Download png, svg
AI explanation
As more Republican Senators were elected in Oklahoma, their pro-bird policies inadvertently created a network of luxurious bird spas disguised as government buildings. This led to an uptick in avian social media influencers showcasing the opulent accommodations, sparking a trend among birds to head to these lavish havens when it rains. It seems like the secret to avian luxury retreats was simply a ballot away!Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that resembles a scene from a Disney movie, featuring newly elected Republican Senators standing proudly in front of majestic government buildings against the scenic backdrop of Oklahoma. Surround the buildings with intricate bird baths and feeders, adding an air of grandeur and elegance. In the foreground, depict flocks of birds engaged in human-like activities, specifically using smartphones to search for information about rain shelters and sharing photos of themselves enjoying the opulent accommodations. The image should exude a whimsical and enchanting ambiance, reminiscent of a magical Disney setting. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. 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: Voxel art Brutalism An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie Surrealism Scalar art
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney 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 Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains', in the following situation: As more Republican Senators were elected in Oklahoma, their pro-bird policies inadvertently created a network of luxurious bird spas disguised as government buildings. This led to an uptick in avian social media influencers showcasing the opulent accommodations, sparking a trend among birds to head to these lavish havens when it rains. It seems like the secret to avian luxury retreats was simply a ballot away!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In the state of Oklahoma, newly elected Republican Senators proudly stand in front of grand government buildings, adorned with elaborate bird baths and feeders. Meanwhile, flocks of birds are seen searching on their smartphones for "where do birds go when it rains," and excitedly posting pictures of themselves enjoying the luxurious accommodations.
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 Disney Movie ] and depicting this scene: In the state of Oklahoma, newly elected Republican Senators proudly stand in front of grand government buildings, adorned with elaborate bird baths and feeders. Meanwhile, flocks of birds are seen searching on their smartphones for "where do birds go when it rains," and excitedly posting pictures of themselves enjoying the luxurious accommodations. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that resembles a scene from a Disney movie, featuring newly elected Republican Senators standing proudly in front of majestic government buildings against the scenic backdrop of Oklahoma. Surround the buildings with intricate bird baths and feeders, adding an air of grandeur and elegance. In the foreground, depict flocks of birds engaged in human-like activities, specifically using smartphones to search for information about rain shelters and sharing photos of themselves enjoying the opulent accommodations. The image should exude a whimsical and enchanting ambiance, reminiscent of a magical Disney setting.
*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.
I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how increases in Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma positively influenced where do birds go when it rains (Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains').
AI academic paper
Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries The Journal of Ornithological Political Analysis Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
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 Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title seem clever.
Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2020.
Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)
[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents an analysis of the intriguing link between the voting patterns of Republican voters in Oklahoma and their curiosity about the whereabouts of feathered friends during precipitation events. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends for the period spanning 2004 to 2020, our research team uncovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 (p < 0.01) between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains." Our findings suggest a potential avian attraction among the state's conservative electorate or perhaps a latent concern for the well-being of their airborne counterparts during inclement weather. This unexpected correlation invites further investigation and underscores the value of scrutinizing seemingly unrelated phenomena for potential insights into human behavior and cognitive associations.
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 Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents an analysis of the intriguing link between the voting patterns of Republican voters in Oklahoma and their curiosity about the whereabouts of feathered friends during precipitation events. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends for the period spanning 2004 to 2020, our research team uncovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 (p < 0.01) between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains." Our findings suggest a potential avian attraction among the state's conservative electorate or perhaps a latent concern for the well-being of their airborne counterparts during inclement weather. This unexpected correlation invites further investigation and underscores the value of scrutinizing seemingly unrelated phenomena for potential insights into human behavior and cognitive associations.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and ornithology is not a topic often explored in academic research. Yet, we find ourselves delving into this uncharted territory in an attempt to unravel the enigmatic correlation between the voting behaviors of Republican constituents in Oklahoma and their inquisitiveness about the plight of our avian companions during rainfall. The amalgamation of Google queries and political preferences might seem more fitting for a whimsical flight of fancy rather than a scholarly investigation, but as we venture deeper into the annals of statistics and data analysis, we are confronted with unexpected correlations that ruffle our feathers and elicit a collective, "Well, tweet me!"
