Download png, svg
AI explanation
As more Republican senators were elected, their campaign strategies focused heavily on loyalty, prompting a surge in supporters feeling the need to demonstrate their own faithfulness. This inadvertently led to a statewide wave of 'adopt a dog' searches, as Michiganders subconsciously sought to prove their dedication by expanding their own adoption base. After all, what better way to show allegiance than by embracing a new, four-legged member into their homes? It seems that in this political race, the call for constituents to 'fetch' a furry friend resonated far and wide, solidifying the notion that in the game of 'paw'-litics, everyone's a winner with a loyal canine companion by their side!Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate a photo-realistic image of a bustling animal shelter in Michigan, filled with proud citizens wearing "I Voted" stickers. The scene should showcase individuals interacting with adorable dogs of various breeds and sizes, expressing joy and compassion as they welcome their new furry companions into their lives. The setting should exude a sense of community and dedication to both civic duties and animal welfare, capturing the heartwarming essence of the surge in Google searches for 'adopt a dog' following the Republican senators' election. 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 Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. 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: An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie Steampunk Psychedelic A photo-realistic image Symbolism
ChatGPT: A photo-realistic 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 Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog', in the following situation: As more Republican senators were elected, their campaign strategies focused heavily on loyalty, prompting a surge in supporters feeling the need to demonstrate their own faithfulness. This inadvertently led to a statewide wave of 'adopt a dog' searches, as Michiganders subconsciously sought to prove their dedication by expanding their own adoption base. After all, what better way to show allegiance than by embracing a new, four-legged member into their homes? It seems that in this political race, the call for constituents to 'fetch' a furry friend resonated far and wide, solidifying the notion that in the game of 'paw'-litics, everyone's a winner with a loyal canine companion by their side!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Michigan, as Republican senators were elected, the state saw a surge in Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. The visual scene depicts Michiganders proudly displaying their "I Voted" stickers as they visit local animal shelters to bring home new furry companions, showcasing their dedication and loyalty through the act of adopting a dog.
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 photo-realistic image ] and depicting this scene: In Michigan, as Republican senators were elected, the state saw a surge in Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. The visual scene depicts Michiganders proudly displaying their "I Voted" stickers as they visit local animal shelters to bring home new furry companions, showcasing their dedication and loyalty through the act of adopting a dog. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate a photo-realistic image of a bustling animal shelter in Michigan, filled with proud citizens wearing "I Voted" stickers. The scene should showcase individuals interacting with adorable dogs of various breeds and sizes, expressing joy and compassion as they welcome their new furry companions into their lives. The setting should exude a sense of community and dedication to both civic duties and animal welfare, capturing the heartwarming essence of the surge in Google searches for 'adopt a dog' following the Republican senators' election.
*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.
I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Republican votes for Senators in Michigan caused adopt a dog (Google searches for 'adopt a dog') to increase.
AI academic paper
Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog' The Journal of Canine Political Science Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
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 Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. Make lots of 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 0.9327879 and p < 0.01 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]]
Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog'
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious intersection of political preferences and dog adoption searches in the state of Michigan. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team identified a statistically significant correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and online searches for 'adopt a dog'. The correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020 suggests a striking relationship between political leanings and the desire to bring furry companions into the family. Our findings prompt a playful reflection on the potential sway of canine companionship in shaping political inclinations, unveiling a delightful yet unexpected link between voting behavior and the affection for our four-legged friends.
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 Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog'
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious intersection of political preferences and dog adoption searches in the state of Michigan. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team identified a statistically significant correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and online searches for 'adopt a dog'. The correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020 suggests a striking relationship between political leanings and the desire to bring furry companions into the family. Our findings prompt a playful reflection on the potential sway of canine companionship in shaping political inclinations, unveiling a delightful yet unexpected link between voting behavior and the affection for our four-legged friends.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Dogs have long been hailed as man's best friend, standing faithfully by our side through thick and thin – or in this case, through elections and Google searches. In a delightful twist of curiosity, our research has unveiled an unexpected correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and the virtual quest for furry pals through Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. It seems that in the political arena, our furry friends may not just be loyal companions, but also potential influencers of voting behavior.
The connection between political leanings and dog adoption searches may seem as improbable as a poodle herding sheep, or a Chihuahua taking up guard duty. However, as we delve into the statistical abyss, we find that the relationship between these variables is stronger than a Great Dane's pull on a leash – with a correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 and p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020. This statistical prowess leaves us howling with amazement and curiosity, compelling us to explore this quirky intersection of politics and puppy love.
