Spurious correlation #4,770 · 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 Wisconsin and the second variable is Mega millions lottery numbers. The chart goes from 2002 to 2018, 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 Wisconsin and the second variable is Mega millions lottery numbers. The chart goes from 2002 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

As Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin increased, more people started wearing lucky red hats to show their support. These lucky red hats created a surge of positive energy, which somehow found its way into the selection of Mega Millions lottery numbers, leading to an unexpected correlation between political affiliation and jackpot wins. It seems the real power players in this game weren't just in the Senate, but also among the lucky hat-wearing lottery enthusiasts.

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image showing a lively town square in the state of Wisconsin. The square is filled with people enthusiastically queuing up, all wearing vivid red hats, and the clothing of the people should bear the telltale signs and symbols of supporting the Republican Senators. The hats, however, should exude a compelling mystical glow, creating an underlying magical vibe in the scene. Meanwhile, a nearby convenience store should feature a large electronic billboard displaying the Mega Millions numbers, eliciting a sense of excitement and anticipation. Finally, highlight a few individuals with jubilant expressions and conspicuous red hats celebrating their lottery jackpot wins in the midst of the bustling crowd, subtly hinting at the intriguing correlation between political allegiance and lottery triumph. 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 Wisconsin and Mega millions lottery numbers. 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 scene from Skyrim A Discovery magazine cover image Brutalism Cubism Data cyber art
ChatGPT: A Discovery magazine cover image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and Mega millions lottery numbers, in the following situation: As Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin increased, more people started wearing lucky red hats to show their support. These lucky red hats created a surge of positive energy, which somehow found its way into the selection of Mega Millions lottery numbers, leading to an unexpected correlation between political affiliation and jackpot wins. It seems the real power players in this game weren't just in the Senate, but also among the lucky hat-wearing lottery enthusiasts.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling town square in Wisconsin, a line of people wearing red hats stretches around the block, with each person proudly showing their support for Republican Senators. As the crowd grows, a magical aura seems to emanate from the hats, sparkling in the air. Meanwhile, at the local convenience store, the Mega Millions numbers are being announced on a large electronic billboard, and as the numbers are revealed, the same lucky red hats seem to glow with a mysterious energy, as if influencing the outcome. Winners celebrating their jackpot wins can be seen wearing the familiar red hats, creating a surprising correlation between political affiliation and lottery success.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A Discovery magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling town square in Wisconsin, a line of people wearing red hats stretches around the block, with each person proudly showing their support for Republican Senators. As the crowd grows, a magical aura seems to emanate from the hats, sparkling in the air. Meanwhile, at the local convenience store, the Mega Millions numbers are being announced on a large electronic billboard, and as the numbers are revealed, the same lucky red hats seem to glow with a mysterious energy, as if influencing the outcome. Winners celebrating their jackpot wins can be seen wearing the familiar red hats, creating a surprising correlation between political affiliation and lottery success. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image showing a lively town square in the state of Wisconsin. The square is filled with people enthusiastically queuing up, all wearing vivid red hats, and the clothing of the people should bear the telltale signs and symbols of supporting the Republican Senators. The hats, however, should exude a compelling mystical glow, creating an underlying magical vibe in the scene. Meanwhile, a nearby convenience store should feature a large electronic billboard displaying the Mega Millions numbers, eliciting a sense of excitement and anticipation. Finally, highlight a few individuals with jubilant expressions and conspicuous red hats celebrating their lottery jackpot wins in the midst of the bustling crowd, subtly hinting at the intriguing correlation between political allegiance and lottery triumph.

*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 Wisconsin positively influenced Mega millions lottery numbers. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)

Wisconsin Republicans and Mega Millions: A Match Made in Statistics?

The Journal of Political Probability

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 Wisconsin and Mega millions lottery numbers. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Wisconsin Republicans and Mega Millions: A Match Made in Statistics?

