Spurious correlation #5,103 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Libertarian Senators in Oregon and the second variable is Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. The chart goes from 1986 to 2015, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Libertarian Senators in Oregon and the second variable is Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. The chart goes from 1986 to 2015, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

The spike in Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon led to a push for agricultural deregulation. Without government intervention, there was a shift towards using dried manure for fertilizer, as farmers embraced a "hands-off" approach to soil management. It seems like in this case, when it comes to spreading political ideas and spreading manure, the two go hand in hand!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image in the style of brutalism that portrays an Oregon farm landscape. Within the fields, a group of farmers is shown casting their Libertarian votes for Senators, symbolizing their support for agricultural deregulation. Emphasize the use of dried manure as fertilizer to reflect the shift in soil management practices. The visual should convey the fusion of political ideas and agricultural methods, showcasing the farmers adopting a "hands-off" approach while incorporating the spread of manure. The composition should portray the rugged and raw architectural elements characteristic of brutalism, complementing the organic and earthy nature of the farm 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: Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. 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: Brutalism Brutalism Photorealism Charcoal Voxel art
ChatGPT: Brutalism

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US, in the following situation: The spike in Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon led to a push for agricultural deregulation. Without government intervention, there was a shift towards using dried manure for fertilizer, as farmers embraced a "hands-off" approach to soil management. It seems like in this case, when it comes to spreading political ideas and spreading manure, the two go hand in hand!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In an Oregon farm, a handful of farmers cast their Libertarian votes for Senators, leading to a push for agricultural deregulation. In the fields, there's a shift towards using dried manure for fertilizer. The farmers embrace a "hands-off" approach to soil management, joining political ideas with the spread of manure.

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: [ Brutalism ] and depicting this scene: In an Oregon farm, a handful of farmers cast their Libertarian votes for Senators, leading to a push for agricultural deregulation. In the fields, there's a shift towards using dried manure for fertilizer. The farmers embrace a "hands-off" approach to soil management, joining political ideas with the spread of manure. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image in the style of brutalism that portrays an Oregon farm landscape. Within the fields, a group of farmers is shown casting their Libertarian votes for Senators, symbolizing their support for agricultural deregulation. Emphasize the use of dried manure as fertilizer to reflect the shift in soil management practices. The visual should convey the fusion of political ideas and agricultural methods, showcasing the farmers adopting a "hands-off" approach while incorporating the spread of manure. The composition should portray the rugged and raw architectural elements characteristic of brutalism, complementing the organic and earthy nature of the farm 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.
^{Show prompt for explanation} Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon caused Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

Grassroots Pass: Libertarian Votes in Oregon and Dried Manure for Fertilizer in the US

Journal of American Agricultural Politics and Oddities

Jan 2024

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

^{Show prompt used to generate this paper} Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. 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 name some movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Grassroots Pass: Libertarian Votes in Oregon and Dried Manure for Fertilizer in the US

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious relationship between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and USDA, our research team set out to address this conundrum and shed light on this peculiar association. Surprisingly, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and p < 0.01, spanning the years 1986 to 2015. The results suggest that there may be more to this connection than meets the eye, providing fodder for further investigation and perhaps the birth of some truly "groundbreaking" theories in the realm of political and agricultural interactions.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of political science and agricultural economics, seemingly unrelated phenomena often intersect in the most intriguing and unexpected ways. Our research delves into the uncharted territory at the confluence of Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the utilization of dried manure for fertilization across the United States. This intersection may at first blush appear as a mere curiosity, but as we delve deeper into the data, a compelling correlation unveils itself, leading to a fertile ground for inquiry and interpretation.
The quest for understanding this enigmatic relationship has led us through an odyssey of statistical analyses and theoretical musings. It turns out that this peculiar connection between political preferences and agricultural practices might just be the fertilizer for a burgeoning field of interdisciplinary inquiry. With the use of rigorous data sources from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we have unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and p < 0.01, spanning nearly three decades. This statistic may prompt some to raise an eyebrow in skepticism, but as researchers, we are always eager to embrace the unexpected and explore the unexplored terrains of scholarly investigation.
As we embark on this academic journey, it is crucial to acknowledge that our findings may provoke both fascination and skepticism. However, as Socrates wisely noted, "The unexamined dataset is not worth analyzing." With this in mind, we invite our fellow scholars to suspend their disbelief and join us in this quest for intellectual discovery and perhaps a few good laughs along the way. After all, who knew that the roots of political allegiance and agricultural practices could intertwine in such a peculiar and amusing manner?
So, fasten your seatbelts as we navigate through the labyrinthine pathways of statistical analysis and attempt to unearth the fertile ground where political preferences and agricultural choices mingle. Our findings indeed hint at the possibility of groundbreaking theories in the making, or as we might pleasantly pun, "seedlings of unconventional correlations waiting to be harvested."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The exploration of unconventional correlations between political preferences and agricultural practices has long been a subject of intrigue in the scholarly community. Smith et al. (2010) explored the relationship between voter behavior and agricultural trends, albeit in a different context. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2015) delved into the political landscape and its influence on agricultural decision-making, offering valuable insights into the subtle yet significant intersections between these seemingly disparate domains.

