about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,777 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in Louisiana and the second variable is Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The Democratic senators made it rain with their policies for a bird-friendly environment, so the birds were more inclined to seek shelter in their state! It's like they were saying, "Louisiana's the peli-canopy we need!"

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: An image that is reminiscent of a scene from 'Star Wars', where the towering trees and lush foliage of the forest create a mystical and otherworldly atmosphere. The canopy of intertwining branches and vibrant green leaves provide a shelter for a group of Democratic senators, evoking a sense of grandeur and importance. Meanwhile, a flock of birds gather under the protective cover, seeking refuge from the gentle rain. The scene captures a captivating blend of natural wonder and political significance, resonating with the theme of bird-friendly policies amidst the search for understanding bird behavior in inclement weather. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. 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: 3D Pixar Style Glitch art Cubism An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' Hyper-realistic
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars'

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains', in the following situation: The Democratic senators made it rain with their policies for a bird-friendly environment, so the birds were more inclined to seek shelter in their state! It's like they were saying, "Louisiana's the peli-canopy we need!". Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Louisiana, a group of Democratic senators stand under a canopy of intertwining branches and lush leaves, representing their bird-friendly policies. Meanwhile, a flock of birds seek shelter from the rain under the protective cover, as more people in the state search "where do birds go when it rains" on Google to learn about bird behavior in inclement weather.

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: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' ] and depicting this scene: In Louisiana, a group of Democratic senators stand under a canopy of intertwining branches and lush leaves, representing their bird-friendly policies. Meanwhile, a flock of birds seek shelter from the rain under the protective cover, as more people in the state search "where do birds go when it rains" on Google to learn about bird behavior in inclement weather. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: An image that is reminiscent of a scene from 'Star Wars', where the towering trees and lush foliage of the forest create a mystical and otherworldly atmosphere. The canopy of intertwining branches and vibrant green leaves provide a shelter for a group of Democratic senators, evoking a sense of grandeur and importance. Meanwhile, a flock of birds gather under the protective cover, seeking refuge from the gentle rain. The scene captures a captivating blend of natural wonder and political significance, resonating with the theme of bird-friendly policies amidst the search for understanding bird behavior in inclement weather.

*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.

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 Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana positively influenced where do birds go when it rains (Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'). Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Tweet from the Nest: The Correlation Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'

Journal of Avian Political Science

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
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 witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, make it sound serious.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and p < 0.05 for 2004 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]]
Tweet from the Nest: The Correlation Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the unlikely yet strangely compelling correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and Google searches for the existential question, "Where do birds go when it rains?" Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we delved into the intricate relationship between political preferences and avian curiosity from 2004 to 2020. Our analysis revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and p < 0.05, defying conventional expectations with statistical significance. Through lighthearted exploration of this whimsical link, we offer a refreshing perspective that transcends the conventional boundaries of political and ornithological discourse.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Tweet from the Nest: The Correlation Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the unlikely yet strangely compelling correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and Google searches for the existential question, "Where do birds go when it rains?" Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we delved into the intricate relationship between political preferences and avian curiosity from 2004 to 2020. Our analysis revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and p < 0.05, defying conventional expectations with statistical significance. Through lighthearted exploration of this whimsical link, we offer a refreshing perspective that transcends the conventional boundaries of political and ornithological discourse.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The field of political science is often characterized by its rigorous analysis of voter behavior, policy impact, and coalition dynamics. However, it is not every day that political scientists find themselves pondering the intricacies of avian curiosity and meteorological existentialism. Yet, here we are, embarking on a journey to explore the delightful yet perplexing correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the age-old question, "Where do birds go when it rains?"

As researchers, it is our duty to navigate through the maze of data and uncover potential patterns that may capture the imagination, even if these patterns seemed improbable at first glance. Our study represents an earnest attempt to shed light on a relationship that may seem as elusive as a bird taking flight in the midst of a rainstorm. Such unexpected correlations often lead to scholarly amusement and provide an opportunity to approach serious academic inquiry with a touch of lightheartedness.

The state of Louisiana, with its rich political history and diverse avian population, serves as an intriguing backdrop for our investigation. Through the lens of data analysis and statistical rigor, we aim to reveal whether there is a substantial connection between the political preferences of Louisiana citizens and their penchant for pondering the whereabouts of feathered friends during inclement weather. Our approach, while unorthodox, presents an opportunity to appreciate the unexpected whims of data and the delightful caprices of statistical associations.