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we take a humorous and slightly ridiculous delve into the connection, if any, between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery. Don't worry, we haven't lost our research marbles - we know this sounds like an odd mix of apples and oranges! With data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the New York Mega Millions Lottery, we set out to answer the all-important question: Can we really predict Republican voting patterns using lottery numbers? Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9056547, and p < 0.05 for the years 2002 to 2018. So, brace yourself for some statistical shenanigans as we unpack this wacky correlation and try to separate causation from mere coincidence. It's time to roll the dice and let the numbers decide - or maybe not.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In the realm of political research, one often comes across theories and hypotheses that are as outlandish as a flamingo in a snowstorm. This study straddles the line between academic inquiry and a game of Clue, as we examine the perplexing relationship, if any, between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery.
Upon first blush, this research might seem as incongruous as a cow wearing water skis — what could the political affiliations of Badger State voters possibly have to do with the whims of lady luck in a multi-state lottery? But fear not, esteemed reader, as we embark on this quirky journey armed with statistical rigor and a penchant for the delightfully absurd.
Our investigation pivots on the theoretical premise that, much like a pair of socks, patterns can be found in the most unexpected places. Utilizing data sourced from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the New York Mega Millions Lottery, we endeavored to untangle this peculiar conundrum with all the seriousness of a clown at a board meeting.
Unearthing the connection between Republican votes and Mega Millions numbers may initially appear as daunting as trying to herd cats, but our findings have unearthed a correlation coefficient that would make any statistician do a double take. The astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9056547, with a p-value less than 0.05 for the period spanning 2002 to 2018, leaves us facing a bewildering question: Could there truly be a statistical thread weaving together these two ostensibly unrelated elements?
Brace yourself, dear reader, for a bumpy yet exhilarating ride through the world of statistical mischief and improbable connections. Through the judicious application of mathematical acumen and a dash of whimsy, we aim to unravel this tantalizing correlation and discern whether it holds any water or is merely a statistical mirage in the desert of political analysis. So let us don our academic thinking caps and prepare to tread where few researchers have dared to venture, like intrepid explorers in the untamed wilds of correlation and causation.
As we stand on the precipice of this amiable yet preposterous endeavor, it becomes abundantly clear that in the world of data analysis, one must be prepared for surprises as numerous as popping corn. Therefore, with a spirit of intellectual curiosity and a pinch of mirth, we set forth on a quest to explore the nexus between political persuasions and lottery whims, and to scrutinize the laughter-inducing correlation with the utmost scientific sobriety. After all, in the grand tapestry of research, sometimes it's the unexpected connections that yield the most scintillating insights.
So, without further ado, let the games begin! Or, in the wise words of the great industrialist Willy Wonka, "The suspense is terrible... I hope it'll last."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Amidst the sea of scholarly inquiries that tread the hallowed grounds of political and statistical analysis, our modest yet audacious study stands as a lone duck in a pond of swans. In the quest to unearth the enigmatic relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the serendipitous Mega Millions lottery numbers, we wade through a myriad of literature that spans the conventional, the unexpected, and the downright peculiar.

Smith et al. (2015) delve into the nuanced world of voter behavior and political affiliations, offering a comprehensive analysis that, while devoid of lottery ticket references, sets the stage for understanding the multifaceted dynamics at play in the political landscape. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2017) meticulously dissect the factors influencing voting patterns, providing a rich tapestry of insights that prepare the scholarly palate for the unpredictable pairing of electoral preferences and lottery luck.

Turning our attention to the realm of statistical improbabilities, "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" by Leonard Mlodinow lends a thought-provoking perspective on the capricious nature of chance, which serves as a fitting backdrop to our exploration of the unexpected correlations that peek from behind the curtain of statistical ambiguity. Moreover, "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner tantalizes the reader with its examination of peculiar correlations, offering a tantalizing glimpse into the realm of the delightfully unlikely.

In the realm of fiction, the works of Haruki Murakami, known for the surreal intersections of reality and whimsy, provide an allegorical backdrop akin to the peculiar juncture we aim to explore. Furthermore, the whimsical adventures chronicled in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams beckon us to contemplate the improbable with a raised eyebrow and a hearty chuckle, perhaps mirroring the sentiment of many who first encounter our study topic.

As devotees of both statistical analysis and pop culture, our foray into the perplexing nexus of Republican votes in Wisconsin and Mega Millions lottery numbers unavoidably led us to the realm of televised entertainment. Series such as "The Twilight Zone" and "Black Mirror" offer glimpses into alternate realities, where the inconceivable coalesces with the unsettling in a manner that strikes a resonant chord with our endeavor—albeit with a dash of dramatic flair and scripted intrigue.

So, as we inscribe our literary trajectory through the annals of scholarly discourse, let us remember that even in the most solemn of endeavors, a twist of humor and a sprinkle of the unexpected can lend scholarly inquiry a charm unparalleled. With that in mind, let us embark on this mirthful romp through the realm of literature and merriment, as we gear up to confront the bizarre yet fascinating correlation that lies before us.

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 Wisconsin and Mega millions lottery numbers. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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 NY Mega Millions Lottery . You used data from 2002 to 2018

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Wisconsin Republicans and Mega Millions: A Match Made in Statistics?

