about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,871 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Republican Senators in Nevada and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion.  The chart goes from 1979 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

It’s simple really. As the Republican votes for Senators in Nevada increased, so did the competitiveness in the state. This led to a surge in support for local businesses, including the popular food chain Nathan’s Famous. The demand for hotdogs skyrocketed, creating a bun-believable ripple effect all the way to the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. You could say it was a real case of legis-laters gonna legi-SLATE the appetite for victory!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an image of a bustling Nevada town street lined with high-tech billboard displays flashing images of senators and ballot boxes. The iconic Nathan’s Famous hot dog chain stands prominently in the background, with customers streaming in and out, and the scent of sizzling sausages wafting through the air. In the center, a competitive hot dog eating competition is underway, with the champion devouring hotdogs at an electrifying pace, amidst a crowd of onlookers and fans. The entire scene is infused with a high-tech, modern vibe, blending the excitement of politics with the sizzle of gastronomic triumph. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Republican votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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: inspired by bauhaus High-tech Cutsy art illustration Magic realism Cyber folk
ChatGPT: High-tech

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 Nevada and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, in the following situation: It’s simple really. As the Republican votes for Senators in Nevada increased, so did the competitiveness in the state. This led to a surge in support for local businesses, including the popular food chain Nathan’s Famous. The demand for hotdogs skyrocketed, creating a bun-believable ripple effect all the way to the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. You could say it was a real case of legis-laters gonna legi-SLATE the appetite for victory!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a lively Nevada town, the ballot boxes filled with Republican votes for Senators created an electrifying buzz of competition. As excitement reached a fever pitch, crowds flocked to local businesses, including the iconic Nathan’s Famous hot dog chain. The demand for hotdogs soared, with the aroma of sizzling sausages filling the air. Meanwhile, at the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, the champion devoured hotdogs one after another, driven by a fierce hunger for victory. It was a scene of political fervor and gastronomic triumph coming together in a tasty display of success.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ High-tech ] and depicting this scene: In a lively Nevada town, the ballot boxes filled with Republican votes for Senators created an electrifying buzz of competition. As excitement reached a fever pitch, crowds flocked to local businesses, including the iconic Nathan’s Famous hot dog chain. The demand for hotdogs soared, with the aroma of sizzling sausages filling the air. Meanwhile, at the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, the champion devoured hotdogs one after another, driven by a fierce hunger for victory. It was a scene of political fervor and gastronomic triumph coming together in a tasty display of success. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an image of a bustling Nevada town street lined with high-tech billboard displays flashing images of senators and ballot boxes. The iconic Nathan’s Famous hot dog chain stands prominently in the background, with customers streaming in and out, and the scent of sizzling sausages wafting through the air. In the center, a competitive hot dog eating competition is underway, with the champion devouring hotdogs at an electrifying pace, amidst a crowd of onlookers and fans. The entire scene is infused with a high-tech, modern vibe, blending the excitement of politics with the sizzle of gastronomic triumph.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

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 an increase in Republican votes for Senators in Nevada caused Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
An Appetizing Affiliation: Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

The Journal of Gastronomic Politics

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 Republican votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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 Wikipedia to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 and p < 0.01 for 1979 to 2018.

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]]
An Appetizing Affiliation: Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the unlikely and amusing association between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the quantity of hotdogs consumed by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. By integrating data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study uncovers a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 1979 to 2018. Controlling for confounding factors such as mustard preference and bun elasticity, we have arrived at this remarkable finding. Our research not only provides empirical evidence of this unexpected relationship, but also paves the way for future inquiry into the enigmatic nexus between political preferences and competitive food consumption.


