about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,884 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in New Jersey and the second variable is Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As more Democrats vote for Senators in New Jersey, there is a greater push for progressive policies, leading some individuals to humorously consider building bunkers as a metaphorical way of fortifying their beliefs. Remember, when it comes to politics, it's always best to dig deep for the puns!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an engaging image in the style of a Discovery magazine cover depicting a person in a cozy New Jersey living room, proudly displaying an "I Voted" sticker after casting their Democrat vote for Senators. In the background, a laptop screen on the coffee table displays a Google search for "how to build a bunker," as the person chuckles at the idea of humorously fortifying their progressive beliefs. The scene should capture the contrast between the act of voting and the light-hearted exploration of building a bunker, blending political engagement with a touch of humor. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Democrat votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. 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: Charcoal An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' inspired by bauhaus inspired by bauhaus A Discovery magazine cover image
ChatGPT: A Discovery magazine cover image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Democrat votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker', in the following situation: As more Democrats vote for Senators in New Jersey, there is a greater push for progressive policies, leading some individuals to humorously consider building bunkers as a metaphorical way of fortifying their beliefs. Remember, when it comes to politics, it's always best to dig deep for the puns!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a cozy living room in New Jersey, a person proudly displays a "I Voted" sticker after casting their Democrat vote for Senators. Meanwhile, on the coffee table, a laptop screen shows a Google search for "how to build a bunker," as the person chuckles at the idea of humorously fortifying their progressive beliefs.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A Discovery magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In a cozy living room in New Jersey, a person proudly displays a "I Voted" sticker after casting their Democrat vote for Senators. Meanwhile, on the coffee table, a laptop screen shows a Google search for "how to build a bunker," as the person chuckles at the idea of humorously fortifying their progressive beliefs. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an engaging image in the style of a Discovery magazine cover depicting a person in a cozy New Jersey living room, proudly displaying an "I Voted" sticker after casting their Democrat vote for Senators. In the background, a laptop screen on the coffee table displays a Google search for "how to build a bunker," as the person chuckles at the idea of humorously fortifying their progressive beliefs. The scene should capture the contrast between the act of voting and the light-hearted exploration of building a bunker, blending political engagement with a touch of humor.

*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 Democrat votes for Senators in New Jersey caused how to build a bunker (Google searches for 'how to build a bunker') to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Digging into Democrats' Digs: The Correlation Between New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'

The Journal of Political Search Trends

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Include a pun in the title.

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 0.9613153 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]]
Digging into Democrats' Digs: The Correlation Between New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the relationship between the political inclinations of New Jersey residents and their interest in subterranean construction, as indicated by Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team endeavored to shed light on this curious correlation. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2004 to 2020. The implications of our findings may have profound implications for understanding the intersection of political behavior and doomsday prepping in the Garden State. We aim to scrutinize this peculiar relationship and, perhaps, unlock the hidden underground motivations driving these search patterns. Our findings may leave readers digging deeper into the connections between political ideology and bunker-building curiosity, unearthing unexpected insights along the way.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Digging into Democrats' Digs: The Correlation Between New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the relationship between the political inclinations of New Jersey residents and their interest in subterranean construction, as indicated by Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team endeavored to shed light on this curious correlation. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2004 to 2020. The implications of our findings may have profound implications for understanding the intersection of political behavior and doomsday prepping in the Garden State. We aim to scrutinize this peculiar relationship and, perhaps, unlock the hidden underground motivations driving these search patterns. Our findings may leave readers digging deeper into the connections between political ideology and bunker-building curiosity, unearthing unexpected insights along the way.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The juxtaposition of political behavior and doomsday prepping has long piqued the curiosity of scholars and laypersons alike. The seemingly apparent incongruity of these two realms has prompted us to delve into the intriguing correlation between the voting patterns of New Jersey's Democratic Senate supporters and their sudden foray into the world of bunker construction. Our investigation aims to not only unearth the statistical relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables but also to delve into the underlying motivations guiding such peculiar behavior. It brings to mind the famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail," as we set out to uncover whether voters are taking these words to heart in a most literal sense.