As we embark on this research journey, let us not forget the wise words of Mark Twain, who said, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." In this case, however, the size of the dog's impact on political preferences might just be worth wagging our tails about. So, grab your magnifying glass and your canine companion, and let's sniff out the intriguing relationship between Republican votes and the call of our four-legged friends.
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 Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. 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. Perhaps you also got inspiration from some board games that are vaugely related.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog'
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious intersection of political preferences and dog adoption searches in the state of Michigan. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team identified a statistically significant correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and online searches for 'adopt a dog'. The correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020 suggests a striking relationship between political leanings and the desire to bring furry companions into the family. Our findings prompt a playful reflection on the potential sway of canine companionship in shaping political inclinations, unveiling a delightful yet unexpected link between voting behavior and the affection for our four-legged friends.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Dogs have long been hailed as man's best friend, standing faithfully by our side through thick and thin – or in this case, through elections and Google searches. In a delightful twist of curiosity, our research has unveiled an unexpected correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and the virtual quest for furry pals through Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. It seems that in the political arena, our furry friends may not just be loyal companions, but also potential influencers of voting behavior.
The connection between political leanings and dog adoption searches may seem as improbable as a poodle herding sheep, or a Chihuahua taking up guard duty. However, as we delve into the statistical abyss, we find that the relationship between these variables is stronger than a Great Dane's pull on a leash – with a correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 and p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020. This statistical prowess leaves us howling with amazement and curiosity, compelling us to explore this quirky intersection of politics and puppy love.
As we embark on this research journey, let us not forget the wise words of Mark Twain, who said, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." In this case, however, the size of the dog's impact on political preferences might just be worth wagging our tails about. So, grab your magnifying glass and your canine companion, and let's sniff out the intriguing relationship between Republican votes and the call of our four-legged friends.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
A thorough review of the literature on the relationship between political voting behavior and online searches for pet adoption reveals a diverse array of studies, with findings ranging from the solemn to the downright wag-tastic. In "Canine Connections: A Sociopolitical Analysis of Dog Adoption Trends" by Smith et al., the authors find a correlation between political party affiliation and the likelihood of online searches for furry companions. However, the true tail-wagger emerges in the work of Doe, who in "Paws for Thought: Unleashing Political Pooch-ery" uncovers a statistically significant connection between Republican votes and Google queries for 'adopt a dog' in Michigan.
As we delve deeper into the research, it becomes quite evident that our understanding of this peculiar nexus is akin to a game of Clue – except in this case, it's less about murder and more about the canine conspiracy in political choices. It's as if we're navigating the treacherous terrain of Monopoly, where landing on Community Chest can lead to unexpected alliances with our furry friends. Speaking of games, perhaps "Risk: Canine Edition" should be the next big sensation – where the battle for territories is decided not by strategy, but by the presence of a loyal dog by your side.
Moving on to the realm of non-fiction literature, books such as "The Politics of Paws: A Canine Analysis of Political Leanings" by John Bones and "Paws for the Presidency: The Secret Lives of Political Pets" by Lassie Johnson shed light on the potential impact of pets on political inclinations. Additionally, in the fictional realm, esteemed titles such as "The Paw-trician" by William Shakespaw and "The Barker in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger highlight the enthralling yet enigmatic relationship between political affiliations and the yearning for canine companionship.
These findings prompt a playful consideration of the relevance of board games, novels, and pun-tastic wordplay in our understanding of the intersection between pet adoption searches and political leanings. It seems that in the world of statistical analysis, as in the game of Life, the unexpected twists and turns of human behavior may be just as unpredictable as the whims of our four-legged friends.
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 Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2020
Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.
Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog'
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious intersection of political preferences and dog adoption searches in the state of Michigan. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team identified a statistically significant correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and online searches for 'adopt a dog'. The correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020 suggests a striking relationship between political leanings and the desire to bring furry companions into the family. Our findings prompt a playful reflection on the potential sway of canine companionship in shaping political inclinations, unveiling a delightful yet unexpected link between voting behavior and the affection for our four-legged friends.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Dogs have long been hailed as man's best friend, standing faithfully by our side through thick and thin – or in this case, through elections and Google searches. In a delightful twist of curiosity, our research has unveiled an unexpected correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and the virtual quest for furry pals through Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. It seems that in the political arena, our furry friends may not just be loyal companions, but also potential influencers of voting behavior.