Furthermore, in "The Economics of Agriculture" by Brown (2017), the author discusses the intricate web of factors influencing agricultural practices, providing a comprehensive overview of the multifaceted nature of agricultural decision-making. This comprehensive work sheds light on the various social and economic factors that sway agricultural choices, setting the stage for our investigation into the curious link between Libertarian votes and the use of dried manure for fertilizer.

In the realm of fiction, "The Garden of Political Machinations" by Green (2013) presents a whimsical narrative in which political intrigue intertwines with agricultural pursuits, offering a tongue-in-cheek exploration of the themes that underpin our investigation. Additionally, "The Fertilizer Affair" by Red (2018) playfully weaves a tale of political machinations centered around the enigmatic world of agricultural practices, offering a lighthearted perspective on the themes that resonate with our research.

In a tangential yet noteworthy contribution, the film "Manure Mingle" (2015) presents a satirical take on the complexities of agricultural endeavors and their interplay with political dynamics. Though purely fictional, the movie serves as a playful reminder of the unexpected connections that can arise within the realms of politics and agriculture, mirroring the serendipitous nature of our inquiry.

As we traverse this academic landscape, it becomes evident that the intersection of Libertarian votes in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US is indeed a rich ground for scholarly exploration, characterized by both intrigue and the occasional chuckle. It is within this fertile terrain that our investigation takes root, with the hope of unearthing deeper insights and perhaps a few lighthearted revelations along the way.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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 USDA . You used data from 1986 to 2015

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]]
Grassroots Pass: Libertarian Votes in Oregon and Dried Manure for Fertilizer in the US

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious relationship between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and USDA, our research team set out to address this conundrum and shed light on this peculiar association. Surprisingly, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and p < 0.01, spanning the years 1986 to 2015. The results suggest that there may be more to this connection than meets the eye, providing fodder for further investigation and perhaps the birth of some truly "groundbreaking" theories in the realm of political and agricultural interactions.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of political science and agricultural economics, seemingly unrelated phenomena often intersect in the most intriguing and unexpected ways. Our research delves into the uncharted territory at the confluence of Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the utilization of dried manure for fertilization across the United States. This intersection may at first blush appear as a mere curiosity, but as we delve deeper into the data, a compelling correlation unveils itself, leading to a fertile ground for inquiry and interpretation.
The quest for understanding this enigmatic relationship has led us through an odyssey of statistical analyses and theoretical musings. It turns out that this peculiar connection between political preferences and agricultural practices might just be the fertilizer for a burgeoning field of interdisciplinary inquiry. With the use of rigorous data sources from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we have unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and p < 0.01, spanning nearly three decades. This statistic may prompt some to raise an eyebrow in skepticism, but as researchers, we are always eager to embrace the unexpected and explore the unexplored terrains of scholarly investigation.
As we embark on this academic journey, it is crucial to acknowledge that our findings may provoke both fascination and skepticism. However, as Socrates wisely noted, "The unexamined dataset is not worth analyzing." With this in mind, we invite our fellow scholars to suspend their disbelief and join us in this quest for intellectual discovery and perhaps a few good laughs along the way. After all, who knew that the roots of political allegiance and agricultural practices could intertwine in such a peculiar and amusing manner?
So, fasten your seatbelts as we navigate through the labyrinthine pathways of statistical analysis and attempt to unearth the fertile ground where political preferences and agricultural choices mingle. Our findings indeed hint at the possibility of groundbreaking theories in the making, or as we might pleasantly pun, "seedlings of unconventional correlations waiting to be harvested."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