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 Nevada and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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]]
An Appetizing Affiliation: Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the unlikely and amusing association between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the quantity of hotdogs consumed by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. By integrating data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study uncovers a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 1979 to 2018. Controlling for confounding factors such as mustard preference and bun elasticity, we have arrived at this remarkable finding. Our research not only provides empirical evidence of this unexpected relationship, but also paves the way for future inquiry into the enigmatic nexus between political preferences and competitive food consumption.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

As the saying goes, “politics and hotdogs both have a tendency to leave a bad taste in your mouth.” In this paper, we explore the quirky and unexpected link between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the astounding quantity of hotdogs devoured by the illustrious champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. While these two seemingly unrelated domains might appear as distant as a condiment stand is from a polling booth, our investigation has unraveled a tantalizing connection that tickles both the taste buds and the statistical sensibilities.

Against the backdrop of a contentious political landscape and the stomach-churning feats of competitive eating, we embark on a journey to uncover the statistical sausage that links these disparate realms. Drawing on data from esteemed repositories such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the Harvard Dataverse, combined with the bewilderingly comprehensive log of hotdog consumption available on Wikipedia, we have harnessed the power of numbers to sink our teeth into this curious conundrum.

As we sink our teeth into the analysis, we encounter an eyebrow-raising correlation coefficient of 0.9268091. With a p-value that shines brighter than the relish on a loaded hotdog, our findings reject the null hypothesis with unparalleled gusto. The statistical significance of this correlation compels us to grapple with some juicy questions: could there be a deeper significance to this phenomenon, or are we simply experiencing a statistical fluke hotter than a jalapeño-laden sausage?

Beyond the statistical sausage fest, our research delves into the implications of this unexpected bond between political predilection and insatiable hotdog consumption. This exploration not only adds a delectable dash of intrigue to the literature but also holds potential for further elucidation of the interplay between gastronomic zeal and electoral preference.

Thus, with a hunger for knowledge and a thirst for uncovering the mystique of this crave-worthy correlation, we present our findings, seasoned with a pinch of whimsy and a dollop of statistical rigor. As we embark on this savory statistical escapade, let us not forget the sage advice of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." In the spirit of Twain, we endeavor to illuminate the unexpected intersections of politics and competitive eating, and to savor the tantalizing flavors of empirical 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 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 Nevada and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
An Appetizing Affiliation: Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the unlikely and amusing association between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the quantity of hotdogs consumed by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. By integrating data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study uncovers a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 1979 to 2018. Controlling for confounding factors such as mustard preference and bun elasticity, we have arrived at this remarkable finding. Our research not only provides empirical evidence of this unexpected relationship, but also paves the way for future inquiry into the enigmatic nexus between political preferences and competitive food consumption.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the saying goes, “politics and hotdogs both have a tendency to leave a bad taste in your mouth.” In this paper, we explore the quirky and unexpected link between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the astounding quantity of hotdogs devoured by the illustrious champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. While these two seemingly unrelated domains might appear as distant as a condiment stand is from a polling booth, our investigation has unraveled a tantalizing connection that tickles both the taste buds and the statistical sensibilities.
Against the backdrop of a contentious political landscape and the stomach-churning feats of competitive eating, we embark on a journey to uncover the statistical sausage that links these disparate realms. Drawing on data from esteemed repositories such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the Harvard Dataverse, combined with the bewilderingly comprehensive log of hotdog consumption available on Wikipedia, we have harnessed the power of numbers to sink our teeth into this curious conundrum.
As we sink our teeth into the analysis, we encounter an eyebrow-raising correlation coefficient of 0.9268091. With a p-value that shines brighter than the relish on a loaded hotdog, our findings reject the null hypothesis with unparalleled gusto. The statistical significance of this correlation compels us to grapple with some juicy questions: could there be a deeper significance to this phenomenon, or are we simply experiencing a statistical fluke hotter than a jalapeño-laden sausage?
Beyond the statistical sausage fest, our research delves into the implications of this unexpected bond between political predilection and insatiable hotdog consumption. This exploration not only adds a delectable dash of intrigue to the literature but also holds potential for further elucidation of the interplay between gastronomic zeal and electoral preference.
Thus, with a hunger for knowledge and a thirst for uncovering the mystique of this crave-worthy correlation, we present our findings, seasoned with a pinch of whimsy and a dollop of statistical rigor. As we embark on this savory statistical escapade, let us not forget the sage advice of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." In the spirit of Twain, we endeavor to illuminate the unexpected intersections of politics and competitive eating, and to savor the tantalizing flavors of empirical inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In the pursuit of uncovering the peculiar correlation between Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the esteemed Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, we delve into a myriad of scholarly inquiries and diverse sources. Smith, Doe, and Jones, in their seminal work "The Political Palate: Exploring Unconventional Correlations," touched on the interplay between gastronomy and political affiliation, laying the groundwork for our own delectable investigation.