Upon first blush, one might dismiss the notion of a connection between political allegiance and an interest in bunker-building as mere happenstance or statistical noise. However, as humorist and social commentator Will Rogers once quipped, "Everything is funny, as long as it's happening to somebody else." With this in mind, we sought to bring a dose of levity to a subject matter that, on the surface, may seem quite disconcerting. The statistical correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 that we uncovered, reminiscent of a perfect pear in terms of its robustness, indicates a remarkably strong relationship between these variables. Furthermore, with a p-value less than 0.01, these findings stand firm against the winds of chance, akin to a well-anchored underground shelter withstanding the forces of nature.

As we embark on this scholarly odyssey, we remain mindful of the sage counsel of physicist Niels Bohr, who famously remarked, "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." In a similar vein, we approach our analysis with cautious skepticism, aware that correlation does not imply causation, and that hidden variables may lurk below the surface, much like, dare we say, a bunker concealed from the prying eyes of the uninitiated. Our study represents an attempt to make sense of the enigmatic relationship between political proclivities and apocalyptic aspirations, as captured by the seemingly innocuous query, "how to build a bunker." In doing so, we hope to unearth insights that may illuminate the quirky intersections of human behavior and statistical trends, causing our readers to both scratch their heads in bemusement and dig deeper into the conundrum at hand.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Digging into Democrats' Digs: The Correlation Between New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the relationship between the political inclinations of New Jersey residents and their interest in subterranean construction, as indicated by Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team endeavored to shed light on this curious correlation. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2004 to 2020. The implications of our findings may have profound implications for understanding the intersection of political behavior and doomsday prepping in the Garden State. We aim to scrutinize this peculiar relationship and, perhaps, unlock the hidden underground motivations driving these search patterns. Our findings may leave readers digging deeper into the connections between political ideology and bunker-building curiosity, unearthing unexpected insights along the way.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The juxtaposition of political behavior and doomsday prepping has long piqued the curiosity of scholars and laypersons alike. The seemingly apparent incongruity of these two realms has prompted us to delve into the intriguing correlation between the voting patterns of New Jersey's Democratic Senate supporters and their sudden foray into the world of bunker construction. Our investigation aims to not only unearth the statistical relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables but also to delve into the underlying motivations guiding such peculiar behavior. It brings to mind the famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail," as we set out to uncover whether voters are taking these words to heart in a most literal sense.
Upon first blush, one might dismiss the notion of a connection between political allegiance and an interest in bunker-building as mere happenstance or statistical noise. However, as humorist and social commentator Will Rogers once quipped, "Everything is funny, as long as it's happening to somebody else." With this in mind, we sought to bring a dose of levity to a subject matter that, on the surface, may seem quite disconcerting. The statistical correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 that we uncovered, reminiscent of a perfect pear in terms of its robustness, indicates a remarkably strong relationship between these variables. Furthermore, with a p-value less than 0.01, these findings stand firm against the winds of chance, akin to a well-anchored underground shelter withstanding the forces of nature.
As we embark on this scholarly odyssey, we remain mindful of the sage counsel of physicist Niels Bohr, who famously remarked, "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." In a similar vein, we approach our analysis with cautious skepticism, aware that correlation does not imply causation, and that hidden variables may lurk below the surface, much like, dare we say, a bunker concealed from the prying eyes of the uninitiated. Our study represents an attempt to make sense of the enigmatic relationship between political proclivities and apocalyptic aspirations, as captured by the seemingly innocuous query, "how to build a bunker." In doing so, we hope to unearth insights that may illuminate the quirky intersections of human behavior and statistical trends, causing our readers to both scratch their heads in bemusement and dig deeper into the conundrum at hand.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In their seminal work, Smith and Doe (2005) explore the political tendencies of New Jersey voters and its potential correlations with unconventional hobbies. Their analysis provides a foundational understanding of the state's unique political landscape and signifies the potential for unexpected connections between political behavior and seemingly unrelated activities. Building upon this groundwork, Jones (2010) further delves into the intricacies of voter behavior and their proclivity for unorthodox pursuits, setting the stage for our present investigation.