As the world becomes increasingly enmeshed in the intricate web of digital footprints, we harness the power of Google Trends to shed light on the confluence of avifauna and political inclination. With a tongue firmly in cheek, we take flight on this scholarly escapade to discern whether the proverbial canaries in the coal mine can also serve as an allegory for the political landscape, or perhaps, they lend insight into the intricacies of human cognition and behavior.
Here, we offer a departure from the mundane and plummet headfirst into the realms of speculation, inquiry, and perhaps a touch of whimsy as we endeavor to uncover the hidden connections that could be, quite literally, "for the birds."
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 Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. 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 cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents an analysis of the intriguing link between the voting patterns of Republican voters in Oklahoma and their curiosity about the whereabouts of feathered friends during precipitation events. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends for the period spanning 2004 to 2020, our research team uncovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 (p < 0.01) between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains." Our findings suggest a potential avian attraction among the state's conservative electorate or perhaps a latent concern for the well-being of their airborne counterparts during inclement weather. This unexpected correlation invites further investigation and underscores the value of scrutinizing seemingly unrelated phenomena for potential insights into human behavior and cognitive associations.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and ornithology is not a topic often explored in academic research. Yet, we find ourselves delving into this uncharted territory in an attempt to unravel the enigmatic correlation between the voting behaviors of Republican constituents in Oklahoma and their inquisitiveness about the plight of our avian companions during rainfall. The amalgamation of Google queries and political preferences might seem more fitting for a whimsical flight of fancy rather than a scholarly investigation, but as we venture deeper into the annals of statistics and data analysis, we are confronted with unexpected correlations that ruffle our feathers and elicit a collective, "Well, tweet me!"
As the world becomes increasingly enmeshed in the intricate web of digital footprints, we harness the power of Google Trends to shed light on the confluence of avifauna and political inclination. With a tongue firmly in cheek, we take flight on this scholarly escapade to discern whether the proverbial canaries in the coal mine can also serve as an allegory for the political landscape, or perhaps, they lend insight into the intricacies of human cognition and behavior.
Here, we offer a departure from the mundane and plummet headfirst into the realms of speculation, inquiry, and perhaps a touch of whimsy as we endeavor to uncover the hidden connections that could be, quite literally, "for the birds."
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between political preferences and seemingly random Google searches has been the subject of growing interest in recent years. In their seminal work, Smith et al. (2017) examined the association between voting patterns and internet search behavior, revealing intriguing correlations that extended beyond conventional demographic and ideological factors. Doe and Jones (2019) further expounded on this line of inquiry by investigating the cognitive processes underlying curiosity-driven searches and their implications for political decision-making.
Turning to more avian-focused literature, "The Ornithological Gazette" by Avian Enthusiasts Society (2015) provides a comprehensive overview of bird behavior in various weather conditions, offering valuable insights into the potential relevance of avian queries in political contexts. Similarly, "Birdwatching in Oklahoma" by Feathered Friends Federation (2018) delves into the diverse habitats and behaviors of Oklahoma's bird population, hinting at the underlying curiosity that may animate the state's Republican voters.
Amidst the academic literature and factual accounts, one cannot overlook the potential influence of fiction on public perception. "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" by Richard Bach stand as examples of literary works that weave avian symbolism into broader narratives, suggesting a symbolic characterization of avian creatures in human thought.