At its core, this study embodies the spirit of scholarly exploration, urging us to peer beyond the realm of traditional political analysis and venture into the realm of avian curiosity. While such an endeavor may raise a few eyebrows (and perhaps inspire a few avian puns), it is our hope that this investigation will infuse a measure of levity into the often sober realms of political and statistical inquiry. Through this process, we aspire to encourage academic discourse that embraces the unexpected and revels in the serendipitous findings that occasionally grace our research endeavors.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Tweet from the Nest: The Correlation Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the unlikely yet strangely compelling correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and Google searches for the existential question, "Where do birds go when it rains?" Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we delved into the intricate relationship between political preferences and avian curiosity from 2004 to 2020. Our analysis revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and p < 0.05, defying conventional expectations with statistical significance. Through lighthearted exploration of this whimsical link, we offer a refreshing perspective that transcends the conventional boundaries of political and ornithological discourse.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The field of political science is often characterized by its rigorous analysis of voter behavior, policy impact, and coalition dynamics. However, it is not every day that political scientists find themselves pondering the intricacies of avian curiosity and meteorological existentialism. Yet, here we are, embarking on a journey to explore the delightful yet perplexing correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the age-old question, "Where do birds go when it rains?"
As researchers, it is our duty to navigate through the maze of data and uncover potential patterns that may capture the imagination, even if these patterns seemed improbable at first glance. Our study represents an earnest attempt to shed light on a relationship that may seem as elusive as a bird taking flight in the midst of a rainstorm. Such unexpected correlations often lead to scholarly amusement and provide an opportunity to approach serious academic inquiry with a touch of lightheartedness.
The state of Louisiana, with its rich political history and diverse avian population, serves as an intriguing backdrop for our investigation. Through the lens of data analysis and statistical rigor, we aim to reveal whether there is a substantial connection between the political preferences of Louisiana citizens and their penchant for pondering the whereabouts of feathered friends during inclement weather. Our approach, while unorthodox, presents an opportunity to appreciate the unexpected whims of data and the delightful caprices of statistical associations.
At its core, this study embodies the spirit of scholarly exploration, urging us to peer beyond the realm of traditional political analysis and venture into the realm of avian curiosity. While such an endeavor may raise a few eyebrows (and perhaps inspire a few avian puns), it is our hope that this investigation will infuse a measure of levity into the often sober realms of political and statistical inquiry. Through this process, we aspire to encourage academic discourse that embraces the unexpected and revels in the serendipitous findings that occasionally grace our research endeavors.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In the pursuit of uncovering the enigmatic correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for 'Where do birds go when it rains,' researchers have delved into numerous studies that offer valuable insights into the realms of political behavior and avian curiosity. Smith, in a seminal work on voter preferences, examines the complex interplay of demographic factors and party allegiance, offering a comprehensive analysis of political tendencies that resonate with the intricate nature of our current inquiry. Similarly, Doe presents a compelling exploration of search engine queries, shedding light on the nuances of online information retrieval and the underlying motivations that drive individuals to seek answers to existential avian quandaries. The work of Jones further augments this literature, providing a detailed account of regional voting patterns and the sociopolitical forces that shape electoral outcomes, thus contributing to our understanding of the broader context in which our investigation unfolds.

As the present study embarks on this unconventional quest, it is important to draw upon not only the established literature within political science and information retrieval but also adjacent fields that may provide unexpected points of connection. Works such as "The Political Lives of Dead Bodies" by Street and "The Bird Way" by Ackerman offer intriguing perspectives on the intersection of politics and the natural world, hinting at the delightful confluence of themes that animate our inquiry. Similarly, the insights gleaned from fictitious accounts, such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "The Pelican Brief" by John Grisham, add a layer of whimsy that aligns with the unconventional spirit of our investigation.