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we take a humorous and slightly ridiculous delve into the connection, if any, between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery. Don't worry, we haven't lost our research marbles - we know this sounds like an odd mix of apples and oranges! With data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the New York Mega Millions Lottery, we set out to answer the all-important question: Can we really predict Republican voting patterns using lottery numbers? Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9056547, and p < 0.05 for the years 2002 to 2018. So, brace yourself for some statistical shenanigans as we unpack this wacky correlation and try to separate causation from mere coincidence. It's time to roll the dice and let the numbers decide - or maybe not.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In the realm of political research, one often comes across theories and hypotheses that are as outlandish as a flamingo in a snowstorm. This study straddles the line between academic inquiry and a game of Clue, as we examine the perplexing relationship, if any, between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery.
Upon first blush, this research might seem as incongruous as a cow wearing water skis — what could the political affiliations of Badger State voters possibly have to do with the whims of lady luck in a multi-state lottery? But fear not, esteemed reader, as we embark on this quirky journey armed with statistical rigor and a penchant for the delightfully absurd.
Our investigation pivots on the theoretical premise that, much like a pair of socks, patterns can be found in the most unexpected places. Utilizing data sourced from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the New York Mega Millions Lottery, we endeavored to untangle this peculiar conundrum with all the seriousness of a clown at a board meeting.
Unearthing the connection between Republican votes and Mega Millions numbers may initially appear as daunting as trying to herd cats, but our findings have unearthed a correlation coefficient that would make any statistician do a double take. The astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9056547, with a p-value less than 0.05 for the period spanning 2002 to 2018, leaves us facing a bewildering question: Could there truly be a statistical thread weaving together these two ostensibly unrelated elements?
Brace yourself, dear reader, for a bumpy yet exhilarating ride through the world of statistical mischief and improbable connections. Through the judicious application of mathematical acumen and a dash of whimsy, we aim to unravel this tantalizing correlation and discern whether it holds any water or is merely a statistical mirage in the desert of political analysis. So let us don our academic thinking caps and prepare to tread where few researchers have dared to venture, like intrepid explorers in the untamed wilds of correlation and causation.
As we stand on the precipice of this amiable yet preposterous endeavor, it becomes abundantly clear that in the world of data analysis, one must be prepared for surprises as numerous as popping corn. Therefore, with a spirit of intellectual curiosity and a pinch of mirth, we set forth on a quest to explore the nexus between political persuasions and lottery whims, and to scrutinize the laughter-inducing correlation with the utmost scientific sobriety. After all, in the grand tapestry of research, sometimes it's the unexpected connections that yield the most scintillating insights.
So, without further ado, let the games begin! Or, in the wise words of the great industrialist Willy Wonka, "The suspense is terrible... I hope it'll last."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the curious connection between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery, we employed a research methodology as surprisingly eclectic as a magician's hat. Our data collection, analysis, and interpretation were conducted with the meticulousness of a squirrel meticulously hoarding acorns for a long winter – or in our case, for a rigorous statistical inquiry.

Data Collection:
Our first foray into this whimsical endeavor involved acquiring the necessary data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the New York Mega Millions Lottery archives. The biennial data from 2002 to 2018 provided the canvas upon which we painted our statistical tableau, with the Mega Millions numbers and Wisconsin Republican voting data forming the colorful palette of our unconventional investigation.

Preprocessing:
Much like a chef preparing an exotic dish, we diligently cleaned, filtered, and scrutinized the acquired data to ensure that we were dealing with an unadulterated and statistically palatable dataset. Fret not, dear reader, for we spared no effort in ensuring that our data preparation process was as rigorous as a fitness trainer preparing an Olympian for a decathlon.

Correlation Analysis:
With the data at our fingertips, we plunged headfirst into the statistical maelstrom, employing correlation analysis to discern any discernible link between Republican voting patterns and the capricious nature of the Mega Millions lottery numbers. Our statistical models were as finely tuned as a race car hurtling down the track, aiming to unravel the potential relationship between these seemingly incongruent phenomena.

Hypothesis Testing:
Armed with the tools of statistical inference, we subjected our findings to the rigors of hypothesis testing, endeavoring to separate the chaff of mere coincidence from the wheat of significant correlation. Our hypothesis testing procedures were as meticulous as a cat cleaning its whiskers after a meal, ensuring that our conclusions were firmly rooted in the fertile soil of statistical significance.

Interpretation:
As we gazed upon the results of our analysis, we approached the interpretation of our findings with a mixture of scholarly sobriety and irrepressible mirth. While untangling the intricate web of statistical relationships can be as perplexing as finding a needle in a haystack, we strove to reveal the potential implications of our discovered correlation with the clarity and precision of a master craftsman creating an exquisite piece of art.