Furthermore, anecdotal evidence gleaned from social media platforms offers a glimpse into the popular consciousness regarding avian behavior and political inclinations. A recent tweet by @BirdWatcherBob pondering, "Do birds vote too, and do they consider the weather?" hints at a broader public fascination with the intersection of avian curiosity and political decision-making. Similarly, the Facebook group "Feathered Politics" features lively discussions on the potential avian allegiances of political factions, adding an intriguing layer to the discourse surrounding our research topic.
As we navigate through this curious amalgamation of literature and digital rumination, we find ourselves perched on the edge of a humorous inquiry that promises to unveil unexpected truths and, perhaps, the existence of a feathered electorate lurking amidst the data deluge.
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 Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2020
Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.
Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents an analysis of the intriguing link between the voting patterns of Republican voters in Oklahoma and their curiosity about the whereabouts of feathered friends during precipitation events. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends for the period spanning 2004 to 2020, our research team uncovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 (p < 0.01) between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains." Our findings suggest a potential avian attraction among the state's conservative electorate or perhaps a latent concern for the well-being of their airborne counterparts during inclement weather. This unexpected correlation invites further investigation and underscores the value of scrutinizing seemingly unrelated phenomena for potential insights into human behavior and cognitive associations.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and ornithology is not a topic often explored in academic research. Yet, we find ourselves delving into this uncharted territory in an attempt to unravel the enigmatic correlation between the voting behaviors of Republican constituents in Oklahoma and their inquisitiveness about the plight of our avian companions during rainfall. The amalgamation of Google queries and political preferences might seem more fitting for a whimsical flight of fancy rather than a scholarly investigation, but as we venture deeper into the annals of statistics and data analysis, we are confronted with unexpected correlations that ruffle our feathers and elicit a collective, "Well, tweet me!"
As the world becomes increasingly enmeshed in the intricate web of digital footprints, we harness the power of Google Trends to shed light on the confluence of avifauna and political inclination. With a tongue firmly in cheek, we take flight on this scholarly escapade to discern whether the proverbial canaries in the coal mine can also serve as an allegory for the political landscape, or perhaps, they lend insight into the intricacies of human cognition and behavior.
Here, we offer a departure from the mundane and plummet headfirst into the realms of speculation, inquiry, and perhaps a touch of whimsy as we endeavor to uncover the hidden connections that could be, quite literally, "for the birds."
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Sample Collection
To conduct this avian-inspired investigation into the voting proclivities of Oklahoman Republicans, we surreptitiously collected data from various online data repositories, diligently sifting through a veritable aviary of information. Our primary sources included the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, where we perched ourselves, Harvard Dataverse, and the soaring heights of Google Trends. The data spanned the years 2004 to 2020, allowing us to capture a wide range of electoral events and bird-related inquiries.
Data Analysis
Our feathered foray into the intricacies of statistical analysis involved a plume of techniques, from the classic Pearson correlation coefficient to the dance of linear regression models. With a twinkle in our eyes and a bird's-eye view of the data, we meticulously performed the necessary calculations to unveil the tantalizing relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the poignant query "where do birds go when it rains."
Correlation Coefficients with a Flock Mentality
In keeping with the spirit of our avian theme, we unearthed a pecking order of correlations that left us chirping in excitement. The correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 (p < 0.01) simply took flight, affirming a strong statistical association between Republican votes and the curiosity of Oklahomans regarding the precipitation-provoked whereabouts of our feathered friends. The statistical significance elicited a collective "squawk" from our research team and invited a flutter of discussion around potential hypotheses and interpretations.
Control Variables: Caging the Potential Confounders
To ensure our findings were not simply a feather in the caprice, we meticulously incorporated control variables into our analysis. We adjusted for factors such as regional weather patterns, economic indicators, and trendy avian publications to preempt any squawking about spurious associations and to nestle our conclusions within a robust framework of statistical rigor.
Limitations
Despite our meticulous efforts, it's essential to acknowledge the limitations inherent in our avian escapade. The bird's-eye view afforded by Google Trends does come with its own quirks, and the nature of internet searches introduces the potential for confounding variables that even the most vigilant ornithologist could overlook.