Amidst the scholarly gravitas that defines this literature review, it is essential to acknowledge the role of pop culture phenomena that subtly inform our understanding of the subjects at hand. Memes such as "Angry Birds" and "Bird Box" capture the zeitgeist of avian fascination and the unexpected turns that define political discourse, underscoring the serendipitous nature of the correlation we seek to elucidate. In synthesizing these diverse strands of literature, the present study endeavors to unravel a correlation that is as captivating as it is improbable, infusing academic inquiry with a touch of levity and intellectual curiosity.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2020

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Tweet from the Nest: The Correlation Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the unlikely yet strangely compelling correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and Google searches for the existential question, "Where do birds go when it rains?" Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we delved into the intricate relationship between political preferences and avian curiosity from 2004 to 2020. Our analysis revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and p < 0.05, defying conventional expectations with statistical significance. Through lighthearted exploration of this whimsical link, we offer a refreshing perspective that transcends the conventional boundaries of political and ornithological discourse.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The field of political science is often characterized by its rigorous analysis of voter behavior, policy impact, and coalition dynamics. However, it is not every day that political scientists find themselves pondering the intricacies of avian curiosity and meteorological existentialism. Yet, here we are, embarking on a journey to explore the delightful yet perplexing correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the age-old question, "Where do birds go when it rains?"
As researchers, it is our duty to navigate through the maze of data and uncover potential patterns that may capture the imagination, even if these patterns seemed improbable at first glance. Our study represents an earnest attempt to shed light on a relationship that may seem as elusive as a bird taking flight in the midst of a rainstorm. Such unexpected correlations often lead to scholarly amusement and provide an opportunity to approach serious academic inquiry with a touch of lightheartedness.
The state of Louisiana, with its rich political history and diverse avian population, serves as an intriguing backdrop for our investigation. Through the lens of data analysis and statistical rigor, we aim to reveal whether there is a substantial connection between the political preferences of Louisiana citizens and their penchant for pondering the whereabouts of feathered friends during inclement weather. Our approach, while unorthodox, presents an opportunity to appreciate the unexpected whims of data and the delightful caprices of statistical associations.
At its core, this study embodies the spirit of scholarly exploration, urging us to peer beyond the realm of traditional political analysis and venture into the realm of avian curiosity. While such an endeavor may raise a few eyebrows (and perhaps inspire a few avian puns), it is our hope that this investigation will infuse a measure of levity into the often sober realms of political and statistical inquiry. Through this process, we aspire to encourage academic discourse that embraces the unexpected and revels in the serendipitous findings that occasionally grace our research endeavors.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the enigmatic connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and the peculiar fascination with the migratory habits of avian creatures during precipitation, our research team embarked on a methodological expedition that blended statistical rigor with a sprightly sense of curiosity.

Data Collection:
We cast our proverbial net far and wide, scouring the digital landscape for relevant datasets akin to intrepid birdwatchers seeking out elusive species. The primary sources of data for this study were the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, offering a comprehensive repository of electoral information, the Harvard Dataverse, which presented a treasure trove of political data, and Google Trends, akin to a virtual ornithological observatory tracking global searches on avian intrigue. We meticulously gathered data spanning the years 2004 to 2020, allowing for an extensive temporal panorama that encapsulated multiple electoral cycles and meteorological musings.

Extraction and Preprocessing:
With the zeal of a bird of paradise in mating display, our research team meticulously extracted data related to Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and the frequency of Google searches for the phrase “where do birds go when it rains?” Our preprocessing endeavors were akin to the meticulous grooming of plumage, involving data cleansing, standardization, and the harmonization of disparate information from the aforementioned sources. This step was vital to ensure the coherence and comparability of our datasets, much like the synchronized choreography of a murmuration of starlings.

Quantitative Analysis:
Employing a suite of statistical tools, including correlation analysis, regression models, and time series analysis, we undertook the analytical endeavor with the practiced precision of a seasoned ornithologist identifying species through their songs. Through these analytical methods, we sought to elucidate the nuances of the relationship between Democrat votes and avian inquisitiveness, embracing the statistical symphony that underpins the realm of quantitative inquiry.

Statistical Measures:
The statistical terrain was meticulously traversed, with the calculation of correlation coefficients, p-values, and confidence intervals akin to compasses guiding our empirical journey through the labyrinth of data. Each statistical measure was scrutinized with the diligence of an eagle-eyed scrutineer, ensuring that the inferential leaps made were anchored in robust empirical foundations.

Validation and Sensitivity Analysis:
To fortify the veracity of our findings, we undertook validation and sensitivity analyses reminiscent of field expeditions in search of rare avian sightings. Sensitivity analyses, involving varying model specifications and data subsets, were carried out to assess the robustness of our results, akin to subjecting a hypothesis to varying climatic conditions to gauge its resilience.

