about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,993 · 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 California and the second variable is The number of petroleum engineers in California.  The chart goes from 2003 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The Democratic senators must have really fueled the demand for petroleum engineers, leading to a gush of new job opportunities! With their support for environmental policies, it's no surprise that the need for innovative engineers in the petroleum industry has risen. It's like they say, when it comes to voting and engineering, the stakes are always high!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a bustling California city with a muted color palette, reminiscent of a comic book style from the 1960s. Show a line of voters wearing "I Voted" stickers casting their ballots for Democratic senators. In the distance, depict a cluster of oil rigs and petroleum engineering facilities standing tall, with workers busy at their innovative tasks. The illustration should capture the intersection of political engagement and the rise in demand for petroleum engineers, showcasing the dynamic link between voting and engineering opportunities. The overall scene should be visually striking and evoke a sense of vintage comic book art, with a dotted halftone pattern adding depth and texture to the image. 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 California and The number of petroleum engineers in California. 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: a funny image you would see on reddit A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s Pop art a funny image you would see on reddit Art nouveau
ChatGPT: A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s

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 California and The number of petroleum engineers in California, in the following situation: The Democratic senators must have really fueled the demand for petroleum engineers, leading to a gush of new job opportunities! With their support for environmental policies, it's no surprise that the need for innovative engineers in the petroleum industry has risen. It's like they say, when it comes to voting and engineering, the stakes are always high!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling California city, we see a line of voters wearing "I Voted" stickers, casting their ballots for Democratic senators. In the distance, a cluster of oil rigs and petroleum engineering facilities stand tall, with workers busy at their innovative tasks. The scene captures the intersection of political engagement and the rise in demand for petroleum engineers, showcasing the dynamic link between voting and engineering opportunities.

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 comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling California city, we see a line of voters wearing "I Voted" stickers, casting their ballots for Democratic senators. In the distance, a cluster of oil rigs and petroleum engineering facilities stand tall, with workers busy at their innovative tasks. The scene captures the intersection of political engagement and the rise in demand for petroleum engineers, showcasing the dynamic link between voting and engineering opportunities. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a bustling California city with a muted color palette, reminiscent of a comic book style from the 1960s. Show a line of voters wearing "I Voted" stickers casting their ballots for Democratic senators. In the distance, depict a cluster of oil rigs and petroleum engineering facilities standing tall, with workers busy at their innovative tasks. The illustration should capture the intersection of political engagement and the rise in demand for petroleum engineers, showcasing the dynamic link between voting and engineering opportunities. The overall scene should be visually striking and evoke a sense of vintage comic book art, with a dotted halftone pattern adding depth and texture to the image.

*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 California caused The number of petroleum engineers in California to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Drilling Down: The Political and Petroleum Connection in California

The Journal of Petro-Political Research

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 researcher writing an academic paper.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 California and The number of petroleum engineers in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9783608 and p < 0.01 for 2003 to 2018.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Drilling Down: The Political and Petroleum Connection in California"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the complex relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. Our research team has employed a robust analysis using data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover the underlying patterns. Surprisingly, we found a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9783608 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2018. It seems that when it comes to political leanings and petroleum, there's more than meets the oil!

Our findings suggest that there is indeed a strong link between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of petroleum engineers in California. It's as if the political landscape is directly related to the black gold beneath the ground. This correlation raises thought-provoking questions about the intersection of politics and energy. But fear not, we won't drill you with too many statistics; our conclusions are as solid as a well-cemented casing!

To add a touch of humor to our research, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why do petroleum engineers enjoy political debates? Because they're used to dealing with crude oil every day, and politicians keep giving them a run for their money! With this lighthearted note, we invite readers to join us in uncovering the fascinating connection between voter behavior and the petroleum industry in the Golden State.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 California and The number of petroleum engineers in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Drilling Down: The Political and Petroleum Connection in California"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the complex relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. Our research team has employed a robust analysis using data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover the underlying patterns. Surprisingly, we found a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9783608 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2018. It seems that when it comes to political leanings and petroleum, there's more than meets the oil!

Our findings suggest that there is indeed a strong link between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of petroleum engineers in California. It's as if the political landscape is directly related to the black gold beneath the ground. This correlation raises thought-provoking questions about the intersection of politics and energy. But fear not, we won't drill you with too many statistics; our conclusions are as solid as a well-cemented casing!

To add a touch of humor to our research, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why do petroleum engineers enjoy political debates? Because they're used to dealing with crude oil every day, and politicians keep giving them a run for their money! With this lighthearted note, we invite readers to join us in uncovering the fascinating connection between voter behavior and the petroleum industry in the Golden State.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The intersection of politics and petroleum has long been a subject of intrigue and speculation, akin to the age-old question of whether oil and water truly mix. In our research, we set out to unravel the enigmatic correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state, and it's safe to say that our findings struck oil. As we dug deeper into the data, we found that this relationship is more than just a crude coincidence - it's as real as the friction between two well-worn drill pipe sections.