In conclusion, our methodology has allowed us to take flight into the unexplored skies of avian-inclined political behavior, with our statistical wingspan capturing the unexpected convergence of Republican votes and inquiries about avian precipitation preferences. Our approach may have been whimsical, but the findings soar with statistical credibility, urging forth deeper contemplation of the avian inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans and leaving us with an inescapable pun: "This correlation? Absolutely for the birds!"
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 Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends .
For the time period 2004 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9448772, r-squared of 0.8927929, 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]]
"Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents an analysis of the intriguing link between the voting patterns of Republican voters in Oklahoma and their curiosity about the whereabouts of feathered friends during precipitation events. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends for the period spanning 2004 to 2020, our research team uncovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 (p < 0.01) between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains." Our findings suggest a potential avian attraction among the state's conservative electorate or perhaps a latent concern for the well-being of their airborne counterparts during inclement weather. This unexpected correlation invites further investigation and underscores the value of scrutinizing seemingly unrelated phenomena for potential insights into human behavior and cognitive associations.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of politics and ornithology is not a topic often explored in academic research. Yet, we find ourselves delving into this uncharted territory in an attempt to unravel the enigmatic correlation between the voting behaviors of Republican constituents in Oklahoma and their inquisitiveness about the plight of our avian companions during rainfall. The amalgamation of Google queries and political preferences might seem more fitting for a whimsical flight of fancy rather than a scholarly investigation, but as we venture deeper into the annals of statistics and data analysis, we are confronted with unexpected correlations that ruffle our feathers and elicit a collective, "Well, tweet me!"
As the world becomes increasingly enmeshed in the intricate web of digital footprints, we harness the power of Google Trends to shed light on the confluence of avifauna and political inclination. With a tongue firmly in cheek, we take flight on this scholarly escapade to discern whether the proverbial canaries in the coal mine can also serve as an allegory for the political landscape, or perhaps, they lend insight into the intricacies of human cognition and behavior.
Here, we offer a departure from the mundane and plummet headfirst into the realms of speculation, inquiry, and perhaps a touch of whimsy as we endeavor to uncover the hidden connections that could be, quite literally, "for the birds."
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation identified a robust correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains" for the period of 2004 to 2020. The correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 suggests a strong positive relationship between these ostensibly dissimilar variables, offering intriguing insights into the behavioral inclinations of the electorate. Moreover, the high coefficient of determination (r-squared of 0.8927929) confirms that approximately 89.3% of the variation in Republican voting patterns can be explained by the frequency of avian precipitation queries.
Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the compelling relationship between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. It showcases a striking linear association, indicating that as Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma increase, so does the volume of searches about avian sanctuary during rainfall, affirming the strength of this unanticipated connection. The scatterplot is a testament to the adage, "When it rains, it soars," advocating for an avian-inspired approach to political analysis.
This unexpected correlation prompts further inquiry into the underlying psychological and sociopolitical factors driving this association. While we resist the temptation to engage in fowl play, the interplay between avian curiosity and political allegiance beckons a deeper understanding. These findings encourage future research to delve into the complexities of human cognition and behavior, urging scholars to spread their wings and soar beyond conventional paradigms of analysis. Indeed, in the realm of statistics and social inquiry, it seems that sometimes the answers really do lie in a bird's eye view.
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 Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 500 tokens.
Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.
Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.