Limitations:
Every research endeavor, no matter how whimsical, must confront its own set of limitations. Our study acknowledges the inherent whimsy of its subject matter, yet we approached the analysis with the seriousness of a librarian maintaining order in a realm of literary chaos. Despite our best efforts, the inherent unpredictability of lottery outcomes and the complexity of political voting patterns represent potential limitations to the generalizability of our findings.

In essence, our research methodology transcended the boundaries of conventional analysis, embracing the delightful absurdity of untangling the correlation between Republican votes in Wisconsin and the capricious nature of Mega Millions lottery numbers with equal parts rigorous precision and whimsical exploration. So, with data in hand and statistical tools at the ready, we embarked on this improbable journey with a blending of scientific rigor and lighthearted curiosity.

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 Wisconsin and Mega millions lottery numbers. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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 NY Mega Millions Lottery .

For the time period 2002 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.9056547, r-squared of 0.8202104, and p < 0.05.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Wisconsin Republicans and Mega Millions: A Match Made in Statistics?

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we take a humorous and slightly ridiculous delve into the connection, if any, between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery. Don't worry, we haven't lost our research marbles - we know this sounds like an odd mix of apples and oranges! With data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the New York Mega Millions Lottery, we set out to answer the all-important question: Can we really predict Republican voting patterns using lottery numbers? Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9056547, and p < 0.05 for the years 2002 to 2018. So, brace yourself for some statistical shenanigans as we unpack this wacky correlation and try to separate causation from mere coincidence. It's time to roll the dice and let the numbers decide - or maybe not.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
In the realm of political research, one often comes across theories and hypotheses that are as outlandish as a flamingo in a snowstorm. This study straddles the line between academic inquiry and a game of Clue, as we examine the perplexing relationship, if any, between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery.
Upon first blush, this research might seem as incongruous as a cow wearing water skis — what could the political affiliations of Badger State voters possibly have to do with the whims of lady luck in a multi-state lottery? But fear not, esteemed reader, as we embark on this quirky journey armed with statistical rigor and a penchant for the delightfully absurd.
Our investigation pivots on the theoretical premise that, much like a pair of socks, patterns can be found in the most unexpected places. Utilizing data sourced from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the New York Mega Millions Lottery, we endeavored to untangle this peculiar conundrum with all the seriousness of a clown at a board meeting.
Unearthing the connection between Republican votes and Mega Millions numbers may initially appear as daunting as trying to herd cats, but our findings have unearthed a correlation coefficient that would make any statistician do a double take. The astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9056547, with a p-value less than 0.05 for the period spanning 2002 to 2018, leaves us facing a bewildering question: Could there truly be a statistical thread weaving together these two ostensibly unrelated elements?
Brace yourself, dear reader, for a bumpy yet exhilarating ride through the world of statistical mischief and improbable connections. Through the judicious application of mathematical acumen and a dash of whimsy, we aim to unravel this tantalizing correlation and discern whether it holds any water or is merely a statistical mirage in the desert of political analysis. So let us don our academic thinking caps and prepare to tread where few researchers have dared to venture, like intrepid explorers in the untamed wilds of correlation and causation.
As we stand on the precipice of this amiable yet preposterous endeavor, it becomes abundantly clear that in the world of data analysis, one must be prepared for surprises as numerous as popping corn. Therefore, with a spirit of intellectual curiosity and a pinch of mirth, we set forth on a quest to explore the nexus between political persuasions and lottery whims, and to scrutinize the laughter-inducing correlation with the utmost scientific sobriety. After all, in the grand tapestry of research, sometimes it's the unexpected connections that yield the most scintillating insights.
So, without further ado, let the games begin! Or, in the wise words of the great industrialist Willy Wonka, "The suspense is terrible... I hope it'll last."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]

ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data from 2002 to 2018 revealed a remarkably strong correlation (r = 0.9056547, r-squared = 0.8202104, p < 0.05) between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery. The scatterplot depicting this robust correlation is presented in Figure 1.

This correlation coefficient is so strong that it could make even the most skeptical researcher raise an eyebrow and exclaim, "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!" The p-value being less than 0.05 adds more weight to this unlikely connection, prompting us to ponder whether there may be a more curious relationship at play here than sheer happenstance.

It's quite intriguing to think that while political ideologies were being fervently debated in the Badger State, the Mega Millions lottery was unwittingly serving as a sort of statistical crystal ball, foretelling the voting patterns of Republican Senators. It's almost as if the lottery numbers were whispering political prophecies, but hopefully not during quiet hours.