As we venture further into the literature, we cannot help but acknowledge the Impact of Competitive Eating on Political Preferences. Lorem and Ipsum conducted a thorough analysis of the influence of gastronomic athleticism on ideological leaning, paving the way for our own exploration into the luscious landscape of competitive eating and electoral proclivities.

Turning to non-fiction expositions, "The Hotdog Hypothesis: A Statistical Review of Curious Connections" by John Doe, Ph.D., offers a tantalizing glimpse into the unexpected statistical links that tantalize the taste buds and the mind. This thought-provoking work acts as a springboard for our own investigation, propelling us into the savory sea of political palatability and gustatory fascination.

In the realm of fiction, the works of John Grisham and Agatha Christie offer a fictionalized glimpse into the enigmatic underbelly of competitive eating and political machinations, hinting at the clandestine connections that simmer beneath the surface of public awareness. While the escapades of fictional characters may seem far-removed from scholarly inquiry, the delightful parallels drawn captivate the imagination and stir the academic palate.

In addition to rich literary sources, our research is influenced by popular culture, where television shows such as "Man v. Food" and "Iron Chef America" provide a glimpse into the public fascination with culinary conquests and the competitive spirit that drives them. Through these diverse influences, we situate our empirical investigation within a broader cultural context, infusing our analysis with a dash of whimsy and a sprinkle of irreverence.

As we push the boundaries of statistical inquiry with a wink and a nod, our eclectic approach reflects the deliciously unexpected nature of our research topic, preparing us to savor the tantalizing quest for correlation and causation in the entwined realms of political predilection and voracious hotdog consumption. Let us embark on this scholarly feast with an appetite for discovery and a willingness to embrace the serendipitous flavors that statistical exploration can serve.


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 Nevada and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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 Wikipedia . You used data from 1979 to 2018

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
An Appetizing Affiliation: Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the unlikely and amusing association between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the quantity of hotdogs consumed by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. By integrating data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study uncovers a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 1979 to 2018. Controlling for confounding factors such as mustard preference and bun elasticity, we have arrived at this remarkable finding. Our research not only provides empirical evidence of this unexpected relationship, but also paves the way for future inquiry into the enigmatic nexus between political preferences and competitive food consumption.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the saying goes, “politics and hotdogs both have a tendency to leave a bad taste in your mouth.” In this paper, we explore the quirky and unexpected link between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the astounding quantity of hotdogs devoured by the illustrious champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. While these two seemingly unrelated domains might appear as distant as a condiment stand is from a polling booth, our investigation has unraveled a tantalizing connection that tickles both the taste buds and the statistical sensibilities.
Against the backdrop of a contentious political landscape and the stomach-churning feats of competitive eating, we embark on a journey to uncover the statistical sausage that links these disparate realms. Drawing on data from esteemed repositories such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the Harvard Dataverse, combined with the bewilderingly comprehensive log of hotdog consumption available on Wikipedia, we have harnessed the power of numbers to sink our teeth into this curious conundrum.
As we sink our teeth into the analysis, we encounter an eyebrow-raising correlation coefficient of 0.9268091. With a p-value that shines brighter than the relish on a loaded hotdog, our findings reject the null hypothesis with unparalleled gusto. The statistical significance of this correlation compels us to grapple with some juicy questions: could there be a deeper significance to this phenomenon, or are we simply experiencing a statistical fluke hotter than a jalapeño-laden sausage?
Beyond the statistical sausage fest, our research delves into the implications of this unexpected bond between political predilection and insatiable hotdog consumption. This exploration not only adds a delectable dash of intrigue to the literature but also holds potential for further elucidation of the interplay between gastronomic zeal and electoral preference.
Thus, with a hunger for knowledge and a thirst for uncovering the mystique of this crave-worthy correlation, we present our findings, seasoned with a pinch of whimsy and a dollop of statistical rigor. As we embark on this savory statistical escapade, let us not forget the sage advice of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." In the spirit of Twain, we endeavor to illuminate the unexpected intersections of politics and competitive eating, and to savor the tantalizing flavors of empirical inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To sink our teeth into this delectable enigma, we utilized a smorgasbord of data collection methods, commingling cutting-edge research techniques with a sprinkle of humor and a dash of audacity. Our eclectic data mining exploits encompassed the plundering of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the scavenging of the Harvard Dataverse, and the culinary curiosities gleaned from the virtual gastronomic encyclopedia that is Wikipedia.

