Download png, svg
AI explanation
As US household spending on other household products increased, more families in Utah were able to afford high-quality mops. The sparkly clean floors inspired a wave of support for the Democrat Presidential candidate, leading to an unexpected surge in votes. Remember, a polished platform and spotless policies really sweep voters off their feet!
Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ Concept art ] Create an image featuring a neat Utah neighborhood with families gathered outside their gleaming homes. Each house has a shining floor thanks to high-quality mops. The residents are admiring the sparkling floors, forming a supportive community. In the background, there's a subtle hint of a Democratic Presidential candidate gaining unexpected votes. The image should capture the unity and pride within the neighborhood while subtly hinting at the political shift. 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: US household spending on other household products and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Utah. 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: Surrealism Surrealism Cutsy graphics Concept art a Polaroid photo
ChatGPT: Concept art
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 US household spending on other household products and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Utah, in the following situation: As US household spending on other household products increased, more families in Utah were able to afford high-quality mops. The sparkly clean floors inspired a wave of support for the Democrat Presidential candidate, leading to an unexpected surge in votes. Remember, a polished platform and spotless policies really sweep voters off their feet!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a tidy Utah neighborhood, families proudly showcase their gleaming homes, thanks to the increase in US household spending on other household products. The high-quality mops have made the floors shine so bright that they catch the attention of the residents. As they gather to admire the sparkling floors, the wave of support for the Democrat Presidential candidate grows, leading to an unexpected surge in votes.
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: [ Concept art ] and depicting this scene: In a tidy Utah neighborhood, families proudly showcase their gleaming homes, thanks to the increase in US household spending on other household products. The high-quality mops have made the floors shine so bright that they catch the attention of the residents. As they gather to admire the sparkling floors, the wave of support for the Democrat Presidential candidate grows, leading to an unexpected surge in votes. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ Concept art ] Create an image featuring a neat Utah neighborhood with families gathered outside their gleaming homes. Each house has a shining floor thanks to high-quality mops. The residents are admiring the sparkling floors, forming a supportive community. In the background, there's a subtle hint of a Democratic Presidential candidate gaining unexpected votes. The image should capture the unity and pride within the neighborhood while subtly hinting at the political shift.
*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.
I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in US household spending on other household products caused Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Utah to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.
AI academic paper
 |
Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases Journal of Environmental Economics and Consumer Behavior 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 US household spending on other household products and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Utah. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title seem clever.
Your research team used data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 and p < 0.05 for 2000 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]]
"Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In our quirky study, we set out to investigate the peculiar connection between US household spending on other household products and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the arid lands of Utah. As unlikely as it may seem, our research team delved into the data with vigor and discovered that there is indeed a correlation that's almost as unmistakable as spotting a jackalope. Using meticulously gathered data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 and a p-value less than 0.05. So, the next time you're stocking up on laundry detergent and wondering about the political climate, just remember: every purchase plays a part in the grand scheme of electioneering.
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 US household spending on other household products and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Utah. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In our quirky study, we set out to investigate the peculiar connection between US household spending on other household products and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the arid lands of Utah. As unlikely as it may seem, our research team delved into the data with vigor and discovered that there is indeed a correlation that's almost as unmistakable as spotting a jackalope. Using meticulously gathered data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 and a p-value less than 0.05. So, the next time you're stocking up on laundry detergent and wondering about the political climate, just remember: every purchase plays a part in the grand scheme of electioneering.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the old saying goes, "You can't judge a political candidate by the size of their soap bubbles," but perhaps you can glean some insights into their support based on the quantity of laundry detergent flying off the shelves. In this offbeat investigation, we aim to shed light on the curiously colorful relationship between US household spending on other household products and the voting patterns for Democratic Presidential candidates in the unlikely setting of Utah.
Utah, known for its stunning landscapes and famously polite residents, might not be the first place that comes to mind when discussing democratic strongholds. Yet, our study seized this opportunity to unravel the mysteries lurking within the aisles of dish soap and paper towels, where the political preferences of the state's residents could be hiding in plain sight.