Ethical Considerations:
Adhering to the ethical canons of academic inquiry, we ensured the prudent handling and utilization of data, safeguarding the privacy and confidentiality of individuals represented in our datasets. Our ethical compass pointed steadfastly north, guiding our research conduct with the cardinal virtues of integrity and respect.

In conclusion, our methodological odyssey was based on a synthesis of methodological acumen and spirited curiosity, akin to the harmonious fusion of scholarly precision and avian vivacity. Through this methodological trajectory, we endeavored to illuminate the fascinating interplay between political proclivities and avian contemplations in the captivating milieu of Louisiana's electoral landscape.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 Google Trends .

For the time period 2004 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8927391, r-squared of 0.7969831, 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]]
Tweet from the Nest: The Correlation Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the unlikely yet strangely compelling correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and Google searches for the existential question, "Where do birds go when it rains?" Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we delved into the intricate relationship between political preferences and avian curiosity from 2004 to 2020. Our analysis revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and p < 0.05, defying conventional expectations with statistical significance. Through lighthearted exploration of this whimsical link, we offer a refreshing perspective that transcends the conventional boundaries of political and ornithological discourse.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The field of political science is often characterized by its rigorous analysis of voter behavior, policy impact, and coalition dynamics. However, it is not every day that political scientists find themselves pondering the intricacies of avian curiosity and meteorological existentialism. Yet, here we are, embarking on a journey to explore the delightful yet perplexing correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the age-old question, "Where do birds go when it rains?"
As researchers, it is our duty to navigate through the maze of data and uncover potential patterns that may capture the imagination, even if these patterns seemed improbable at first glance. Our study represents an earnest attempt to shed light on a relationship that may seem as elusive as a bird taking flight in the midst of a rainstorm. Such unexpected correlations often lead to scholarly amusement and provide an opportunity to approach serious academic inquiry with a touch of lightheartedness.
The state of Louisiana, with its rich political history and diverse avian population, serves as an intriguing backdrop for our investigation. Through the lens of data analysis and statistical rigor, we aim to reveal whether there is a substantial connection between the political preferences of Louisiana citizens and their penchant for pondering the whereabouts of feathered friends during inclement weather. Our approach, while unorthodox, presents an opportunity to appreciate the unexpected whims of data and the delightful caprices of statistical associations.
At its core, this study embodies the spirit of scholarly exploration, urging us to peer beyond the realm of traditional political analysis and venture into the realm of avian curiosity. While such an endeavor may raise a few eyebrows (and perhaps inspire a few avian puns), it is our hope that this investigation will infuse a measure of levity into the often sober realms of political and statistical inquiry. Through this process, we aspire to encourage academic discourse that embraces the unexpected and revels in the serendipitous findings that occasionally grace our research endeavors.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis yielded intriguing results, providing evidence of a substantial and surprisingly robust correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the timeless query, "Where do birds go when it rains?" The correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and an r-squared value of 0.7969831 underscore the strength of the relationship between these seemingly disparate phenomena. With a p-value of less than 0.05, our findings carry a statistical significance that defies conventional expectations and invites a whimsical interpretation.

The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually represents this notable correlation, depicting the trend of Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana alongside the fluctuations in Google searches for the contemplative avian inquiry. The striking alignment of these data points in the scatterplot serves as a testament to the unexpected kinship between political preferences and the musings of curious minds pondering the plight of rain-soaked birds.

The tenacious connection uncovered in this analysis challenges preconceived notions and elicits a playful contemplation of the confluence of human behavior and avian inquisition. Despite the seemingly incongruous nature of the variables under scrutiny, our findings compel us to acknowledge the enigmatic interplay between political dynamics and the ethereal wonderment of avifauna amidst precipitation.

The statistical significance of this correlation, while surprising, opens the doors to further interdisciplinary inquiry and prompts the academic community to embrace the unanticipated intersections that animate our scholarly pursuits. This delightful juxtaposition serves as a testament to the beguiling nature of data and the unexpected insights that await those bold enough to venture beyond the confines of traditional scholarly inquiry.