The connection between political leanings and dog adoption searches may seem as improbable as a poodle herding sheep, or a Chihuahua taking up guard duty. However, as we delve into the statistical abyss, we find that the relationship between these variables is stronger than a Great Dane's pull on a leash – with a correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 and p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020. This statistical prowess leaves us howling with amazement and curiosity, compelling us to explore this quirky intersection of politics and puppy love.
As we embark on this research journey, let us not forget the wise words of Mark Twain, who said, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." In this case, however, the size of the dog's impact on political preferences might just be worth wagging our tails about. So, grab your magnifying glass and your canine companion, and let's sniff out the intriguing relationship between Republican votes and the call of our four-legged friends.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To discern the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog', our research team embarked on a data-gathering escapade that would make Sherlock Holmes proud. Armed with state-of-the-art statistical tools and a thirst for uncovering the unexpected, we delved into the depths of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends.
Utilizing a deceptively simple yet cunning approach, we meticulously collected data on Republican votes for Senators in Michigan from 2004 to 2020. We then turned our investigative gaze toward Google Trends, where we tracked the frequency of searches for 'adopt a dog' with the precision of a bloodhound on a scent trail. The search frequency was recorded on a weekly basis, providing us with a bounty of data ripe for statistical analysis.
With careful consideration for potential confounding variables, we utilized advanced statistical methods to ensure the robustness of our findings. We employed time-series analysis to account for the temporal nature of the data, allowing us to untangle the intricate dance between political events and the yearning for canine companionship.
Furthermore, we applied rigorous statistical tests, including Pearson's correlation coefficient and regression analysis, to scrutinize the relationship between Republican votes for Senators and 'adopt a dog' searches. Our methodological arsenal also included Granger causality tests to explore the potential directional influence between these variables, shedding light on whether political leanings lead to a surge in dog adoption aspirations, or vice versa.
In an effort to ensure the generalizability of our findings, we also conducted sensitivity analyses and cross-validation procedures, akin to training a loyal terrier to fetch the truth from the sea of data. These measures allowed us to bark up the right statistical tree and confirm the reproducibility of our results, sparing no chance for statistical chicanery to run rampant.
Having navigated the treacherous waters of data collection and statistical analysis, our research team emerged victorious, armed with a robust understanding of the curious link between political proclivities and the call of our furry companions. Our findings stand as a testament to the whimsical yet fascinating terrain of statistical exploration, proving that in the world of research, unexpected correlations can sometimes wag more than just tails. With this sturdy foundation in place, we proceed to present our intriguing discoveries, ready to unleash the statistical hounds and amuse the scholarly community with our unorthodox foray into the world of politics and puppy love.
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 Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends .
For the time period 2004 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9327879, r-squared of 0.8700933, and p < 0.01.
One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog'
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious intersection of political preferences and dog adoption searches in the state of Michigan. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team identified a statistically significant correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and online searches for 'adopt a dog'. The correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020 suggests a striking relationship between political leanings and the desire to bring furry companions into the family. Our findings prompt a playful reflection on the potential sway of canine companionship in shaping political inclinations, unveiling a delightful yet unexpected link between voting behavior and the affection for our four-legged friends.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Dogs have long been hailed as man's best friend, standing faithfully by our side through thick and thin – or in this case, through elections and Google searches. In a delightful twist of curiosity, our research has unveiled an unexpected correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and the virtual quest for furry pals through Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. It seems that in the political arena, our furry friends may not just be loyal companions, but also potential influencers of voting behavior.
The connection between political leanings and dog adoption searches may seem as improbable as a poodle herding sheep, or a Chihuahua taking up guard duty. However, as we delve into the statistical abyss, we find that the relationship between these variables is stronger than a Great Dane's pull on a leash – with a correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 and p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020. This statistical prowess leaves us howling with amazement and curiosity, compelling us to explore this quirky intersection of politics and puppy love.
As we embark on this research journey, let us not forget the wise words of Mark Twain, who said, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." In this case, however, the size of the dog's impact on political preferences might just be worth wagging our tails about. So, grab your magnifying glass and your canine companion, and let's sniff out the intriguing relationship between Republican votes and the call of our four-legged friends.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog' has uncovered some ruff-ly astonishing findings. We observed a correlation coefficient of 0.9327879, with an r-squared of 0.8700933 and p < 0.01, indicating a strong and statistically significant connection between political preferences and the desire to bring a furry friend into the home.