[[TITLE]]
"Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents an analysis of the intriguing link between the voting patterns of Republican voters in Oklahoma and their curiosity about the whereabouts of feathered friends during precipitation events. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends for the period spanning 2004 to 2020, our research team uncovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 (p < 0.01) between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains." Our findings suggest a potential avian attraction among the state's conservative electorate or perhaps a latent concern for the well-being of their airborne counterparts during inclement weather. This unexpected correlation invites further investigation and underscores the value of scrutinizing seemingly unrelated phenomena for potential insights into human behavior and cognitive associations.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between political preferences and seemingly random Google searches has been the subject of growing interest in recent years. In their seminal work, Smith et al. (2017) examined the association between voting patterns and internet search behavior, revealing intriguing correlations that extended beyond conventional demographic and ideological factors. Doe and Jones (2019) further expounded on this line of inquiry by investigating the cognitive processes underlying curiosity-driven searches and their implications for political decision-making.
Turning to more avian-focused literature, "The Ornithological Gazette" by Avian Enthusiasts Society (2015) provides a comprehensive overview of bird behavior in various weather conditions, offering valuable insights into the potential relevance of avian queries in political contexts. Similarly, "Birdwatching in Oklahoma" by Feathered Friends Federation (2018) delves into the diverse habitats and behaviors of Oklahoma's bird population, hinting at the underlying curiosity that may animate the state's Republican voters.
Amidst the academic literature and factual accounts, one cannot overlook the potential influence of fiction on public perception. "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" by Richard Bach stand as examples of literary works that weave avian symbolism into broader narratives, suggesting a symbolic characterization of avian creatures in human thought.
Furthermore, anecdotal evidence gleaned from social media platforms offers a glimpse into the popular consciousness regarding avian behavior and political inclinations. A recent tweet by @BirdWatcherBob pondering, "Do birds vote too, and do they consider the weather?" hints at a broader public fascination with the intersection of avian curiosity and political decision-making. Similarly, the Facebook group "Feathered Politics" features lively discussions on the potential avian allegiances of political factions, adding an intriguing layer to the discourse surrounding our research topic.
As we navigate through this curious amalgamation of literature and digital rumination, we find ourselves perched on the edge of a humorous inquiry that promises to unveil unexpected truths and, perhaps, the existence of a feathered electorate lurking amidst the data deluge.
[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation identified a robust correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains" for the period of 2004 to 2020. The correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 suggests a strong positive relationship between these ostensibly dissimilar variables, offering intriguing insights into the behavioral inclinations of the electorate. Moreover, the high coefficient of determination (r-squared of 0.8927929) confirms that approximately 89.3% of the variation in Republican voting patterns can be explained by the frequency of avian precipitation queries.
Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the compelling relationship between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. It showcases a striking linear association, indicating that as Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma increase, so does the volume of searches about avian sanctuary during rainfall, affirming the strength of this unanticipated connection. The scatterplot is a testament to the adage, "When it rains, it soars," advocating for an avian-inspired approach to political analysis.
This unexpected correlation prompts further inquiry into the underlying psychological and sociopolitical factors driving this association. While we resist the temptation to engage in fowl play, the interplay between avian curiosity and political allegiance beckons a deeper understanding. These findings encourage future research to delve into the complexities of human cognition and behavior, urging scholars to spread their wings and soar beyond conventional paradigms of analysis. Indeed, in the realm of statistics and social inquiry, it seems that sometimes the answers really do lie in a bird's eye view.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The results of our investigation into the curious correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and Google searches for "where do birds go when it rains" have ushered in a new feather in the cap of interdisciplinary inquiry. Our findings align with previous research that has highlighted the unsuspecting connections between political preferences and seemingly unrelated internet searches. The 0.9448772 correlation coefficient we unearthed not only surpasses the threshold for statistical significance but also prompts a bird's-eye view into the fascinating intricacies of human behavior. Indeed, the avian allegiances of the electorate may have more weight than one initially expects—perhaps not enough to tip the scales, but certainly enough to ruffle some feathers in the landscape of political analysis.
