Georgia and Sudan to gain insight into the social and political factors that may influence both Libertarian voting patterns and fossil fuel use. These interviews were as lighthearted as a casual jest with a close friend, yet provided invaluable context to complement our quantitative analyses.
Lastly, our methodology incorporated a touch of whimsy, just like a well-timed jest in the midst of serious discourse. We embraced the multidisciplinary nature of our research, drawing parallels between seemingly unrelated fields in a manner reminiscent of connecting disparate jokes to form a cohesive narrative. The result is a methodology as distinctive as a one-of-a-kind dad joke, weaving together elements of seriousness and levity to unravel the captivating association between Libertarian votes in Georgia and Sudan's fossil fuel consumption.
In summary, our methodology harmoniously blends quantitative analyses, geospatial mapping, qualitative inquiry, and a dash of whimsy to elucidate the unexpected correlation between political preferences and global energy patterns. Just as every dad joke has its unique setup and punchline, so does our methodology possess its distinct flair, guiding us on the compelling journey to uncover unanticipated connections in the intricate web of societal dynamics.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration .
For the time period 1992 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8661129, r-squared of 0.7501515, 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]]
Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this jocular yet elucidating study, we dig deeply into the surprising connection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in the distant land of Sudan. Our research team, armed with an arsenal of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, embarked on a quest to unveil the cryptic relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing rigorous statistical analyses, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8661129 and p < 0.01 for the years spanning from 1992 to 2020.
Our findings suggest that there exists an unexpectedly strong positive correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. This tantalizing discovery may seem as improbable as finding a fossil fuel enthusiast at a stand-up comedy show, but the data speaks for itself. We posit that the laughable nature of this correlation is akin to a dad joke - seemingly inconsequential yet strangely impactful.
As we delve into this quirky connection, it becomes evident that there is more than meets the eye. Our research not only sheds light on the interplay between political preferences and global energy consumption but also illustrates the whimsical ways in which disparate societal factors can intertwine. Our findings are not only thought-provoking but, one might say, quite pun-derful.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As the late-night infomercials often quip, "But wait, there's more!" Today, we embark on a whirlwind voyage into the uncharted territory of the intersection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the fossil fuel frenzy in Sudan. This unlikely pairing may initially appear as incongruous as pairing socks from the bottom of the laundry basket, but we assure you, dear readers, that it is as intertwined as peanut butter and jelly.
To understand the significance of this exploration, let us ponder the timeless question: Why couldn't the bicycle stand up by itself? It was two-tired! We jest, but the topic at hand is certainly no laughing matter; the enigmatic link between political tendencies and fossil fuel use holds potential ramifications for global energy dynamics.
In a world where connections are often as elusive as a politician's promise, our study endeavors to unravel the enigma of why Libertarian votes in Georgia display an uncanny alignment with the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. It is a bit like discovering a treasure map in a tofu factory – unexpected, yet undeniably fascinating.
Our objective isn't just to stoke the fires of curiosity (pun intended), but to shed light on the intricate web of influences that shape global energy trends. After all, what do you get when a political maverick visits a fossil fuel plant? A Libertarian laden with carbon jokes! But beyond the humor lies a serious exploration of the repercussions of political choices on far-off landscapes.
So, consider this introduction a prologue to a riveting tale of data, correlations, and the unexpected symphony of political preferences and energy indulgences. What ties these disparate elements together? The thread may be thin and faint, much like a dad joke muttered under one’s breath, but it is undeniably present. Let us venture forth into this delightfully incongruous realm and unlock the mysteries that await.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
Our research journey into the perplexing correlation between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and fossil fuel consumption in Sudan has reaped a bountiful harvest of statistical insights. We discovered a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.8661129, indicating a striking positive relationship between these two seemingly incongruent phenomena. The r-squared value of 0.7501515 further underscores the substantial predictive power of the relationship, akin to a comedian whose punchlines never fail to hit the mark.
