Spurious correlation #5,055 · 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 the Democratic Presidential candidate in Maine and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. The chart goes from 1979 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Maine and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. The chart goes from 1979 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

As the Democratic candidate gained more votes in Maine, the collective excitement and energy led to an uptick in overall enthusiasm. This unexpected surge in political engagement somehow looped back to the champion of the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Perhaps the chants of "Yes, we can(nibal)!" reverberated through the air, or maybe the candidates' speeches inadvertently sparked a craving for victory (and relish). Who knew that the race for office would also fuel a race to gobble down hot dogs? It's a veritable poli-sausage phenomenon - talk about a democratic digestion decision!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie, depicting a bustling town square in Maine. The town square is filled with colorful banners and signs, and a sea of people cheer as the Democrat candidate gains more votes. The excitement and energy fills the air, sparking a tangible buzz of enthusiasm. In the midst of the square, the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition is taking place, with the champion smiling as he devours hotdog after hotdog in record time. The intertwining of political fervor and competitive eating creates a lively and unexpected scene, leaving both the political and culinary worlds buzzing with excitement. 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: Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Maine and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Hyper-realistic A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s Realistic
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie

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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Maine and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, in the following situation: As the Democratic candidate gained more votes in Maine, the collective excitement and energy led to an uptick in overall enthusiasm. This unexpected surge in political engagement somehow looped back to the champion of the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Perhaps the chants of "Yes, we can(nibal)!" reverberated through the air, or maybe the candidates' speeches inadvertently sparked a craving for victory (and relish). Who knew that the race for office would also fuel a race to gobble down hot dogs? It's a veritable poli-sausage phenomenon - talk about a democratic digestion decision!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling town square in Maine, a sea of people decked out in banners and signs cheered as the Democrat candidate gained more votes. The excitement and energy filled the air, sparking a tangible buzz of enthusiasm. Meanwhile, over at the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, the champion, with a grin on his face, devoured hotdog after hotdog in record time, fueled by the unexpected surge in political engagement. The intertwining of political fervor and competitive eating had created a lively and unexpected connection, leaving both the political and culinary worlds buzzing with excitement.

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: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling town square in Maine, a sea of people decked out in banners and signs cheered as the Democrat candidate gained more votes. The excitement and energy filled the air, sparking a tangible buzz of enthusiasm. Meanwhile, over at the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, the champion, with a grin on his face, devoured hotdog after hotdog in record time, fueled by the unexpected surge in political engagement. The intertwining of political fervor and competitive eating had created a lively and unexpected connection, leaving both the political and culinary worlds buzzing with excitement. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie, depicting a bustling town square in Maine. The town square is filled with colorful banners and signs, and a sea of people cheer as the Democrat candidate gains more votes. The excitement and energy fills the air, sparking a tangible buzz of enthusiasm. In the midst of the square, the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition is taking place, with the champion smiling as he devours hotdog after hotdog in record time. The intertwining of political fervor and competitive eating creates a lively and unexpected scene, leaving both the political and culinary worlds buzzing with excitement.

*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.
^{Show prompt for explanation} 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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Maine caused Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to increase.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

A Link Sausage: The Correlation Between Votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate in Maine and Hotdogs Consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

The Journal of Gastronomic Politics and Statistics

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!

^{Show prompt used to generate this paper} 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 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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Maine and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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 devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]] A Link Sausage: The Correlation Between Votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate in Maine and Hotdogs Consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]

In this study, we embarked on a delectably curious endeavor to uncover the eyebrow-raising connection between the political proclivities of Maine and the tantalizing world of competitive hot dog consumption. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as a dash of Wikipedia wisdom, we meticulously examined the voting patterns in Maine during the United States presidential elections and correlated them with the volume of hot dogs devoured by the illustrious champions of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.

Our analysis reveals a correlation coefficient of 0.9288944, magnificently defying the laws of probability and statistics. This coefficient, coupled with a striking p-value of less than 0.01, compelled us to ponder whether there exists a clandestine affinity between Mainers' political choices and the insatiable appetite of these consummate hot dog aficionados.

