Download png, svg
AI explanation
As the old saying goes, for every vote cast in Iowa, a drop of gasoline is burned in Lithuania. It's a lesser-known consequence of the butterfly effect of politics and petroleum – or as it's known in some circles, the fuel of freedom!
Model: dalle-3
Prompt: "Surrealism" Generate an image of two parallel worlds: in the foreground, a group of people in Iowa are casting votes for senators, while in the background, a car in Lithuania is refueling at a gas station. The setting should showcase an otherworldly connection between the act of voting and petroleum consumption, perhaps with unusual colors or distortions. The scene should highlight the seemingly unrelated activities in a dreamlike and surreal manner. 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: Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroluem consumption in Lithuania. 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: Celtic art Pop art Parallax art Macabre Surrealism
ChatGPT: Surrealism
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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroluem consumption in Lithuania, in the following situation: As the old saying goes, for every vote cast in Iowa, a drop of gasoline is burned in Lithuania. It's a lesser-known consequence of the butterfly effect of politics and petroleum – or as it's known in some circles, the fuel of freedom! . Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Iowa, a group of people are seen voting for their senators, with ballot papers in hand. Meanwhile, in Lithuania, a car is refueling at a gas station, with drops of gasoline falling from the nozzle. The scene illustrates the connection between libertarian votes for senators in Iowa and petroleum consumption in Lithuania, bridging the two seemingly unrelated activities.
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: [ Surrealism ] and depicting this scene: In Iowa, a group of people are seen voting for their senators, with ballot papers in hand. Meanwhile, in Lithuania, a car is refueling at a gas station, with drops of gasoline falling from the nozzle. The scene illustrates the connection between libertarian votes for senators in Iowa and petroleum consumption in Lithuania, bridging the two seemingly unrelated activities. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: "Surrealism" Generate an image of two parallel worlds: in the foreground, a group of people in Iowa are casting votes for senators, while in the background, a car in Lithuania is refueling at a gas station. The setting should showcase an otherworldly connection between the act of voting and petroleum consumption, perhaps with unusual colors or distortions. The scene should highlight the seemingly unrelated activities in a dreamlike and surreal manner.
*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.
I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa caused Petroluem consumption in Lithuania to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.
AI academic paper
 |
A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania The Journal of Eccentric Political Science Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroluem consumption in Lithuania. 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 Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9483479 and p < 0.01 for 1992 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]]
"A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unlikely relationship between the voting patterns of libertarians in Iowa and the consumption of petroleum in Lithuania. Leveraging data from reputable sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team aimed to uncover a correlation that had thus far eluded scholarly investigation. To the surprise of many, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, with a p-value less than 0.01, spanning the years 1992 to 2020.
While the link between the two seemingly unrelated entities may raise eyebrows, our findings present a compelling case for further exploration and examination of potential underlying mechanisms. Our study not only sheds light on the interconnectedness of disparate global phenomena but also serves as a testament to the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of causation, it is essential to remain open to the unexpected and embrace the quirkiness that often accompanies scholarly pursuit.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroluem consumption in Lithuania. 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]]
"A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unlikely relationship between the voting patterns of libertarians in Iowa and the consumption of petroleum in Lithuania. Leveraging data from reputable sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team aimed to uncover a correlation that had thus far eluded scholarly investigation. To the surprise of many, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, with a p-value less than 0.01, spanning the years 1992 to 2020.
While the link between the two seemingly unrelated entities may raise eyebrows, our findings present a compelling case for further exploration and examination of potential underlying mechanisms. Our study not only sheds light on the interconnectedness of disparate global phenomena but also serves as a testament to the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of causation, it is essential to remain open to the unexpected and embrace the quirkiness that often accompanies scholarly pursuit.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of statistical analysis, one often encounters serendipitous connections that leave even the most seasoned researchers scratching their heads in disbelief. It is in this spirit of academic curiosity – and perhaps a dash of whimsy – that we embark on a rather unconventional investigation into the curious correlation between the libertarian vote in Iowa and petroleum consumption in Lithuania. While this may seem like the opening act of a statistical circus, our research delves into the unexpected and challenges conventional wisdom, all in the pursuit of shedding light on the enigmatic dance of data.
The study at hand emerges from a confluence of skepticism and intrigue, sparked by a casual perusal of disparate datasets that captured our imagination and beckoned us to unravel their cryptic ties. With an assortment of spreadsheets, pivot tables, and a healthy dose of caffeinated beverages, we set out to scour the archives of electoral politics and energy consumption, weaving a narrative that transcends borders, ideologies, and, quite possibly, the boundaries of rational explanation.
As we traverse the terrain of statistical analysis, it is imperative to recognize the intricate dance between correlation and causation, all while embracing the whimsical antics of variables that often operate beyond the confines of human logic. While some may dismiss such endeavors as statistical escapades into the realm of absurdity, we firmly believe that within the labyrinthine landscape of data, improbable links may hold the key to unraveling the mysteries that lie just beyond our current understanding.