Returning to our literature review, we find intriguing echoes of our results in the works of the Avian Enthusiasts Society and the Feathered Friends Federation, which, though not the intended focus of their accounts, inadvertently hint at the potential relevance of avian queries in political contexts. This serves as a poignant reminder that sometimes, in the pursuit of uncovering political insights, one must be willing to spread their wings and delve into seemingly tangential areas of investigation. The emergence of a feathered electorate, figuratively speaking, reinforces the adage that every vote counts, be it from a constituent or a soaring avian enthusiast.
Figure 1, with its compelling linear association between Republican votes and avian precipitation queries, serves as a visual testament to the sometimes surprising collaborations of statistical analysis and whimsical inquiry. As we resist the temptation to descend into the realms of fowl play, we acknowledge the need to delve deeper into the psychological underpinnings of this avian curiosity and its implications for political allegiance. Indeed, the correlation has perched itself atop the branch of statistical significance and invites further exploration into human cognition and behavioral inclinations, beckoning researchers to take flight into uncharted territories of interdisciplinary inquiry.
In the realm of academic investigation, it seems that the avian allure of our findings, though unexpected, underscores the importance of remaining open to the unanticipated pathways that may lead to new understandings of human behavior and cognitive associations. As we wing our way forward in this line of inquiry, we must seize these opportunities for an altitude adjustment in our understanding of political behavior. This research is just the beginning of a broader investigation into the avian inclinations of the electorate—a journey that promises to unveil unexpected truths and, perhaps, the uncharted territory of a feathered electorate lurking amidst the data deluge.
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 Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.
Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents an analysis of the intriguing link between the voting patterns of Republican voters in Oklahoma and their curiosity about the whereabouts of feathered friends during precipitation events. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends for the period spanning 2004 to 2020, our research team uncovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 (p < 0.01) between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains." Our findings suggest a potential avian attraction among the state's conservative electorate or perhaps a latent concern for the well-being of their airborne counterparts during inclement weather. This unexpected correlation invites further investigation and underscores the value of scrutinizing seemingly unrelated phenomena for potential insights into human behavior and cognitive associations.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and ornithology is not a topic often explored in academic research. Yet, we find ourselves delving into this uncharted territory in an attempt to unravel the enigmatic correlation between the voting behaviors of Republican constituents in Oklahoma and their inquisitiveness about the plight of our avian companions during rainfall. The amalgamation of Google queries and political preferences might seem more fitting for a whimsical flight of fancy rather than a scholarly investigation, but as we venture deeper into the annals of statistics and data analysis, we are confronted with unexpected correlations that ruffle our feathers and elicit a collective, "Well, tweet me!"
As the world becomes increasingly enmeshed in the intricate web of digital footprints, we harness the power of Google Trends to shed light on the confluence of avifauna and political inclination. With a tongue firmly in cheek, we take flight on this scholarly escapade to discern whether the proverbial canaries in the coal mine can also serve as an allegory for the political landscape, or perhaps, they lend insight into the intricacies of human cognition and behavior.
Here, we offer a departure from the mundane and plummet headfirst into the realms of speculation, inquiry, and perhaps a touch of whimsy as we endeavor to uncover the hidden connections that could be, quite literally, "for the birds."
[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation identified a robust correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains" for the period of 2004 to 2020. The correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 suggests a strong positive relationship between these ostensibly dissimilar variables, offering intriguing insights into the behavioral inclinations of the electorate. Moreover, the high coefficient of determination (r-squared of 0.8927929) confirms that approximately 89.3% of the variation in Republican voting patterns can be explained by the frequency of avian precipitation queries.
Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the compelling relationship between these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. It showcases a striking linear association, indicating that as Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma increase, so does the volume of searches about avian sanctuary during rainfall, affirming the strength of this unanticipated connection. The scatterplot is a testament to the adage, "When it rains, it soars," advocating for an avian-inspired approach to political analysis.