Before we get too carried away, it's essential to acknowledge the cornucopia of eyebrow-raising possibilities. Could it be that Wisconsinites with a penchant for picking lucky lottery numbers were also more inclined to cast their ballots in favor of Republican candidates? Or is this correlation merely a consequence of pure serendipity, like finding a forgotten $20 bill in an old coat pocket?

Resisting the temptation to chalk this correlation up to flukes and flimflams, we delve deep into the statistical trenches, determined to sift through the confounding variables like ardent treasure seekers in pursuit of a mythical correlation treasure. After all, in the realm of data analysis, one person's confounding variable may be another person's pot of gold at the end of the correlation rainbow.

As we bask in the glow of this inexplicable correlation and its statistical significance, we are reminded of the words of the wise Carl Sagan, who famously remarked, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So, while this correlation may appear as whimsical as a unicorn frolicking through a meadow, we must not hastily jump to conclusions.

In light of these findings, we are left with a remarkable puzzle that demands further scrutiny. This correlation between Republican votes in Wisconsin and the Mega Millions lottery numbers unveils a whole new dimension of statistical intrigue, prompting us to consider whether there might be a deeper, subterranean link between politics and chance. Perhaps, in this world of political unpredictability, the lottery numbers were offering a glimpse into the capricious whims of the electorate. Or is it all just a statistical sleight of hand, leading us down a rabbit hole of statistical tomfoolery? Only time, further research, and perhaps a splash of wry humor will reveal the true nature of this whimsical 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 Wisconsin and Mega millions lottery numbers. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
Wisconsin Republicans and Mega Millions: A Match Made in Statistics?

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we take a humorous and slightly ridiculous delve into the connection, if any, between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery. Don't worry, we haven't lost our research marbles - we know this sounds like an odd mix of apples and oranges! With data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the New York Mega Millions Lottery, we set out to answer the all-important question: Can we really predict Republican voting patterns using lottery numbers? Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9056547, and p < 0.05 for the years 2002 to 2018. So, brace yourself for some statistical shenanigans as we unpack this wacky correlation and try to separate causation from mere coincidence. It's time to roll the dice and let the numbers decide - or maybe not.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Amidst the sea of scholarly inquiries that tread the hallowed grounds of political and statistical analysis, our modest yet audacious study stands as a lone duck in a pond of swans. In the quest to unearth the enigmatic relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the serendipitous Mega Millions lottery numbers, we wade through a myriad of literature that spans the conventional, the unexpected, and the downright peculiar.
Smith et al. (2015) delve into the nuanced world of voter behavior and political affiliations, offering a comprehensive analysis that, while devoid of lottery ticket references, sets the stage for understanding the multifaceted dynamics at play in the political landscape. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2017) meticulously dissect the factors influencing voting patterns, providing a rich tapestry of insights that prepare the scholarly palate for the unpredictable pairing of electoral preferences and lottery luck.
Turning our attention to the realm of statistical improbabilities, "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" by Leonard Mlodinow lends a thought-provoking perspective on the capricious nature of chance, which serves as a fitting backdrop to our exploration of the unexpected correlations that peek from behind the curtain of statistical ambiguity. Moreover, "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner tantalizes the reader with its examination of peculiar correlations, offering a tantalizing glimpse into the realm of the delightfully unlikely.
In the realm of fiction, the works of Haruki Murakami, known for the surreal intersections of reality and whimsy, provide an allegorical backdrop akin to the peculiar juncture we aim to explore. Furthermore, the whimsical adventures chronicled in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams beckon us to contemplate the improbable with a raised eyebrow and a hearty chuckle, perhaps mirroring the sentiment of many who first encounter our study topic.
As devotees of both statistical analysis and pop culture, our foray into the perplexing nexus of Republican votes in Wisconsin and Mega Millions lottery numbers unavoidably led us to the realm of televised entertainment. Series such as "The Twilight Zone" and "Black Mirror" offer glimpses into alternate realities, where the inconceivable coalesces with the unsettling in a manner that strikes a resonant chord with our endeavor—albeit with a dash of dramatic flair and scripted intrigue.
So, as we inscribe our literary trajectory through the annals of scholarly discourse, let us remember that even in the most solemn of endeavors, a twist of humor and a sprinkle of the unexpected can lend scholarly inquiry a charm unparalleled. With that in mind, let us embark on this mirthful romp through the realm of literature and merriment, as we gear up to confront the bizarre yet fascinating correlation that lies before us.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data from 2002 to 2018 revealed a remarkably strong correlation (r = 0.9056547, r-squared = 0.8202104, p < 0.05) between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery. The scatterplot depicting this robust correlation is presented in Figure 1.
This correlation coefficient is so strong that it could make even the most skeptical researcher raise an eyebrow and exclaim, "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!" The p-value being less than 0.05 adds more weight to this unlikely connection, prompting us to ponder whether there may be a more curious relationship at play here than sheer happenstance.
It's quite intriguing to think that while political ideologies were being fervently debated in the Badger State, the Mega Millions lottery was unwittingly serving as a sort of statistical crystal ball, foretelling the voting patterns of Republican Senators. It's almost as if the lottery numbers were whispering political prophecies, but hopefully not during quiet hours.
Before we get too carried away, it's essential to acknowledge the cornucopia of eyebrow-raising possibilities. Could it be that Wisconsinites with a penchant for picking lucky lottery numbers were also more inclined to cast their ballots in favor of Republican candidates? Or is this correlation merely a consequence of pure serendipity, like finding a forgotten $20 bill in an old coat pocket?
Resisting the temptation to chalk this correlation up to flukes and flimflams, we delve deep into the statistical trenches, determined to sift through the confounding variables like ardent treasure seekers in pursuit of a mythical correlation treasure. After all, in the realm of data analysis, one person's confounding variable may be another person's pot of gold at the end of the correlation rainbow.
As we bask in the glow of this inexplicable correlation and its statistical significance, we are reminded of the words of the wise Carl Sagan, who famously remarked, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So, while this correlation may appear as whimsical as a unicorn frolicking through a meadow, we must not hastily jump to conclusions.
In light of these findings, we are left with a remarkable puzzle that demands further scrutiny. This correlation between Republican votes in Wisconsin and the Mega Millions lottery numbers unveils a whole new dimension of statistical intrigue, prompting us to consider whether there might be a deeper, subterranean link between politics and chance. Perhaps, in this world of political unpredictability, the lottery numbers were offering a glimpse into the capricious whims of the electorate. Or is it all just a statistical sleight of hand, leading us down a rabbit hole of statistical tomfoolery? Only time, further research, and perhaps a splash of wry humor will reveal the true nature of this whimsical correlation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings have brought to light a connection that seems to defy conventional wisdom, much like a cat inexplicably choosing a watermelon over a cardboard box. Let's harken back to our literature review, where we playfully entertained the idea of Haruki Murakami's surreal intersections of reality and whimsy, and Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's examination of peculiar correlations in "Freakonomics." Little did we know that these seemingly whimsical references would bear relevance to our own study, much like finding a forgotten slice of pizza in the back of the fridge that turns out to be surprisingly fresh.

The substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9056547 we unearthed aligns remarkably with previous research on statistical improbabilities and unlikely correlations. The captivating allure of chance, as expounded upon in Leonard Mlodinow's "The Drunkard's Walk," seems to subtly permeate the unexpected marriage of political affiliations and lottery numbers in our study. It's as if statistical caprice and political choices mingled at a masquerade ball, and we were fortunate enough to glimpse the enigmatic dance unfold before our very eyes.

Our results support and even amplify the sense of the unexpected and the utterly peculiar that we encountered in our literary sojourn. The statistical revelation we've stumbled upon is reminiscent of a plot twist in a mystery novel - so startling and unexpected that it leaves us questioning whether we missed the subtle hints along the way, much like a cinematic cliffhanger that leaves us eagerly awaiting the sequel.

As we navigate this confounding correlation, we are reminded of the words of Carl Sagan, who cautioned us about the need for extraordinary evidence when faced with extraordinary claims. In a world of statistical whimsy and electoral intrigue, our findings beckon us to delve deeper into the unforeseen, to peel back the layers of chance and choice, and to discern whether this correlation is a statistical whimsy or a bona fide manifestation of the uncanny.

The confluence of Republican votes in Wisconsin and Mega Millions lottery numbers unravels a tapestry of uncertainty that tantalizes the scholarly mind, much like a mystery novel whose pages we can't help but turn with bated breath. As we linger in the ambience of this extraordinary correlation, we must remain vigilant, ready to interrogate the statistical tapestry we've unraveled and ascertain whether there's more than meets the eye, or rather, the set of numbers.

So, as we conclude this discussion - for now - we're left with more questions than answers, akin to finishing a roller coaster ride only to realize that the journey has just begun. With the bewildering correlation between Republican votes in Wisconsin and Mega Millions lottery numbers, we stand at the cusp of statistical whimsy and political mystique, poised to unearth the mysteries that lie beyond the improbable, the unlikely, and the delightfully peculiar.