Delving into the dichotomy between voter preferences and the presence of petroleum professionals, our study reveals a startling connection that some may find as surprising as discovering an untapped oil reserve in their own backyard. It seems that the political landscape in California is not just colored by blue and red; it's also drenched in the black gold that fuels our modern society. It's almost as if every election is a seismic event, generating waves of influence that ripple through both the political and energy sectors.

Speaking of seismic events, here's a joke to shake things up: Why don't petroleum engineers ever get lost? Because they have a well-defined sense of direction, and they're always drilling down to the root of the problem! Much like our research, this punchline may seem to have a bit of fracturing humor, but it's all in good geological – er, rhetorical – fun.

Our paper not only provides insightful statistical analysis but also offers an engaging perspective on the quirky relationship between political preferences and occupational choices in the petroleum industry. By infusing our findings with a dash of humor, we hope to ignite readers' curiosity about the intriguing dynamics at play. After all, isn't it refreshing to explore serious research with a light-hearted twist? This study is a testament to the fact that even in the world of data and demographics, there's always room for a well-placed pun or two.

As we embark on this intellectual journey, let's remember that beneath the layers of statistical analyses and electoral maps lies a connection that's as solid as bedrock – and just as worthy of exploration. With that in mind, we invite you to join us in uncovering the complex and captivating interplay between political choices and the world of petroleum engineering in the colorful and ever-surprising state of California. As the saying goes, let's dig deeper – both figuratively and literally – and see what we strike. And speaking of striking, here's a lighthearted thought: If a petroleum engineer was in charge of a political campaign, they'd undoubtedly be a "well-oiled" candidate!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 California and The number of petroleum engineers in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
"Drilling Down: The Political and Petroleum Connection in California"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the complex relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. Our research team has employed a robust analysis using data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover the underlying patterns. Surprisingly, we found a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9783608 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2018. It seems that when it comes to political leanings and petroleum, there's more than meets the oil!

Our findings suggest that there is indeed a strong link between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of petroleum engineers in California. It's as if the political landscape is directly related to the black gold beneath the ground. This correlation raises thought-provoking questions about the intersection of politics and energy. But fear not, we won't drill you with too many statistics; our conclusions are as solid as a well-cemented casing!

To add a touch of humor to our research, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why do petroleum engineers enjoy political debates? Because they're used to dealing with crude oil every day, and politicians keep giving them a run for their money! With this lighthearted note, we invite readers to join us in uncovering the fascinating connection between voter behavior and the petroleum industry in the Golden State.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and petroleum has long been a subject of intrigue and speculation, akin to the age-old question of whether oil and water truly mix. In our research, we set out to unravel the enigmatic correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state, and it's safe to say that our findings struck oil. As we dug deeper into the data, we found that this relationship is more than just a crude coincidence - it's as real as the friction between two well-worn drill pipe sections.
Delving into the dichotomy between voter preferences and the presence of petroleum professionals, our study reveals a startling connection that some may find as surprising as discovering an untapped oil reserve in their own backyard. It seems that the political landscape in California is not just colored by blue and red; it's also drenched in the black gold that fuels our modern society. It's almost as if every election is a seismic event, generating waves of influence that ripple through both the political and energy sectors.
Speaking of seismic events, here's a joke to shake things up: Why don't petroleum engineers ever get lost? Because they have a well-defined sense of direction, and they're always drilling down to the root of the problem! Much like our research, this punchline may seem to have a bit of fracturing humor, but it's all in good geological – er, rhetorical – fun.
Our paper not only provides insightful statistical analysis but also offers an engaging perspective on the quirky relationship between political preferences and occupational choices in the petroleum industry. By infusing our findings with a dash of humor, we hope to ignite readers' curiosity about the intriguing dynamics at play. After all, isn't it refreshing to explore serious research with a light-hearted twist? This study is a testament to the fact that even in the world of data and demographics, there's always room for a well-placed pun or two.
As we embark on this intellectual journey, let's remember that beneath the layers of statistical analyses and electoral maps lies a connection that's as solid as bedrock – and just as worthy of exploration. With that in mind, we invite you to join us in uncovering the complex and captivating interplay between political choices and the world of petroleum engineering in the colorful and ever-surprising state of California. As the saying goes, let's dig deeper – both figuratively and literally – and see what we strike. And speaking of striking, here's a lighthearted thought: If a petroleum engineer was in charge of a political campaign, they'd undoubtedly be a "well-oiled" candidate!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Previous studies have explored the multifaceted relationship between political landscapes and occupational distributions, but few have ventured into the intriguing intersection of Democrat votes for Senators and the number of petroleum engineers in the vibrant state of California. Smith et al. (2015) examined the correlation between electoral preferences and regional employment trends, shedding light on the intricate dynamics at play. Likewise, Doe's comprehensive analysis (2017) offered valuable insights into the sociopolitical factors influencing occupational decisions within the energy sector. These scholarly works paved the way for a closer examination of the apparent nexus between political affiliations and the presence of petroleum professionals, prompting our team to embark on this illuminating investigation.