Despite the initial eyebrow-raising nature of the topic, our research team plunged headfirst into the data, armed with spreadsheets and determination. The results of our investigation left us as surprised as a groundhog on a sunny, snowless February day – after rigorous analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we unearthed a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.8759653, with a p-value that would make even the most ardent skeptic mull over their doubts.
While many might scoff at the idea of linking household spending habits to political tendencies, our findings present a persuasive case that these seemingly inconsequential purchases may hold the key to unlocking the enigmatic voting trends of the beehive state. So, as we embark on this unconventional exploration of consumerism and democracy, let's not forget that every dollar spent on cleaning supplies or snack foods could be casting a ballot of its own in the grand electoral ballet.
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 US household spending on other household products and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Utah. Make lots of 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 CVS receipts.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In our quirky study, we set out to investigate the peculiar connection between US household spending on other household products and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the arid lands of Utah. As unlikely as it may seem, our research team delved into the data with vigor and discovered that there is indeed a correlation that's almost as unmistakable as spotting a jackalope. Using meticulously gathered data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 and a p-value less than 0.05. So, the next time you're stocking up on laundry detergent and wondering about the political climate, just remember: every purchase plays a part in the grand scheme of electioneering.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the old saying goes, "You can't judge a political candidate by the size of their soap bubbles," but perhaps you can glean some insights into their support based on the quantity of laundry detergent flying off the shelves. In this offbeat investigation, we aim to shed light on the curiously colorful relationship between US household spending on other household products and the voting patterns for Democratic Presidential candidates in the unlikely setting of Utah.
Utah, known for its stunning landscapes and famously polite residents, might not be the first place that comes to mind when discussing democratic strongholds. Yet, our study seized this opportunity to unravel the mysteries lurking within the aisles of dish soap and paper towels, where the political preferences of the state's residents could be hiding in plain sight.
Despite the initial eyebrow-raising nature of the topic, our research team plunged headfirst into the data, armed with spreadsheets and determination. The results of our investigation left us as surprised as a groundhog on a sunny, snowless February day – after rigorous analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we unearthed a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.8759653, with a p-value that would make even the most ardent skeptic mull over their doubts.
While many might scoff at the idea of linking household spending habits to political tendencies, our findings present a persuasive case that these seemingly inconsequential purchases may hold the key to unlocking the enigmatic voting trends of the beehive state. So, as we embark on this unconventional exploration of consumerism and democracy, let's not forget that every dollar spent on cleaning supplies or snack foods could be casting a ballot of its own in the grand electoral ballet.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
A number of studies have examined the connection between consumer behavior and political affiliation, laying the groundwork for our unorthodox exploration. Smith et al. (2015) delved into the intricacies of consumer spending patterns and found correlations with diverse social and political factors, but notably omitted analysis of household products in relation to voting behavior in Utah. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2018) provided valuable insight into the influence of political advertising on consumer choices, yet failed to mention the potential impact of fabric softener purchases on election outcomes. These oversights prompted our team to venture into uncharted territory, armed with statistical models and an unquenchable thirst for the peculiar.
Turning to the realm of non-fiction, "Freakonomics" by Levitt and Dubner (2005) delves into the unexpected correlations hidden within everyday phenomena, offering a tantalizing glimpse into the intersection of economics and human behavior. In a similar vein, "Predictably Irrational" by Ariely (2008) colorfully elucidates the irrational quirks of consumer decision-making, leaving the reader questioning the logic behind every shopping spree. Drawing inspiration from these thought-provoking works, our researchers were galvanized to contemplate the potential interplay between household spending and political leanings, venturing forth with a sense of scholarly whimsy.
Transitioning to the world of fiction, "American Housewife" by Ellis (2016) and "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck" by Manson (2016) may not immediately appear relevant to our academic pursuit, but their exploration of societal norms and individual idiosyncrasies inspired our team to consider the unforeseen implications of household product purchases on political affiliations in the unlikely context of Utah. These literary escapades ignited a spark of creativity within our researchers, propelling them to approach the research with a dash of unconventional zeal and a sprinkle of satirical contemplation.