Employing a mix of systematic and serendipitous approaches, we collated a comprehensive compendium of senatorial voting records in Nevada and the awe-inspiring consumption tallies of the reigning champions of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition over the celestial archives from 1979 to 2018. Our data-digging efforts unearthed an assortment of numerically delectable tidbits from publicly available sources, allowing us to concoct a veritable statistical feast that tantalizingly held the potential to link political proclivities with competitive hotdog munching prowess.

After acquiring this gastronomically and politically diverse data, we meticulously seasoned and sieved it to concoct a rich and flavorful blend suitable for our analytical palate. Variable selection was akin to the meticulous selection of ingredients for a gourmet dish, considering factors such as time, temperature, and the juiciness of statistical significance. To control for confounding variables, we made sure to relish the nuances of mustard preference, bun elasticity, and the ephemeral gustatory whims of the electorate.

To quantify the correlation between Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the prodigious hotdog consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, we employed the robust and delectable Pearson correlation coefficient, coupled with a sumptuous serving of a statistically significant p-value threshold set at less than 0.01. Thus, through a careful fusion of culinary curiosity and statistical savviness, we embarked on a flavorful foray into the perplexing interplay between political taste and gustatory contest dominance.


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 Nevada and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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 Wikipedia .

For the time period 1979 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.9268091, r-squared of 0.8589750, 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]]
An Appetizing Affiliation: Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the unlikely and amusing association between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the quantity of hotdogs consumed by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. By integrating data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study uncovers a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 1979 to 2018. Controlling for confounding factors such as mustard preference and bun elasticity, we have arrived at this remarkable finding. Our research not only provides empirical evidence of this unexpected relationship, but also paves the way for future inquiry into the enigmatic nexus between political preferences and competitive food consumption.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As the saying goes, “politics and hotdogs both have a tendency to leave a bad taste in your mouth.” In this paper, we explore the quirky and unexpected link between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the astounding quantity of hotdogs devoured by the illustrious champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. While these two seemingly unrelated domains might appear as distant as a condiment stand is from a polling booth, our investigation has unraveled a tantalizing connection that tickles both the taste buds and the statistical sensibilities.
Against the backdrop of a contentious political landscape and the stomach-churning feats of competitive eating, we embark on a journey to uncover the statistical sausage that links these disparate realms. Drawing on data from esteemed repositories such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the Harvard Dataverse, combined with the bewilderingly comprehensive log of hotdog consumption available on Wikipedia, we have harnessed the power of numbers to sink our teeth into this curious conundrum.
As we sink our teeth into the analysis, we encounter an eyebrow-raising correlation coefficient of 0.9268091. With a p-value that shines brighter than the relish on a loaded hotdog, our findings reject the null hypothesis with unparalleled gusto. The statistical significance of this correlation compels us to grapple with some juicy questions: could there be a deeper significance to this phenomenon, or are we simply experiencing a statistical fluke hotter than a jalapeño-laden sausage?
Beyond the statistical sausage fest, our research delves into the implications of this unexpected bond between political predilection and insatiable hotdog consumption. This exploration not only adds a delectable dash of intrigue to the literature but also holds potential for further elucidation of the interplay between gastronomic zeal and electoral preference.
Thus, with a hunger for knowledge and a thirst for uncovering the mystique of this crave-worthy correlation, we present our findings, seasoned with a pinch of whimsy and a dollop of statistical rigor. As we embark on this savory statistical escapade, let us not forget the sage advice of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." In the spirit of Twain, we endeavor to illuminate the unexpected intersections of politics and competitive eating, and to savor the tantalizing flavors of empirical inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our analysis culminate in a rather meaty revelation: a robust correlation was unearthed between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the prodigious consumption of hotdogs by the illustrious champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. The correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 implies a strikingly strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This connection was further reinforced by an r-squared value of 0.8589750, indicating that approximately 86% of the variability in hotdog consumption can be explained by the Republican votes for Senators in Nevada, leaving only 14% up to the whims of randomness.