As we probe deeper into this anomalous relationship, it is worth considering the insights offered by influential non-fiction works in this domain. "The Politics of Subterranean Structures" by Smith (2012) provides a thought-provoking exploration of the psychological underpinnings of subterranean construction interests within the context of political allegiances. Additionally, Doe's "Doomsday Democracy: Exploring New Jersey's Bunker-Building Bias" (2018) presents a compelling analysis of the intersection between political affiliations and doomsday preparations, shedding light on possible motivations underlying our focal correlation.

In the realm of fiction, the themes of political intrigue and survivalist inclinations intersect in intriguing ways, as evidenced by "Underground Allegiances" by Orwell (1949) and "The Politics of Bunker Construction" by Atwood (1985). These literary works, while fictional in nature, offer captivating insights into the intersection of political ideology and clandestine construction projects, subtly reflecting the very real-world quirkiness we aim to unravel in our present inquiry.

Furthermore, it is imperative to acknowledge the influence of popular internet culture on our subject matter. The meme "Distracted Democrats Digging Dugouts" has garnered widespread attention in online circles, serving as a lighthearted yet relevant commentary on the apparent dichotomy between political leanings and an interest in subterranean spaces. This meme, coupled with others of its ilk, underscores the curious and enigmatic nature of our investigation, prompting both amusement and contemplation among digital denizens.

In sum, the scholarly landscape surrounding the intersection of Democratic votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker' encompasses a diverse array of literature, spanning from empirical research to fictional narratives and internet memes. Encompassing a rich tapestry of perspectives, these sources lay the groundwork for our endeavor to illuminate the intriguing correlation underpinning this curious phenomenon.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Digging into Democrats' Digs: The Correlation Between New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the relationship between the political inclinations of New Jersey residents and their interest in subterranean construction, as indicated by Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team endeavored to shed light on this curious correlation. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2004 to 2020. The implications of our findings may have profound implications for understanding the intersection of political behavior and doomsday prepping in the Garden State. We aim to scrutinize this peculiar relationship and, perhaps, unlock the hidden underground motivations driving these search patterns. Our findings may leave readers digging deeper into the connections between political ideology and bunker-building curiosity, unearthing unexpected insights along the way.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The juxtaposition of political behavior and doomsday prepping has long piqued the curiosity of scholars and laypersons alike. The seemingly apparent incongruity of these two realms has prompted us to delve into the intriguing correlation between the voting patterns of New Jersey's Democratic Senate supporters and their sudden foray into the world of bunker construction. Our investigation aims to not only unearth the statistical relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables but also to delve into the underlying motivations guiding such peculiar behavior. It brings to mind the famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail," as we set out to uncover whether voters are taking these words to heart in a most literal sense.
Upon first blush, one might dismiss the notion of a connection between political allegiance and an interest in bunker-building as mere happenstance or statistical noise. However, as humorist and social commentator Will Rogers once quipped, "Everything is funny, as long as it's happening to somebody else." With this in mind, we sought to bring a dose of levity to a subject matter that, on the surface, may seem quite disconcerting. The statistical correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 that we uncovered, reminiscent of a perfect pear in terms of its robustness, indicates a remarkably strong relationship between these variables. Furthermore, with a p-value less than 0.01, these findings stand firm against the winds of chance, akin to a well-anchored underground shelter withstanding the forces of nature.
As we embark on this scholarly odyssey, we remain mindful of the sage counsel of physicist Niels Bohr, who famously remarked, "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." In a similar vein, we approach our analysis with cautious skepticism, aware that correlation does not imply causation, and that hidden variables may lurk below the surface, much like, dare we say, a bunker concealed from the prying eyes of the uninitiated. Our study represents an attempt to make sense of the enigmatic relationship between political proclivities and apocalyptic aspirations, as captured by the seemingly innocuous query, "how to build a bunker." In doing so, we hope to unearth insights that may illuminate the quirky intersections of human behavior and statistical trends, causing our readers to both scratch their heads in bemusement and dig deeper into the conundrum at hand.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the mystery behind the New Jersey residents' fascination with bunker construction, we employed a combination of data collection and statistical analysis, akin to assembling the pieces of a multi-layered bunker puzzle. Our research team collected data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, casting a wide net to capture the nuances of Democratic Senate votes and the peculiar phenomenon of 'how to build a bunker' searches. The data spanned a timeframe from 2004 to 2020, allowing us to excavate patterns and correlations over a substantial period, akin to conducting an archaeological dig into the digital landscape.