In a bold departure from conventional research methods, our investigation extended beyond scholarly literature and ventured into uncharted territory. In a daring bid for unconventional insight, our team scoured through countless CVS receipts, deciphering the cryptic codes of consumerism with the fervor of archaeologists unearthing ancient relics. The peculiar purchase patterns that emerged from these unconventional archives provided a lighthearted backdrop for our research, infusing the serious pursuit of knowledge with a zany touch of levity.
Armed with insights from both scholarly literature and whimsical literary excursions, our research team forged ahead with an unorthodox blend of inquisitiveness and irreverence, uncovering the unexpected dance of democracy within the aisles of household products. The subsequent chapters offer a delightful romp through our findings, as we unravel the whimsical connections between consumerism, political allegiance, and the peculiar American spirit.
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 US household spending on other household products and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Utah. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse . You used data from 2000 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]]
"Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In our quirky study, we set out to investigate the peculiar connection between US household spending on other household products and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the arid lands of Utah. As unlikely as it may seem, our research team delved into the data with vigor and discovered that there is indeed a correlation that's almost as unmistakable as spotting a jackalope. Using meticulously gathered data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 and a p-value less than 0.05. So, the next time you're stocking up on laundry detergent and wondering about the political climate, just remember: every purchase plays a part in the grand scheme of electioneering.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the old saying goes, "You can't judge a political candidate by the size of their soap bubbles," but perhaps you can glean some insights into their support based on the quantity of laundry detergent flying off the shelves. In this offbeat investigation, we aim to shed light on the curiously colorful relationship between US household spending on other household products and the voting patterns for Democratic Presidential candidates in the unlikely setting of Utah.
Utah, known for its stunning landscapes and famously polite residents, might not be the first place that comes to mind when discussing democratic strongholds. Yet, our study seized this opportunity to unravel the mysteries lurking within the aisles of dish soap and paper towels, where the political preferences of the state's residents could be hiding in plain sight.
Despite the initial eyebrow-raising nature of the topic, our research team plunged headfirst into the data, armed with spreadsheets and determination. The results of our investigation left us as surprised as a groundhog on a sunny, snowless February day – after rigorous analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we unearthed a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.8759653, with a p-value that would make even the most ardent skeptic mull over their doubts.
While many might scoff at the idea of linking household spending habits to political tendencies, our findings present a persuasive case that these seemingly inconsequential purchases may hold the key to unlocking the enigmatic voting trends of the beehive state. So, as we embark on this unconventional exploration of consumerism and democracy, let's not forget that every dollar spent on cleaning supplies or snack foods could be casting a ballot of its own in the grand electoral ballet.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
**[[METHODOLOGY]]**
*Data Collection*
Our data collection process resembles a heist straight out of an old-fashioned caper film, except instead of stealing jewels, we snatched up information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020. The art of extraction involved wrangling spreadsheets, coercing databases, and sweet-talking our way through complicated data APIs. It was a wild ride, let me tell you – a bit like riding a rollercoaster through a maze.
*Variable Selection*
It was like walking a tightrope between convention and innovation as we carefully selected our variables. The goal was to find the perfect blend of household spending on other household products and political inclinations. We focused on peculiar items like brooms, mops, and wacky knick-knacks – all the quirky things that hide in the corners of your household budget and surprise you with their influence. We also took into account the Democratic Presidential candidate votes in Utah – quite the unexpected pairing, wouldn't you say?
*Statistical Analysis*
Our statistical analysis involved dancing through the fields of correlation coefficients and p-values, akin to a mathematician attempting a tango. We deployed the trusty Pearson correlation coefficient to reveal the strength and direction of the relationship between household spending on other household products and Democratic Presidential candidate votes in Utah. The p-value, on the other hand, acted as a magic mirror, reflecting the significance of our findings. And let me tell you, the mirror did not disappoint – it showed us a p-value less than 0.05, a sight as rare as finding a four-leaf clover on a political rally trail.
*Limitations*
While our methodology was as robust as a weightlifting gorilla, there were still a few caveats to consider. As with any study, we encountered the standard limitations of using secondary data sources, such as potential biases or discrepancies. We also had to navigate around the occasional missing data points, akin to dodging landmines in a field of statistics. Nevertheless, armed with determination and a dash of statistical savvy, we forged ahead, undeterred.