In Figure 1, the scatterplot illustrates this extraordinary correlation, resembling a trail of mustard leading straight to the polling booth. Each data point seems to whisper, “Yes, there indeed exists a savory tie between electoral inclinations and insatiable hotdog cravings.”

Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 stirs an affirming aroma, suggesting that this correlation is not merely a statistical fluke but a genuine connection with as much certainty as a hotdog craving on a sweltering summer day. It's as statistically significant as finding a pickle in a jar of gherkins.

This unexpected manifestation of statistical harmony prompts us to ponder the broader implications. Could it be that political leanings influence the appetite for competitive consumption, or is there a clandestine force driving both of these distinct spheres? This finding not only piques our curiosity but also tantalizes the taste buds of further research into the enigmatic nexus between political proclivities and competitive gastronomy.

In conclusion, the correlation between Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and hotdog consumption by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion is not merely a statistical oddity but a truly delectable connection worthy of a place at the research picnic. This captivating correlation shatters the illusion of separateness between political allegiance and competitive eating, serving as a reminder that in the buffet of statistical inquiry, the most surprising flavors often emerge from the unlikeliest pairings.


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 Nevada and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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]]
An Appetizing Affiliation: Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the unlikely and amusing association between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the quantity of hotdogs consumed by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. By integrating data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study uncovers a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 1979 to 2018. Controlling for confounding factors such as mustard preference and bun elasticity, we have arrived at this remarkable finding. Our research not only provides empirical evidence of this unexpected relationship, but also paves the way for future inquiry into the enigmatic nexus between political preferences and competitive food consumption.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In the pursuit of uncovering the peculiar correlation between Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the esteemed Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, we delve into a myriad of scholarly inquiries and diverse sources. Smith, Doe, and Jones, in their seminal work "The Political Palate: Exploring Unconventional Correlations," touched on the interplay between gastronomy and political affiliation, laying the groundwork for our own delectable investigation.
As we venture further into the literature, we cannot help but acknowledge the Impact of Competitive Eating on Political Preferences. Lorem and Ipsum conducted a thorough analysis of the influence of gastronomic athleticism on ideological leaning, paving the way for our own exploration into the luscious landscape of competitive eating and electoral proclivities.
Turning to non-fiction expositions, "The Hotdog Hypothesis: A Statistical Review of Curious Connections" by John Doe, Ph.D., offers a tantalizing glimpse into the unexpected statistical links that tantalize the taste buds and the mind. This thought-provoking work acts as a springboard for our own investigation, propelling us into the savory sea of political palatability and gustatory fascination.
In the realm of fiction, the works of John Grisham and Agatha Christie offer a fictionalized glimpse into the enigmatic underbelly of competitive eating and political machinations, hinting at the clandestine connections that simmer beneath the surface of public awareness. While the escapades of fictional characters may seem far-removed from scholarly inquiry, the delightful parallels drawn captivate the imagination and stir the academic palate.
In addition to rich literary sources, our research is influenced by popular culture, where television shows such as "Man v. Food" and "Iron Chef America" provide a glimpse into the public fascination with culinary conquests and the competitive spirit that drives them. Through these diverse influences, we situate our empirical investigation within a broader cultural context, infusing our analysis with a dash of whimsy and a sprinkle of irreverence.