In our intrepid quest to uncover the curious correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States, we employed a multitude of methodological techniques to ensure the rigor and robustness of our analysis. Our data collection process involved the extraction of voting data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, with particular emphasis on Oregon’s historical senatorial elections. We also gleaned agricultural data on the utilization of dried manure for fertilizer across the United States from the USDA, meticulously sifting through decades of agricultural reports and statistical summaries.

The temporal scope of our investigation spanned from 1986 to 2015, encompassing a significant period of political and agricultural flux. This timeframe allowed us to capture fluctuations in Libertarian voting patterns and the ebb and flow of dried manure usage for fertilization, thereby providing a comprehensive landscape of the correlation under scrutiny.

To assess the relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, we employed advanced statistical methods, including correlation analysis and regression modeling. The interaction between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the prevalence of dried manure as a fertilizer across the nation was scrutinized using sophisticated statistical software. Our analysis sought to disentangle the multifaceted dynamics underlying this unexpected association while remaining mindful of potential confounding variables and lurking spurious correlations.

Furthermore, to address the potential influence of extraneous factors, we conducted sensitivity analyses and robustness checks to ascertain the stability of our findings. This comprehensive approach allowed us to interrogate the durability of the observed correlation, safeguarding against any spurious or coincidental patterns.

Embracing the interdisciplinary nature of our inquiry, we drew upon insights from both the fields of political science and agricultural economics, incorporating theoretical frameworks that transcended traditional disciplinary boundaries. This integrative approach facilitated a nuanced understanding of the underlying mechanisms that may underpin the observed correlation, shedding light on the enigmatic interplay between political affiliation and agricultural practices.

As we navigated the labyrinthine pathways of statistical analysis, we remained acutely aware of the pitfalls of causal inference and carried out meticulous checks to circumvent unwarranted assumptions of causality. While our findings pointed to a remarkably robust correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 with a p-value less than 0.01, we exercise caution in attributing causative explanations to this correlation, recognizing the myriad intricacies that permeate the realm of empirical inquiry.

In delineating the methodological underpinnings of our investigation, we remain cognizant of the intricate interplay between curiosity-driven exploration and rigorous empirical inquiry. The convergence of Libertarian votes in Oregon and the prevalence of dried manure for fertilizer across the United States may just be the tip of the proverbial iceberg - or in our case, the tip of the fertilized soil. Nonetheless, our methodological approach provides a fertile foundation for future explorations into the uncharted terrain where political preferences and agricultural practices intertwine in unexpectedly captivating ways.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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 USDA .

For the time period 1986 to 2015, you found a correlation 0.9669585, r-squared of 0.9350087, 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]]
Grassroots Pass: Libertarian Votes in Oregon and Dried Manure for Fertilizer in the US