As we dance on the precipice of statistical significance, our findings serve as a flavorful testament to the unpredictable and whimsical nature of human behavior. The implications of this unlikely association beckon us to scrutinize the country's electoral landscape with both analytical rigor and a pinch of hot dog drollery. This study not only illuminates the tantalizing intersection of politics and competitive eating but also underscores the sizzling unpredictability that lies beneath the surface of seemingly incongruous realms.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The juxtaposition of political preferences and gustatory competitions has long titillated the inquisitive minds of researchers and laypersons alike. In this paper, we delve into the peculiar but undeniably compelling relationship between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Maine and the culinary feats showcased at Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. While one may initially perceive these subjects as disparate as, well, apples and hot dogs, our investigation has uncovered a surprisingly robust correlation that tantalizes the taste buds of statistical curiosity.
The state of Maine, nestled in the northeastern corner of the United States, has garnered attention not only for its picturesque landscapes and lobster-centric cuisine but also for its nuanced political leanings. Meanwhile, Nathan's Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest, held at the iconic Coney Island, has become a gluttonous spectacle that dazzles and perplexes in equal measure. Our quest to intertwine these seemingly unrelated domains was inspired by a desire to uncover the hidden patterns that might elude the naked eye but are discernible to the discerning statistical palate.
As we embarked on our odyssey through this uncharted expanse of data, our hearts agitated with both trepidation and giddy anticipation. Could it be possible that the electoral choices of Maine's denizens could be intertwined with the staggering consumptive abilities of the celebrated hot dog aficionados? Our rigorous analysis, bolstered by a confluence of electoral data and hot dog consumption figures, revealed an astonishingly high correlation coefficient, prompting us to mull over the whims of fate and the capricious quirks of human behavior. Indeed, the statistical rapport between these two seemingly unrelated entities transcends mere happenstance and flirts brazenly with the boundaries of incredulity.
This journey of inquiry leads us not only to the vistas of statistical relevance but also to the hinterlands of absurdity, and it is within this enigmatic realm that we find ourselves poised to uncover a treasure trove of unexpected connections. As we continue our investigation, we invite our readers to join us in an intellectual feast of statistical oddities, where the alluring aroma of correlation beckons us to savor the unexpected delicacies that ensue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in the state of Maine and the consumption of hot dogs at Nathan's Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest has piqued the interest of researchers and curious minds alike. The quest to unravel this seemingly bizarre yet undeniably captivating relationship has spawned a diverse range of inquiries, the results of which have both intrigued and tickled the statistical fancies of academic circles.

Smith (2017) explored the cultural and culinary significance of hot dog consumption in American society, providing a delectable overview of the historical, sociological, and gastronomic implications of this beloved fast food fare. Doe (2018) delved into the dynamics of political voting patterns, uncovering the intricate web of factors that influence electoral choices in various regions of the United States. Jones (2019) conducted a thorough analysis of competitive eating phenomena, shedding light on the exhilarating world of gastronomic athleticism and jaw-dropping feats of gustatory prowess.

In "The Politics of Pork: A Sociological Study of Sausage Symbolism in American Culture," the authors examine the symbolic resonance of sausage consumption in the realm of politics and identity, offering a savory exploration of the intersection between food and socio-political discourse. Likewise, "Democracy on a Bun: A Culinary Exploration of American Electoral Traditions" delves into the unique ways in which culinary rituals intertwine with electoral customs, inviting readers to savor the rich tapestry of democratic expressions that manifest in an assortment of delectable dishes.

On a more whimsical note, "The Hot Dog Diaries: A Fictional Memoir of Competitive Eating Championships" takes readers on a literary romp through the exhilarating and often absurd world of competitive eating, blending fictional extravagance with the tantalizing allure of gastronomic triumph. Similarly, "Maine's Political Peculiarities: An Anthology of Quirky Electoral Anecdotes" offers a lighthearted exploration of the idiosyncrasies that characterize Maine's political landscape, infusing humor and anecdotal charm into the nuanced tapestry of regional politicking.

As the literature branches into the realm of the unconventional, the authors find themselves amused by the unexpected correlations that emerge from sources such as "The Hot Dog Hall of Fame: An Ode to Tubular Cuisine" and "Election Day Exposé: The Secret Lives of Condiments." These literary forays, albeit less conventional, add a dash of whimsy and laughter to an otherwise rigorous inquiry into the enigmatic interplay of electoral preferences and competitive eating proclivities. In the pursuit of academic rigor, one must not shy away from the unexpected sources of insight, even if they happen to be gleaned from the backs of condiment bottles or the whimsical musings of fictional narratives.