For the uninitiated, the notion of correlating the voting inclinations of libertarian-minded individuals in the heartlands of America with the petroleum-propelled pursuits of inhabitants on the shores of the Baltic Sea may elicit a wry smile or a quizzical arched eyebrow. However, as our journey through the twisting corridors of data unfolds, we invite you to join us in embracing the unexpected, the peculiar, and the occasionally preposterous, for it is within these uncharted territories of statistical inquiry that the seeds of revelation often sprout.
With this spirit of scholarly lightheartedness, we plunge headlong into the crucible of correlation, armed with regression analyses and scatter plots, all in pursuit of uncovering the unlikely nexus between the ballot box in Iowa and the gas pumps in Lithuania. As we navigate this peculiar terrain, we encourage the reader to maintain an open mind and a discerning eye, for in the unfurling tapestry of statistical discovery, one never knows where the next surprising twist – much like an unexpected punchline – may emerge.
Armed with a healthy dose of skepticism and a pinch of academic audacity, we invite you to join us on this capricious journey through the corridors of causation, as we seek to unearth the unexpected and celebrate the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroluem consumption in Lithuania. 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 you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unlikely relationship between the voting patterns of libertarians in Iowa and the consumption of petroleum in Lithuania. Leveraging data from reputable sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team aimed to uncover a correlation that had thus far eluded scholarly investigation. To the surprise of many, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, with a p-value less than 0.01, spanning the years 1992 to 2020.
While the link between the two seemingly unrelated entities may raise eyebrows, our findings present a compelling case for further exploration and examination of potential underlying mechanisms. Our study not only sheds light on the interconnectedness of disparate global phenomena but also serves as a testament to the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of causation, it is essential to remain open to the unexpected and embrace the quirkiness that often accompanies scholarly pursuit.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of statistical analysis, one often encounters serendipitous connections that leave even the most seasoned researchers scratching their heads in disbelief. It is in this spirit of academic curiosity – and perhaps a dash of whimsy – that we embark on a rather unconventional investigation into the curious correlation between the libertarian vote in Iowa and petroleum consumption in Lithuania. While this may seem like the opening act of a statistical circus, our research delves into the unexpected and challenges conventional wisdom, all in the pursuit of shedding light on the enigmatic dance of data.
The study at hand emerges from a confluence of skepticism and intrigue, sparked by a casual perusal of disparate datasets that captured our imagination and beckoned us to unravel their cryptic ties. With an assortment of spreadsheets, pivot tables, and a healthy dose of caffeinated beverages, we set out to scour the archives of electoral politics and energy consumption, weaving a narrative that transcends borders, ideologies, and, quite possibly, the boundaries of rational explanation.
As we traverse the terrain of statistical analysis, it is imperative to recognize the intricate dance between correlation and causation, all while embracing the whimsical antics of variables that often operate beyond the confines of human logic. While some may dismiss such endeavors as statistical escapades into the realm of absurdity, we firmly believe that within the labyrinthine landscape of data, improbable links may hold the key to unraveling the mysteries that lie just beyond our current understanding.
For the uninitiated, the notion of correlating the voting inclinations of libertarian-minded individuals in the heartlands of America with the petroleum-propelled pursuits of inhabitants on the shores of the Baltic Sea may elicit a wry smile or a quizzical arched eyebrow. However, as our journey through the twisting corridors of data unfolds, we invite you to join us in embracing the unexpected, the peculiar, and the occasionally preposterous, for it is within these uncharted territories of statistical inquiry that the seeds of revelation often sprout.
With this spirit of scholarly lightheartedness, we plunge headlong into the crucible of correlation, armed with regression analyses and scatter plots, all in pursuit of uncovering the unlikely nexus between the ballot box in Iowa and the gas pumps in Lithuania. As we navigate this peculiar terrain, we encourage the reader to maintain an open mind and a discerning eye, for in the unfurling tapestry of statistical discovery, one never knows where the next surprising twist – much like an unexpected punchline – may emerge.
Armed with a healthy dose of skepticism and a pinch of academic audacity, we invite you to join us on this capricious journey through the corridors of causation, as we seek to unearth the unexpected and celebrate the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The peculiar and seemingly far-fetched nature of our research inquiry beckons a thorough examination of existing scholarly works that may shed light on the intricate interplay between the voting proclivities of libertarians in Iowa and the petroleum consumption habits of individuals residing in Lithuania. While the connection between these two seemingly unrelated entities may appear whimsical at first glance, our investigation demands a comprehensive survey of the academic landscape.
Smith et al. (2017) examined the behavioral patterns of libertarian voters in the Midwest and unearthed interesting insights into their ideological leanings and electoral decisions. However, their study regrettably overlooked the transcontinental repercussions of these voting behaviors, leaving our current inquiry adrift in uncharted scholarly waters.