In summary, our findings unveil an unlikely yet compelling correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the profound pondering of birds in inclement weather, enriching the academic landscape with a touch of whimsy and a newfound appreciation for the delightful caprices of statistical associations.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Tweet from the Nest: The Correlation Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the unlikely yet strangely compelling correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and Google searches for the existential question, "Where do birds go when it rains?" Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we delved into the intricate relationship between political preferences and avian curiosity from 2004 to 2020. Our analysis revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and p < 0.05, defying conventional expectations with statistical significance. Through lighthearted exploration of this whimsical link, we offer a refreshing perspective that transcends the conventional boundaries of political and ornithological discourse.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In the pursuit of uncovering the enigmatic correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for 'Where do birds go when it rains,' researchers have delved into numerous studies that offer valuable insights into the realms of political behavior and avian curiosity. Smith, in a seminal work on voter preferences, examines the complex interplay of demographic factors and party allegiance, offering a comprehensive analysis of political tendencies that resonate with the intricate nature of our current inquiry. Similarly, Doe presents a compelling exploration of search engine queries, shedding light on the nuances of online information retrieval and the underlying motivations that drive individuals to seek answers to existential avian quandaries. The work of Jones further augments this literature, providing a detailed account of regional voting patterns and the sociopolitical forces that shape electoral outcomes, thus contributing to our understanding of the broader context in which our investigation unfolds.
As the present study embarks on this unconventional quest, it is important to draw upon not only the established literature within political science and information retrieval but also adjacent fields that may provide unexpected points of connection. Works such as "The Political Lives of Dead Bodies" by Street and "The Bird Way" by Ackerman offer intriguing perspectives on the intersection of politics and the natural world, hinting at the delightful confluence of themes that animate our inquiry. Similarly, the insights gleaned from fictitious accounts, such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "The Pelican Brief" by John Grisham, add a layer of whimsy that aligns with the unconventional spirit of our investigation.
Amidst the scholarly gravitas that defines this literature review, it is essential to acknowledge the role of pop culture phenomena that subtly inform our understanding of the subjects at hand. Memes such as "Angry Birds" and "Bird Box" capture the zeitgeist of avian fascination and the unexpected turns that define political discourse, underscoring the serendipitous nature of the correlation we seek to elucidate. In synthesizing these diverse strands of literature, the present study endeavors to unravel a correlation that is as captivating as it is improbable, infusing academic inquiry with a touch of levity and intellectual curiosity.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis yielded intriguing results, providing evidence of a substantial and surprisingly robust correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the timeless query, "Where do birds go when it rains?" The correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and an r-squared value of 0.7969831 underscore the strength of the relationship between these seemingly disparate phenomena. With a p-value of less than 0.05, our findings carry a statistical significance that defies conventional expectations and invites a whimsical interpretation.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually represents this notable correlation, depicting the trend of Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana alongside the fluctuations in Google searches for the contemplative avian inquiry. The striking alignment of these data points in the scatterplot serves as a testament to the unexpected kinship between political preferences and the musings of curious minds pondering the plight of rain-soaked birds.
The tenacious connection uncovered in this analysis challenges preconceived notions and elicits a playful contemplation of the confluence of human behavior and avian inquisition. Despite the seemingly incongruous nature of the variables under scrutiny, our findings compel us to acknowledge the enigmatic interplay between political dynamics and the ethereal wonderment of avifauna amidst precipitation.
The statistical significance of this correlation, while surprising, opens the doors to further interdisciplinary inquiry and prompts the academic community to embrace the unanticipated intersections that animate our scholarly pursuits. This delightful juxtaposition serves as a testament to the beguiling nature of data and the unexpected insights that await those bold enough to venture beyond the confines of traditional scholarly inquiry.
In summary, our findings unveil an unlikely yet compelling correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the profound pondering of birds in inclement weather, enriching the academic landscape with a touch of whimsy and a newfound appreciation for the delightful caprices of statistical associations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

In this discussion, we embark on a voyage of scholarly inquiry navigating the intriguing terrain that unites political proclivities and the existential musings of avian precipitation. Our findings robustly corroborate and extend prior research, shedding light on the unexpected kinship between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and the contemplation of avian whereabouts during inclement weather.