First, we procured the New Jersey Democratic Senate vote percentages from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, akin to carefully selecting the right tools for a thorough excavation. These percentages served as the primary indicator of political ideology and voter behavior, forming the bedrock of our analysis. Furthermore, we ventured into the Harvard Dataverse to obtain comprehensive demographic and socioeconomic factors, recognizing that a bunker-building inclination may not arise in isolation but may be influenced by a myriad of underlying societal conditions, much like the interconnected underground chambers of a labyrinthine bunker.

Complementing the political and demographic data, we delved into the digital realm by harnessing Google Trends to quantify the frequency of searches for the tantalizing query, 'how to build a bunker.' This digital goldmine provided insight into the burgeoning interest in subterranean construction, akin to unraveling the layers of sedimentary rock to expose hidden fossils. The search data, spanning over the same period as the political and demographic variables, afford us the opportunity to ascertain any temporal concordance, much like aligning the strata of a geological formation.

Armed with this multifaceted dataset, we applied rigorous statistical techniques, akin to conducting a scientific experiment within the confines of a carefully constructed laboratory. Employing advanced regression models and correlation analyses, we sought to scrutinize the relationship between Democratic Senate votes and 'how to build a bunker' searches, likened to probing the structural integrity of a subterranean edifice. We meticulously examined the correlations and adjusted for potential confounding variables, recognizing that, much like uncovering buried artifacts, the true relationships may be obscured by extraneous factors.

In the spirit of scholarly rigour, we also conducted sensitivity analyses and robustness checks, akin to fortifying the walls of a bunker against potential vulnerabilities. These analyses afforded us a panoramic view of the main findings, allowing us to discern the robustness and stability of the observed correlations, much like testing the fortitude of a shelter against varied environmental pressures.

Ultimately, our methodology embodies a deliberate and thorough approach, akin to assembling a comprehensive map of the underground terrain. By fusing political, demographic, and digital data sources with sophisticated statistical techniques, we endeavored to unearth the captivating relationships between political allegiance and the impetus to explore the depths of bunker construction, much like peeling back the layers of soil to reveal hidden treasures.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 0.9613153, r-squared of 0.9241270, 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]]
Digging into Democrats' Digs: The Correlation Between New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the relationship between the political inclinations of New Jersey residents and their interest in subterranean construction, as indicated by Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team endeavored to shed light on this curious correlation. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2004 to 2020. The implications of our findings may have profound implications for understanding the intersection of political behavior and doomsday prepping in the Garden State. We aim to scrutinize this peculiar relationship and, perhaps, unlock the hidden underground motivations driving these search patterns. Our findings may leave readers digging deeper into the connections between political ideology and bunker-building curiosity, unearthing unexpected insights along the way.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The juxtaposition of political behavior and doomsday prepping has long piqued the curiosity of scholars and laypersons alike. The seemingly apparent incongruity of these two realms has prompted us to delve into the intriguing correlation between the voting patterns of New Jersey's Democratic Senate supporters and their sudden foray into the world of bunker construction. Our investigation aims to not only unearth the statistical relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables but also to delve into the underlying motivations guiding such peculiar behavior. It brings to mind the famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail," as we set out to uncover whether voters are taking these words to heart in a most literal sense.
Upon first blush, one might dismiss the notion of a connection between political allegiance and an interest in bunker-building as mere happenstance or statistical noise. However, as humorist and social commentator Will Rogers once quipped, "Everything is funny, as long as it's happening to somebody else." With this in mind, we sought to bring a dose of levity to a subject matter that, on the surface, may seem quite disconcerting. The statistical correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 that we uncovered, reminiscent of a perfect pear in terms of its robustness, indicates a remarkably strong relationship between these variables. Furthermore, with a p-value less than 0.01, these findings stand firm against the winds of chance, akin to a well-anchored underground shelter withstanding the forces of nature.
As we embark on this scholarly odyssey, we remain mindful of the sage counsel of physicist Niels Bohr, who famously remarked, "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." In a similar vein, we approach our analysis with cautious skepticism, aware that correlation does not imply causation, and that hidden variables may lurk below the surface, much like, dare we say, a bunker concealed from the prying eyes of the uninitiated. Our study represents an attempt to make sense of the enigmatic relationship between political proclivities and apocalyptic aspirations, as captured by the seemingly innocuous query, "how to build a bunker." In doing so, we hope to unearth insights that may illuminate the quirky intersections of human behavior and statistical trends, causing our readers to both scratch their heads in bemusement and dig deeper into the conundrum at hand.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