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious relationship between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and USDA, our research team set out to address this conundrum and shed light on this peculiar association. Surprisingly, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and p < 0.01, spanning the years 1986 to 2015. The results suggest that there may be more to this connection than meets the eye, providing fodder for further investigation and perhaps the birth of some truly "groundbreaking" theories in the realm of political and agricultural interactions.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the realm of political science and agricultural economics, seemingly unrelated phenomena often intersect in the most intriguing and unexpected ways. Our research delves into the uncharted territory at the confluence of Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the utilization of dried manure for fertilization across the United States. This intersection may at first blush appear as a mere curiosity, but as we delve deeper into the data, a compelling correlation unveils itself, leading to a fertile ground for inquiry and interpretation.
The quest for understanding this enigmatic relationship has led us through an odyssey of statistical analyses and theoretical musings. It turns out that this peculiar connection between political preferences and agricultural practices might just be the fertilizer for a burgeoning field of interdisciplinary inquiry. With the use of rigorous data sources from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we have unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and p < 0.01, spanning nearly three decades. This statistic may prompt some to raise an eyebrow in skepticism, but as researchers, we are always eager to embrace the unexpected and explore the unexplored terrains of scholarly investigation.
As we embark on this academic journey, it is crucial to acknowledge that our findings may provoke both fascination and skepticism. However, as Socrates wisely noted, "The unexamined dataset is not worth analyzing." With this in mind, we invite our fellow scholars to suspend their disbelief and join us in this quest for intellectual discovery and perhaps a few good laughs along the way. After all, who knew that the roots of political allegiance and agricultural practices could intertwine in such a peculiar and amusing manner?
So, fasten your seatbelts as we navigate through the labyrinthine pathways of statistical analysis and attempt to unearth the fertile ground where political preferences and agricultural choices mingle. Our findings indeed hint at the possibility of groundbreaking theories in the making, or as we might pleasantly pun, "seedlings of unconventional correlations waiting to be harvested."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]

ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US yielded some intriguing and, dare we say, amusing results. Our findings revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and an r-squared value of 0.9350087, with a p-value of less than 0.01. These statistical measures suggest a robust relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, defying expectations and inviting a great deal of eyebrow-raising among the scholarly community.

The aggregate data from the years 1986 to 2015, obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, clearly depicted a striking pattern. The figure (Fig. 1) illustrates the compelling scatterplot demonstrating the formidable association between Libertarian votes in Oregon and the widespread use of dried manure for fertilization across the US. The scatterplot speaks volumes, showing a trend that is not easily brushed aside as mere coincidence.

It is important to note that while correlation does not imply causation, the strength of the relationship we uncovered certainly gives rise to some quizzical pondering. Could it be that the libertarian spirit, known for its advocacy of individual autonomy and minimal government intervention, finds resonance with the independent-minded farmers who opt for more traditional, non-commercial agricultural practices? Or perchance, there is some deeper ideological underpinning that unites the voting preferences of Oregonians with their fertilizer choices, perhaps involving a shared belief in the value of self-reliance and decentralized decision-making.

These findings open the door to a multitude of theoretical inquiries, beckoning researchers to delve deeper into the underpinnings of political and agricultural intersectionality. The results of our study call for a closer examination of the nuanced dynamics at play, teasing the academic community with promises of novel insights and, dare we say, a few chuckles along the way. After all, who would have thought that beneath the surface of political elections and agricultural practices lies a trove of correlations waiting to be unearthed?

The findings not only provide fertile ground for further investigation but also serve as a testament to the oftentimes unexpected and delightful nature of scholarly inquiry. As we conclude this phase of our research, we look forward to the robust discussions and perhaps, the fertile debate that will undoubtedly sprout from these thought-provoking results.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
Grassroots Pass: Libertarian Votes in Oregon and Dried Manure for Fertilizer in the US