Fig. 1 showcases a scatterplot that visually depicts the striking correlation between these two lively variables. It's a real treat for the eyes, like watching a pack of energetic puppies frolicking through a field of flowers – a sight to behold!
Our results bark louder than a Chihuahua hailing the Amazon delivery person, and they prompt a playful reflection on the potential influence of canine companionship on political inclinations. It seems that Michiganders with a penchant for Republican senators are also keen on the idea of adding a tail-wagging, slobbery-kissing member to their family.
The statistically significant association we discovered is more remarkable than a pug riding a unicycle. It's as if political leanings and dog adoption searches are doing a synchronized dance routine, perfectly in step with one another. This unexpected link between voting behavior and the affection for our four-legged friends has us howling with surprise and amusement.
These findings shed light on a captivating intersection that is sure to provoke lively discussions among both political analysts and dog lovers alike. It's a reminder that the world of statistics can be as delightfully unpredictable as a puppy's behavior at suppertime. The idea that our furry friends might have a say in shaping our political landscape is truly something to wag our tails about.
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 Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 500 tokens.
Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.
Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.
[[TITLE]]
Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog'
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious intersection of political preferences and dog adoption searches in the state of Michigan. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team identified a statistically significant correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and online searches for 'adopt a dog'. The correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020 suggests a striking relationship between political leanings and the desire to bring furry companions into the family. Our findings prompt a playful reflection on the potential sway of canine companionship in shaping political inclinations, unveiling a delightful yet unexpected link between voting behavior and the affection for our four-legged friends.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
A thorough review of the literature on the relationship between political voting behavior and online searches for pet adoption reveals a diverse array of studies, with findings ranging from the solemn to the downright wag-tastic. In "Canine Connections: A Sociopolitical Analysis of Dog Adoption Trends" by Smith et al., the authors find a correlation between political party affiliation and the likelihood of online searches for furry companions. However, the true tail-wagger emerges in the work of Doe, who in "Paws for Thought: Unleashing Political Pooch-ery" uncovers a statistically significant connection between Republican votes and Google queries for 'adopt a dog' in Michigan.
As we delve deeper into the research, it becomes quite evident that our understanding of this peculiar nexus is akin to a game of Clue – except in this case, it's less about murder and more about the canine conspiracy in political choices. It's as if we're navigating the treacherous terrain of Monopoly, where landing on Community Chest can lead to unexpected alliances with our furry friends. Speaking of games, perhaps "Risk: Canine Edition" should be the next big sensation – where the battle for territories is decided not by strategy, but by the presence of a loyal dog by your side.
Moving on to the realm of non-fiction literature, books such as "The Politics of Paws: A Canine Analysis of Political Leanings" by John Bones and "Paws for the Presidency: The Secret Lives of Political Pets" by Lassie Johnson shed light on the potential impact of pets on political inclinations. Additionally, in the fictional realm, esteemed titles such as "The Paw-trician" by William Shakespaw and "The Barker in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger highlight the enthralling yet enigmatic relationship between political affiliations and the yearning for canine companionship.
These findings prompt a playful consideration of the relevance of board games, novels, and pun-tastic wordplay in our understanding of the intersection between pet adoption searches and political leanings. It seems that in the world of statistical analysis, as in the game of Life, the unexpected twists and turns of human behavior may be just as unpredictable as the whims of our four-legged friends.
[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog' has uncovered some ruff-ly astonishing findings. We observed a correlation coefficient of 0.9327879, with an r-squared of 0.8700933 and p < 0.01, indicating a strong and statistically significant connection between political preferences and the desire to bring a furry friend into the home.
Fig. 1 showcases a scatterplot that visually depicts the striking correlation between these two lively variables. It's a real treat for the eyes, like watching a pack of energetic puppies frolicking through a field of flowers – a sight to behold!
Our results bark louder than a Chihuahua hailing the Amazon delivery person, and they prompt a playful reflection on the potential influence of canine companionship on political inclinations. It seems that Michiganders with a penchant for Republican senators are also keen on the idea of adding a tail-wagging, slobbery-kissing member to their family.
The statistically significant association we discovered is more remarkable than a pug riding a unicycle. It's as if political leanings and dog adoption searches are doing a synchronized dance routine, perfectly in step with one another. This unexpected link between voting behavior and the affection for our four-legged friends has us howling with surprise and amusement.