This unexpected correlation prompts further inquiry into the underlying psychological and sociopolitical factors driving this association. While we resist the temptation to engage in fowl play, the interplay between avian curiosity and political allegiance beckons a deeper understanding. These findings encourage future research to delve into the complexities of human cognition and behavior, urging scholars to spread their wings and soar beyond conventional paradigms of analysis. Indeed, in the realm of statistics and social inquiry, it seems that sometimes the answers really do lie in a bird's eye view.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our investigation has uncovered a remarkable and statistically robust correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the curious queries about avian refuge during precipitation events. These findings not only lift our research to new heights but also underscore the incalculable value of uncovering hidden connections that may seem, at first glance, to be mere flights of fancy. As we wrap up our avian-themed odyssey, it is evident that, when it comes to the complex tapestry of human behavior and cognitive associations, the sky is truly the limit – and, in this case, not just for birds.
With our feather ruffled but spirits soaring, we advocate for a broader embrace of interdisciplinary research that thrives on unexpected correlations, turning a blind eye neither to the quirky nor the quizzical. Nevertheless, this study urges a cautious acknowledgment of the limits of this avian analogy, lest we find ourselves neck-deep in hawkward conversations about causality and causation.
While our findings beckon further scrutiny, we tentatively land on the branch of no return, asserting that the connection between Republican votes in Oklahoma and queries about avian precipitation sanctuaries requires no further investigation. As the avian saying goes, "Make no terns where none exist." Thus, we leave this area of inquiry to nestle quietly in the annals of statistical whimsy, a quirky testament to the capricious journey of scientific discovery.
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 Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Ornithological Political Analysis
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 Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Winged Wisdom Institute
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 Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries with an abstract of This paper presents an analysis of the intriguing link between the voting patterns of Republican voters in Oklahoma and their curiosity about the whereabouts of feathered friends during precipitation events. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends for the period spanning 2004 to 2020, our research team uncovered a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9448772 (p < 0.01) between Republican votes for Senators in Oklahoma and the frequency of Google searches for the query "where do birds go when it rains." Our findings suggest a potential avian attraction among the state's conservative electorate or perhaps a latent concern for the well-being of their airborne counterparts during inclement weather. This unexpected correlation invites further investigation and underscores the value of scrutinizing seemingly unrelated phenomena for potential insights into human behavior and cognitive associations.
ChatGPT:
Oklahoma Republicans, avian inclinations, voting patterns, Republican voters, Oklahoma, curiosity, feathered friends, precipitation events, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Google Trends, correlation coefficient, Google searches, birds and rain, avian attraction, conservative electorate, human behavior, cognitive associations
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
Votes for Republican Senators in OklahomaDetailed data title: Percentage of votes cast for Federal Republican Senate candidates in Oklahoma
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for Republican Senators in Oklahoma
Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
See what else correlates with Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'
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 = 0.8927929 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 89.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Oklahoma) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2020.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0045. 0.0044740400679419610000000000
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 0.94 in 0.45% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 224 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.
[ 0.57, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.
This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!
All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.
Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
2004 | 2008 | 2010 | 2014 | 2016 | 2020 | |
Votes for Republican Senators in Oklahoma (Percentage of votes) | 52.7653 | 56.6799 | 70.6367 | 135.862 | 67.739 | 62.9121 |
Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' (Rel. search volume) | 2.83333 | 1.08333 | 1.16667 | 10.75 | 2.08333 | 1.91667 |
Why this works
- Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
- Lack of causal connection: There is probably
Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied. - Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is. - Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
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([52.7653,56.6799,70.6367,135.862,67.739,62.9121,])
array_2 = np.array([2.83333,1.08333,1.16667,10.75,2.08333,1.91667,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Oklahoma"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'"
# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)
# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)
Reuseable content
You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.
For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."
When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.
Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.
Download images for these variables:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only Votes for Republican Senators in Oklahoma
- Line chart for only Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Fowl Play: Exploring the Avian Inclinations of Oklahoma Republicans through Google Queries
I'm grateful for your review!
Correlation ID: 5066 · Black Variable ID: 26448 · Red Variable ID: 1468