Now, turning to a different kind of drilling - the comedic variety, here's a dad joke for you: Why don't petroleum engineers ever hide in a bush during an election? Because they prefer the spotlight to be on oil fields, not fielding questions about policies! As we navigate this literature review, it's essential to blend serious scholarly discourse with a touch of levity, much like the delicate balance of oil and water in a centrifuge.

In "Election Patterns and Occupational Clusters," the authors find that the political landscape in California exhibits a compelling relationship with the distribution of petroleum engineers across the state, hinting at an intrinsic link between voting behaviors and career trajectories (Jones, 2019). This insightful work underscores the significance of understanding the nuanced interplay between political inclinations and occupational preferences, a theme that permeates our current investigation.

Exploring the theme of energy and its societal implications often brings to mind non-fiction works such as "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power" by Daniel Yergin and "The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World" by Daniel Yergin, both illuminating the convoluted history and global impact of the petroleum industry. While these tomes provide invaluable knowledge, they lack the playful charm of a well-crafted dad joke – a valuable tool in any researcher's arsenal.

Transitioning to a less conventional source of inspiration, fictional narratives can offer intriguing perspectives on the intersection of politics and energy. "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and "Oil!" by Upton Sinclair, though works of fiction, raise thought-provoking questions about the intertwining forces of ideology and industrial endeavors. In between the chapters of these weighty novels, a lighthearted quip or pun might offer a welcome respite from the weighty thematic explorations.

As we venture even further into unexpected territory, cartoon characters and children's shows unexpectedly lend themselves to the research process. Take, for example, the industriousness of the "Paw Patrol" as they navigate the complexities of rescue missions, reflecting the determination akin to that of petroleum engineers in their professional pursuits. And as always, a well-timed dad joke can rescue even the most serious of scholarly endeavors: What's a petroleum engineer's favorite type of music? Well, crude oil compositions, of course!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 California and The number of petroleum engineers in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2003 to 2018

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Drilling Down: The Political and Petroleum Connection in California"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the complex relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. Our research team has employed a robust analysis using data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover the underlying patterns. Surprisingly, we found a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9783608 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2018. It seems that when it comes to political leanings and petroleum, there's more than meets the oil!

Our findings suggest that there is indeed a strong link between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of petroleum engineers in California. It's as if the political landscape is directly related to the black gold beneath the ground. This correlation raises thought-provoking questions about the intersection of politics and energy. But fear not, we won't drill you with too many statistics; our conclusions are as solid as a well-cemented casing!

To add a touch of humor to our research, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why do petroleum engineers enjoy political debates? Because they're used to dealing with crude oil every day, and politicians keep giving them a run for their money! With this lighthearted note, we invite readers to join us in uncovering the fascinating connection between voter behavior and the petroleum industry in the Golden State.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and petroleum has long been a subject of intrigue and speculation, akin to the age-old question of whether oil and water truly mix. In our research, we set out to unravel the enigmatic correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state, and it's safe to say that our findings struck oil. As we dug deeper into the data, we found that this relationship is more than just a crude coincidence - it's as real as the friction between two well-worn drill pipe sections.
Delving into the dichotomy between voter preferences and the presence of petroleum professionals, our study reveals a startling connection that some may find as surprising as discovering an untapped oil reserve in their own backyard. It seems that the political landscape in California is not just colored by blue and red; it's also drenched in the black gold that fuels our modern society. It's almost as if every election is a seismic event, generating waves of influence that ripple through both the political and energy sectors.
Speaking of seismic events, here's a joke to shake things up: Why don't petroleum engineers ever get lost? Because they have a well-defined sense of direction, and they're always drilling down to the root of the problem! Much like our research, this punchline may seem to have a bit of fracturing humor, but it's all in good geological – er, rhetorical – fun.
Our paper not only provides insightful statistical analysis but also offers an engaging perspective on the quirky relationship between political preferences and occupational choices in the petroleum industry. By infusing our findings with a dash of humor, we hope to ignite readers' curiosity about the intriguing dynamics at play. After all, isn't it refreshing to explore serious research with a light-hearted twist? This study is a testament to the fact that even in the world of data and demographics, there's always room for a well-placed pun or two.
As we embark on this intellectual journey, let's remember that beneath the layers of statistical analyses and electoral maps lies a connection that's as solid as bedrock – and just as worthy of exploration. With that in mind, we invite you to join us in uncovering the complex and captivating interplay between political choices and the world of petroleum engineering in the colorful and ever-surprising state of California. As the saying goes, let's dig deeper – both figuratively and literally – and see what we strike. And speaking of striking, here's a lighthearted thought: If a petroleum engineer was in charge of a political campaign, they'd undoubtedly be a "well-oiled" candidate!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the enigmatic correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of petroleum engineers in California, our research methodology involved a systematic and thorough investigation of data spanning the period from 2003 to 2018. Our data collection process was as meticulous as checking for oil leaks, albeit with fewer wrenches and more mouse clicks! We gathered electoral data from the renowned MIT Election Data and Science Lab along with occupation statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and we delved into the treasure trove of academic resources at the Harvard Dataverse. Our research approach was as thorough as conducting a well-orchestrated drilling operation, with the data acting as our crude – no pun intended – materials for insight extraction.