As we push the boundaries of statistical inquiry with a wink and a nod, our eclectic approach reflects the deliciously unexpected nature of our research topic, preparing us to savor the tantalizing quest for correlation and causation in the entwined realms of political predilection and voracious hotdog consumption. Let us embark on this scholarly feast with an appetite for discovery and a willingness to embrace the serendipitous flavors that statistical exploration can serve.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis culminate in a rather meaty revelation: a robust correlation was unearthed between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the prodigious consumption of hotdogs by the illustrious champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. The correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 implies a strikingly strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This connection was further reinforced by an r-squared value of 0.8589750, indicating that approximately 86% of the variability in hotdog consumption can be explained by the Republican votes for Senators in Nevada, leaving only 14% up to the whims of randomness.
In Figure 1, the scatterplot illustrates this extraordinary correlation, resembling a trail of mustard leading straight to the polling booth. Each data point seems to whisper, “Yes, there indeed exists a savory tie between electoral inclinations and insatiable hotdog cravings.”
Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 stirs an affirming aroma, suggesting that this correlation is not merely a statistical fluke but a genuine connection with as much certainty as a hotdog craving on a sweltering summer day. It's as statistically significant as finding a pickle in a jar of gherkins.
This unexpected manifestation of statistical harmony prompts us to ponder the broader implications. Could it be that political leanings influence the appetite for competitive consumption, or is there a clandestine force driving both of these distinct spheres? This finding not only piques our curiosity but also tantalizes the taste buds of further research into the enigmatic nexus between political proclivities and competitive gastronomy.
In conclusion, the correlation between Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and hotdog consumption by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion is not merely a statistical oddity but a truly delectable connection worthy of a place at the research picnic. This captivating correlation shatters the illusion of separateness between political allegiance and competitive eating, serving as a reminder that in the buffet of statistical inquiry, the most surprising flavors often emerge from the unlikeliest pairings.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The unearthing of a substantial correlation between Republican senatorial votes in Nevada and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion is akin to discovering an unexpected, yet delightfully harmonious, pairing of flavors. Our findings add a substantial layer to the existing literature, confirming the tantalizing hints suggested by previous scholarly pursuits. The robust correlation we have uncovered resonates with the lighthearted but intriguing work of Smith, Doe, and Jones, as well as the compelling exploration of Lorem and Ipsum, shedding light on the uncharted territory of gustatory proclivities and political persuasions in a truly groundbreaking manner.

The statistically significant relationship we've uncovered is as striking as a hotdog vendor in a vegetarian convention, and it raises intriguing questions that bubble like a pot of boiling chili. Could it be that the political spectrum influences the sizzling appetite for competitive eating, or is there an unseen force maneuvering behind the scenes, much like an undercover condiment clandestinely stirring the pot of statistical flavor? Our results provide a tantalizing taste of the enigmatic nexus between political preferences and the voracious pursuit of competitive gastronomy, inviting further exploration with the enthusiasm of a gourmet seeking the perfect wine pairing.

Our investigation does not merely uncover an unexpected statistical association; it reveals a delectable confluence of variables that challenges conventional wisdom and tickles the scholarly palate. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9268091, our findings imply a connection as strong as the aroma of sizzling hotdogs on a summer breeze, leaving little room for doubt about the robustness of this surprising relationship. The r-squared value of 0.8589750 further emphasizes the strength of this connection, leaving only a small slice of variability unaccounted for, much like the final bite of a well-enjoyed hotdog.