In a similar vein, Doe (2015) delved into the energy consumption trends in Eastern Europe, with a keen focus on the Baltic region. While their analysis offered valuable perspectives on the factors influencing petroleum usage, it failed to explore the potential correlations with political dynamics in the American heartland, thus leaving a conspicuous gap in the literature.
Furthermore, Jones (2019) scrutinized the electoral dynamics in contentious swing states, including Iowa, offering a nuanced understanding of the voting behaviors within these pivotal territories. Alas, the study did not venture into the domain of global ramifications, leaving our pursuit of unexpected connections hanging in the precarious balance of scholarly anticipation.
Transitioning from the realm of serious scholarly discourse to more unconventional sources, it is worthwhile to consider the insights offered by non-fiction works on energy policy and political ideology. "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin paints a comprehensive portrait of the oil industry's impact on geopolitics, inviting intriguing speculations about the potential ripple effects of libertarian votes in the heartland of America on distant shores of the Baltic.
On a more fictional note, the dystopian narrative of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" weaves a tapestry of libertarian ideals with industrial undertones, offering a whimsical backdrop for contemplating the unexpected interconnectedness of ideology and resource consumption.
Delving into the world of animation, the antics of "Pinky and the Brain" provide a captivating allegory for the audacious pursuit of improbable feats, reflecting the spirit of our scholarly endeavors as we navigate the labyrinthine terrain of statistical inquiry.
In a similar vein, the whimsical escapades of "SpongeBob SquarePants" serve as a lighthearted reminder of the unexpected connections that may lurk beneath the surface of seemingly disparate phenomena, underscoring the playful nature of academic exploration.
As we sift through this multidimensional tapestry of literature, both serious and serendipitous, it becomes apparent that the whimsical nature of our scholarly inquiry transcends conventional boundaries, beckoning us to embrace the unexpected with scholarly aplomb and perhaps a hint of whimsical curiosity.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroluem consumption in Lithuania. 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 Energy Information Administration . You used data from 1992 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]]
"A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unlikely relationship between the voting patterns of libertarians in Iowa and the consumption of petroleum in Lithuania. Leveraging data from reputable sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team aimed to uncover a correlation that had thus far eluded scholarly investigation. To the surprise of many, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, with a p-value less than 0.01, spanning the years 1992 to 2020.
While the link between the two seemingly unrelated entities may raise eyebrows, our findings present a compelling case for further exploration and examination of potential underlying mechanisms. Our study not only sheds light on the interconnectedness of disparate global phenomena but also serves as a testament to the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of causation, it is essential to remain open to the unexpected and embrace the quirkiness that often accompanies scholarly pursuit.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of statistical analysis, one often encounters serendipitous connections that leave even the most seasoned researchers scratching their heads in disbelief. It is in this spirit of academic curiosity – and perhaps a dash of whimsy – that we embark on a rather unconventional investigation into the curious correlation between the libertarian vote in Iowa and petroleum consumption in Lithuania. While this may seem like the opening act of a statistical circus, our research delves into the unexpected and challenges conventional wisdom, all in the pursuit of shedding light on the enigmatic dance of data.
The study at hand emerges from a confluence of skepticism and intrigue, sparked by a casual perusal of disparate datasets that captured our imagination and beckoned us to unravel their cryptic ties. With an assortment of spreadsheets, pivot tables, and a healthy dose of caffeinated beverages, we set out to scour the archives of electoral politics and energy consumption, weaving a narrative that transcends borders, ideologies, and, quite possibly, the boundaries of rational explanation.
As we traverse the terrain of statistical analysis, it is imperative to recognize the intricate dance between correlation and causation, all while embracing the whimsical antics of variables that often operate beyond the confines of human logic. While some may dismiss such endeavors as statistical escapades into the realm of absurdity, we firmly believe that within the labyrinthine landscape of data, improbable links may hold the key to unraveling the mysteries that lie just beyond our current understanding.
For the uninitiated, the notion of correlating the voting inclinations of libertarian-minded individuals in the heartlands of America with the petroleum-propelled pursuits of inhabitants on the shores of the Baltic Sea may elicit a wry smile or a quizzical arched eyebrow. However, as our journey through the twisting corridors of data unfolds, we invite you to join us in embracing the unexpected, the peculiar, and the occasionally preposterous, for it is within these uncharted territories of statistical inquiry that the seeds of revelation often sprout.
With this spirit of scholarly lightheartedness, we plunge headlong into the crucible of correlation, armed with regression analyses and scatter plots, all in pursuit of uncovering the unlikely nexus between the ballot box in Iowa and the gas pumps in Lithuania. As we navigate this peculiar terrain, we encourage the reader to maintain an open mind and a discerning eye, for in the unfurling tapestry of statistical discovery, one never knows where the next surprising twist – much like an unexpected punchline – may emerge.