In our investigation of the correlation between New Jersey Democratic Senate votes and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker', the results are, in a word, staggering. Our statistical analysis revealed an eye-popping correlation coefficient of 0.9613153, signaling a remarkably strong relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. To put it in perspective, this correlation is so strong, it's like finding a needle in a haystack and constructing a bunker around it for safekeeping. The r-squared value of 0.9241270 further emphasizes the robustness of the correlation, indicating that a whopping 92.41% of the variance in bunker-building curiosity can be explained by the variation in Democratic Senate votes.

Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 underscores the statistical significance of our findings, essentially shouting from the rooftops that this relationship is not just a fluke or the result of random chance. It's as if the data itself is imploring us, "Don't take this correlation for granite!"

The strength of the correlation is vividly depicted in Figure 1, where the scatterplot leaves no room for doubt. The tightly clustered data points form a pattern as clear as day, drawing a connection between political choices and an interest in subterranean construction that is as solid as bedrock. It's as though the data is practically shouting, "Eureka! We've struck statistical gold!"

These results not only highlight the unexpected nature of the relationship between political preference and underground construction curiosity but also serve as a reminder of the boundless quirkiness of human behavior. As author Douglas Adams once wrote, "The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lack," and indeed, the convergence of politics and bunker-building has a unique and unlikely integrity that is as fascinating as it is confounding.

In light of these findings, we are left grappling with the question of what drives individuals to seek out information on bunker construction, and how this interest intersects with their political outlook. The quizzical nature of these correlations beckons us to further explore the motivations behind this unparalleled relationship, akin to uncovering buried treasure beneath the surface of traditional political analysis.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Digging into Democrats' Digs: The Correlation Between New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the relationship between the political inclinations of New Jersey residents and their interest in subterranean construction, as indicated by Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team endeavored to shed light on this curious correlation. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2004 to 2020. The implications of our findings may have profound implications for understanding the intersection of political behavior and doomsday prepping in the Garden State. We aim to scrutinize this peculiar relationship and, perhaps, unlock the hidden underground motivations driving these search patterns. Our findings may leave readers digging deeper into the connections between political ideology and bunker-building curiosity, unearthing unexpected insights along the way.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In their seminal work, Smith and Doe (2005) explore the political tendencies of New Jersey voters and its potential correlations with unconventional hobbies. Their analysis provides a foundational understanding of the state's unique political landscape and signifies the potential for unexpected connections between political behavior and seemingly unrelated activities. Building upon this groundwork, Jones (2010) further delves into the intricacies of voter behavior and their proclivity for unorthodox pursuits, setting the stage for our present investigation.
As we probe deeper into this anomalous relationship, it is worth considering the insights offered by influential non-fiction works in this domain. "The Politics of Subterranean Structures" by Smith (2012) provides a thought-provoking exploration of the psychological underpinnings of subterranean construction interests within the context of political allegiances. Additionally, Doe's "Doomsday Democracy: Exploring New Jersey's Bunker-Building Bias" (2018) presents a compelling analysis of the intersection between political affiliations and doomsday preparations, shedding light on possible motivations underlying our focal correlation.
In the realm of fiction, the themes of political intrigue and survivalist inclinations intersect in intriguing ways, as evidenced by "Underground Allegiances" by Orwell (1949) and "The Politics of Bunker Construction" by Atwood (1985). These literary works, while fictional in nature, offer captivating insights into the intersection of political ideology and clandestine construction projects, subtly reflecting the very real-world quirkiness we aim to unravel in our present inquiry.
Furthermore, it is imperative to acknowledge the influence of popular internet culture on our subject matter. The meme "Distracted Democrats Digging Dugouts" has garnered widespread attention in online circles, serving as a lighthearted yet relevant commentary on the apparent dichotomy between political leanings and an interest in subterranean spaces. This meme, coupled with others of its ilk, underscores the curious and enigmatic nature of our investigation, prompting both amusement and contemplation among digital denizens.
In sum, the scholarly landscape surrounding the intersection of Democratic votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker' encompasses a diverse array of literature, spanning from empirical research to fictional narratives and internet memes. Encompassing a rich tapestry of perspectives, these sources lay the groundwork for our endeavor to illuminate the intriguing correlation underpinning this curious phenomenon.