So, as the curtains drew back on our eccentric methodology, we embarked on a journey that was as thrilling as a board game night with politically inclined puppets. The data was at our fingertips, the numbers at our beck and call, and we were ready to uncover the fascinating nexus between household products and political preferences.
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 US household spending on other household products and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Utah. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse .
For the time period 2000 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8759653, r-squared of 0.7673151, and p < 0.05.
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]]
"Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In our quirky study, we set out to investigate the peculiar connection between US household spending on other household products and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the arid lands of Utah. As unlikely as it may seem, our research team delved into the data with vigor and discovered that there is indeed a correlation that's almost as unmistakable as spotting a jackalope. Using meticulously gathered data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 and a p-value less than 0.05. So, the next time you're stocking up on laundry detergent and wondering about the political climate, just remember: every purchase plays a part in the grand scheme of electioneering.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As the old saying goes, "You can't judge a political candidate by the size of their soap bubbles," but perhaps you can glean some insights into their support based on the quantity of laundry detergent flying off the shelves. In this offbeat investigation, we aim to shed light on the curiously colorful relationship between US household spending on other household products and the voting patterns for Democratic Presidential candidates in the unlikely setting of Utah.
Utah, known for its stunning landscapes and famously polite residents, might not be the first place that comes to mind when discussing democratic strongholds. Yet, our study seized this opportunity to unravel the mysteries lurking within the aisles of dish soap and paper towels, where the political preferences of the state's residents could be hiding in plain sight.
Despite the initial eyebrow-raising nature of the topic, our research team plunged headfirst into the data, armed with spreadsheets and determination. The results of our investigation left us as surprised as a groundhog on a sunny, snowless February day – after rigorous analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we unearthed a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.8759653, with a p-value that would make even the most ardent skeptic mull over their doubts.
While many might scoff at the idea of linking household spending habits to political tendencies, our findings present a persuasive case that these seemingly inconsequential purchases may hold the key to unlocking the enigmatic voting trends of the beehive state. So, as we embark on this unconventional exploration of consumerism and democracy, let's not forget that every dollar spent on cleaning supplies or snack foods could be casting a ballot of its own in the grand electoral ballet.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation uncovered a striking correlation between US household spending on other household products and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the unconventional politico-geographical landscape of Utah. The correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 left our research team feeling as intrigued as a squirrel contemplating its acorn collection. The r-squared value of 0.7673151 further solidified the robustness of this relationship, akin to a securely locked pantry that keeps the cookies safe from prying hands.
Figure 1 presents a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the spirited dance between household spending and Democratic votes in Utah, showcasing a clear and remarkable pattern that even the most skeptical of observers would have a hard time dismissing. It's like finding a needle in a haystack, if that needle were inexplicably wearing a "Vote Democrat" sticker.
These results challenge traditional views of the relationship between consumer behaviors and political inclinations, demonstrating that the choices made in the aisle of cleaning supplies might mirror the sentiments expressed at the ballot box. As puzzling as it may seem at first, our findings beckon us to recognize the potential impact of a bottle of window cleaner on the political landscape – a realization as eye-opening as a freshly cleaned window.
With a p-value of less than 0.05, this correlation stands as sturdy as a well-constructed bookshelf, defying expectations and beckoning further exploration into the intriguing interplay of household spending and political affiliations. So, while the adage "vote with your dollars" may typically refer to supporting businesses, our study suggests it may also offer a glimpse into the political leanings of Utah households.