First and foremost, our results corroborate Smith's study on voter preferences, which recognizes the intricate interplay of demographic factors and party allegiance. The substantial correlation unearthed in our analysis aligns with the nuanced complexities of political tendencies, suggesting that avian curiosity during rainfall may elicit a voting behavior tied to the Democratic party. This unexpected linkage transcends the traditional boundaries of political science, inviting a whimsical interpretation that blends the seriousness of electoral dynamics with the caprices of avian pondering.

Furthermore, Doe's exploration of search engine queries takes on added significance in light of our findings, as the surge in Google searches for 'Where do birds go when it rains?' mirrors the ebbs and flows of Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana. This confluence hints at the enthralling dance between online information retrieval and political inclinations, underscoring the multidimensionality of individuals' quest for existential avian knowledge. The statistical robustness of our correlation highlights the unanticipated connections that emerge when seemingly unrelated domains intersect, challenging conventional expectations and inviting a lighthearted contemplation of the human psyche in both political and ornithological realms.

Moreover, Jones's elucidation of regional voting patterns and sociopolitical forces finds resonance in our findings, as the robust correlation accentuates the role of geographic dynamics in shaping electoral outcomes. The whimsical coalescence of political dynamics and avian curiosity within the Louisiana context offers a delightful twist that enriches our understanding of regional voting behavior, underscoring the delightful caprices of statistical associations that defy conventional categorizations.

As we harken back to the lighthearted fervor of "Angry Birds" and "Bird Box," we are reminded of the delightful confluence of themes that animate our inquiry. The unexpected correlation unveiled in our analysis transcends the conventional boundaries of scholarly inquiry, injecting a touch of levity into the academic discourse and prompting a whimsical contemplation of the enigmatic interplay between human behavior and avian inquisition amidst precipitation.

In conclusion, our study unravels an underexplored connection that challenges scholarly conventions and infuses academic inquiry with a newfound appreciation for the beguiling nature of statistical associations. The delightful juxtaposition between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the existential quandary of rain-soaked birds serves as a testament to the captivating serendipity that awaits those daring enough to embrace the unorthodox interstices of interdisciplinary inquiry.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Tweet from the Nest: The Correlation Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the unlikely yet strangely compelling correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and Google searches for the existential question, "Where do birds go when it rains?" Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we delved into the intricate relationship between political preferences and avian curiosity from 2004 to 2020. Our analysis revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and p < 0.05, defying conventional expectations with statistical significance. Through lighthearted exploration of this whimsical link, we offer a refreshing perspective that transcends the conventional boundaries of political and ornithological discourse.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The field of political science is often characterized by its rigorous analysis of voter behavior, policy impact, and coalition dynamics. However, it is not every day that political scientists find themselves pondering the intricacies of avian curiosity and meteorological existentialism. Yet, here we are, embarking on a journey to explore the delightful yet perplexing correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the age-old question, "Where do birds go when it rains?"
As researchers, it is our duty to navigate through the maze of data and uncover potential patterns that may capture the imagination, even if these patterns seemed improbable at first glance. Our study represents an earnest attempt to shed light on a relationship that may seem as elusive as a bird taking flight in the midst of a rainstorm. Such unexpected correlations often lead to scholarly amusement and provide an opportunity to approach serious academic inquiry with a touch of lightheartedness.
The state of Louisiana, with its rich political history and diverse avian population, serves as an intriguing backdrop for our investigation. Through the lens of data analysis and statistical rigor, we aim to reveal whether there is a substantial connection between the political preferences of Louisiana citizens and their penchant for pondering the whereabouts of feathered friends during inclement weather. Our approach, while unorthodox, presents an opportunity to appreciate the unexpected whims of data and the delightful caprices of statistical associations.
At its core, this study embodies the spirit of scholarly exploration, urging us to peer beyond the realm of traditional political analysis and venture into the realm of avian curiosity. While such an endeavor may raise a few eyebrows (and perhaps inspire a few avian puns), it is our hope that this investigation will infuse a measure of levity into the often sober realms of political and statistical inquiry. Through this process, we aspire to encourage academic discourse that embraces the unexpected and revels in the serendipitous findings that occasionally grace our research endeavors.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis yielded intriguing results, providing evidence of a substantial and surprisingly robust correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the timeless query, "Where do birds go when it rains?" The correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and an r-squared value of 0.7969831 underscore the strength of the relationship between these seemingly disparate phenomena. With a p-value of less than 0.05, our findings carry a statistical significance that defies conventional expectations and invites a whimsical interpretation.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually represents this notable correlation, depicting the trend of Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana alongside the fluctuations in Google searches for the contemplative avian inquiry. The striking alignment of these data points in the scatterplot serves as a testament to the unexpected kinship between political preferences and the musings of curious minds pondering the plight of rain-soaked birds.
The tenacious connection uncovered in this analysis challenges preconceived notions and elicits a playful contemplation of the confluence of human behavior and avian inquisition. Despite the seemingly incongruous nature of the variables under scrutiny, our findings compel us to acknowledge the enigmatic interplay between political dynamics and the ethereal wonderment of avifauna amidst precipitation.
The statistical significance of this correlation, while surprising, opens the doors to further interdisciplinary inquiry and prompts the academic community to embrace the unanticipated intersections that animate our scholarly pursuits. This delightful juxtaposition serves as a testament to the beguiling nature of data and the unexpected insights that await those bold enough to venture beyond the confines of traditional scholarly inquiry.
In summary, our findings unveil an unlikely yet compelling correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the profound pondering of birds in inclement weather, enriching the academic landscape with a touch of whimsy and a newfound appreciation for the delightful caprices of statistical associations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, the findings of our study illuminate a remarkable correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google searches for the existential question, "Where do birds go when it rains?" The statistical robustness of the relationship, with a correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and p < 0.05, thrusts this unusual linkage into the spotlight of scholarly inquiry, akin to a well-timed chirp in the midst of a rain shower.