As we savor this statistical feast, it becomes clear that our research has pushed the boundaries of conventional inquiry, infusing the scientific process with a dash of whimsy and a sprinkle of irreverence. Our findings serve as a reminder that even in the serious pursuit of empirical evidence, a sense of humor and a taste for the unexpected can lead to the most satisfying intellectual discoveries. We eagerly anticipate the continued exploration of this unexpected correlation, confident that the tantalizing quest for causation and correlation in the entwined realms of political inclination and ravenous hotdog consumption will yield many more surprising flavors for the scholarly community to enjoy.


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 Nevada and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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]]
An Appetizing Affiliation: Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the unlikely and amusing association between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the quantity of hotdogs consumed by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. By integrating data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study uncovers a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 1979 to 2018. Controlling for confounding factors such as mustard preference and bun elasticity, we have arrived at this remarkable finding. Our research not only provides empirical evidence of this unexpected relationship, but also paves the way for future inquiry into the enigmatic nexus between political preferences and competitive food consumption.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
As the saying goes, “politics and hotdogs both have a tendency to leave a bad taste in your mouth.” In this paper, we explore the quirky and unexpected link between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the astounding quantity of hotdogs devoured by the illustrious champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. While these two seemingly unrelated domains might appear as distant as a condiment stand is from a polling booth, our investigation has unraveled a tantalizing connection that tickles both the taste buds and the statistical sensibilities.
Against the backdrop of a contentious political landscape and the stomach-churning feats of competitive eating, we embark on a journey to uncover the statistical sausage that links these disparate realms. Drawing on data from esteemed repositories such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the Harvard Dataverse, combined with the bewilderingly comprehensive log of hotdog consumption available on Wikipedia, we have harnessed the power of numbers to sink our teeth into this curious conundrum.
As we sink our teeth into the analysis, we encounter an eyebrow-raising correlation coefficient of 0.9268091. With a p-value that shines brighter than the relish on a loaded hotdog, our findings reject the null hypothesis with unparalleled gusto. The statistical significance of this correlation compels us to grapple with some juicy questions: could there be a deeper significance to this phenomenon, or are we simply experiencing a statistical fluke hotter than a jalapeño-laden sausage?
Beyond the statistical sausage fest, our research delves into the implications of this unexpected bond between political predilection and insatiable hotdog consumption. This exploration not only adds a delectable dash of intrigue to the literature but also holds potential for further elucidation of the interplay between gastronomic zeal and electoral preference.
Thus, with a hunger for knowledge and a thirst for uncovering the mystique of this crave-worthy correlation, we present our findings, seasoned with a pinch of whimsy and a dollop of statistical rigor. As we embark on this savory statistical escapade, let us not forget the sage advice of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." In the spirit of Twain, we endeavor to illuminate the unexpected intersections of politics and competitive eating, and to savor the tantalizing flavors of empirical inquiry.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis culminate in a rather meaty revelation: a robust correlation was unearthed between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the prodigious consumption of hotdogs by the illustrious champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. The correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 implies a strikingly strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This connection was further reinforced by an r-squared value of 0.8589750, indicating that approximately 86% of the variability in hotdog consumption can be explained by the Republican votes for Senators in Nevada, leaving only 14% up to the whims of randomness.
In Figure 1, the scatterplot illustrates this extraordinary correlation, resembling a trail of mustard leading straight to the polling booth. Each data point seems to whisper, “Yes, there indeed exists a savory tie between electoral inclinations and insatiable hotdog cravings.”
Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 stirs an affirming aroma, suggesting that this correlation is not merely a statistical fluke but a genuine connection with as much certainty as a hotdog craving on a sweltering summer day. It's as statistically significant as finding a pickle in a jar of gherkins.
This unexpected manifestation of statistical harmony prompts us to ponder the broader implications. Could it be that political leanings influence the appetite for competitive consumption, or is there a clandestine force driving both of these distinct spheres? This finding not only piques our curiosity but also tantalizes the taste buds of further research into the enigmatic nexus between political proclivities and competitive gastronomy.
In conclusion, the correlation between Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and hotdog consumption by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion is not merely a statistical oddity but a truly delectable connection worthy of a place at the research picnic. This captivating correlation shatters the illusion of separateness between political allegiance and competitive eating, serving as a reminder that in the buffet of statistical inquiry, the most surprising flavors often emerge from the unlikeliest pairings.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In closing, our investigation has unearthed an unexpectedly beefy bond between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the staggering volume of hotdogs consumed by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Our findings paint a picture as striking as a condiment-laden masterpiece, with a correlation coefficient that aligns more perfectly than ketchup on a hotdog. This correlation not only raises eyebrows but also raises the question: could political preferences be guiding the champion’s insatiable appetite for competitive consumption, or is there a clandestine force driving both these seemingly unrelated spheres, like a hidden ingredient in a winning recipe?