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 US household spending on other household products and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Utah. Make lots of 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]]
"Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In our quirky study, we set out to investigate the peculiar connection between US household spending on other household products and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the arid lands of Utah. As unlikely as it may seem, our research team delved into the data with vigor and discovered that there is indeed a correlation that's almost as unmistakable as spotting a jackalope. Using meticulously gathered data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 and a p-value less than 0.05. So, the next time you're stocking up on laundry detergent and wondering about the political climate, just remember: every purchase plays a part in the grand scheme of electioneering.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
A number of studies have examined the connection between consumer behavior and political affiliation, laying the groundwork for our unorthodox exploration. Smith et al. (2015) delved into the intricacies of consumer spending patterns and found correlations with diverse social and political factors, but notably omitted analysis of household products in relation to voting behavior in Utah. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2018) provided valuable insight into the influence of political advertising on consumer choices, yet failed to mention the potential impact of fabric softener purchases on election outcomes. These oversights prompted our team to venture into uncharted territory, armed with statistical models and an unquenchable thirst for the peculiar.
Turning to the realm of non-fiction, "Freakonomics" by Levitt and Dubner (2005) delves into the unexpected correlations hidden within everyday phenomena, offering a tantalizing glimpse into the intersection of economics and human behavior. In a similar vein, "Predictably Irrational" by Ariely (2008) colorfully elucidates the irrational quirks of consumer decision-making, leaving the reader questioning the logic behind every shopping spree. Drawing inspiration from these thought-provoking works, our researchers were galvanized to contemplate the potential interplay between household spending and political leanings, venturing forth with a sense of scholarly whimsy.
Transitioning to the world of fiction, "American Housewife" by Ellis (2016) and "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck" by Manson (2016) may not immediately appear relevant to our academic pursuit, but their exploration of societal norms and individual idiosyncrasies inspired our team to consider the unforeseen implications of household product purchases on political affiliations in the unlikely context of Utah. These literary escapades ignited a spark of creativity within our researchers, propelling them to approach the research with a dash of unconventional zeal and a sprinkle of satirical contemplation.
In a bold departure from conventional research methods, our investigation extended beyond scholarly literature and ventured into uncharted territory. In a daring bid for unconventional insight, our team scoured through countless CVS receipts, deciphering the cryptic codes of consumerism with the fervor of archaeologists unearthing ancient relics. The peculiar purchase patterns that emerged from these unconventional archives provided a lighthearted backdrop for our research, infusing the serious pursuit of knowledge with a zany touch of levity.
Armed with insights from both scholarly literature and whimsical literary excursions, our research team forged ahead with an unorthodox blend of inquisitiveness and irreverence, uncovering the unexpected dance of democracy within the aisles of household products. The subsequent chapters offer a delightful romp through our findings, as we unravel the whimsical connections between consumerism, political allegiance, and the peculiar American spirit.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation uncovered a striking correlation between US household spending on other household products and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the unconventional politico-geographical landscape of Utah. The correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 left our research team feeling as intrigued as a squirrel contemplating its acorn collection. The r-squared value of 0.7673151 further solidified the robustness of this relationship, akin to a securely locked pantry that keeps the cookies safe from prying hands.
Figure 1 presents a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the spirited dance between household spending and Democratic votes in Utah, showcasing a clear and remarkable pattern that even the most skeptical of observers would have a hard time dismissing. It's like finding a needle in a haystack, if that needle were inexplicably wearing a "Vote Democrat" sticker.
These results challenge traditional views of the relationship between consumer behaviors and political inclinations, demonstrating that the choices made in the aisle of cleaning supplies might mirror the sentiments expressed at the ballot box. As puzzling as it may seem at first, our findings beckon us to recognize the potential impact of a bottle of window cleaner on the political landscape – a realization as eye-opening as a freshly cleaned window.
With a p-value of less than 0.05, this correlation stands as sturdy as a well-constructed bookshelf, defying expectations and beckoning further exploration into the intriguing interplay of household spending and political affiliations. So, while the adage "vote with your dollars" may typically refer to supporting businesses, our study suggests it may also offer a glimpse into the political leanings of Utah households.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
Our investigation into the fascinating realm of household spending and political leanings in Utah has unleashed a whirlwind of curious correlations and unexpected revelations. As we all know, the streets of economic analysis are not paved with gold, but our findings uncovered a correlation coefficient that's as shiny as a newly polished silver spoon, shedding light on the quirky interplay between consumer behavior and political allegiance.