Armed with a healthy dose of skepticism and a pinch of academic audacity, we invite you to join us on this capricious journey through the corridors of causation, as we seek to unearth the unexpected and celebrate the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In this study, we employed a methodological approach that combined elements of quantitative analysis, spatial modeling, and a touch of statistical alchemy to unravel the mysterious relationship between Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and petroleum consumption in Lithuania. Our research team undertook a Herculean effort to sift through a trove of data spanning nearly three decades, utilizing information from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. The methodology employed in this investigation can best be described as a delightful amalgamation of academic rigor, a sprinkle of statistical wizardry, and a healthy dose of scholarly whimsy.
To commence our convoluted expedition, we first accessed comprehensive historical records of Libertarian votes in Iowa, meticulously tabulated from election cycles dating back to 1992. With the precision of a neurosurgeon and the patience of a saint, our research team meticulously combed through these datasets, cross-referencing results with a fervor that rivaled a detective unraveling a case in a noir film.
Simultaneously, we delved into the repository of petroleum consumption in Lithuania, sourced from the Energy Information Administration. Unraveling the cryptic patterns of fuel usage in the Baltic nation, we adopted a meticulous approach akin to that of an oil baron examining potential drilling sites, carefully scrutinizing the fluctuations in gasoline, diesel, and other petroleum product consumption.
With these comprehensive datasets in hand, we ventured into the whimsical world of statistical analysis. Applying regression models with the cautious enthusiasm of a tightrope walker navigating a statistical circus, we sought to discern any semblance of a pattern or correlation between these seemingly unrelated variables.
Utilizing advanced statistical software and a touch of technological sorcery, we generated scatter plots that resembled celestial constellations, daring to connect the dots between Iowa's libertarian voting proclivities and Lithuania's petroleum predilections. The resulting visual tapestry painted a picture that, much like abstract art, required a discerning eye to perceive the hidden harmony within the chaos of data points.
In a bid to account for the spatial intricacies of this improbable relationship, we employed spatial modeling techniques that transformed mere data points into a virtual cartographic adventure. With the precision of a cartographer mapping uncharted territories, we endeavored to trace the intricate pathways that clandestinely linked the heartland of the United States to the shores of the Baltic Sea.
Furthermore, we conducted a series of robustness checks, akin to stress-testing a scientific hypothesis, to validate the resilience of our findings. These checks involved sensitivity analyses, sub-sample analyses, and a thorough examination of potential confounding variables, ensuring that our conclusions stood firm against the gales of statistical skepticism.
As our statistical safari reached its zenith, we unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, causing even the most stoic researchers to raise an incredulous eyebrow. With a p-value that shimmered like a scientific gemstone – less than 0.01 – our findings defied conventional expectations, prompting a collective gasp of astonishment from the academic auditorium.
In the end, our methodological odyssey through the maze of mathematical machinations and data-driven divination not only uncovered an unlikely liaison between Iowa's Libertarian votes and Lithuania's petroleum consumption but also served as a testament to the capricious nature of statistical exploration. As we tiptoed through the quirky corridors of data, our methodology embraced the unexpected, inviting fellow scholars to partake in our whimsical pursuit of statistical revelation.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroluem consumption in Lithuania. 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 Energy Information Administration .
For the time period 1992 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9483479, r-squared of 0.8993637, 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]]
"A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unlikely relationship between the voting patterns of libertarians in Iowa and the consumption of petroleum in Lithuania. Leveraging data from reputable sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team aimed to uncover a correlation that had thus far eluded scholarly investigation. To the surprise of many, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, with a p-value less than 0.01, spanning the years 1992 to 2020.
While the link between the two seemingly unrelated entities may raise eyebrows, our findings present a compelling case for further exploration and examination of potential underlying mechanisms. Our study not only sheds light on the interconnectedness of disparate global phenomena but also serves as a testament to the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of causation, it is essential to remain open to the unexpected and embrace the quirkiness that often accompanies scholarly pursuit.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the realm of statistical analysis, one often encounters serendipitous connections that leave even the most seasoned researchers scratching their heads in disbelief. It is in this spirit of academic curiosity – and perhaps a dash of whimsy – that we embark on a rather unconventional investigation into the curious correlation between the libertarian vote in Iowa and petroleum consumption in Lithuania. While this may seem like the opening act of a statistical circus, our research delves into the unexpected and challenges conventional wisdom, all in the pursuit of shedding light on the enigmatic dance of data.
The study at hand emerges from a confluence of skepticism and intrigue, sparked by a casual perusal of disparate datasets that captured our imagination and beckoned us to unravel their cryptic ties. With an assortment of spreadsheets, pivot tables, and a healthy dose of caffeinated beverages, we set out to scour the archives of electoral politics and energy consumption, weaving a narrative that transcends borders, ideologies, and, quite possibly, the boundaries of rational explanation.