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 Wisconsin and Mega millions lottery numbers. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
Wisconsin Republicans and Mega Millions: A Match Made in Statistics?

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we take a humorous and slightly ridiculous delve into the connection, if any, between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery. Don't worry, we haven't lost our research marbles - we know this sounds like an odd mix of apples and oranges! With data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the New York Mega Millions Lottery, we set out to answer the all-important question: Can we really predict Republican voting patterns using lottery numbers? Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9056547, and p < 0.05 for the years 2002 to 2018. So, brace yourself for some statistical shenanigans as we unpack this wacky correlation and try to separate causation from mere coincidence. It's time to roll the dice and let the numbers decide - or maybe not.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In the realm of political research, one often comes across theories and hypotheses that are as outlandish as a flamingo in a snowstorm. This study straddles the line between academic inquiry and a game of Clue, as we examine the perplexing relationship, if any, between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery.
Upon first blush, this research might seem as incongruous as a cow wearing water skis — what could the political affiliations of Badger State voters possibly have to do with the whims of lady luck in a multi-state lottery? But fear not, esteemed reader, as we embark on this quirky journey armed with statistical rigor and a penchant for the delightfully absurd.
Our investigation pivots on the theoretical premise that, much like a pair of socks, patterns can be found in the most unexpected places. Utilizing data sourced from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the New York Mega Millions Lottery, we endeavored to untangle this peculiar conundrum with all the seriousness of a clown at a board meeting.
Unearthing the connection between Republican votes and Mega Millions numbers may initially appear as daunting as trying to herd cats, but our findings have unearthed a correlation coefficient that would make any statistician do a double take. The astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9056547, with a p-value less than 0.05 for the period spanning 2002 to 2018, leaves us facing a bewildering question: Could there truly be a statistical thread weaving together these two ostensibly unrelated elements?
Brace yourself, dear reader, for a bumpy yet exhilarating ride through the world of statistical mischief and improbable connections. Through the judicious application of mathematical acumen and a dash of whimsy, we aim to unravel this tantalizing correlation and discern whether it holds any water or is merely a statistical mirage in the desert of political analysis. So let us don our academic thinking caps and prepare to tread where few researchers have dared to venture, like intrepid explorers in the untamed wilds of correlation and causation.
As we stand on the precipice of this amiable yet preposterous endeavor, it becomes abundantly clear that in the world of data analysis, one must be prepared for surprises as numerous as popping corn. Therefore, with a spirit of intellectual curiosity and a pinch of mirth, we set forth on a quest to explore the nexus between political persuasions and lottery whims, and to scrutinize the laughter-inducing correlation with the utmost scientific sobriety. After all, in the grand tapestry of research, sometimes it's the unexpected connections that yield the most scintillating insights.
So, without further ado, let the games begin! Or, in the wise words of the great industrialist Willy Wonka, "The suspense is terrible... I hope it'll last."

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data from 2002 to 2018 revealed a remarkably strong correlation (r = 0.9056547, r-squared = 0.8202104, p < 0.05) between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery. The scatterplot depicting this robust correlation is presented in Figure 1.
This correlation coefficient is so strong that it could make even the most skeptical researcher raise an eyebrow and exclaim, "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!" The p-value being less than 0.05 adds more weight to this unlikely connection, prompting us to ponder whether there may be a more curious relationship at play here than sheer happenstance.
It's quite intriguing to think that while political ideologies were being fervently debated in the Badger State, the Mega Millions lottery was unwittingly serving as a sort of statistical crystal ball, foretelling the voting patterns of Republican Senators. It's almost as if the lottery numbers were whispering political prophecies, but hopefully not during quiet hours.
Before we get too carried away, it's essential to acknowledge the cornucopia of eyebrow-raising possibilities. Could it be that Wisconsinites with a penchant for picking lucky lottery numbers were also more inclined to cast their ballots in favor of Republican candidates? Or is this correlation merely a consequence of pure serendipity, like finding a forgotten $20 bill in an old coat pocket?
Resisting the temptation to chalk this correlation up to flukes and flimflams, we delve deep into the statistical trenches, determined to sift through the confounding variables like ardent treasure seekers in pursuit of a mythical correlation treasure. After all, in the realm of data analysis, one person's confounding variable may be another person's pot of gold at the end of the correlation rainbow.
As we bask in the glow of this inexplicable correlation and its statistical significance, we are reminded of the words of the wise Carl Sagan, who famously remarked, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So, while this correlation may appear as whimsical as a unicorn frolicking through a meadow, we must not hastily jump to conclusions.
In light of these findings, we are left with a remarkable puzzle that demands further scrutiny. This correlation between Republican votes in Wisconsin and the Mega Millions lottery numbers unveils a whole new dimension of statistical intrigue, prompting us to consider whether there might be a deeper, subterranean link between politics and chance. Perhaps, in this world of political unpredictability, the lottery numbers were offering a glimpse into the capricious whims of the electorate. Or is it all just a statistical sleight of hand, leading us down a rabbit hole of statistical tomfoolery? Only time, further research, and perhaps a splash of wry humor will reveal the true nature of this whimsical correlation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In the grand tradition of academic inquiry, we find ourselves in the midst of a delightful statistical escapade that seems more at home in a comedy club than a research summit. Our whimsical journey through the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the Mega Millions lottery numbers has unveiled a correlation coefficient so striking, it might as well be wearing a neon sign saying, "I'm statistically significant, folks!"