In an unlikely turn of events, we found ourselves employing statistical analyses more frequently than we'd ever imagined – it’s as if we had stumbled upon an unexpected gusher of numerical data, prompting us to analyze it with the eagerness of a prospector who's struck gold. Our primary statistical tool for this investigation was correlation analysis, allowing us to gauge the strength and direction of the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators and the count of petroleum engineers in California. We even utilized a few funky regression models, although we promise we didn't regress to the mean of dad jokes during our analysis!

Additionally, we employed time-series analysis that allowed us to dig into the temporal patterns and fluctuations within the datasets. We wanted to ensure our findings represented the steady flow and ebb of the political and occupational tides, much like the waxing and waning of drilling rig activity off the coast. And while we wielded theoretical frameworks with as much care as a precision-engineered drilling bit, we also incorporated qualitative interviews with petroleum engineers and political pundits to add depth to our understanding of the intricate interplay between political preferences and career choices. We assure you, our interviews were as enlightening as striking a reservoir – without the mess, of course.

Our investigation was akin to digging for treasure – except, in this case, the treasure was a vibrant correlation between voter behavior and petroleum careers. We were determined to unearth substantial evidence of this connection, and our methodological rigor was as unwavering as a derrick might be on a windy day. The data-driven nature of our approach, coupled with the occasional whimsical dad joke, has allowed us to present an insightful and captivating analysis of the nexus between political choices and the world of petroleum engineering in the intriguing and multifaceted state of California. And speaking of multifaceted, did you hear about the geologist who won the election? They really "rocked the vote!"


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 California and The number of petroleum engineers in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 Bureau of Larbor Statistics .

For the time period 2003 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.9783608, r-squared of 0.9571898, 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]]
"Drilling Down: The Political and Petroleum Connection in California"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the complex relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. Our research team has employed a robust analysis using data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover the underlying patterns. Surprisingly, we found a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9783608 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2018. It seems that when it comes to political leanings and petroleum, there's more than meets the oil!

Our findings suggest that there is indeed a strong link between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of petroleum engineers in California. It's as if the political landscape is directly related to the black gold beneath the ground. This correlation raises thought-provoking questions about the intersection of politics and energy. But fear not, we won't drill you with too many statistics; our conclusions are as solid as a well-cemented casing!

To add a touch of humor to our research, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why do petroleum engineers enjoy political debates? Because they're used to dealing with crude oil every day, and politicians keep giving them a run for their money! With this lighthearted note, we invite readers to join us in uncovering the fascinating connection between voter behavior and the petroleum industry in the Golden State.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of politics and petroleum has long been a subject of intrigue and speculation, akin to the age-old question of whether oil and water truly mix. In our research, we set out to unravel the enigmatic correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state, and it's safe to say that our findings struck oil. As we dug deeper into the data, we found that this relationship is more than just a crude coincidence - it's as real as the friction between two well-worn drill pipe sections.
Delving into the dichotomy between voter preferences and the presence of petroleum professionals, our study reveals a startling connection that some may find as surprising as discovering an untapped oil reserve in their own backyard. It seems that the political landscape in California is not just colored by blue and red; it's also drenched in the black gold that fuels our modern society. It's almost as if every election is a seismic event, generating waves of influence that ripple through both the political and energy sectors.
Speaking of seismic events, here's a joke to shake things up: Why don't petroleum engineers ever get lost? Because they have a well-defined sense of direction, and they're always drilling down to the root of the problem! Much like our research, this punchline may seem to have a bit of fracturing humor, but it's all in good geological – er, rhetorical – fun.
Our paper not only provides insightful statistical analysis but also offers an engaging perspective on the quirky relationship between political preferences and occupational choices in the petroleum industry. By infusing our findings with a dash of humor, we hope to ignite readers' curiosity about the intriguing dynamics at play. After all, isn't it refreshing to explore serious research with a light-hearted twist? This study is a testament to the fact that even in the world of data and demographics, there's always room for a well-placed pun or two.
As we embark on this intellectual journey, let's remember that beneath the layers of statistical analyses and electoral maps lies a connection that's as solid as bedrock – and just as worthy of exploration. With that in mind, we invite you to join us in uncovering the complex and captivating interplay between political choices and the world of petroleum engineering in the colorful and ever-surprising state of California. As the saying goes, let's dig deeper – both figuratively and literally – and see what we strike. And speaking of striking, here's a lighthearted thought: If a petroleum engineer was in charge of a political campaign, they'd undoubtedly be a "well-oiled" candidate!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our analysis revealed a strong and statistically significant correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. From 2003 to 2018, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9783608, an r-squared value of 0.9571898, and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a highly significant relationship. It's safe to say we hit a gusher with this discovery, proving that there's more than just political tension and crude jokes brewing beneath the surface of California's electoral landscape.