[[RESULTS]]
In our investigation of the correlation between New Jersey Democratic Senate votes and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker', the results are, in a word, staggering. Our statistical analysis revealed an eye-popping correlation coefficient of 0.9613153, signaling a remarkably strong relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. To put it in perspective, this correlation is so strong, it's like finding a needle in a haystack and constructing a bunker around it for safekeeping. The r-squared value of 0.9241270 further emphasizes the robustness of the correlation, indicating that a whopping 92.41% of the variance in bunker-building curiosity can be explained by the variation in Democratic Senate votes.
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 underscores the statistical significance of our findings, essentially shouting from the rooftops that this relationship is not just a fluke or the result of random chance. It's as if the data itself is imploring us, "Don't take this correlation for granite!"
The strength of the correlation is vividly depicted in Figure 1, where the scatterplot leaves no room for doubt. The tightly clustered data points form a pattern as clear as day, drawing a connection between political choices and an interest in subterranean construction that is as solid as bedrock. It's as though the data is practically shouting, "Eureka! We've struck statistical gold!"
These results not only highlight the unexpected nature of the relationship between political preference and underground construction curiosity but also serve as a reminder of the boundless quirkiness of human behavior. As author Douglas Adams once wrote, "The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lack," and indeed, the convergence of politics and bunker-building has a unique and unlikely integrity that is as fascinating as it is confounding.
In light of these findings, we are left grappling with the question of what drives individuals to seek out information on bunker construction, and how this interest intersects with their political outlook. The quizzical nature of these correlations beckons us to further explore the motivations behind this unparalleled relationship, akin to uncovering buried treasure beneath the surface of traditional political analysis.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study provide compelling evidence for a strong correlation between Democratic votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Our findings not only reiterate the long-standing tradition of New Jersey's atypical political inclinations but also unveil a surprising undercurrent of underground curiosity lurking beneath the surface of mainstream political discourse.

These results align with prior research by Smith and Doe (2005) that hinted at the potential for unconventional hobbies to intertwine with political tendencies. It appears that the Garden State's residents have been digging deep into both political preferences and subterranean construction pursuits, with a fervor that can only be described as groundbreaking.

Moreover, our findings echo the insightful work of Jones (2010), who foreshadowed the labyrinthine nature of voter behavior and its resonance with unorthodox pastimes. Indeed, our research uncovers a tunnel of evidence connecting political proclivities to an interest in bunker-building, suggesting that beneath every seemingly mundane voting decision lies a subterranean world of unexpected motivations.

The correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 serves as a resounding confirmation of the profound relationship between Democratic Senate votes and bunker-building inquiries. This connection is as tight as a well-constructed bunker, leaving little room for doubt and pointing to a convergence of political ideology and an affinity for secure underground installations that is as solid as bedrock.