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious relationship between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and USDA, our research team set out to address this conundrum and shed light on this peculiar association. Surprisingly, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and p < 0.01, spanning the years 1986 to 2015. The results suggest that there may be more to this connection than meets the eye, providing fodder for further investigation and perhaps the birth of some truly "groundbreaking" theories in the realm of political and agricultural interactions.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The exploration of unconventional correlations between political preferences and agricultural practices has long been a subject of intrigue in the scholarly community. Smith et al. (2010) explored the relationship between voter behavior and agricultural trends, albeit in a different context. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2015) delved into the political landscape and its influence on agricultural decision-making, offering valuable insights into the subtle yet significant intersections between these seemingly disparate domains.
Furthermore, in "The Economics of Agriculture" by Brown (2017), the author discusses the intricate web of factors influencing agricultural practices, providing a comprehensive overview of the multifaceted nature of agricultural decision-making. This comprehensive work sheds light on the various social and economic factors that sway agricultural choices, setting the stage for our investigation into the curious link between Libertarian votes and the use of dried manure for fertilizer.
In the realm of fiction, "The Garden of Political Machinations" by Green (2013) presents a whimsical narrative in which political intrigue intertwines with agricultural pursuits, offering a tongue-in-cheek exploration of the themes that underpin our investigation. Additionally, "The Fertilizer Affair" by Red (2018) playfully weaves a tale of political machinations centered around the enigmatic world of agricultural practices, offering a lighthearted perspective on the themes that resonate with our research.
In a tangential yet noteworthy contribution, the film "Manure Mingle" (2015) presents a satirical take on the complexities of agricultural endeavors and their interplay with political dynamics. Though purely fictional, the movie serves as a playful reminder of the unexpected connections that can arise within the realms of politics and agriculture, mirroring the serendipitous nature of our inquiry.
As we traverse this academic landscape, it becomes evident that the intersection of Libertarian votes in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US is indeed a rich ground for scholarly exploration, characterized by both intrigue and the occasional chuckle. It is within this fertile terrain that our investigation takes root, with the hope of unearthing deeper insights and perhaps a few lighthearted revelations along the way.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US yielded some intriguing and, dare we say, amusing results. Our findings revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and an r-squared value of 0.9350087, with a p-value of less than 0.01. These statistical measures suggest a robust relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, defying expectations and inviting a great deal of eyebrow-raising among the scholarly community.
The aggregate data from the years 1986 to 2015, obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, clearly depicted a striking pattern. The figure (Fig. 1) illustrates the compelling scatterplot demonstrating the formidable association between Libertarian votes in Oregon and the widespread use of dried manure for fertilization across the US. The scatterplot speaks volumes, showing a trend that is not easily brushed aside as mere coincidence.
It is important to note that while correlation does not imply causation, the strength of the relationship we uncovered certainly gives rise to some quizzical pondering. Could it be that the libertarian spirit, known for its advocacy of individual autonomy and minimal government intervention, finds resonance with the independent-minded farmers who opt for more traditional, non-commercial agricultural practices? Or perchance, there is some deeper ideological underpinning that unites the voting preferences of Oregonians with their fertilizer choices, perhaps involving a shared belief in the value of self-reliance and decentralized decision-making.
These findings open the door to a multitude of theoretical inquiries, beckoning researchers to delve deeper into the underpinnings of political and agricultural intersectionality. The results of our study call for a closer examination of the nuanced dynamics at play, teasing the academic community with promises of novel insights and, dare we say, a few chuckles along the way. After all, who would have thought that beneath the surface of political elections and agricultural practices lies a trove of correlations waiting to be unearthed?
The findings not only provide fertile ground for further investigation but also serve as a testament to the oftentimes unexpected and delightful nature of scholarly inquiry. As we conclude this phase of our research, we look forward to the robust discussions and perhaps, the fertile debate that will undoubtedly sprout from these thought-provoking results.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The stupefying relationship uncovered between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the utilization of dried manure for fertilizer across the US beckons attention to an unexpected correlation. This correlation, with a robust coefficient of 0.9669585 and a p-value suggestive of statistical significance, propels the scholarly community into a realm of contemplation both profound and, dare I say, whimsical.

Our findings resonate with the prior research by Doe and Jones (2015), who astutely illuminated the subtle yet significant intersections between political predilections and agricultural decision-making. In a surprising turn of events, it appears that their insights find affirmation in our study, albeit within the unlikeliest of contexts involving dried manure and political leanings in Oregon. Moreover, the playful narratives presented by Green (2013) and Red (2018) seem to have unknowingly paralleled our investigation by adorning the intersection of politics and agriculture with intriguing relevance. Thus, the interplay between politics and agriculture unfolds as a tale not only ripe for scholarly inquiry but also one that dances with unexpected parallels and, at times, humor.

The robust relationship unveiled in our study prompts contemplation of the ideological underpinnings that may underlie this peculiar connection. Could it be that the libertarian ethos, characterized by its advocacy of individual autonomy and self-determination, resonates with the agricultural community's inclination towards non-commercial, traditional practices? Or perhaps, there is a deeper ideological affinity between Libertarian voters and proponents of the humble dried manure, involving a shared ethos of self-reliance and decentralized decision-making. These notions, though speculative, reinforce the intriguing nature of the relationships unearthed in our study and the potential far-reaching implications of these seemingly quirky correlations.