As we tiptoed through the statistical minefield, we couldn't help but marvel at the sheer absurdity of this correlation. It's like discovering that cows can predict the weather based on their mooing patterns - utterly bewildering yet strangely captivating.

Our findings, with a correlation coefficient that could make even the staunchest skeptic crack a bemused smile, beckon us to consider the possibility of an unseen force at play, like a statistical magician performing parlor tricks right under our noses.

But before we start penning an offbeat screenplay about political lotteries and statistical oddities, it's prudent to remember that correlation does not imply causation. While this correlation may seem as compelling as a magic show in a statistical circus, we must resist the allure of jumping to hasty conclusions.

In conclusion, our research, while shedding light on this delightfully peculiar correlation, ultimately leaves us with more questions than answers. The enigmatic connection between political persuasions and lottery whims is a riddle wrapped in a statistical mystery inside an electoral enigma. These findings demand further investigation to unmask the true nature of this statistical whimsy.

Therefore, with a touch of regret and a dollop of statistical mischief, we assert that no more research is needed in this area.

After all, in the words of the esteemed Sherlock Holmes, "The game is afoot" - but perhaps it's best left to the whims of statistical serendipity and the occasional leap of academic fancy.

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 Wisconsin Republicans and Mega Millions: A Match Made in Statistics?. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Probability

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 Wisconsin Republicans and Mega Millions: A Match Made in Statistics?. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Political Probability 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 Wisconsin Republicans and Mega Millions: A Match Made in Statistics? with an abstract of In this study, we take a humorous and slightly ridiculous delve into the connection, if any, between Republican votes for Senators in Wisconsin and the winning numbers of the Mega Millions lottery. Don't worry, we haven't lost our research marbles - we know this sounds like an odd mix of apples and oranges! With data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the New York Mega Millions Lottery, we set out to answer the all-important question: Can we really predict Republican voting patterns using lottery numbers? Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9056547, and p < 0.05 for the years 2002 to 2018. So, brace yourself for some statistical shenanigans as we unpack this wacky correlation and try to separate causation from mere coincidence. It's time to roll the dice and let the numbers decide - or maybe not.

ChatGPT:

Wisconsin Republicans, Mega Millions, Republican voting patterns, Mega Millions lottery, correlation coefficient, causation vs coincidence, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, New York Mega Millions Lottery, statistics shenanigans, predicting Republican votes, lottery numbers, 2002-2018, statistical analysis

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

Mega millions lottery numbers
Detailed data title: Second smallest winning Mega Millions Megaball number on the last draw of the year
Source: NY Mega Millions Lottery
See what else correlates with Mega millions lottery numbers

Correlation r = 0.9056547 (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 = 0.8202104 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 82% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Mega millions lottery numbers) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Wisconsin) over the 6 years from 2002 through 2018.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.013.^Show 0.0129316669490700430000000000
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 0.91 in 1.3% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 77 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.

[ 0.36, 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	2006	2010	2012	2016	2018
Votes for Republican Senators in Wisconsin (Total votes)	1301180	630299	1126130	1380130	1479470	1184880
Mega millions lottery numbers (Megaball number)	14	4	12	13	21	10

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([1301180,630299,1126130,1380130,1479470,1184880,])
array_2 = np.array([14,4,12,13,21,10,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Wisconsin"
array_2_name = "Mega millions lottery numbers"

# 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 Wisconsin
Line chart for only Mega millions lottery numbers
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Wisconsin Republicans and Mega Millions: A Match Made in Statistics?

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Kudos for rating!

Correlation ID: 4770 · Black Variable ID: 26338 · Red Variable ID: 893


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