The statistically significant connection we’ve uncovered is as undeniable as a mustard stain on a white shirt. It suggests that there may be more to this correlation than meets the eye, much like unraveling the layers of a multi-topping hotdog. However, it’s essential to remember the cautionary advice of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." In the spirit of Twain, we acknowledge that while our findings tantalize the taste buds of further research, they should be savored with a pinch of statistical salt.

In sum, our research has seasoned the scientific salad bowl with a remarkable revelation, but as the saying goes, too much of a good thing, even hotdogs, can be insatiable. Therefore, we assert that no further research is needed on this particular pairing of variables, for this correlation is as satisfying as a perfectly grilled hotdog at a summer barbecue. It’s time to relish in the statistical victory and let this quirky correlation sizzle as a delightful outlier in the annals of research.


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 An Appetizing Affiliation: Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Gastronomic Politics


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 An Appetizing Affiliation: Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The International Institute for Gastronomical Political 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 An Appetizing Affiliation: Correlation Between Republican Votes for Senators in Nevada and Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion with an abstract of This paper delves into the unlikely and amusing association between the number of Republican votes for U.S. Senators in Nevada and the quantity of hotdogs consumed by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. By integrating data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, our study uncovers a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.9268091 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 1979 to 2018. Controlling for confounding factors such as mustard preference and bun elasticity, we have arrived at this remarkable finding. Our research not only provides empirical evidence of this unexpected relationship, but also paves the way for future inquiry into the enigmatic nexus between political preferences and competitive food consumption.

ChatGPT:

Republican votes, Nevada, Senators, hotdog consumption, Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, correlation, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Wikipedia, correlation coefficient, p-value, mustard preference, bun elasticity, empirical evidence, political preferences, competitive food consumption

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Detailed data title: Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

Correlation r = 0.9268091 (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 = 0.8589750 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 85.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Nevada) over the 14 years from 1979 through 2018.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.9E-6. 0.0000018928958468386309000000
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 0.00019% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 528,291 random variables You don't actually need 528 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 13 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 13 because we have two variables measured over a period of 14 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.

[ 0.78, 0.98 ] 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.
19801982198619881992199419982000200420062010201220162018
Votes for Republican Senators in Nevada (Total votes)144224120377116606161336199413156020208220330687284640322501321361457656495079441202
Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion (Hotdogs eaten)9.51115.5101920192553.3353.7554687074




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.




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([144224,120377,116606,161336,199413,156020,208220,330687,284640,322501,321361,457656,495079,441202,])
array_2 = np.array([9.5,11,15.5,10,19,20,19,25,53.33,53.75,54,68,70,74,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Nevada"
array_2_name = "Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

# 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 stellar!


Correlation ID: 4871 · Black Variable ID: 26277 · Red Variable ID: 500
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0