In Fig. 1, we present a scatterplot that vividly captures the salient correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and Sudan's fossil fuel usage. The data points form a discernible upward trend, akin to the unrelenting rise of a well-timed punchline before the audience erupts in laughter. The strong positive correlation depicted in our figure illustrates the surprising synchrony between political preferences in the Peach State and energy indulgences in the heart of Africa.
Our findings suggest an intriguing nexus between the political dynamics of Georgia and the energy appetite of Sudan. This curious correlation is as unexpected as finding a comedian at an oil refinery - a delightful juxtaposition of seemingly disparate elements. It prompts one to ponder: Why don't skeletons fight each other? They don't have the guts!
Our study offers a whimsical yet telling insight into the multifaceted interplay of global energy dynamics and political proclivities. While the connection between Libertarian votes in Georgia and Sudan's fossil fuel consumption may appear as elusive as a well-crafted dad joke, our data illuminates the pervasive impact of political choices on distant energy landscapes. The discovery of this correlation is a reminder that even in the realm of statistical analyses, there is room for a lighthearted twist, much like the unexpected punchline in the midst of a serious conversation.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Limit your response to 500 tokens.
Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.
Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.
[[TITLE]]
Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this jocular yet elucidating study, we dig deeply into the surprising connection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in the distant land of Sudan. Our research team, armed with an arsenal of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, embarked on a quest to unveil the cryptic relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing rigorous statistical analyses, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8661129 and p < 0.01 for the years spanning from 1992 to 2020.
Our findings suggest that there exists an unexpectedly strong positive correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. This tantalizing discovery may seem as improbable as finding a fossil fuel enthusiast at a stand-up comedy show, but the data speaks for itself. We posit that the laughable nature of this correlation is akin to a dad joke - seemingly inconsequential yet strangely impactful.
As we delve into this quirky connection, it becomes evident that there is more than meets the eye. Our research not only sheds light on the interplay between political preferences and global energy consumption but also illustrates the whimsical ways in which disparate societal factors can intertwine. Our findings are not only thought-provoking but, one might say, quite pun-derful.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The examination of the curious correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan is a topic that has seen surprisingly little attention in academic literature. However, in "Smith et al.'s 2017 paper," the authors find preliminary evidence of a potential linkage between political voting patterns and energy consumption in distant regions. This correlation may seem as unlikely as finding a fossil fuel dealer at a renewable energy convention, yet the findings piqued our interest and spurred the investigation at hand.
Moving from the scholarly realm to the world of non-fiction literature, "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" by Alex Epstein and "Libertarianism: A Primer" by David Boaz offer unique perspectives on the value of fossil fuels and individual freedoms, respectively. While these works may not explicitly address the specific relationship under scrutiny, they provide a broader backdrop for understanding the ideological and practical aspects at play.
Delving further into the literary landscape, works of fiction such as "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and "Oil!" by Upton Sinclair, present narratives that touch upon themes of industry, politics, and environmental impact. While these novels may not draw direct parallels to the perplexing connection between Libertarian votes and fossil fuel use, their exploration of power dynamics and resource exploitation offers nuanced insights that resonate with the broader implications of our study.
In a slightly more unconventional turn, the animated series "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" and the educational program "Bill Nye the Science Guy" have served as unexpected sources of inspiration. These childhood favorites not only provided a refreshing break from the rigors of data analysis but also reminded us of the importance of environmental stewardship and sustainable energy practices. One might say that, in the spirit of our research, they "fuelled" our enthusiasm for uncovering the interplay of political choices and energy consumption.
As we traversed the labyrinth of literature and media, it became increasingly apparent that the relationship between Libertarian votes in Georgia and fossil fuel use in Sudan stands as a cryptic enigma waiting to be unraveled. Our investigation, much like a good dad joke, has been both lighthearted and illuminating.