The unexpected kinship between political preferences and avian curiosity prompts us to embrace the intricate tapestry of human behavior and the whimsical meanderings of avian contemplation. While the connection between these phenomena may seem as surprising as an unexpected downpour on a sunny day, our findings provide a refreshing insight into the often unpredictable entanglements that permeate the fabric of statistical associations.

As researchers, we stand poised at the intersection of political science and ornithological inquisitiveness, beckoning the academic community to cast off the doldrums of conventional inquiry and embrace the serendipitous marvels that emerge from the unlikeliest sources. This correlation, while initially raising eyebrows, has the potential to inspire a renewed appreciation for the capricious melodies of statistical inquiry and the uncharted territories of interdisciplinary exploration.

Our study represents a whimsical foray into the uncharted depths of statistical inquiry, unearthing a correlation that defies conventional expectations and invites a playful reimagining of the intricate dance between political leanings and avian musings. With a touch of levity and a dash of statistical rigor, we have unveiled a correlation that meanders through the intellectual skies like a mischievous bird in flight.

In light of these compelling findings, it is our earnest assertion that no further research is needed in this area. After all, some correlations are best appreciated with a twinkle in the eye and a nod to the unpredictable wonders of statistical serendipity.


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 Tweet from the Nest: The Correlation Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Avian Political Science


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Tweet from the Nest: The Correlation Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

Whimsical Ornithological Society


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 Tweet from the Nest: The Correlation Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Louisiana and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When It Rains' with an abstract of In this study, we investigate the unlikely yet strangely compelling correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and Google searches for the existential question, "Where do birds go when it rains?" Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, we delved into the intricate relationship between political preferences and avian curiosity from 2004 to 2020. Our analysis revealed a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.8927391 and p < 0.05, defying conventional expectations with statistical significance. Through lighthearted exploration of this whimsical link, we offer a refreshing perspective that transcends the conventional boundaries of political and ornithological discourse.

ChatGPT:

Louisiana, Democrat votes, Senator, Google searches, birds, rains, correlation, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, political preferences, avian curiosity, statistical significance

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'

Correlation r = 0.8927391 (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 = 0.7969831 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 79.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Louisiana) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2020.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.017. 0.0166403401316033800000000000
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 0.89 in 1.7% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 60 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, 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.

[ 0.29, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200420082010201420162020
Votes for Democratic Senators in Louisiana (Total votes)8774829882984765721581040705271730989
Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' (Rel. search volume)2.833331.083331.1666710.752.083331.91667




Why this works

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. 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([877482,988298,476572,1581040,705271,730989,])
array_2 = np.array([2.83333,1.08333,1.16667,10.75,2.08333,1.91667,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Louisiana"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'"

# 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:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating is much appreciated!


Correlation ID: 4777 · Black Variable ID: 26246 · Red Variable ID: 1468
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0