It is essential to tread lightly, acknowledging that correlation does not imply causation; nonetheless, the formidable strength of the relationship warrants more than mere passing consideration. The unexpected nature of our findings not only primes the field for further investigation but also serves as a gentle reminder of the jovial and often confounding facets that scholarly inquiry can unveil. As the scholarly community ventures forth from these findings, it is with a sense of anticipation for the fertile debates and "groundbreaking" theories that may take root from these curious correlations. After all, who would have thought that beneath the veneer of political elections and agricultural practices lies a trove of unexpected connections waiting to be unearthed?

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
Grassroots Pass: Libertarian Votes in Oregon and Dried Manure for Fertilizer in the US

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious relationship between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and USDA, our research team set out to address this conundrum and shed light on this peculiar association. Surprisingly, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and p < 0.01, spanning the years 1986 to 2015. The results suggest that there may be more to this connection than meets the eye, providing fodder for further investigation and perhaps the birth of some truly "groundbreaking" theories in the realm of political and agricultural interactions.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the realm of political science and agricultural economics, seemingly unrelated phenomena often intersect in the most intriguing and unexpected ways. Our research delves into the uncharted territory at the confluence of Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the utilization of dried manure for fertilization across the United States. This intersection may at first blush appear as a mere curiosity, but as we delve deeper into the data, a compelling correlation unveils itself, leading to a fertile ground for inquiry and interpretation.
The quest for understanding this enigmatic relationship has led us through an odyssey of statistical analyses and theoretical musings. It turns out that this peculiar connection between political preferences and agricultural practices might just be the fertilizer for a burgeoning field of interdisciplinary inquiry. With the use of rigorous data sources from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we have unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and p < 0.01, spanning nearly three decades. This statistic may prompt some to raise an eyebrow in skepticism, but as researchers, we are always eager to embrace the unexpected and explore the unexplored terrains of scholarly investigation.
As we embark on this academic journey, it is crucial to acknowledge that our findings may provoke both fascination and skepticism. However, as Socrates wisely noted, "The unexamined dataset is not worth analyzing." With this in mind, we invite our fellow scholars to suspend their disbelief and join us in this quest for intellectual discovery and perhaps a few good laughs along the way. After all, who knew that the roots of political allegiance and agricultural practices could intertwine in such a peculiar and amusing manner?
So, fasten your seatbelts as we navigate through the labyrinthine pathways of statistical analysis and attempt to unearth the fertile ground where political preferences and agricultural choices mingle. Our findings indeed hint at the possibility of groundbreaking theories in the making, or as we might pleasantly pun, "seedlings of unconventional correlations waiting to be harvested."

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US yielded some intriguing and, dare we say, amusing results. Our findings revealed a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and an r-squared value of 0.9350087, with a p-value of less than 0.01. These statistical measures suggest a robust relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, defying expectations and inviting a great deal of eyebrow-raising among the scholarly community.
The aggregate data from the years 1986 to 2015, obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, clearly depicted a striking pattern. The figure (Fig. 1) illustrates the compelling scatterplot demonstrating the formidable association between Libertarian votes in Oregon and the widespread use of dried manure for fertilization across the US. The scatterplot speaks volumes, showing a trend that is not easily brushed aside as mere coincidence.
It is important to note that while correlation does not imply causation, the strength of the relationship we uncovered certainly gives rise to some quizzical pondering. Could it be that the libertarian spirit, known for its advocacy of individual autonomy and minimal government intervention, finds resonance with the independent-minded farmers who opt for more traditional, non-commercial agricultural practices? Or perchance, there is some deeper ideological underpinning that unites the voting preferences of Oregonians with their fertilizer choices, perhaps involving a shared belief in the value of self-reliance and decentralized decision-making.
These findings open the door to a multitude of theoretical inquiries, beckoning researchers to delve deeper into the underpinnings of political and agricultural intersectionality. The results of our study call for a closer examination of the nuanced dynamics at play, teasing the academic community with promises of novel insights and, dare we say, a few chuckles along the way. After all, who would have thought that beneath the surface of political elections and agricultural practices lies a trove of correlations waiting to be unearthed?
The findings not only provide fertile ground for further investigation but also serve as a testament to the oftentimes unexpected and delightful nature of scholarly inquiry. As we conclude this phase of our research, we look forward to the robust discussions and perhaps, the fertile debate that will undoubtedly sprout from these thought-provoking results.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, the findings of our study have unearthed a remarkably strong correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US. This unexpected association has provided fertile ground for scholarly inquiry and has, dare we say, fertilized the field of political and agricultural intersectionality with an abundance of thought-provoking insights.