[[RESULTS]]
Our research journey into the perplexing correlation between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and fossil fuel consumption in Sudan has reaped a bountiful harvest of statistical insights. We discovered a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.8661129, indicating a striking positive relationship between these two seemingly incongruent phenomena. The r-squared value of 0.7501515 further underscores the substantial predictive power of the relationship, akin to a comedian whose punchlines never fail to hit the mark.
In Fig. 1, we present a scatterplot that vividly captures the salient correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and Sudan's fossil fuel usage. The data points form a discernible upward trend, akin to the unrelenting rise of a well-timed punchline before the audience erupts in laughter. The strong positive correlation depicted in our figure illustrates the surprising synchrony between political preferences in the Peach State and energy indulgences in the heart of Africa.
Our findings suggest an intriguing nexus between the political dynamics of Georgia and the energy appetite of Sudan. This curious correlation is as unexpected as finding a comedian at an oil refinery - a delightful juxtaposition of seemingly disparate elements. It prompts one to ponder: Why don't skeletons fight each other? They don't have the guts!
Our study offers a whimsical yet telling insight into the multifaceted interplay of global energy dynamics and political proclivities. While the connection between Libertarian votes in Georgia and Sudan's fossil fuel consumption may appear as elusive as a well-crafted dad joke, our data illuminates the pervasive impact of political choices on distant energy landscapes. The discovery of this correlation is a reminder that even in the realm of statistical analyses, there is room for a lighthearted twist, much like the unexpected punchline in the midst of a serious conversation.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
Our research has provided compelling evidence that the correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and fossil fuel consumption in Sudan is no laughing matter. Well, maybe just a little. The findings from our study support the prior research by Smith et al., which hinted at a potential linkage between political voting patterns and energy consumption in distant regions. In a twist as unexpected as finding a fossil-loving pirate, our statistical analyses revealed a strong positive correlation, reinforcing the premise that seemingly disparate societal factors can indeed intertwine in surprising ways.
The relationship between political preferences in Georgia and energy consumption in Sudan, while initially confounding, aligns with the broader literature on the interplay of political choices and global energy dynamics. It's as if Dad jokes and serious discussions about international relations could coexist in peace. The whimsical nature of this correlation, akin to a clever pun, emphasizes the need to consider unorthodox connections when exploring societal phenomena.
Our research has added a novel element to the conversation about Libertarian voting patterns and energy consumption, much like adding a new joke to the family repertoire. The unexpected nature of our findings serves as a reminder that in the realm of academia, as in life, there is room for both rigor and a bit of humor.
In conclusion, our study has brought to light a surprising alignment between political choices in Georgia and energy consumption in Sudan. While the correlation may have initially appeared as improbable as a fossil fuel-based cooking show, our findings underscore the complexity of global societal interactions and the need to approach research with an open mind, much like a stand-up comedian armed with an array of dad jokes.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Georgia and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.
Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this jocular yet elucidating study, we dig deeply into the surprising connection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in the distant land of Sudan. Our research team, armed with an arsenal of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, embarked on a quest to unveil the cryptic relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing rigorous statistical analyses, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8661129 and p < 0.01 for the years spanning from 1992 to 2020.
Our findings suggest that there exists an unexpectedly strong positive correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. This tantalizing discovery may seem as improbable as finding a fossil fuel enthusiast at a stand-up comedy show, but the data speaks for itself. We posit that the laughable nature of this correlation is akin to a dad joke - seemingly inconsequential yet strangely impactful.
As we delve into this quirky connection, it becomes evident that there is more than meets the eye. Our research not only sheds light on the interplay between political preferences and global energy consumption but also illustrates the whimsical ways in which disparate societal factors can intertwine. Our findings are not only thought-provoking but, one might say, quite pun-derful.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
As the late-night infomercials often quip, "But wait, there's more!" Today, we embark on a whirlwind voyage into the uncharted territory of the intersection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the fossil fuel frenzy in Sudan. This unlikely pairing may initially appear as incongruous as pairing socks from the bottom of the laundry basket, but we assure you, dear readers, that it is as intertwined as peanut butter and jelly.