Returning to our previous literature review goofs, it's safe to say that our findings support the unexplored musings of Smith et al. (2015) and Doe and Jones (2018) by confirming that fabric softener purchases and voting behavior in Utah do indeed have a certain, um, "bounce" together. Indeed, our results align with Levitt and Dubner's (2005) unconventional correlation crusade and Ariely's (2008) exploration of irrational consumer decision-making by presenting a statistically robust connection between household spending and political leanings, leaving us to contemplate the unpredictable dance of democracy within the aisles of household products.
Our results not only raise eyebrows but also beckon us to contemplate the broader implications of mundane consumer choices on the political landscape. It's as if our study has unmasked a household drama more captivating than any reality TV show – the sparkling tension between political proclivities and laundry detergent brows, the political power struggles lurking within the shadows of kitchen appliance purchases. Our whimsical journey through the land of household products has transformed seemingly mundane decisions into unexpected insights and left us pondering the democratic flavors lingering in the air freshener section.
In summary, our research has unveiled a correlation that's as unmistakable as spotting a Sasquatch in a grocery store, offering a whimsical romp through the unexpected connections between consumerism, political allegiance, and the peculiar American spirit. Stay tuned, dear reader, as we wade deeper into this quirky rabbit hole, for there is much more to uncover in this whimsical waltz between household spending and democratic votes in the unconventional terrain of Utah.
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 US household spending on other household products and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Utah. Make lots of 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]]
"Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In our quirky study, we set out to investigate the peculiar connection between US household spending on other household products and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the arid lands of Utah. As unlikely as it may seem, our research team delved into the data with vigor and discovered that there is indeed a correlation that's almost as unmistakable as spotting a jackalope. Using meticulously gathered data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 and a p-value less than 0.05. So, the next time you're stocking up on laundry detergent and wondering about the political climate, just remember: every purchase plays a part in the grand scheme of electioneering.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
As the old saying goes, "You can't judge a political candidate by the size of their soap bubbles," but perhaps you can glean some insights into their support based on the quantity of laundry detergent flying off the shelves. In this offbeat investigation, we aim to shed light on the curiously colorful relationship between US household spending on other household products and the voting patterns for Democratic Presidential candidates in the unlikely setting of Utah.
Utah, known for its stunning landscapes and famously polite residents, might not be the first place that comes to mind when discussing democratic strongholds. Yet, our study seized this opportunity to unravel the mysteries lurking within the aisles of dish soap and paper towels, where the political preferences of the state's residents could be hiding in plain sight.
Despite the initial eyebrow-raising nature of the topic, our research team plunged headfirst into the data, armed with spreadsheets and determination. The results of our investigation left us as surprised as a groundhog on a sunny, snowless February day – after rigorous analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we unearthed a compelling correlation coefficient of 0.8759653, with a p-value that would make even the most ardent skeptic mull over their doubts.
While many might scoff at the idea of linking household spending habits to political tendencies, our findings present a persuasive case that these seemingly inconsequential purchases may hold the key to unlocking the enigmatic voting trends of the beehive state. So, as we embark on this unconventional exploration of consumerism and democracy, let's not forget that every dollar spent on cleaning supplies or snack foods could be casting a ballot of its own in the grand electoral ballet.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation uncovered a striking correlation between US household spending on other household products and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the unconventional politico-geographical landscape of Utah. The correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 left our research team feeling as intrigued as a squirrel contemplating its acorn collection. The r-squared value of 0.7673151 further solidified the robustness of this relationship, akin to a securely locked pantry that keeps the cookies safe from prying hands.
Figure 1 presents a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the spirited dance between household spending and Democratic votes in Utah, showcasing a clear and remarkable pattern that even the most skeptical of observers would have a hard time dismissing. It's like finding a needle in a haystack, if that needle were inexplicably wearing a "Vote Democrat" sticker.
These results challenge traditional views of the relationship between consumer behaviors and political inclinations, demonstrating that the choices made in the aisle of cleaning supplies might mirror the sentiments expressed at the ballot box. As puzzling as it may seem at first, our findings beckon us to recognize the potential impact of a bottle of window cleaner on the political landscape – a realization as eye-opening as a freshly cleaned window.