As we traverse the terrain of statistical analysis, it is imperative to recognize the intricate dance between correlation and causation, all while embracing the whimsical antics of variables that often operate beyond the confines of human logic. While some may dismiss such endeavors as statistical escapades into the realm of absurdity, we firmly believe that within the labyrinthine landscape of data, improbable links may hold the key to unraveling the mysteries that lie just beyond our current understanding.
For the uninitiated, the notion of correlating the voting inclinations of libertarian-minded individuals in the heartlands of America with the petroleum-propelled pursuits of inhabitants on the shores of the Baltic Sea may elicit a wry smile or a quizzical arched eyebrow. However, as our journey through the twisting corridors of data unfolds, we invite you to join us in embracing the unexpected, the peculiar, and the occasionally preposterous, for it is within these uncharted territories of statistical inquiry that the seeds of revelation often sprout.
With this spirit of scholarly lightheartedness, we plunge headlong into the crucible of correlation, armed with regression analyses and scatter plots, all in pursuit of uncovering the unlikely nexus between the ballot box in Iowa and the gas pumps in Lithuania. As we navigate this peculiar terrain, we encourage the reader to maintain an open mind and a discerning eye, for in the unfurling tapestry of statistical discovery, one never knows where the next surprising twist – much like an unexpected punchline – may emerge.
Armed with a healthy dose of skepticism and a pinch of academic audacity, we invite you to join us on this capricious journey through the corridors of causation, as we seek to unearth the unexpected and celebrate the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our unorthodox investigation into the correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroleum consumption in Lithuania unfurled with an unexpectedly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, indicating a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding, with an r-squared value of 0.8993637, implies that a substantial portion of the variability in petroleum consumption in Lithuania can be explained by the voting patterns of libertarians in Iowa. Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 serves as further evidence of the robustness of this correlation.
Fig. 1 illustrates a scatterplot depicting the striking correlation between the two variables. The data points align themselves in a manner reminiscent of a synchronized dance, underscoring the unanticipated synchronicity between these disparate phenomena. One might even say they are "petroleum buddies" in a statistical tango, waltzing across the graph with an undeniable rhythm that defies conventional expectations.
It is worth noting that while correlation does not imply causation, and we must exercise caution in inferring direct causative relationships from these results, the strength of the correlation does beckon further inquiry into the underlying mechanisms at play. The libertarian spirit in Iowa may be resonating with the petrol pursuits in Lithuania in ways that defy conventional logic, serving as a testament to the unpredictable nature of statistical exploration.
In the grand tapestry of scholarly pursuit, our findings remind us that behind the veil of seemingly incongruous variables, there may lie a web of interconnectedness that transcends traditional boundaries. As we emerge from this statistical odyssey, we are left with a newfound appreciation for the capricious nature of data and the limitless potential for unexpected connections to emerge.
Our results not only contribute to the quirky annals of statistical inquiry but also beckon future researchers to embrace the whimsical and explore the uncharted territories of correlation, causation, and the enigmatic dance of data – for it is in these unexplored realms that the seeds of revelation often sprout, much like a statistical punchline waiting to be unraveled.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroluem consumption in Lithuania. 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]]
"A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unlikely relationship between the voting patterns of libertarians in Iowa and the consumption of petroleum in Lithuania. Leveraging data from reputable sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team aimed to uncover a correlation that had thus far eluded scholarly investigation. To the surprise of many, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, with a p-value less than 0.01, spanning the years 1992 to 2020.
While the link between the two seemingly unrelated entities may raise eyebrows, our findings present a compelling case for further exploration and examination of potential underlying mechanisms. Our study not only sheds light on the interconnectedness of disparate global phenomena but also serves as a testament to the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of causation, it is essential to remain open to the unexpected and embrace the quirkiness that often accompanies scholarly pursuit.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The peculiar and seemingly far-fetched nature of our research inquiry beckons a thorough examination of existing scholarly works that may shed light on the intricate interplay between the voting proclivities of libertarians in Iowa and the petroleum consumption habits of individuals residing in Lithuania. While the connection between these two seemingly unrelated entities may appear whimsical at first glance, our investigation demands a comprehensive survey of the academic landscape.
Smith et al. (2017) examined the behavioral patterns of libertarian voters in the Midwest and unearthed interesting insights into their ideological leanings and electoral decisions. However, their study regrettably overlooked the transcontinental repercussions of these voting behaviors, leaving our current inquiry adrift in uncharted scholarly waters.
In a similar vein, Doe (2015) delved into the energy consumption trends in Eastern Europe, with a keen focus on the Baltic region. While their analysis offered valuable perspectives on the factors influencing petroleum usage, it failed to explore the potential correlations with political dynamics in the American heartland, thus leaving a conspicuous gap in the literature.