It is within this blend of scholarly erudition and playful curiosity that the authors approach the task of unraveling the improbable yet undeniable connection between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Maine and the fervent consumption of hot dogs at Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.

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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Maine and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Wikipedia . You used data from 1979 to 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 Link Sausage: The Correlation Between Votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate in Maine and Hotdogs Consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]

In this study, we embarked on a delectably curious endeavor to uncover the eyebrow-raising connection between the political proclivities of Maine and the tantalizing world of competitive hot dog consumption. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as a dash of Wikipedia wisdom, we meticulously examined the voting patterns in Maine during the United States presidential elections and correlated them with the volume of hot dogs devoured by the illustrious champions of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.

Our analysis reveals a correlation coefficient of 0.9288944, magnificently defying the laws of probability and statistics. This coefficient, coupled with a striking p-value of less than 0.01, compelled us to ponder whether there exists a clandestine affinity between Mainers' political choices and the insatiable appetite of these consummate hot dog aficionados.

As we dance on the precipice of statistical significance, our findings serve as a flavorful testament to the unpredictable and whimsical nature of human behavior. The implications of this unlikely association beckon us to scrutinize the country's electoral landscape with both analytical rigor and a pinch of hot dog drollery. This study not only illuminates the tantalizing intersection of politics and competitive eating but also underscores the sizzling unpredictability that lies beneath the surface of seemingly incongruous realms.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The juxtaposition of political preferences and gustatory competitions has long titillated the inquisitive minds of researchers and laypersons alike. In this paper, we delve into the peculiar but undeniably compelling relationship between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Maine and the culinary feats showcased at Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. While one may initially perceive these subjects as disparate as, well, apples and hot dogs, our investigation has uncovered a surprisingly robust correlation that tantalizes the taste buds of statistical curiosity.
The state of Maine, nestled in the northeastern corner of the United States, has garnered attention not only for its picturesque landscapes and lobster-centric cuisine but also for its nuanced political leanings. Meanwhile, Nathan's Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest, held at the iconic Coney Island, has become a gluttonous spectacle that dazzles and perplexes in equal measure. Our quest to intertwine these seemingly unrelated domains was inspired by a desire to uncover the hidden patterns that might elude the naked eye but are discernible to the discerning statistical palate.
As we embarked on our odyssey through this uncharted expanse of data, our hearts agitated with both trepidation and giddy anticipation. Could it be possible that the electoral choices of Maine's denizens could be intertwined with the staggering consumptive abilities of the celebrated hot dog aficionados? Our rigorous analysis, bolstered by a confluence of electoral data and hot dog consumption figures, revealed an astonishingly high correlation coefficient, prompting us to mull over the whims of fate and the capricious quirks of human behavior. Indeed, the statistical rapport between these two seemingly unrelated entities transcends mere happenstance and flirts brazenly with the boundaries of incredulity.
This journey of inquiry leads us not only to the vistas of statistical relevance but also to the hinterlands of absurdity, and it is within this enigmatic realm that we find ourselves poised to uncover a treasure trove of unexpected connections. As we continue our investigation, we invite our readers to join us in an intellectual feast of statistical oddities, where the alluring aroma of correlation beckons us to savor the unexpected delicacies that ensue.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To navigate the intricate web of electoral data and hot dog consumption figures, our research team embarked on an enthralling odyssey through the digital realms of MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the treasure trove of knowledge known colloquially as Wikipedia. With the zeal of intrepid gastronomes embarking on a culinary escapade, we harnessed the power of data scraping and compendium scouring to collect a comprehensive dataset spanning the years 1979 to 2020.

Our first task involved the acquisition of presidential voting data for the state of Maine, a land teeming with lobsters and political nuances. We honed our digital sleuthing skills to extract precinct-level voting information, dissecting the electoral intricacies with a precision reminiscent of a meticulous chef dissecting the anatomy of a perfectly crafted sausage. Utilizing this data, we calculated the percentage of votes garnered by the Democratic presidential candidate in each election year, capturing the ebb and flow of political affinities in the idyllic New England state.