Fig. 1 shows the scatterplot representing the unmistakable correlation between these two variables, reinforced by the strength of the relationship. The figure speaks for itself - much like a well-drilled borehole, the data makes a compelling case for the interconnectedness of political affiliations and the presence of petroleum engineers. It seems that political motives and petro-professional pursuits dance together like partners in a black gold rush, leaving us to wonder: is it truly a case of like attracts like, or is there a deeper, unseen force at play?

Inserting a bit of humor amid our scientific rigor, here's a lighthearted nod to the curious link we've unraveled: Why don't petroleum engineers ever play hide and seek? Because good luck hiding when you're as prolific as California's oil wells, and the Senate votes keep you in plain sight! Just as our research aims to shed light on the unexpected connections in this domain, we invite readers to chuckle along as we delve into the uncanny entwining of political preference and professional pursuits.

Our findings open the door to a treasure trove of questions concerning the underlying reasons for this correlation. Does the political climate influence career choices in the oil industry, or do the movements of the oil industry establish the backdrop for political leanings? It's as thought-provoking as an unsolved riddle, and just as intriguing as trying to determine if it's the chicken or the egg that came first. Amidst this complex web of relationships, we've struck a balance between serious research and a light-hearted approach, much like the delicate equilibrium in an oil reservoir waiting to be unleashed.

As we conclude this section with a playful twist, here's a parting pun: If a petroleum engineer debates the validity of this correlation, they'd probably say, "The data doesn't lie; it's as clear as a freshly extracted petroleum sample!" The journey to uncover these intricate connections has been nothing short of enlightening, and we hope our findings ignite a spark of curiosity and amusement in our readers. After all, when it comes to blending academia with a touch of levity, the results are as rich as a barrel of Texas Tea!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 California and The number of petroleum engineers in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
"Drilling Down: The Political and Petroleum Connection in California"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the complex relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. Our research team has employed a robust analysis using data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover the underlying patterns. Surprisingly, we found a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9783608 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2018. It seems that when it comes to political leanings and petroleum, there's more than meets the oil!

Our findings suggest that there is indeed a strong link between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of petroleum engineers in California. It's as if the political landscape is directly related to the black gold beneath the ground. This correlation raises thought-provoking questions about the intersection of politics and energy. But fear not, we won't drill you with too many statistics; our conclusions are as solid as a well-cemented casing!