The robust relationship uncovered between these seemingly disparate variables, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and an r-squared value of 0.9350087, has left many in the scholarly community raising their eyebrows in surprise. The quizzical pondering that this correlation elicits has prompted a fertile debate about the underlying ideological underpinnings that may unite the voting preferences of Oregonians with their fertilizer choices.

It is delightful to note that while our findings have sparked fascination and intrigue, they have also sown the seeds of unconventional correlations waiting to be harvested. This demonstration of the unexpected and delightful nature of scholarly inquiry is a testament to the quirkiness and humor that often lie beneath the surface of research endeavors.

In light of these insightful discoveries and unforeseen connections, we assert that no further research is needed in this area, as our findings have already cultivated a verdant garden of intellectual curiosity and, dare we say, a few good laughs along the way. After all, who knew that the roots of political allegiance and agricultural practices could intertwine in such a peculiar and amusing manner?

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 Grassroots Pass: Libertarian Votes in Oregon and Dried Manure for Fertilizer in the US. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of American Agricultural Politics and Oddities

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 Grassroots Pass: Libertarian Votes in Oregon and Dried Manure for Fertilizer in the US. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Ethical Agriculture and Political Insights

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 Grassroots Pass: Libertarian Votes in Oregon and Dried Manure for Fertilizer in the US with an abstract of This paper investigates the curious relationship between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the use of dried manure for fertilizer in the US. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and USDA, our research team set out to address this conundrum and shed light on this peculiar association. Surprisingly, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9669585 and p < 0.01, spanning the years 1986 to 2015. The results suggest that there may be more to this connection than meets the eye, providing fodder for further investigation and perhaps the birth of some truly "groundbreaking" theories in the realm of political and agricultural interactions.

ChatGPT:

Libertarian votes, Grassroots Pass, Oregon, US Senators, Libertarian Party, dried manure, fertilizer, agriculture, political correlation, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, USDA, correlation coefficient, political theories, agricultural interactions

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.

Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error

Data details

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

Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US
Detailed data title: U.S. consumption of Dried manure for fertilizer
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US

Correlation r = 0.9669585 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r² = 0.9350087 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 93.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Libertarian Senators in Oregon) over the 6 years from 1986 through 2015.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0016.^Show 0.0016195759612997334000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

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

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.97 in 0.16% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 617 random variables^Note Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, ^Note 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.

[ 0.72, 1 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!

All values for the years included above: ^Note If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.

	1996	1998	2002	2004	2010	2014
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Oregon (Total votes)	12697	18221	29979	29582	16028	44916
Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US (Fertilizer)	114822	125443	156870	154455	140137	193179

Why this works

Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
Lack of causal connection: There is probably^Note Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple^Note Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. ^Note Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.

Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([12697,18221,29979,29582,16028,44916,])
array_2 = np.array([114822,125443,156870,154455,140137,193179,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Libertarian Senators in Oregon"
array_2_name = "Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US"

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

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

Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. ^Note Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:

High resolution line chart ^Note The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.

If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.

Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
Alternative high resolution line chart
Scatterplot
Portable line chart (png)
Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
Line chart for only Votes for Libertarian Senators in Oregon
Line chart for only Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Grassroots Pass: Libertarian Votes in Oregon and Dried Manure for Fertilizer in the US

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating is pure awesomeness!

Correlation ID: 5103 · Black Variable ID: 26303 · Red Variable ID: 1198


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