The p-value of less than 0.01 boldly emphasizes the statistical significance of our findings, showcasing that this correlation is not just a fleeting anomaly but rather a substantial link that defies mere happenstance. It's as if the data itself is imploring us, "Don't take this correlation for granite!" Indeed, the strength of this relationship compels us to take it seriously and excavate the trove of intriguing motivations beneath the surface, akin to unearthing a cache of statistical treasures waiting to be unearthed.

Moving forward, it is imperative to delve deeper into the underlying reasons behind this robust correlation. The intertwined nature of political leanings and preoccupation with bunker construction beckons further investigation, akin to unraveling the enigmatic and subterranean roots of New Jersey's political landscape. Our findings open an exciting avenue for future explorations, inviting researchers to tunnel through the subterranean layers of political behavior and unearthing the unexpected connections that lie beneath.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Jersey and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
Digging into Democrats' Digs: The Correlation Between New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the relationship between the political inclinations of New Jersey residents and their interest in subterranean construction, as indicated by Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team endeavored to shed light on this curious correlation. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2004 to 2020. The implications of our findings may have profound implications for understanding the intersection of political behavior and doomsday prepping in the Garden State. We aim to scrutinize this peculiar relationship and, perhaps, unlock the hidden underground motivations driving these search patterns. Our findings may leave readers digging deeper into the connections between political ideology and bunker-building curiosity, unearthing unexpected insights along the way.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The juxtaposition of political behavior and doomsday prepping has long piqued the curiosity of scholars and laypersons alike. The seemingly apparent incongruity of these two realms has prompted us to delve into the intriguing correlation between the voting patterns of New Jersey's Democratic Senate supporters and their sudden foray into the world of bunker construction. Our investigation aims to not only unearth the statistical relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables but also to delve into the underlying motivations guiding such peculiar behavior. It brings to mind the famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail," as we set out to uncover whether voters are taking these words to heart in a most literal sense.
Upon first blush, one might dismiss the notion of a connection between political allegiance and an interest in bunker-building as mere happenstance or statistical noise. However, as humorist and social commentator Will Rogers once quipped, "Everything is funny, as long as it's happening to somebody else." With this in mind, we sought to bring a dose of levity to a subject matter that, on the surface, may seem quite disconcerting. The statistical correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 that we uncovered, reminiscent of a perfect pear in terms of its robustness, indicates a remarkably strong relationship between these variables. Furthermore, with a p-value less than 0.01, these findings stand firm against the winds of chance, akin to a well-anchored underground shelter withstanding the forces of nature.
As we embark on this scholarly odyssey, we remain mindful of the sage counsel of physicist Niels Bohr, who famously remarked, "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." In a similar vein, we approach our analysis with cautious skepticism, aware that correlation does not imply causation, and that hidden variables may lurk below the surface, much like, dare we say, a bunker concealed from the prying eyes of the uninitiated. Our study represents an attempt to make sense of the enigmatic relationship between political proclivities and apocalyptic aspirations, as captured by the seemingly innocuous query, "how to build a bunker." In doing so, we hope to unearth insights that may illuminate the quirky intersections of human behavior and statistical trends, causing our readers to both scratch their heads in bemusement and dig deeper into the conundrum at hand.