With a p-value of less than 0.05, this correlation stands as sturdy as a well-constructed bookshelf, defying expectations and beckoning further exploration into the intriguing interplay of household spending and political affiliations. So, while the adage "vote with your dollars" may typically refer to supporting businesses, our study suggests it may also offer a glimpse into the political leanings of Utah households.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In the wild world of research, our findings serve as a quirky reminder that politics can be as tangled as a garden hose left unattended for a season. The correlation we uncovered between household spending and Democratic votes in Utah is as surprising as finding a hidden treasure map in a box of cereal. It's tempting to brush off the idea that purchasing a pack of sponges could hold political weight, but our results demand a second look, much like a cat demanding attention after a nap.
Our findings have peeled back the curtain on the unexpected dance between consumer behavior and political allegiance, revealing a correlation coefficient with more punch than a heavyweight boxer and a p-value that's rarer than finding a four-leaf clover in a field of daisies. The data depicted in Figure 1 presents a visual narrative as captivating as a tall tale told around a campfire - who knew that shopping for toilet paper could reveal so much about voting preferences?
In this lighthearted expedition into the corridors of consumerism and democracy, our research has challenged the conventional wisdom, proving that every toothpaste purchase and paper towel selection may whisper secrets about political leanings. It's a reminder that even the most mundane of acts, like choosing a laundry detergent, can have implications as weighty as a fully loaded grocery cart.
In light of these revelatory findings, we assert with great confidence that no more research is needed in this area. It's time for us to set sail for new research waters, leaving behind a legacy as peculiar as a platypus in politics. So, as we bid adieu to the spirited discourse of household product purchases and voting patterns, we do so with a twinkle in our eyes and a chuckle in our hearts, knowing that the unexpected can always be found in the most surprising of places. Cheers to the peculiar paths of research, where even the most unconventional explorations can yield insights as valuable as finding a golden ticket in a box of chocolate.
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 Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
Journal of Environmental Economics and Consumer Behavior
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 Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Society for Ecological Economics and Consumer Behavior
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 Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases with an abstract of In our quirky study, we set out to investigate the peculiar connection between US household spending on other household products and votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the arid lands of Utah. As unlikely as it may seem, our research team delved into the data with vigor and discovered that there is indeed a correlation that's almost as unmistakable as spotting a jackalope. Using meticulously gathered data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse for the years 2000 to 2020, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.8759653 and a p-value less than 0.05. So, the next time you're stocking up on laundry detergent and wondering about the political climate, just remember: every purchase plays a part in the grand scheme of electioneering.
ChatGPT:
Utah, Democratic presidential candidate, household spending, other household products, correlation coefficient, Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, 2000-2020, political climate, electioneering, Utah household purchases
*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
US household spending on other household productsDetailed data title: Annual US household spend on other household products, as a percentage of total household spend
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with US household spending on other household products
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Utah
Detailed data title: Percentage of all votes cast for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Utah
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Utah
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 = 0.7673151 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 76.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Utah) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., US household spending on other household products) over the 6 years from 2000 through 2020.
p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.022. 0.0221228099738094460000000000
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 0.88 in 2.2% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 45 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.
[ 0.22, 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.
| 2000 | 2004 | 2008 | 2012 | 2016 | 2020 | |
| US household spending on other household products (Household spend) | 0.594033 | 0.66828 | 0.693262 | 0.620116 | 0.633386 | 0.873904 |
| Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Utah (Percentage of votes) | 26.3447 | 25.9956 | 34.4057 | 24.7497 | 27.4613 | 37.646 |
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. - Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.
- 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([0.594033,0.66828,0.693262,0.620116,0.633386,0.873904,])
array_2 = np.array([26.3447,25.9956,34.4057,24.7497,27.4613,37.646,])
array_1_name = "US household spending on other household products"
array_2_name = "Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Utah"
# 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 US household spending on other household products
- Line chart for only Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Utah
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Spending Green: The Democratic Effect on Utah Household Product Purchases
Your rating skills are top-notch!
Correlation ID: 5079 · Black Variable ID: 19973 · Red Variable ID: 26175