To understand the significance of this exploration, let us ponder the timeless question: Why couldn't the bicycle stand up by itself? It was two-tired! We jest, but the topic at hand is certainly no laughing matter; the enigmatic link between political tendencies and fossil fuel use holds potential ramifications for global energy dynamics.
In a world where connections are often as elusive as a politician's promise, our study endeavors to unravel the enigma of why Libertarian votes in Georgia display an uncanny alignment with the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. It is a bit like discovering a treasure map in a tofu factory – unexpected, yet undeniably fascinating.
Our objective isn't just to stoke the fires of curiosity (pun intended), but to shed light on the intricate web of influences that shape global energy trends. After all, what do you get when a political maverick visits a fossil fuel plant? A Libertarian laden with carbon jokes! But beyond the humor lies a serious exploration of the repercussions of political choices on far-off landscapes.
So, consider this introduction a prologue to a riveting tale of data, correlations, and the unexpected symphony of political preferences and energy indulgences. What ties these disparate elements together? The thread may be thin and faint, much like a dad joke muttered under one’s breath, but it is undeniably present. Let us venture forth into this delightfully incongruous realm and unlock the mysteries that await.
[[RESULTS]]
Our research journey into the perplexing correlation between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and fossil fuel consumption in Sudan has reaped a bountiful harvest of statistical insights. We discovered a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.8661129, indicating a striking positive relationship between these two seemingly incongruent phenomena. The r-squared value of 0.7501515 further underscores the substantial predictive power of the relationship, akin to a comedian whose punchlines never fail to hit the mark.
In Fig. 1, we present a scatterplot that vividly captures the salient correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and Sudan's fossil fuel usage. The data points form a discernible upward trend, akin to the unrelenting rise of a well-timed punchline before the audience erupts in laughter. The strong positive correlation depicted in our figure illustrates the surprising synchrony between political preferences in the Peach State and energy indulgences in the heart of Africa.
Our findings suggest an intriguing nexus between the political dynamics of Georgia and the energy appetite of Sudan. This curious correlation is as unexpected as finding a comedian at an oil refinery - a delightful juxtaposition of seemingly disparate elements. It prompts one to ponder: Why don't skeletons fight each other? They don't have the guts!
Our study offers a whimsical yet telling insight into the multifaceted interplay of global energy dynamics and political proclivities. While the connection between Libertarian votes in Georgia and Sudan's fossil fuel consumption may appear as elusive as a well-crafted dad joke, our data illuminates the pervasive impact of political choices on distant energy landscapes. The discovery of this correlation is a reminder that even in the realm of statistical analyses, there is room for a lighthearted twist, much like the unexpected punchline in the midst of a serious conversation.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our whimsical yet revelatory exploration has unveiled a surprising correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and Sudan's fossil fuel consumption. The statistically robust relationship between these seemingly incongruous phenomena is as unexpected as a dad joke at a fossil exhibit - a delightful twist that awaits the unsuspecting observer. It seems that Georgia's political proclivities have a peculiar resonance with Sudan's energy indulgences, akin to a symphony of incongruity that leaves us marveling at the unpredictable dance of global dynamics.
As our research draws to a close, we are reminded of the words of a wise dad joke aficionado: "Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!" In a similar vein, the unexpected connection we've unearthed between Libertarian votes and Sudan's fossil fuel use highlights the intricate and far-reaching impact of seemingly unrelated factors. It serves as a cheerful reminder that amidst the solemnity of academic pursuits, there is always room for a well-placed jest and an unexpected twist of correlation.
Our findings not only expand the frontiers of knowledge but also beckon us to ponder the delightful and unpredictable interactions that shape our world. In the grand narrative of global energy dynamics, the correlation we've uncovered serves as a gentle nudge, much like a dad joke amidst solemn proceedings, encouraging us to embrace the unexpected and relish the playful interplay of societal influences.