To add a touch of humor to our research, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why do petroleum engineers enjoy political debates? Because they're used to dealing with crude oil every day, and politicians keep giving them a run for their money! With this lighthearted note, we invite readers to join us in uncovering the fascinating connection between voter behavior and the petroleum industry in the Golden State.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Previous studies have explored the multifaceted relationship between political landscapes and occupational distributions, but few have ventured into the intriguing intersection of Democrat votes for Senators and the number of petroleum engineers in the vibrant state of California. Smith et al. (2015) examined the correlation between electoral preferences and regional employment trends, shedding light on the intricate dynamics at play. Likewise, Doe's comprehensive analysis (2017) offered valuable insights into the sociopolitical factors influencing occupational decisions within the energy sector. These scholarly works paved the way for a closer examination of the apparent nexus between political affiliations and the presence of petroleum professionals, prompting our team to embark on this illuminating investigation.
Now, turning to a different kind of drilling - the comedic variety, here's a dad joke for you: Why don't petroleum engineers ever hide in a bush during an election? Because they prefer the spotlight to be on oil fields, not fielding questions about policies! As we navigate this literature review, it's essential to blend serious scholarly discourse with a touch of levity, much like the delicate balance of oil and water in a centrifuge.
In "Election Patterns and Occupational Clusters," the authors find that the political landscape in California exhibits a compelling relationship with the distribution of petroleum engineers across the state, hinting at an intrinsic link between voting behaviors and career trajectories (Jones, 2019). This insightful work underscores the significance of understanding the nuanced interplay between political inclinations and occupational preferences, a theme that permeates our current investigation.
Exploring the theme of energy and its societal implications often brings to mind non-fiction works such as "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power" by Daniel Yergin and "The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World" by Daniel Yergin, both illuminating the convoluted history and global impact of the petroleum industry. While these tomes provide invaluable knowledge, they lack the playful charm of a well-crafted dad joke – a valuable tool in any researcher's arsenal.
Transitioning to a less conventional source of inspiration, fictional narratives can offer intriguing perspectives on the intersection of politics and energy. "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and "Oil!" by Upton Sinclair, though works of fiction, raise thought-provoking questions about the intertwining forces of ideology and industrial endeavors. In between the chapters of these weighty novels, a lighthearted quip or pun might offer a welcome respite from the weighty thematic explorations.
As we venture even further into unexpected territory, cartoon characters and children's shows unexpectedly lend themselves to the research process. Take, for example, the industriousness of the "Paw Patrol" as they navigate the complexities of rescue missions, reflecting the determination akin to that of petroleum engineers in their professional pursuits. And as always, a well-timed dad joke can rescue even the most serious of scholarly endeavors: What's a petroleum engineer's favorite type of music? Well, crude oil compositions, of course!

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis revealed a strong and statistically significant correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. From 2003 to 2018, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9783608, an r-squared value of 0.9571898, and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a highly significant relationship. It's safe to say we hit a gusher with this discovery, proving that there's more than just political tension and crude jokes brewing beneath the surface of California's electoral landscape.
Fig. 1 shows the scatterplot representing the unmistakable correlation between these two variables, reinforced by the strength of the relationship. The figure speaks for itself - much like a well-drilled borehole, the data makes a compelling case for the interconnectedness of political affiliations and the presence of petroleum engineers. It seems that political motives and petro-professional pursuits dance together like partners in a black gold rush, leaving us to wonder: is it truly a case of like attracts like, or is there a deeper, unseen force at play?
Inserting a bit of humor amid our scientific rigor, here's a lighthearted nod to the curious link we've unraveled: Why don't petroleum engineers ever play hide and seek? Because good luck hiding when you're as prolific as California's oil wells, and the Senate votes keep you in plain sight! Just as our research aims to shed light on the unexpected connections in this domain, we invite readers to chuckle along as we delve into the uncanny entwining of political preference and professional pursuits.
Our findings open the door to a treasure trove of questions concerning the underlying reasons for this correlation. Does the political climate influence career choices in the oil industry, or do the movements of the oil industry establish the backdrop for political leanings? It's as thought-provoking as an unsolved riddle, and just as intriguing as trying to determine if it's the chicken or the egg that came first. Amidst this complex web of relationships, we've struck a balance between serious research and a light-hearted approach, much like the delicate equilibrium in an oil reservoir waiting to be unleashed.
As we conclude this section with a playful twist, here's a parting pun: If a petroleum engineer debates the validity of this correlation, they'd probably say, "The data doesn't lie; it's as clear as a freshly extracted petroleum sample!" The journey to uncover these intricate connections has been nothing short of enlightening, and we hope our findings ignite a spark of curiosity and amusement in our readers. After all, when it comes to blending academia with a touch of levity, the results are as rich as a barrel of Texas Tea!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings undeniably provide substantial support for the obscure yet substantial relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. The results echoed the prior research conducted by Smith et al. and Doe, further solidifying the existence of a fascinating correlation. It seems that in the Golden State, the political inclination for blue may lead to an uptick in the presence of petroleum professionals, creating a remarkable union akin to the seamless blend of crude oil and refined gasoline.

In alignment with the previous literature, our study substantiates the intricate dynamics at play, shedding light on the interwoven fabric of political ideologies and professional trajectories. It's as if the political landscape and the oil industry have struck a mutual agreement, not unlike two partners in a rhythmic Texas two-step, where each move complements the other in perfect harmony.

Drawing on the lighthearted wisdom shared in the literature review segment, this correlation appears to be as robust as a well-crafted dad joke, standing the test of time and evolving societal changes. Just as a cleverly timed dad joke can elicit a chuckle, our findings have sparked more than a few raised eyebrows and intrigued smiles, as researchers and readers alike ponder the whimsical connection between Senate votes and the presence of petroleum engineers.

Paying homage to the playful nature of our investigation, let's lighten the scholarly atmosphere with a humorous tidbit: Why do petroleum engineers thrive in California's political debates? Because they're adept at handling complex mixtures – whether it's political ideologies or hydrocarbon compounds! This jest injects a dash of mirth into our rigorous scientific discourse, encapsulating the essence of our investigation as a balanced blend of hard facts and cheerful banter.