The next phase of our expedition led us to the scintillating world of competitive hot dog consumption, a domain where bun meets brawn in displays of sheer culinary prowess. Leveraging our adeptness at navigating online archives, we meticulously documented the annual consumption figures of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champions, capturing the awe-inspiring tally of hot dogs ingested with a mixture of admiration and bewilderment. As we scrutinized these gluttonous feats, we marveled at the dexterity and stamina exhibited by the indefatigable competitors, all the while maintaining a keen eye for data accuracy.

With a harmonious symphony of electoral statistics and hot dog consumption figures in hand, we unfurled the tapestry of correlation analysis. Channeling the spirit of mathematical alchemists seeking to distill patterns from chaos, we subjected the datasets to the rigors of Pearson's correlation coefficient, seeking to illuminate the hidden threads connecting these seemingly unrelated spheres. The resulting coefficient, akin to the delightful snap of a crunchy hot dog casing, yielded a striking value of 0.9288944, defying conventional expectations and leaving us with a morsel of statistical astonishment. Furthermore, our calculated p-value, akin to an elusive condiment enhancing the flavor of empirical validation, tantalized our scientific sensibilities with its serendipitous smallness, standing at less than 0.01.

As we reveled in the dazzling firmness of our statistical edifice, we found ourselves teetering on the precipice of incredulity, pondering the enigmatic forces that bind Mainers' political choices to the voracious appetite of champions of coney island cuisine. With each data point meticulously curated and each statistical test conducted with precision, we stand ready to present our findings, knowing full well that the flavor of statistical significance is not only a palate-pleasing sensation but also an invitation to explore the unexpected flavors that lie at the intersection of politics and competitive eating.

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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Maine and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 Link Sausage: The Correlation Between Votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate in Maine and Hotdogs Consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]

In this study, we embarked on a delectably curious endeavor to uncover the eyebrow-raising connection between the political proclivities of Maine and the tantalizing world of competitive hot dog consumption. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as a dash of Wikipedia wisdom, we meticulously examined the voting patterns in Maine during the United States presidential elections and correlated them with the volume of hot dogs devoured by the illustrious champions of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.

Our analysis reveals a correlation coefficient of 0.9288944, magnificently defying the laws of probability and statistics. This coefficient, coupled with a striking p-value of less than 0.01, compelled us to ponder whether there exists a clandestine affinity between Mainers' political choices and the insatiable appetite of these consummate hot dog aficionados.

As we dance on the precipice of statistical significance, our findings serve as a flavorful testament to the unpredictable and whimsical nature of human behavior. The implications of this unlikely association beckon us to scrutinize the country's electoral landscape with both analytical rigor and a pinch of hot dog drollery. This study not only illuminates the tantalizing intersection of politics and competitive eating but also underscores the sizzling unpredictability that lies beneath the surface of seemingly incongruous realms.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in the state of Maine and the consumption of hot dogs at Nathan's Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest has piqued the interest of researchers and curious minds alike. The quest to unravel this seemingly bizarre yet undeniably captivating relationship has spawned a diverse range of inquiries, the results of which have both intrigued and tickled the statistical fancies of academic circles.
Smith (2017) explored the cultural and culinary significance of hot dog consumption in American society, providing a delectable overview of the historical, sociological, and gastronomic implications of this beloved fast food fare. Doe (2018) delved into the dynamics of political voting patterns, uncovering the intricate web of factors that influence electoral choices in various regions of the United States. Jones (2019) conducted a thorough analysis of competitive eating phenomena, shedding light on the exhilarating world of gastronomic athleticism and jaw-dropping feats of gustatory prowess.
In "The Politics of Pork: A Sociological Study of Sausage Symbolism in American Culture," the authors examine the symbolic resonance of sausage consumption in the realm of politics and identity, offering a savory exploration of the intersection between food and socio-political discourse. Likewise, "Democracy on a Bun: A Culinary Exploration of American Electoral Traditions" delves into the unique ways in which culinary rituals intertwine with electoral customs, inviting readers to savor the rich tapestry of democratic expressions that manifest in an assortment of delectable dishes.
On a more whimsical note, "The Hot Dog Diaries: A Fictional Memoir of Competitive Eating Championships" takes readers on a literary romp through the exhilarating and often absurd world of competitive eating, blending fictional extravagance with the tantalizing allure of gastronomic triumph. Similarly, "Maine's Political Peculiarities: An Anthology of Quirky Electoral Anecdotes" offers a lighthearted exploration of the idiosyncrasies that characterize Maine's political landscape, infusing humor and anecdotal charm into the nuanced tapestry of regional politicking.
As the literature branches into the realm of the unconventional, the authors find themselves amused by the unexpected correlations that emerge from sources such as "The Hot Dog Hall of Fame: An Ode to Tubular Cuisine" and "Election Day Exposé: The Secret Lives of Condiments." These literary forays, albeit less conventional, add a dash of whimsy and laughter to an otherwise rigorous inquiry into the enigmatic interplay of electoral preferences and competitive eating proclivities. In the pursuit of academic rigor, one must not shy away from the unexpected sources of insight, even if they happen to be gleaned from the backs of condiment bottles or the whimsical musings of fictional narratives.
It is within this blend of scholarly erudition and playful curiosity that the authors approach the task of unraveling the improbable yet undeniable connection between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Maine and the fervent consumption of hot dogs at Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.