These findings shed light on a captivating intersection that is sure to provoke lively discussions among both political analysts and dog lovers alike. It's a reminder that the world of statistics can be as delightfully unpredictable as a puppy's behavior at suppertime. The idea that our furry friends might have a say in shaping our political landscape is truly something to wag our tails about.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The results of our study reveal a remarkably strong correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. It seems that the old saying "man's best friend" extends further than we ever imagined, potentially reaching into the political arena. Our findings not only support the prior research on the relationship between political inclinations and pet adoption searches but also raise an eyebrow and a wagging tail of curiosity.
The correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 with a p-value of less than 0.01 suggests a robust association between these two seemingly unrelated variables. This connection is more glaring than a Dalmatian in a snowstorm, leaving no room for doubt in its striking nature. The strength of this relationship is as astonishing as a Great Dane attempting to fit into a Chihuahua-sized bed – it simply cannot be ignored.
Our results whimsically echo the previous works by Smith et al. and Doe, reinforcing the notion that there may indeed be a puppy conspiracy lingering within the political landscape of Michigan. As we traverse this uncharted territory, it becomes clear that the intersection of politics and pet desires is not just an amusing concept but a statistically supported phenomenon.
The playful parallels drawn in the literature review are not merely whimsical diversions but resonant in the light of our findings. The board game analogies, the fictional works, and the nods to pun-tastic wordplay reflect a profound truth in the unexpected twists and turns of human behavior and statistical analysis. The political sway of canine companionship is as surprising as landing on Boardwalk with a pair of loaded dice – a game-changing revelation that warrants further exploration.
Our study introduces a delightful yet enigmatic dimension to the realm of political analysis, highlighting the remarkable and unforeseen influence of our four-legged friends on voting behavior. It's as if we've stumbled upon the Missing Link, only in this case, it involves the endearing link between political affiliations and the yearning for canine companionship.
In closing, the unexpected bond uncovered in our study not only amuses us but also prods us to consider the manifold ways in which our furry companions might leave their paw print on the complicated canvas of human behavior. The real-world implications of these findings are as intriguing as a treasure hunt in a dog park – an adventure that is bound to spark lively discussions and nurture further curiosities in the intersection of politics and pet adoration.
The potential significance of pets on political inclinations is indeed a topic that is begging for further exploration. The novel insights from our study lay the groundwork for a thought-provoking meander through the intersection of pet adoption searches and political leanings. It's a reminder that sometimes the quirkiest connections can lead to the most profound revelations – a notion that echoes with the delightful unpredictability of a puppy's behavior at suppertime.
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 Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.
Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog'
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious intersection of political preferences and dog adoption searches in the state of Michigan. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team identified a statistically significant correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and online searches for 'adopt a dog'. The correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020 suggests a striking relationship between political leanings and the desire to bring furry companions into the family. Our findings prompt a playful reflection on the potential sway of canine companionship in shaping political inclinations, unveiling a delightful yet unexpected link between voting behavior and the affection for our four-legged friends.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
Dogs have long been hailed as man's best friend, standing faithfully by our side through thick and thin – or in this case, through elections and Google searches. In a delightful twist of curiosity, our research has unveiled an unexpected correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and the virtual quest for furry pals through Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. It seems that in the political arena, our furry friends may not just be loyal companions, but also potential influencers of voting behavior.
The connection between political leanings and dog adoption searches may seem as improbable as a poodle herding sheep, or a Chihuahua taking up guard duty. However, as we delve into the statistical abyss, we find that the relationship between these variables is stronger than a Great Dane's pull on a leash – with a correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 and p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020. This statistical prowess leaves us howling with amazement and curiosity, compelling us to explore this quirky intersection of politics and puppy love.
As we embark on this research journey, let us not forget the wise words of Mark Twain, who said, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." In this case, however, the size of the dog's impact on political preferences might just be worth wagging our tails about. So, grab your magnifying glass and your canine companion, and let's sniff out the intriguing relationship between Republican votes and the call of our four-legged friends.
[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog' has uncovered some ruff-ly astonishing findings. We observed a correlation coefficient of 0.9327879, with an r-squared of 0.8700933 and p < 0.01, indicating a strong and statistically significant connection between political preferences and the desire to bring a furry friend into the home.
Fig. 1 showcases a scatterplot that visually depicts the striking correlation between these two lively variables. It's a real treat for the eyes, like watching a pack of energetic puppies frolicking through a field of flowers – a sight to behold!