Thus, we assert, with all due earnestness and a touch of humor, that no further research is needed in this delightfully incongruous realm of political choices and energy appetites. The curtain on this correlation has been drawn, much like the punchline to a well-crafted dad joke, leaving us with a chuckle and a newfound appreciation for the unexpected connections that permeate our world.
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 Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The International Journal of Geopolitical Limericks
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 Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Society for Quirky Political and Geological Studies
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis with an abstract of In this jocular yet elucidating study, we dig deeply into the surprising connection between Libertarian senatorial votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in the distant land of Sudan. Our research team, armed with an arsenal of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, embarked on a quest to unveil the cryptic relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Utilizing rigorous statistical analyses, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8661129 and p < 0.01 for the years spanning from 1992 to 2020.
Our findings suggest that there exists an unexpectedly strong positive correlation between Libertarian votes in Georgia and the consumption of fossil fuels in Sudan. This tantalizing discovery may seem as improbable as finding a fossil fuel enthusiast at a stand-up comedy show, but the data speaks for itself. We posit that the laughable nature of this correlation is akin to a dad joke - seemingly inconsequential yet strangely impactful.
As we delve into this quirky connection, it becomes evident that there is more than meets the eye. Our research not only sheds light on the interplay between political preferences and global energy consumption but also illustrates the whimsical ways in which disparate societal factors can intertwine. Our findings are not only thought-provoking but, one might say, quite pun-derful.
ChatGPT:
Libertarian votes, Georgia, Sudan, fossil fuel consumption, correlation analysis, statistical analysis, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Energy Information Administration, political preferences, global energy consumption, interplay, societal factors, correlation coefficient, research study
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Votes for Libertarian Senators in GeorgiaDetailed data title: Total number of votes cast for Federal Libertarian Senate candidates in Georgia
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for Libertarian Senators in Georgia
Fossil fuel use in Sudan
Detailed data title: Total fossil fuel use in Sudan in billion kWh
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Fossil fuel use in Sudan
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 = 0.7501515 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 75% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Fossil fuel use in Sudan) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Libertarian Senators in Georgia) over the 10 years from 1992 through 2020.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0012. 0.0011923242293938575000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.
But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.
Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.87 in 0.12% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 839 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 9 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 9 because we have two variables measured over a period of 10 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.
[ 0.52, 0.97 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.
This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!
All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.
Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
| 1992 | 1996 | 1998 | 2002 | 2004 | 2008 | 2010 | 2014 | 2016 | 2020 | |
| Votes for Libertarian Senators in Georgia (Total votes) | 69878 | 81262 | 43467 | 27830 | 69051 | 127923 | 68750 | 48862 | 162260 | 150470 |
| Fossil fuel use in Sudan (Billion kWh) | 0.512 | 0.93 | 1 | 1.698 | 2.218 | 3.80042 | 1.21918 | 2.31522 | 5.99532 | 6.06808 |
Why this works
- Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
- Lack of causal connection: There is probably
Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied. - Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
Try it yourself
You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.
Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"
Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.
Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.
Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.
Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"
If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:
"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."
# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):
# Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)
# Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
r_squared = correlation**2
return correlation, r_squared, p_value
# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([69878,81262,43467,27830,69051,127923,68750,48862,162260,150470,])
array_2 = np.array([0.512,0.93,1,1.698,2.218,3.80042,1.21918,2.31522,5.99532,6.06808,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Libertarian Senators in Georgia"
array_2_name = "Fossil fuel use in Sudan"
# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)
# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)Reuseable content
You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.
For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."
When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.
Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.
Download images for these variables:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only Votes for Libertarian Senators in Georgia
- Line chart for only Fossil fuel use in Sudan
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Libertarian Votes in Georgia and Sudan's Fossil Fuel Bonanza: A Rhyming Analysis
Your rating is much appreciated!
Correlation ID: 4719 · Black Variable ID: 26223 · Red Variable ID: 24000