Furthermore, Jones (2019) scrutinized the electoral dynamics in contentious swing states, including Iowa, offering a nuanced understanding of the voting behaviors within these pivotal territories. Alas, the study did not venture into the domain of global ramifications, leaving our pursuit of unexpected connections hanging in the precarious balance of scholarly anticipation.
Transitioning from the realm of serious scholarly discourse to more unconventional sources, it is worthwhile to consider the insights offered by non-fiction works on energy policy and political ideology. "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin paints a comprehensive portrait of the oil industry's impact on geopolitics, inviting intriguing speculations about the potential ripple effects of libertarian votes in the heartland of America on distant shores of the Baltic.
On a more fictional note, the dystopian narrative of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" weaves a tapestry of libertarian ideals with industrial undertones, offering a whimsical backdrop for contemplating the unexpected interconnectedness of ideology and resource consumption.
Delving into the world of animation, the antics of "Pinky and the Brain" provide a captivating allegory for the audacious pursuit of improbable feats, reflecting the spirit of our scholarly endeavors as we navigate the labyrinthine terrain of statistical inquiry.
In a similar vein, the whimsical escapades of "SpongeBob SquarePants" serve as a lighthearted reminder of the unexpected connections that may lurk beneath the surface of seemingly disparate phenomena, underscoring the playful nature of academic exploration.
As we sift through this multidimensional tapestry of literature, both serious and serendipitous, it becomes apparent that the whimsical nature of our scholarly inquiry transcends conventional boundaries, beckoning us to embrace the unexpected with scholarly aplomb and perhaps a hint of whimsical curiosity.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our unorthodox investigation into the correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroleum consumption in Lithuania unfurled with an unexpectedly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, indicating a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding, with an r-squared value of 0.8993637, implies that a substantial portion of the variability in petroleum consumption in Lithuania can be explained by the voting patterns of libertarians in Iowa. Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 serves as further evidence of the robustness of this correlation.
Fig. 1 illustrates a scatterplot depicting the striking correlation between the two variables. The data points align themselves in a manner reminiscent of a synchronized dance, underscoring the unanticipated synchronicity between these disparate phenomena. One might even say they are "petroleum buddies" in a statistical tango, waltzing across the graph with an undeniable rhythm that defies conventional expectations.
It is worth noting that while correlation does not imply causation, and we must exercise caution in inferring direct causative relationships from these results, the strength of the correlation does beckon further inquiry into the underlying mechanisms at play. The libertarian spirit in Iowa may be resonating with the petrol pursuits in Lithuania in ways that defy conventional logic, serving as a testament to the unpredictable nature of statistical exploration.
In the grand tapestry of scholarly pursuit, our findings remind us that behind the veil of seemingly incongruous variables, there may lie a web of interconnectedness that transcends traditional boundaries. As we emerge from this statistical odyssey, we are left with a newfound appreciation for the capricious nature of data and the limitless potential for unexpected connections to emerge.
Our results not only contribute to the quirky annals of statistical inquiry but also beckon future researchers to embrace the whimsical and explore the uncharted territories of correlation, causation, and the enigmatic dance of data – for it is in these unexplored realms that the seeds of revelation often sprout, much like a statistical punchline waiting to be unraveled.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
Our findings present a peculiar yet compelling case for the existence of a substantial relationship between the voting behaviors of libertarians in Iowa and the petroleum consumption habits in Lithuania. The robust correlation coefficient, reminiscent of a statistical puzzle with a quirky twist, aligns with the curious conjectures put forth by Doe (2015) regarding the potential transcontinental repercussions of energy consumption trends. While our study may seem like the unlikely premise of a whimsical sitcom, it crucially captures the essence of statistical quirkiness that underscores the colorful landscape of scholarly pursuit.
Building upon the unorthodox foundation laid by Smith et al. (2017), our results provide empirical support for the unforeseen global ramifications of libertarian voting proclivities, painting a veritable canvas of statistical whimsy that transcends geographical confines. The resilient correlation, akin to a statistical friendship that defies geographical boundaries, underscores the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate global phenomena in a manner that mirrors the audacious escapades of "Pinky and the Brain."
It is noteworthy that our study's findings resonate with the spirit of scholarly exploration encapsulated in "SpongeBob SquarePants," inviting researchers to embrace the unanticipated with scholarly aplomb, while also underscoring the whimsical nature of academic inquiry. The dance of data, portrayed eloquently through our scatterplot, is akin to a novel statistical tango, wherein the voting behaviors of libertarians in Iowa and petroleum consumption in Lithuania engage in an enigmatic dance of correlation.
While the inherent caution of attributing causation to correlation remains paramount, our results open the door to further scholarly inquiry into the undercurrents that may bind these seemingly unrelated variables. The unexpected synchronicity between these variables not only defies conventional expectations but also propels the scholarly community to embrace the capricious nature of statistical exploration with a hint of statistical curiosity and perhaps a dash of whimsy.
In conclusion, while our study may seem like a statistical punchline waiting to be unraveled, it stands as a testament to the inexhaustible potential for unexpected connections to emerge in the annals of scholarly pursuit. As we navigate the uncharted territories of correlation, causation, and the whimsical dance of data, our findings serve as a playful reminder of the quirky side of statistical exploration and beckon future researchers to embark on their own whimsical statistical odysseys.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroluem consumption in Lithuania. 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]]
"A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the unlikely relationship between the voting patterns of libertarians in Iowa and the consumption of petroleum in Lithuania. Leveraging data from reputable sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team aimed to uncover a correlation that had thus far eluded scholarly investigation. To the surprise of many, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, with a p-value less than 0.01, spanning the years 1992 to 2020.
While the link between the two seemingly unrelated entities may raise eyebrows, our findings present a compelling case for further exploration and examination of potential underlying mechanisms. Our study not only sheds light on the interconnectedness of disparate global phenomena but also serves as a testament to the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of causation, it is essential to remain open to the unexpected and embrace the quirkiness that often accompanies scholarly pursuit.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the realm of statistical analysis, one often encounters serendipitous connections that leave even the most seasoned researchers scratching their heads in disbelief. It is in this spirit of academic curiosity – and perhaps a dash of whimsy – that we embark on a rather unconventional investigation into the curious correlation between the libertarian vote in Iowa and petroleum consumption in Lithuania. While this may seem like the opening act of a statistical circus, our research delves into the unexpected and challenges conventional wisdom, all in the pursuit of shedding light on the enigmatic dance of data.
The study at hand emerges from a confluence of skepticism and intrigue, sparked by a casual perusal of disparate datasets that captured our imagination and beckoned us to unravel their cryptic ties. With an assortment of spreadsheets, pivot tables, and a healthy dose of caffeinated beverages, we set out to scour the archives of electoral politics and energy consumption, weaving a narrative that transcends borders, ideologies, and, quite possibly, the boundaries of rational explanation.
As we traverse the terrain of statistical analysis, it is imperative to recognize the intricate dance between correlation and causation, all while embracing the whimsical antics of variables that often operate beyond the confines of human logic. While some may dismiss such endeavors as statistical escapades into the realm of absurdity, we firmly believe that within the labyrinthine landscape of data, improbable links may hold the key to unraveling the mysteries that lie just beyond our current understanding.
For the uninitiated, the notion of correlating the voting inclinations of libertarian-minded individuals in the heartlands of America with the petroleum-propelled pursuits of inhabitants on the shores of the Baltic Sea may elicit a wry smile or a quizzical arched eyebrow. However, as our journey through the twisting corridors of data unfolds, we invite you to join us in embracing the unexpected, the peculiar, and the occasionally preposterous, for it is within these uncharted territories of statistical inquiry that the seeds of revelation often sprout.
With this spirit of scholarly lightheartedness, we plunge headlong into the crucible of correlation, armed with regression analyses and scatter plots, all in pursuit of uncovering the unlikely nexus between the ballot box in Iowa and the gas pumps in Lithuania. As we navigate this peculiar terrain, we encourage the reader to maintain an open mind and a discerning eye, for in the unfurling tapestry of statistical discovery, one never knows where the next surprising twist – much like an unexpected punchline – may emerge.
Armed with a healthy dose of skepticism and a pinch of academic audacity, we invite you to join us on this capricious journey through the corridors of causation, as we seek to unearth the unexpected and celebrate the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our unorthodox investigation into the correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators in Iowa and Petroleum consumption in Lithuania unfurled with an unexpectedly robust correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, indicating a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding, with an r-squared value of 0.8993637, implies that a substantial portion of the variability in petroleum consumption in Lithuania can be explained by the voting patterns of libertarians in Iowa. Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 serves as further evidence of the robustness of this correlation.
Fig. 1 illustrates a scatterplot depicting the striking correlation between the two variables. The data points align themselves in a manner reminiscent of a synchronized dance, underscoring the unanticipated synchronicity between these disparate phenomena. One might even say they are "petroleum buddies" in a statistical tango, waltzing across the graph with an undeniable rhythm that defies conventional expectations.
It is worth noting that while correlation does not imply causation, and we must exercise caution in inferring direct causative relationships from these results, the strength of the correlation does beckon further inquiry into the underlying mechanisms at play. The libertarian spirit in Iowa may be resonating with the petrol pursuits in Lithuania in ways that defy conventional logic, serving as a testament to the unpredictable nature of statistical exploration.
In the grand tapestry of scholarly pursuit, our findings remind us that behind the veil of seemingly incongruous variables, there may lie a web of interconnectedness that transcends traditional boundaries. As we emerge from this statistical odyssey, we are left with a newfound appreciation for the capricious nature of data and the limitless potential for unexpected connections to emerge.
Our results not only contribute to the quirky annals of statistical inquiry but also beckon future researchers to embrace the whimsical and explore the uncharted territories of correlation, causation, and the enigmatic dance of data – for it is in these unexplored realms that the seeds of revelation often sprout, much like a statistical punchline waiting to be unraveled.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our investigation has unearthed a remarkable correlation between the libertarian vote in Iowa and petroleum consumption in Lithuania. The robustness of the correlation coefficient has left us in awe, much like stumbling upon a unicorn in the world of statistical analyses – a mythical creature that defies conventional expectations and leaves a trail of mesmerizing scatterplots in its wake.
While our findings indeed raise eyebrows and prompt a chuckle or two in the hallowed halls of academia, they also serve as a poignant reminder of the enigmatic dance of data. The unexpected synchronicity between these variables stands as a testament to the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry, reminding us that behind every regression analysis and p-value lurks the potential for unanticipated connections and statistical surprises.
It is vital to note that correlation does not entail causation, and we must tread cautiously in attributing direct influences between these variables. Nonetheless, the peculiar bond between the libertarian ethos of Iowa and the petroleum predilections of Lithuania beckons further exploration, much like an enticing riddle waiting to be unraveled in a statistical treasure hunt.
As we bid adieu to this peculiar odyssey through the corridors of correlation, we implore future researchers to embrace the unexpected, celebrate the offbeat, and chase after correlations that may seem as elusive as a statistical pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. In this spirit, we assert that no further investigation is needed in this singularly obscure avenue of statistical exploration – for within its curious confines lies a whimsical tale that has left an indelible mark on the quirky landscape of scholarly inquiry.
In the immortal words of Data, from Star Trek: The Next Generation, "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life." And in the whimsical world of statistical inquiry, sometimes it is the unexpected correlation that leaves a lasting impression, much like an inside joke shared among the devotees of scholarly whimsy.
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 A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Eccentric Political Science
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Society for International Energy Research and Policy (SIERP)
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 A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania with an abstract of This study delves into the unlikely relationship between the voting patterns of libertarians in Iowa and the consumption of petroleum in Lithuania. Leveraging data from reputable sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team aimed to uncover a correlation that had thus far eluded scholarly investigation. To the surprise of many, our analysis revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9483479, with a p-value less than 0.01, spanning the years 1992 to 2020.
While the link between the two seemingly unrelated entities may raise eyebrows, our findings present a compelling case for further exploration and examination of potential underlying mechanisms. Our study not only sheds light on the interconnectedness of disparate global phenomena but also serves as a testament to the whimsical nature of statistical inquiry. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of causation, it is essential to remain open to the unexpected and embrace the quirkiness that often accompanies scholarly pursuit.
ChatGPT:
libertarian vote, Iowa, petroleum consumption, Lithuania, correlation, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Energy Information Administration, correlation coefficient, statistical analysis, causation, global phenomena
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Votes for Libertarian Senators in IowaDetailed data title: Total number of votes cast for Federal Libertarian Senate candidates in Iowa
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for Libertarian Senators in Iowa
Petroluem consumption in Lithuania
Detailed data title: Volume of petroluem consumption consumed in Lithuania in millions of barrels per day
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Petroluem consumption in Lithuania
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 = 0.8993637 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 89.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Petroluem consumption in Lithuania) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Libertarian Senators in Iowa) over the 6 years from 1992 through 2020.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0039. 0.0039330125649226120000000000
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 0.95 in 0.39% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 254 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.
[ 0.59, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.
This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!
All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.
Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
| 2002 | 2004 | 2010 | 2014 | 2016 | 2020 | |
| Votes for Libertarian Senators in Iowa (Total votes) | 8864 | 15218 | 25290 | 8232 | 41794 | 36961 |
| Petroluem consumption in Lithuania (Million Barrels/Day) | 52.7425 | 54.5492 | 55.7534 | 52.2603 | 61.6612 | 63.9344 |
Why this works
- Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
- Lack of causal connection: There is probably
Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied. - Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is. - 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.
- 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([8864,15218,25290,8232,41794,36961,])
array_2 = np.array([52.7425,54.5492,55.7534,52.2603,61.6612,63.9344,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Libertarian Senators in Iowa"
array_2_name = "Petroluem consumption in Lithuania"
# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)
# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)Reuseable content
You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.
For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."
When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.
Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.
Download images for these variables:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only Votes for Libertarian Senators in Iowa
- Line chart for only Petroluem consumption in Lithuania
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: A Crude Connection: The Libertarian Vote in Iowa and Petroleum Consumption in Lithuania
Your correlation inspection deserves a standing ovation!
Correlation ID: 4901 · Black Variable ID: 26238 · Red Variable ID: 24639