[[RESULTS]]
The examination of the relationship between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Maine and the consumption of hot dogs by the champions of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition unearthed a remarkable correlation. Our analysis spanned the period from 1979 to 2020 and revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9288944, indicating a strikingly strong positive relationship between these ostensibly divergent phenomena.
The observed correlation coefficient of 0.9288944, with an r-squared value of 0.8628449, presents a rather delectable surprise for the statistical palate. Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 adds an extra layer of intrigue to this unexpected liaison. These findings defy traditional notions of causality and beckon us to ponder the whimsical forces at play.
The accompanying Fig. 1, a scatterplot illustrating the robust correlation between the variables under scrutiny, provides a visual testament to the resounding statistical affinity between Maine's political proclivities and the remarkable capacity for hot dog ingestion demonstrated at Nathan's renowned competition.
The implications of these unanticipated findings invite us to reflect not only on the capricious nature of statistical relationships but also on the enigmatic allure of human behavior. The interplay between the political landscape of Maine and the realm of hot dog consumption invokes a delightful sense of curiosity, prompting us to approach the interpretation of these results with both analytical rigor and a sprinkling of hot dog-inspired levity.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study have left us with a platter full of food for thought, as we contemplate the surprising correlation between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Maine and the prodigious consumption of hot dogs at Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. Our findings not only corroborate prior research but also add a sizzling dimension to the existing literature.

Drawing from the gustatory musings of Smith (2017) on the cultural significance of hot dogs, it becomes evident that the resonance of this humble yet irresistible street fare extends beyond mere culinary delight. Doe's (2018) illumination of electoral dynamics similarly underscores the multifaceted influences that shape political voting patterns. Jones's (2019) analysis of competitive eating phenomena, while perhaps not initially seen as relevant, has now been vindicated in the unexpected connection we have unveiled. The interdisciplinary threads woven by these researchers resonate with our own exploration, as we uncover the savory intertwining of food, politics, and human behavior.

The improbable yet robust correlation coefficient of 0.9288944 that emerged from our analysis pays homage to the whimsical resonances documented in less traditional sources. The fanciful narratives of "The Hot Dog Diaries" and the quirky anecdotes of "Maine's Political Peculiarities" have seemingly wrought a certain prophetic allure, aligning with the statistical whimsy that characterizes our findings. Although pursued with a spirit of academic rigor, the charmingly unanticipated cohesion between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Maine and the consummate hot dog indulgence at Nathan's competition serves as an apt reminder that scholarly pursuits can indeed yield deliciously surprising results.

As we reflect on the implications of our study, we are reminded of the delectable unpredictability that underlies the tapestry of human inclinations. The intersection of culinary rituals, electoral customs, and statistical peculiarities beckons us to delight in the whimsy of our findings while approaching them with the precision of academic inquiry. Our study not only fulfills the scholarly appetite for unexpected correlations but also serves as a reminder of the delightful surprises that await those who venture beyond the confines of conventional inquiry.

In the absence of a conclusion, we invite fellow scholars to partake in the delightful provocation posed by our findings, embracing both the analytical scrutiny and the whimsical charm that characterize the confluence of improbable correlations. After all, in the scholarly banquet of knowledge, one mustn't discount the occasional surprise dish that challenges preconceived notions and invites us to savor the unexpected flavors of intellectual discovery.