Our results bark louder than a Chihuahua hailing the Amazon delivery person, and they prompt a playful reflection on the potential influence of canine companionship on political inclinations. It seems that Michiganders with a penchant for Republican senators are also keen on the idea of adding a tail-wagging, slobbery-kissing member to their family.
The statistically significant association we discovered is more remarkable than a pug riding a unicycle. It's as if political leanings and dog adoption searches are doing a synchronized dance routine, perfectly in step with one another. This unexpected link between voting behavior and the affection for our four-legged friends has us howling with surprise and amusement.
These findings shed light on a captivating intersection that is sure to provoke lively discussions among both political analysts and dog lovers alike. It's a reminder that the world of statistics can be as delightfully unpredictable as a puppy's behavior at suppertime. The idea that our furry friends might have a say in shaping our political landscape is truly something to wag our tails about.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our research has uncovered a pawsitively delightful connection between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and Google searches for 'adopt a dog'. The statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020 leaves us feeling as surprised as a poodle who unexpectedly discovers a squirrel in the backyard.
Our findings suggest that the political landscape of Michigan is not only shaped by debates and policies but also by the endearing gaze of our canine companions. It seems that when it comes to voting behavior, man's best friend might just play a significant role, raising the question: are dogs the new campaign managers? Perhaps we should start analyzing political debates in the context of "who let the dogs out?"
The sight of the scatterplot depicting the relationship between these variables is as heartwarming as a golden retriever's welcome home wiggles. It's a reminder that in the world of statistics, even the most unexpected correlations can elicit a smile, much like stumbling upon a surprise belly rub for a playful pup.
Ultimately, our research invites us to consider a future where political analysis and dog adoption trends intertwine, perhaps leading to debates centered on "pawlicy" changes and an increase in voters registering as members of the K-9 party.
In the spirit of scientific inquiry, we assert that further research in this area is unnecessary. The evidence speaks for itself: when it comes to political leanings and online quests for furry friends, the bond is as strong as the love between a human and their loyal, slobbery, tail-wagging companion.
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 Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Canine 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 Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Institute for Canine Electoral Analysis
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 Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog' with an abstract of This paper delves into the curious intersection of political preferences and dog adoption searches in the state of Michigan. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team identified a statistically significant correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Michigan and online searches for 'adopt a dog'. The correlation coefficient of 0.9327879 with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2020 suggests a striking relationship between political leanings and the desire to bring furry companions into the family. Our findings prompt a playful reflection on the potential sway of canine companionship in shaping political inclinations, unveiling a delightful yet unexpected link between voting behavior and the affection for our four-legged friends.
ChatGPT:
Republican votes, Senators, Michigan, Google searches, adopt a dog, correlation, political preferences, dog adoption, data analysis, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Google Trends, voting behavior, canine companionship
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Votes for Republican Senators in MichiganDetailed data title: Total number of votes cast for Federal Republican Senate candidates in Michigan
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for Republican Senators in Michigan
Google searches for 'adopt a dog'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'adopt a dog' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
See what else correlates with Google searches for 'adopt a dog'
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 = 0.8700933 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 87% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'adopt a dog') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Michigan) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2020.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0066. 0.0066243870201637195000000000
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 0.93 in 0.66% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 151 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.
[ 0.5, 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.
2006 | 2008 | 2012 | 2014 | 2018 | 2020 | |
Votes for Republican Senators in Michigan (Total votes) | 1559600 | 1641070 | 1767390 | 1290200 | 1938820 | 2642230 |
Google searches for 'adopt a dog' (Rel. search volume) | 30.3333 | 30.3333 | 30.3333 | 29.5833 | 37 | 68.9167 |
Why this works
- Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
- Lack of causal connection: There is probably
Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied. - Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is. - Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.
- 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([1559600,1641070,1767390,1290200,1938820,2642230,])
array_2 = np.array([30.3333,30.3333,30.3333,29.5833,37,68.9167,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Michigan"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'adopt a dog'"
# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)
# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)
Reuseable content
You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.
For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."
When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.
Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.
Download images for these variables:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only Votes for Republican Senators in Michigan
- Line chart for only Google searches for 'adopt a dog'
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Barking Up the Political Tree: Republican Votes for Senators in Michigan and Google Searches for 'Adopt a Dog'
Thanks for shining a light on this correlation!
Correlation ID: 4857 · Black Variable ID: 26259 · Red Variable ID: 1403