Through our study, we open the floodgates for further inquiry into the underlying mechanisms driving this correlation. Is it the effect of political proclivities on career choices, or does the robust oil industry sculpt the political terrain in its own image? As we continue to unravel this complex knot, we are reminded of the perpetual conundrum—much like the timeless query of whether it's the oil or the gasoline that propels a car forward. And as in our findings, it all comes back to the essential balance, a coalescence of rigorous research and a pinch of whimsy for good measure.

Parting on a thoughtful yet playful note, let's end with a punny quip: If a petroleum engineer were to express skepticism about this correlation, they might proclaim, "The data doesn't lie; it's as clear as a freshly extracted petroleum sample!" The journey to unearth these captivating connections has been nothing short of enlightening, and we hope our discovery fuels curiosity and amusement in our readers. As the academic tower and the oil derrick stand tall, it's clear that when intellect meets levity, the fusion yields results as bountiful as a crude oil reservoir waiting to be tapped.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.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 California and The number of petroleum engineers in California. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
"Drilling Down: The Political and Petroleum Connection in California"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the complex relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. Our research team has employed a robust analysis using data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover the underlying patterns. Surprisingly, we found a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9783608 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2018. It seems that when it comes to political leanings and petroleum, there's more than meets the oil!

Our findings suggest that there is indeed a strong link between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of petroleum engineers in California. It's as if the political landscape is directly related to the black gold beneath the ground. This correlation raises thought-provoking questions about the intersection of politics and energy. But fear not, we won't drill you with too many statistics; our conclusions are as solid as a well-cemented casing!

To add a touch of humor to our research, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why do petroleum engineers enjoy political debates? Because they're used to dealing with crude oil every day, and politicians keep giving them a run for their money! With this lighthearted note, we invite readers to join us in uncovering the fascinating connection between voter behavior and the petroleum industry in the Golden State.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and petroleum has long been a subject of intrigue and speculation, akin to the age-old question of whether oil and water truly mix. In our research, we set out to unravel the enigmatic correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state, and it's safe to say that our findings struck oil. As we dug deeper into the data, we found that this relationship is more than just a crude coincidence - it's as real as the friction between two well-worn drill pipe sections.
Delving into the dichotomy between voter preferences and the presence of petroleum professionals, our study reveals a startling connection that some may find as surprising as discovering an untapped oil reserve in their own backyard. It seems that the political landscape in California is not just colored by blue and red; it's also drenched in the black gold that fuels our modern society. It's almost as if every election is a seismic event, generating waves of influence that ripple through both the political and energy sectors.
Speaking of seismic events, here's a joke to shake things up: Why don't petroleum engineers ever get lost? Because they have a well-defined sense of direction, and they're always drilling down to the root of the problem! Much like our research, this punchline may seem to have a bit of fracturing humor, but it's all in good geological – er, rhetorical – fun.
Our paper not only provides insightful statistical analysis but also offers an engaging perspective on the quirky relationship between political preferences and occupational choices in the petroleum industry. By infusing our findings with a dash of humor, we hope to ignite readers' curiosity about the intriguing dynamics at play. After all, isn't it refreshing to explore serious research with a light-hearted twist? This study is a testament to the fact that even in the world of data and demographics, there's always room for a well-placed pun or two.
As we embark on this intellectual journey, let's remember that beneath the layers of statistical analyses and electoral maps lies a connection that's as solid as bedrock – and just as worthy of exploration. With that in mind, we invite you to join us in uncovering the complex and captivating interplay between political choices and the world of petroleum engineering in the colorful and ever-surprising state of California. As the saying goes, let's dig deeper – both figuratively and literally – and see what we strike. And speaking of striking, here's a lighthearted thought: If a petroleum engineer was in charge of a political campaign, they'd undoubtedly be a "well-oiled" candidate!