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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Maine and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 Link Sausage: The Correlation Between Votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate in Maine and Hotdogs Consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]

In this study, we embarked on a delectably curious endeavor to uncover the eyebrow-raising connection between the political proclivities of Maine and the tantalizing world of competitive hot dog consumption. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as a dash of Wikipedia wisdom, we meticulously examined the voting patterns in Maine during the United States presidential elections and correlated them with the volume of hot dogs devoured by the illustrious champions of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.

Our analysis reveals a correlation coefficient of 0.9288944, magnificently defying the laws of probability and statistics. This coefficient, coupled with a striking p-value of less than 0.01, compelled us to ponder whether there exists a clandestine affinity between Mainers' political choices and the insatiable appetite of these consummate hot dog aficionados.

As we dance on the precipice of statistical significance, our findings serve as a flavorful testament to the unpredictable and whimsical nature of human behavior. The implications of this unlikely association beckon us to scrutinize the country's electoral landscape with both analytical rigor and a pinch of hot dog drollery. This study not only illuminates the tantalizing intersection of politics and competitive eating but also underscores the sizzling unpredictability that lies beneath the surface of seemingly incongruous realms.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The juxtaposition of political preferences and gustatory competitions has long titillated the inquisitive minds of researchers and laypersons alike. In this paper, we delve into the peculiar but undeniably compelling relationship between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Maine and the culinary feats showcased at Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. While one may initially perceive these subjects as disparate as, well, apples and hot dogs, our investigation has uncovered a surprisingly robust correlation that tantalizes the taste buds of statistical curiosity.
The state of Maine, nestled in the northeastern corner of the United States, has garnered attention not only for its picturesque landscapes and lobster-centric cuisine but also for its nuanced political leanings. Meanwhile, Nathan's Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest, held at the iconic Coney Island, has become a gluttonous spectacle that dazzles and perplexes in equal measure. Our quest to intertwine these seemingly unrelated domains was inspired by a desire to uncover the hidden patterns that might elude the naked eye but are discernible to the discerning statistical palate.
As we embarked on our odyssey through this uncharted expanse of data, our hearts agitated with both trepidation and giddy anticipation. Could it be possible that the electoral choices of Maine's denizens could be intertwined with the staggering consumptive abilities of the celebrated hot dog aficionados? Our rigorous analysis, bolstered by a confluence of electoral data and hot dog consumption figures, revealed an astonishingly high correlation coefficient, prompting us to mull over the whims of fate and the capricious quirks of human behavior. Indeed, the statistical rapport between these two seemingly unrelated entities transcends mere happenstance and flirts brazenly with the boundaries of incredulity.
This journey of inquiry leads us not only to the vistas of statistical relevance but also to the hinterlands of absurdity, and it is within this enigmatic realm that we find ourselves poised to uncover a treasure trove of unexpected connections. As we continue our investigation, we invite our readers to join us in an intellectual feast of statistical oddities, where the alluring aroma of correlation beckons us to savor the unexpected delicacies that ensue.

[[RESULTS]]
The examination of the relationship between votes for the Democrat presidential candidate in Maine and the consumption of hot dogs by the champions of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition unearthed a remarkable correlation. Our analysis spanned the period from 1979 to 2020 and revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9288944, indicating a strikingly strong positive relationship between these ostensibly divergent phenomena.
The observed correlation coefficient of 0.9288944, with an r-squared value of 0.8628449, presents a rather delectable surprise for the statistical palate. Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 adds an extra layer of intrigue to this unexpected liaison. These findings defy traditional notions of causality and beckon us to ponder the whimsical forces at play.
The accompanying Fig. 1, a scatterplot illustrating the robust correlation between the variables under scrutiny, provides a visual testament to the resounding statistical affinity between Maine's political proclivities and the remarkable capacity for hot dog ingestion demonstrated at Nathan's renowned competition.
The implications of these unanticipated findings invite us to reflect not only on the capricious nature of statistical relationships but also on the enigmatic allure of human behavior. The interplay between the political landscape of Maine and the realm of hot dog consumption invokes a delightful sense of curiosity, prompting us to approach the interpretation of these results with both analytical rigor and a sprinkling of hot dog-inspired levity.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has illuminated a hitherto unexplored nexus between the electoral predilections of Maine's populace and the prodigious hot dog consumption feats at Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. The strikingly strong positive correlation coefficient of 0.9288944 has propelled us into a realm where the boundaries of statistical merriment collide with the frivolity of gastronomic prowess. The alluring aroma of this correlation beckons us to savor the unexpected delicacies that ensue, resembling a delightful array of condiments adorning a savory hot dog.