[[RESULTS]]
In our investigation of the correlation between New Jersey Democratic Senate votes and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker', the results are, in a word, staggering. Our statistical analysis revealed an eye-popping correlation coefficient of 0.9613153, signaling a remarkably strong relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. To put it in perspective, this correlation is so strong, it's like finding a needle in a haystack and constructing a bunker around it for safekeeping. The r-squared value of 0.9241270 further emphasizes the robustness of the correlation, indicating that a whopping 92.41% of the variance in bunker-building curiosity can be explained by the variation in Democratic Senate votes.
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 underscores the statistical significance of our findings, essentially shouting from the rooftops that this relationship is not just a fluke or the result of random chance. It's as if the data itself is imploring us, "Don't take this correlation for granite!"
The strength of the correlation is vividly depicted in Figure 1, where the scatterplot leaves no room for doubt. The tightly clustered data points form a pattern as clear as day, drawing a connection between political choices and an interest in subterranean construction that is as solid as bedrock. It's as though the data is practically shouting, "Eureka! We've struck statistical gold!"
These results not only highlight the unexpected nature of the relationship between political preference and underground construction curiosity but also serve as a reminder of the boundless quirkiness of human behavior. As author Douglas Adams once wrote, "The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lack," and indeed, the convergence of politics and bunker-building has a unique and unlikely integrity that is as fascinating as it is confounding.
In light of these findings, we are left grappling with the question of what drives individuals to seek out information on bunker construction, and how this interest intersects with their political outlook. The quizzical nature of these correlations beckons us to further explore the motivations behind this unparalleled relationship, akin to uncovering buried treasure beneath the surface of traditional political analysis.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has uncovered a remarkably robust correlation between New Jersey Democratic Senate votes and Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. The statistical findings suggest a connection as strong as the walls of a well-constructed subterranean shelter, leaving little room for doubt. It's as though voters are not just seeking political protection, but also contemplating a literal underground escape from the tribulations of everyday life.

These results, while seemingly whimsical at first glance, underscore the multifaceted nature of human behavior and the unexpected intersections that can arise in the realm of statistical analysis. As the renowned statistician George Box once quipped, "All models are wrong, but some are useful," our findings may indeed seem paradoxical, yet offer a useful lens through which to view the curious confluence of political allegiance and doomsday preparations.

Moving forward, it may be tempting to delve even deeper into the motivations underpinning this correlation, much like excavating further underground to unearth hidden treasures. However, as the saying goes, "Sometimes, it's better to leave well enough alone," and we assert that no further research is needed in this area. After all, too much digging can sometimes lead to a hole lot of trouble.

So, as we bid adieu to this intriguing correlation, we are reminded of the words of author J.R.R. Tolkien, who aptly observed, "Not all those who wander are lost." In a similar vein, not all statistical oddities are without merit, and our study stands as a testament to the whimsical and unexpected discoveries that can surface in the realm of research and analysis.


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 Digging into Democrats' Digs: The Correlation Between New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Search Trends


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 Digging into Democrats' Digs: The Correlation Between New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Political Curiosity and Bunkerology


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 Digging into Democrats' Digs: The Correlation Between New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes and Google Searches for 'How to Build a Bunker' with an abstract of In this study, we examine the relationship between the political inclinations of New Jersey residents and their interest in subterranean construction, as indicated by Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, our research team endeavored to shed light on this curious correlation. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9613153 and a p-value less than 0.01 over the period spanning from 2004 to 2020. The implications of our findings may have profound implications for understanding the intersection of political behavior and doomsday prepping in the Garden State. We aim to scrutinize this peculiar relationship and, perhaps, unlock the hidden underground motivations driving these search patterns. Our findings may leave readers digging deeper into the connections between political ideology and bunker-building curiosity, unearthing unexpected insights along the way.

ChatGPT:

New Jersey Democratic Senate Votes, political inclinations, subterranean construction, Google searches, 'how to build a bunker', correlation coefficient, p-value, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Google Trends, political behavior, doomsday prepping, Garden State, political ideology, bunker-building curiosity, underground motivations, intersection of political behavior.

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'how to build a bunker' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'

Correlation r = 0.9613153 (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 = 0.9241270 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 92.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'how to build a bunker') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in New Jersey) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0022. 0.0022158170216664250000000000
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 0.96 in 0.22% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 451 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.

[ 0.68, 1 ] 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.
200620082012201420182020
Votes for Democratic Senators in New Jersey (Percentage of votes)53.369156.030158.865555.835654.007157.2281
Google searches for 'how to build a bunker' (Rel. search volume)21.416737.333360.416732.916731.416745.1667




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
  5. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




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([53.3691,56.0301,58.8655,55.8356,54.0071,57.2281,])
array_2 = np.array([21.4167,37.3333,60.4167,32.9167,31.4167,45.1667,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in New Jersey"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'how to build a bunker'"

# 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 skills are legendary!


Correlation ID: 4884 · Black Variable ID: 26428 · Red Variable ID: 1377
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0