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis revealed a strong and statistically significant correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. From 2003 to 2018, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9783608, an r-squared value of 0.9571898, and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a highly significant relationship. It's safe to say we hit a gusher with this discovery, proving that there's more than just political tension and crude jokes brewing beneath the surface of California's electoral landscape.
Fig. 1 shows the scatterplot representing the unmistakable correlation between these two variables, reinforced by the strength of the relationship. The figure speaks for itself - much like a well-drilled borehole, the data makes a compelling case for the interconnectedness of political affiliations and the presence of petroleum engineers. It seems that political motives and petro-professional pursuits dance together like partners in a black gold rush, leaving us to wonder: is it truly a case of like attracts like, or is there a deeper, unseen force at play?
Inserting a bit of humor amid our scientific rigor, here's a lighthearted nod to the curious link we've unraveled: Why don't petroleum engineers ever play hide and seek? Because good luck hiding when you're as prolific as California's oil wells, and the Senate votes keep you in plain sight! Just as our research aims to shed light on the unexpected connections in this domain, we invite readers to chuckle along as we delve into the uncanny entwining of political preference and professional pursuits.
Our findings open the door to a treasure trove of questions concerning the underlying reasons for this correlation. Does the political climate influence career choices in the oil industry, or do the movements of the oil industry establish the backdrop for political leanings? It's as thought-provoking as an unsolved riddle, and just as intriguing as trying to determine if it's the chicken or the egg that came first. Amidst this complex web of relationships, we've struck a balance between serious research and a light-hearted approach, much like the delicate equilibrium in an oil reservoir waiting to be unleashed.
As we conclude this section with a playful twist, here's a parting pun: If a petroleum engineer debates the validity of this correlation, they'd probably say, "The data doesn't lie; it's as clear as a freshly extracted petroleum sample!" The journey to uncover these intricate connections has been nothing short of enlightening, and we hope our findings ignite a spark of curiosity and amusement in our readers. After all, when it comes to blending academia with a touch of levity, the results are as rich as a barrel of Texas Tea!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In summary, our research has unveiled a remarkable correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. The data has shown a connection so strong, it's as if Californian voters have been using a magnetic compass to lead them straight to the oil fields! Our statistical analysis, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9783608 and a p-value of less than 0.01, solidifies this unexpected relationship faster than a quick-setting cement plug in an oil well.

We've dived into the depths of data and surfaced with the realization that the political landscape in California and the presence of petroleum engineers are as interlinked as the gears in a well-drilling rig. It's almost as if voters are sending out seismic signals that resonate with the aspirations of those who delve into the world of liquid gold – or should we say black gold?

This study has brought to light a striking association that raises intriguing questions about the nuanced interplay of political inclinations and career choices in the petroleum industry. Our findings leave little room for doubt; the correlation is as clear as the refined product at the end of the hydrocarbon processing train.

On a lighter note, here's a fitting dad joke to cap off our conclusions: Why did the petroleum engineer bring a bar of soap to the voting booth? Because they wanted to vote responsibly and ensure their choices didn't slip! And with that, we'll confidently assert that no further drilling is needed in this area of research. Our paper has struck a gusher of knowledge, and the well of political and petroleum correlations has been thoroughly tapped!


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 Drilling Down: The Political and Petroleum Connection in California. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Petro-Political Research


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 Drilling Down: The Political and Petroleum Connection in California. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Petroleum Policy and Political Analysis


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Drilling Down: The Political and Petroleum Connection in California with an abstract of In this paper, we delve into the complex relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in California and the number of petroleum engineers in the state. Our research team has employed a robust analysis using data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics to uncover the underlying patterns. Surprisingly, we found a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9783608 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2018. It seems that when it comes to political leanings and petroleum, there's more than meets the oil!
Our findings suggest that there is indeed a strong link between Democrat votes for Senators and the presence of petroleum engineers in California. It's as if the political landscape is directly related to the black gold beneath the ground. This correlation raises thought-provoking questions about the intersection of politics and energy. But fear not, we won't drill you with too many statistics; our conclusions are as solid as a well-cemented casing!
To add a touch of humor to our research, we couldn't resist a dad joke: Why do petroleum engineers enjoy political debates? Because they're used to dealing with crude oil every day, and politicians keep giving them a run for their money! With this lighthearted note, we invite readers to join us in uncovering the fascinating connection between voter behavior and the petroleum industry in the Golden State.

ChatGPT:

Democrat votes, Senators, California, petroleum engineers, correlation, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Bureau of Labor Statistics, political leanings, energy, black gold, political landscape, voter behavior, Golden State

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

The number of petroleum engineers in California
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of petroleum engineers in California
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of petroleum engineers in California

Correlation r = 0.9783608 (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 = 0.9571898 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 95.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of petroleum engineers in California) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in California) over the 6 years from 2003 through 2018.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0007. 0.0006973189456507165000000000
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 0.98 in 0.07% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,434 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.

[ 0.81, 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.
200420062010201220162018
Votes for Democratic Senators in California (Total votes)69557305076290521844078646201224420011113400
The number of petroleum engineers in California (Petroleum Engineers)136012801060155023102290




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([6955730,5076290,5218440,7864620,12244200,11113400,])
array_2 = np.array([1360,1280,1060,1550,2310,2290,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in California"
array_2_name = "The number of petroleum engineers in California"

# 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?

Big thanks for reviewing!


Correlation ID: 4993 · Black Variable ID: 26207 · Red Variable ID: 5359
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0