As we savor the seemingly incongruous association between political choices and hot dog ingestion, we cannot help but marvel at the whimsical forces of fate and appetite at play. The visual testament provided by our scatterplot, akin to the picturesque relish drizzled atop a succulent frankfurter, underscores the resounding statistical affinity that has tickled the taste buds of academic inquiry.

Our findings not only tantalize the statistical palate but also beckon us to embrace the capricious nature of human behavior with a mixture of analytical rigor and a dash of hot dog-inspired levity. The implications of this unlikely liaison remind us that, much like the unexpected pairing of ketchup and mustard, the interplay between seemingly incongruous realms may yield a deliciously surprising blend of correlations.

Thus, this study not only sheds light on the curious interconnectedness of gastronomic feats and political choices but also serves as a reminder of the delectably unpredictable nature of statistical associations. As we relish in the findings of this peculiar correlation, we submit that no further research is needed in this area, and instead, encourage fellow researchers to explore similarly whimsical connections that continue to tantalize the keen statistical palate.

No more research is needed in this area.

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 Link Sausage: The Correlation Between Votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate in Maine and Hotdogs Consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Gastronomic Politics and Statistics

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 Link Sausage: The Correlation Between Votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate in Maine and Hotdogs Consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The International Institute for Wacky Statistical 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 A Link Sausage: The Correlation Between Votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate in Maine and Hotdogs Consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion with an abstract of In this study, we embarked on a delectably curious endeavor to uncover the eyebrow-raising connection between the political proclivities of Maine and the tantalizing world of competitive hot dog consumption. Leveraging data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as a dash of Wikipedia wisdom, we meticulously examined the voting patterns in Maine during the United States presidential elections and correlated them with the volume of hot dogs devoured by the illustrious champions of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.
Our analysis reveals a correlation coefficient of 0.9288944, magnificently defying the laws of probability and statistics. This coefficient, coupled with a striking p-value of less than 0.01, compelled us to ponder whether there exists a clandestine affinity between Mainers' political choices and the insatiable appetite of these consummate hot dog aficionados.
As we dance on the precipice of statistical significance, our findings serve as a flavorful testament to the unpredictable and whimsical nature of human behavior. The implications of this unlikely association beckon us to scrutinize the country's electoral landscape with both analytical rigor and a pinch of hot dog drollery. This study not only illuminates the tantalizing intersection of politics and competitive eating but also underscores the sizzling unpredictability that lies beneath the surface of seemingly incongruous realms.

ChatGPT:

Maine voting patterns, Democrat presidential candidate, Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, correlation, hot dog consumption, political proclivities, United States presidential elections, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, statistical significance, human behavior, electoral landscape, competitive eating

*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 the Democratic Presidential candidate in Maine
Detailed data title: Total votes cast for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Maine
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Maine

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

Correlation r = 0.9288944 (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 = 0.8628449 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 86.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Maine) over the 11 years from 1979 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 3.6E-5.^Show 0.0000359888470856205300000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.93 in 0.0036% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 27,786 random variables^Note You don't actually need 27 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 10 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 10 because we have two variables measured over a period of 11 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.

[ 0.74, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} 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: ^Note 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.

	1980	1984	1988	1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016	2020
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Maine (Total votes)	220974	214515	243569	263420	312788	319951	396842	421923	401306	357735	435072
Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion (Hotdogs eaten)	9.5	9.5	10	19	22.25	25	53.33	59	68	70	75

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^Note 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^Note 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.
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. ^Note 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. ^{Show the steps to do this.} 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([220974,214515,243569,263420,312788,319951,396842,421923,401306,357735,435072,])
array_2 = np.array([9.5,9.5,10,19,22.25,25,53.33,59,68,70,75,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Maine"
array_2_name = "Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)

Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. ^Note 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 ^Note 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 the Democratic Presidential candidate in Maine
Line chart for only Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: A Link Sausage: The Correlation Between Votes for the Democrat Presidential Candidate in Maine and Hotdogs Consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

I'm genuinely thankful for your rating!

Correlation ID: 5055 · Black Variable ID: 25986 · Red Variable ID: 500


Problem variable:
Issue:
Additional details: Optional
Confirm you are a human: