Spurious correlation #5,110 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Rhode Island and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. The chart goes from 1979 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

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

Download png, svg

AI explanation

As the political heat rose, so did the demand for hot dogs! It seems the democratic process had a wurst-case scenario effect on competitive eating. Whether it's the candidates' relish for change or the voters' appetite for progress, one thing's for sure: in the race for deliciousness, there's no room for indecision. So, let's ketchup on the campaign trail and mustard the courage to elect a new flavor of leadership! Remember, when it comes to politics and hot dogs, it's all about the buns and the ballots!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [Data cyber art] Generate an image illustrating a vibrant Rhode Island fairground scene, featuring a bustling crowd gathered around a voting booth and a champion hot dog eater. The atmosphere is filled with excitement as participants partake in both the democratic process and a competitive eating competition. Capture the intertwining of political engagement and gastronomic delight, with the champion exuberantly celebrating their victory amid the energized onlookers. Ensure that the image conveys the fusion of political fervor and sheer enthusiasm for competitive eating, while maintaining a visually engaging and cohesive composition. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.

This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Surrealism Charcoal Realistic Pop art Data cyber art
ChatGPT: Data cyber 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 Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, in the following situation: As the political heat rose, so did the demand for hot dogs! It seems the democratic process had a wurst-case scenario effect on competitive eating. Whether it's the candidates' relish for change or the voters' appetite for progress, one thing's for sure: in the race for deliciousness, there's no room for indecision. So, let's ketchup on the campaign trail and mustard the courage to elect a new flavor of leadership! Remember, when it comes to politics and hot dogs, it's all about the buns and the ballots!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling Rhode Island fairground, an enthusiastic crowd gathers at a voting booth while cheering on a champion hot dog eater. The sound of ballots being cast mixes with the aroma of sizzling hot dogs as the democratic process intertwines with the excitement of a competitive eating competition. The champion, adorned with a victory sash, joyfully celebrates as voters eagerly participate in both the political and gastronomic contests.

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: [ Data cyber art ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling Rhode Island fairground, an enthusiastic crowd gathers at a voting booth while cheering on a champion hot dog eater. The sound of ballots being cast mixes with the aroma of sizzling hot dogs as the democratic process intertwines with the excitement of a competitive eating competition. The champion, adorned with a victory sash, joyfully celebrates as voters eagerly participate in both the political and gastronomic contests. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [Data cyber art] Generate an image illustrating a vibrant Rhode Island fairground scene, featuring a bustling crowd gathered around a voting booth and a champion hot dog eater. The atmosphere is filled with excitement as participants partake in both the democratic process and a competitive eating competition. Capture the intertwining of political engagement and gastronomic delight, with the champion exuberantly celebrating their victory amid the energized onlookers. Ensure that the image conveys the fusion of political fervor and sheer enthusiasm for competitive eating, while maintaining a visually engaging and cohesive composition.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
^{Show prompt for explanation} Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Rhode Island caused Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

From Ballots to Buns: The Link Between Votes for the Democratic Presidential Candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs Devoured by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

The Journal of Culinary Ballot Analysis

Jan 2024

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

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

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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading CVS receipts.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
From Ballots to Buns: The Link Between Votes for the Democratic Presidential Candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs Devoured by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the peculiar connection between political preferences and the consumption of hotdogs, aiming to uncover the underlying factors that drive such an unexpected correlation. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable repository of knowledge, Wikipedia, we meticulously scrutinize the trends from 1979 to 2020. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8858990 and p < 0.01, indicating a robust association between the two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings not only shed light on the ties between civic choices and competitive eating prowess but prompt us to ponder whether these preferences stem from shared values, societal influences, or mere coincidence. This study challenges traditional paradigms and invites further exploration into the delightful realm where electoral outcomes and hot dog feats intertwine.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between political voting patterns and seemingly unrelated phenomena has long intrigued researchers and armchair analysts alike. From the voting habits of pet owners to the correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, the world of statistical analysis often reveals surprising connections that leave even the most seasoned scholars scratching their heads.
In this paper, we embark on a journey that straddles the realms of politics and competitive gastronomy, aiming to unravel the enigmatic bond between votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in Rhode Island and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. While one may initially dismiss this correlation as a mere quirk of data, our investigation reveals a compelling and statistically significant relationship that demands attention.
With meticulous attention to detail and a sprinkle of whimsy, we delve into the datasets sourced from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable fountain of knowledge, Wikipedia, spanning the years 1979 to 2020. Our dogged pursuit of truth uncovers a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8858990 and a p-value less than 0.01, firmly establishing a robust association between the two seemingly incongruous domains.
The implications of our findings extend beyond the mere juxtaposition of electoral preferences and epicurean feats. We are compelled to ponder whether these correlations arise from shared societal influences, underlying cultural norms, or perhaps the whims of statistical absurdity. This study not only challenges conventional wisdom but also invites further exploration into the delightful interplay of electoral outcomes and hot dog prowess. This peculiar connection may serve as a window into the subconscious motivations that drive civic engagement and competitive eating, offering a tantalizing glimpse into the quirks of human behavior that lurk beneath the surface.
So, dear reader, join us on this scholarly escapade as we unearth the whimsical nexus where ballots and buns converge, and perhaps, along the way, we'll also discover the relish of statistical serendipity.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The domain of statistical analysis and quirky correlations, while often considered a whimsical pursuit, has perennially captivated the curiosity of researchers and aficionados of the absurd. Understanding the tie between votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in Rhode Island and the hotdogs devoured by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition necessitates a thorough examination of existing literature and related studies.

Smith and Doe (2015) investigate the psychological drivers behind political preferences and food consumption. Their work posits that individuals who lean towards a particular political party may exhibit corresponding culinary inclinations, a phenomenon they term "party palate affinity." This line of research provides a foundational understanding of the intertwining of societal choices and gustatory predilections.

Building upon this foundation, Jones et al. (2018) delve into the regional variations in voting behaviors and competitive eating spectacles. Their exploration uncovers intriguing disparities in hotdog consumption patterns across states with differing political leanings, hinting at a nuanced relationship between electoral sentiments and gastronomic indulgence.

Turning to non-fiction publications, the seminal work "Democracy and Dogs: A Statistical Odyssey" by A. Economist (2016) delves into the historical correlations between democratic processes and the proclivity for canine companionship. While seemingly unrelated, the parallels drawn by the author prompt newfound consideration of potential ideological underpinnings in everyday choices, sparking curiosity about the broader implications of partisan predilections.

Conversely, fiction literature also offers an unorthodox lens through which to approach this peculiar conundrum. In "The Hotdog Hypothesis" by A. Novelist (2019), a whimsical tale unfolds, chronicling the adventures of a fictitious character whose political fervor determines the quantity of hotdogs swallowed at a mystical eating competition. While undoubtedly fantastical, this narrative invites reflection on the intersection of political identity and gluttonous pursuits, blurring the lines between reality and surrealism in an eccentric yet thought-provoking manner.

As the present inquiry delves deeper into the enigmatic relationship between electoral proclivities and competitive eating triumphs, it is imperative to acknowledge the broad and unconventional sources from which insights are gleaned. In a bout of unconventional scholarship, the authors fortuitously stumbled upon a treasure trove of revelations within the labyrinthine depths of CVS receipts, uncovering cryptic patterns and inexplicable listings that tantalizingly hint at an unexplored realm of ludic statistical happenstance. While unorthodox, this unanticipated source proves to be a whimsical wellspring of inspiration as we maneuver through the delightful quagmire of this intriguing inquiry.

Thus, this panorama of literature and peculiar sources not only lays the groundwork for our scholarly exploration but also underlines the kaleidoscopic intersection of academic perspicacity and serendipitous musings. As we amble along this scholarly escapade, the looming question persists: what whimsical wonders await on the tantalizing path where ballots and buns entwine?

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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 Wikipedia . You used data from 1979 to 2020

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
From Ballots to Buns: The Link Between Votes for the Democratic Presidential Candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs Devoured by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the peculiar connection between political preferences and the consumption of hotdogs, aiming to uncover the underlying factors that drive such an unexpected correlation. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable repository of knowledge, Wikipedia, we meticulously scrutinize the trends from 1979 to 2020. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8858990 and p < 0.01, indicating a robust association between the two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings not only shed light on the ties between civic choices and competitive eating prowess but prompt us to ponder whether these preferences stem from shared values, societal influences, or mere coincidence. This study challenges traditional paradigms and invites further exploration into the delightful realm where electoral outcomes and hot dog feats intertwine.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between political voting patterns and seemingly unrelated phenomena has long intrigued researchers and armchair analysts alike. From the voting habits of pet owners to the correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, the world of statistical analysis often reveals surprising connections that leave even the most seasoned scholars scratching their heads.
In this paper, we embark on a journey that straddles the realms of politics and competitive gastronomy, aiming to unravel the enigmatic bond between votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in Rhode Island and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. While one may initially dismiss this correlation as a mere quirk of data, our investigation reveals a compelling and statistically significant relationship that demands attention.
With meticulous attention to detail and a sprinkle of whimsy, we delve into the datasets sourced from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable fountain of knowledge, Wikipedia, spanning the years 1979 to 2020. Our dogged pursuit of truth uncovers a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8858990 and a p-value less than 0.01, firmly establishing a robust association between the two seemingly incongruous domains.
The implications of our findings extend beyond the mere juxtaposition of electoral preferences and epicurean feats. We are compelled to ponder whether these correlations arise from shared societal influences, underlying cultural norms, or perhaps the whims of statistical absurdity. This study not only challenges conventional wisdom but also invites further exploration into the delightful interplay of electoral outcomes and hot dog prowess. This peculiar connection may serve as a window into the subconscious motivations that drive civic engagement and competitive eating, offering a tantalizing glimpse into the quirks of human behavior that lurk beneath the surface.
So, dear reader, join us on this scholarly escapade as we unearth the whimsical nexus where ballots and buns converge, and perhaps, along the way, we'll also discover the relish of statistical serendipity.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the confounding conundrum of the correlation between votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in Rhode Island and the consummation of copious quantities of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, we employed a meticulously crafted research methodology. Our pursuit of truth and statistical serendipity involved leveraging a multipronged approach, integrating data mining, statistical analysis, and a knack for detecting hidden connections that brings to mind a certain detective's investigations into the seemingly unrelated.

Data Collection:
We embarked on an odyssey through the annals of digital archives, scouring the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the hallowed halls of Wikipedia. With the judicious selection of time frame spanning from 1979 to 2020, our quest for data was akin to excavating buried treasure, unearthing nuggets of electoral choices and meaty morsels of competitive eating triumphs.

Quantitative Analysis:
Our statistical analysis was conducted with the precision of a master chef crafting the perfect hotdog, utilizing advanced techniques that would make even the most discerning pâtissier nod with approval. We calculated correlation coefficients, t-tests, and p-values with the finesse of a seasoned juggler, juggling data sets with an uncanny dexterity to tease out the elusive relationship between political leanings and gustatory feats.

Multivariate Regression:
In addition to our enthralling foray into the numerical realm, we harnessed the power of multivariate regression models to disentangle the intricate web of variables that might be clandestinely influencing our perplexing correlation. This approach allowed us to explore the potential influence of various socio-political factors, economic indicators, and gustatory trends that might shed light on the unexpected ties between ballots and buns.

Cross-Referencing and Validation:
To validate the robustness of our findings and ensure the fidelity of our results, we cross-referenced our data with historical records, demographic trends, and, of course, the hallowed archives of competitive eating lore. This rigorous process not only fortified the integrity of our analysis but also provided a delightful opportunity to indulge in the fascinating history of culinary competitions.

Ethical Considerations:
In adherence to the esteemed principles of academic integrity and ethical research conduct, we took great care to handle the data with the utmost respect and rigor, ensuring that our conclusions were built on a sturdy foundation of scholarly probity. Additionally, we maintained a firm commitment to transparency and intellectual honesty throughout the course of our investigation, aspiring to uphold the noble ideals of the scholarly pursuit, while savoring the occasional pun or witty quip to add a sprinkle of levity to our scholarly exploits.

Ultimately, our research methodology can be likened to preparing a delectable dish, blending the finest ingredients of data with the precision of a gourmet chef, and serving it with a flourish of statistical pizzazz. This approach allowed us to uncover the underlying dynamics that intertwine the world of political preferences and competitive eating, setting the stage for our revelatory findings to unfold.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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]]
From Ballots to Buns: The Link Between Votes for the Democratic Presidential Candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs Devoured by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the peculiar connection between political preferences and the consumption of hotdogs, aiming to uncover the underlying factors that drive such an unexpected correlation. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable repository of knowledge, Wikipedia, we meticulously scrutinize the trends from 1979 to 2020. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8858990 and p < 0.01, indicating a robust association between the two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings not only shed light on the ties between civic choices and competitive eating prowess but prompt us to ponder whether these preferences stem from shared values, societal influences, or mere coincidence. This study challenges traditional paradigms and invites further exploration into the delightful realm where electoral outcomes and hot dog feats intertwine.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The domain of statistical analysis and quirky correlations, while often considered a whimsical pursuit, has perennially captivated the curiosity of researchers and aficionados of the absurd. Understanding the tie between votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in Rhode Island and the hotdogs devoured by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition necessitates a thorough examination of existing literature and related studies.
Smith and Doe (2015) investigate the psychological drivers behind political preferences and food consumption. Their work posits that individuals who lean towards a particular political party may exhibit corresponding culinary inclinations, a phenomenon they term "party palate affinity." This line of research provides a foundational understanding of the intertwining of societal choices and gustatory predilections.
Building upon this foundation, Jones et al. (2018) delve into the regional variations in voting behaviors and competitive eating spectacles. Their exploration uncovers intriguing disparities in hotdog consumption patterns across states with differing political leanings, hinting at a nuanced relationship between electoral sentiments and gastronomic indulgence.
Turning to non-fiction publications, the seminal work "Democracy and Dogs: A Statistical Odyssey" by A. Economist (2016) delves into the historical correlations between democratic processes and the proclivity for canine companionship. While seemingly unrelated, the parallels drawn by the author prompt newfound consideration of potential ideological underpinnings in everyday choices, sparking curiosity about the broader implications of partisan predilections.
Conversely, fiction literature also offers an unorthodox lens through which to approach this peculiar conundrum. In "The Hotdog Hypothesis" by A. Novelist (2019), a whimsical tale unfolds, chronicling the adventures of a fictitious character whose political fervor determines the quantity of hotdogs swallowed at a mystical eating competition. While undoubtedly fantastical, this narrative invites reflection on the intersection of political identity and gluttonous pursuits, blurring the lines between reality and surrealism in an eccentric yet thought-provoking manner.
As the present inquiry delves deeper into the enigmatic relationship between electoral proclivities and competitive eating triumphs, it is imperative to acknowledge the broad and unconventional sources from which insights are gleaned. In a bout of unconventional scholarship, the authors fortuitously stumbled upon a treasure trove of revelations within the labyrinthine depths of CVS receipts, uncovering cryptic patterns and inexplicable listings that tantalizingly hint at an unexplored realm of ludic statistical happenstance. While unorthodox, this unanticipated source proves to be a whimsical wellspring of inspiration as we maneuver through the delightful quagmire of this intriguing inquiry.
Thus, this panorama of literature and peculiar sources not only lays the groundwork for our scholarly exploration but also underlines the kaleidoscopic intersection of academic perspicacity and serendipitous musings. As we amble along this scholarly escapade, the looming question persists: what whimsical wonders await on the tantalizing path where ballots and buns entwine?

[[RESULTS]]
The empirical analysis yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.8858990, accompanied by an r-squared value of 0.7848170, and a p-value less than 0.01, affirming the robustness of the relationship between votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in Rhode Island and the hotdog consumption by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.
Figure 1 showcases this compelling correlation, presenting a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the strength of the association, leaving little room for skepticism or skepticism about skepticism.
The findings indicate a striking alignment between the residents of the Ocean State casting their ballots for the Democratic nominee and the impressive hotdog-eating prowess demonstrated at Coney Island. This revelatory connection prompts us to reflect on the potential psychological, cultural, and gastronomic forces that unite these disparate spheres. It also ignites a fervent curiosity about the underlying mechanism that fuels this unexpected correlation. Is it the shared passion for overcoming insurmountable odds? Or perhaps a mutual appreciation for the act of consuming at a breathtaking pace? These questions linger, teasing our intellectual taste buds and urging further scholarly exploration to unwrap the layers of this statistical surprise.
In conclusion, the results of our investigation into the intersection of electoral choices in Rhode Island and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion underscore the captivating interplay between civic engagements and competitive eating finesse. This scholarly pursuit not only hints at the hidden bonds that shape human inclinations but also injects a dash of amusement into the typically serious arena of empirical inquiry. As we savor the implications of these findings, we are drawn to the exhilarating prospect of unearthing more unexpected connections that blend statistical rigor with a hint of whimsy.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The tantalizing web of statistical revelation has, once again, cast a spotlight on the enthralling intersection of civic duties and gustatory triumphs. The remarkable correlation uncovered between votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in Rhode Island and the prodigious consumption of hotdogs at the esteemed Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition veritably reinforces the hypothesis proposed in the literature review. The findings throw a delectable bone to Smith and Doe's (2015) theory of "party palate affinity," suggesting that political leanings may indeed be intertwined with culinary proclivities. Furthermore, the regional variations alluded to by Jones et al. (2018) find substantiation in our results, as the picturesque state of Rhode Island emerges as a hotbed of fervent democratic allegiance and, apparently, an insatiable appetite for elongated tubular meat products.

The unconventional sources probed in the literature review, notably the serendipitous revelations within CVS receipts, may have been initially perceived as whimsy, but much like a cleverly disguised ketchup smile on a hotdog bun, they have delivered unexpected and flavorful nuggets of insight. Thus, we stand testament to the unyielding adage that scholarly pursuit, even in its quirkiest of forms, may yield savory intellectual dividends.

The robustness of the correlation coefficient and the minute p-value affirm the statistical significance of the relationship between electoral choices and competitive eating prowess. Indeed, the scatterplot presented in Figure 1 leaves little room for skepticism, as the data points align with as much precision as mustard on a hotdog – a fitting metaphor, given the subject matter.

Rather than relegating this curious correlation to the annals of statistical oddities, our findings beckon for a deeper dissection of the psycho-culinary underpinnings. The age-old conundrum of causality persists, prompting us to ponder whether shared values, societal influences, or the elusive hand of mere coincidence shapes this unusual confluence. Perhaps it is not unlike the rhythmic dance of relish, ketchup, and mustard intertwining in perfect harmony within a bun, leaving no single ingredient unaccompanied.

As we gingerly navigate through this scholarly tapestry, we are charmed by the whimsical dance of data points and the hearty laughter of statistical significance. Our findings do not just beckon to the inquisitive minds of researchers but also add a tantalizing twist to the fabric of empirical inquiry. The harmonious union of empirical rigor and unexpected amusement unfolds like a perfectly crafted hotdog, inviting further exploration into the enigmatic natures of human preferences and the playful caprice of statistical revelations.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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]]
From Ballots to Buns: The Link Between Votes for the Democratic Presidential Candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs Devoured by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the peculiar connection between political preferences and the consumption of hotdogs, aiming to uncover the underlying factors that drive such an unexpected correlation. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable repository of knowledge, Wikipedia, we meticulously scrutinize the trends from 1979 to 2020. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8858990 and p < 0.01, indicating a robust association between the two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings not only shed light on the ties between civic choices and competitive eating prowess but prompt us to ponder whether these preferences stem from shared values, societal influences, or mere coincidence. This study challenges traditional paradigms and invites further exploration into the delightful realm where electoral outcomes and hot dog feats intertwine.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The relationship between political voting patterns and seemingly unrelated phenomena has long intrigued researchers and armchair analysts alike. From the voting habits of pet owners to the correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, the world of statistical analysis often reveals surprising connections that leave even the most seasoned scholars scratching their heads.
In this paper, we embark on a journey that straddles the realms of politics and competitive gastronomy, aiming to unravel the enigmatic bond between votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in Rhode Island and the consumption of hotdogs by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. While one may initially dismiss this correlation as a mere quirk of data, our investigation reveals a compelling and statistically significant relationship that demands attention.
With meticulous attention to detail and a sprinkle of whimsy, we delve into the datasets sourced from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable fountain of knowledge, Wikipedia, spanning the years 1979 to 2020. Our dogged pursuit of truth uncovers a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8858990 and a p-value less than 0.01, firmly establishing a robust association between the two seemingly incongruous domains.
The implications of our findings extend beyond the mere juxtaposition of electoral preferences and epicurean feats. We are compelled to ponder whether these correlations arise from shared societal influences, underlying cultural norms, or perhaps the whims of statistical absurdity. This study not only challenges conventional wisdom but also invites further exploration into the delightful interplay of electoral outcomes and hot dog prowess. This peculiar connection may serve as a window into the subconscious motivations that drive civic engagement and competitive eating, offering a tantalizing glimpse into the quirks of human behavior that lurk beneath the surface.
So, dear reader, join us on this scholarly escapade as we unearth the whimsical nexus where ballots and buns converge, and perhaps, along the way, we'll also discover the relish of statistical serendipity.

[[RESULTS]]
The empirical analysis yielded a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.8858990, accompanied by an r-squared value of 0.7848170, and a p-value less than 0.01, affirming the robustness of the relationship between votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in Rhode Island and the hotdog consumption by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition.
Figure 1 showcases this compelling correlation, presenting a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the strength of the association, leaving little room for skepticism or skepticism about skepticism.
The findings indicate a striking alignment between the residents of the Ocean State casting their ballots for the Democratic nominee and the impressive hotdog-eating prowess demonstrated at Coney Island. This revelatory connection prompts us to reflect on the potential psychological, cultural, and gastronomic forces that unite these disparate spheres. It also ignites a fervent curiosity about the underlying mechanism that fuels this unexpected correlation. Is it the shared passion for overcoming insurmountable odds? Or perhaps a mutual appreciation for the act of consuming at a breathtaking pace? These questions linger, teasing our intellectual taste buds and urging further scholarly exploration to unwrap the layers of this statistical surprise.
In conclusion, the results of our investigation into the intersection of electoral choices in Rhode Island and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion underscore the captivating interplay between civic engagements and competitive eating finesse. This scholarly pursuit not only hints at the hidden bonds that shape human inclinations but also injects a dash of amusement into the typically serious arena of empirical inquiry. As we savor the implications of these findings, we are drawn to the exhilarating prospect of unearthing more unexpected connections that blend statistical rigor with a hint of whimsy.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In summary, our investigation into the fascinating correlation between the votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in Rhode Island and the total number of hotdogs consumed by the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition has unearthed a statistically robust and humorously intriguing relationship. The correlation coefficient of 0.8858990 and the p-value of less than 0.01 serve as compelling evidence of the unexpected bond between electoral inclinations and competitive eating prowess. The results not only underscore the whimsical interplay between civic choices and gastronomic feats but also leave us pondering the deeper societal and cultural influences that underpin this connection.

As we digest these findings, one cannot help but marvel at the sheer serendipity that underlies statistical analysis. It seems that in the grand buffet of life, certain trends emerge that defy logic and conventional expectations. The juxtaposition of ballots and buns, while initially perplexing, invites us to embrace the delightful absurdity that often colors empirical research.

Nevertheless, while our investigation has shed light on this curious correlation, it also begs the question, "What's next?" Perhaps it is time for researchers to explore the tantalizing world where electoral choices and other unexpected phenomena intertwine. The interplay between political events and seemingly unrelated activities may offer a smorgasbord of quirky connections that both amuse and enlighten. Alas, despite the temptation to delve deeper into this whimsical realm, it appears that no further research is needed in this area. For now, let us savor the delightfully deranged nature of statistical correlations and relish in the mirth that accompanies uncovering the unexpected.

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 From Ballots to Buns: The Link Between Votes for the Democratic Presidential Candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs Devoured by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Culinary Ballot Analysis

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited From Ballots to Buns: The Link Between Votes for the Democratic Presidential Candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs Devoured by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Culinary and Political Analysis

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled From Ballots to Buns: The Link Between Votes for the Democratic Presidential Candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs Devoured by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion with an abstract of In this paper, we delve into the peculiar connection between political preferences and the consumption of hotdogs, aiming to uncover the underlying factors that drive such an unexpected correlation. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-reliable repository of knowledge, Wikipedia, we meticulously scrutinize the trends from 1979 to 2020. Our analysis reveals a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8858990 and p < 0.01, indicating a robust association between the two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings not only shed light on the ties between civic choices and competitive eating prowess but prompt us to ponder whether these preferences stem from shared values, societal influences, or mere coincidence. This study challenges traditional paradigms and invites further exploration into the delightful realm where electoral outcomes and hot dog feats intertwine.

ChatGPT:

Rhode Island, Democratic Presidential Candidate, votes, hotdog consumption, Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, correlation, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Wikipedia, analysis, trends, correlation coefficient, societal influences, electoral outcomes.

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

Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error

Data details

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

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

Correlation r = 0.8858990 (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 = 0.7848170 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 78.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Rhode Island) over the 11 years from 1979 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00028.^Show 0.0002836045085269683300000000
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 0.89 in 0.028% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 3,526 random variables^Note Which I absolutely did.
with the same 10 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 10 because we have two variables measured over a period of 11 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.61, 0.97 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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

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

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

	1980	1984	1988	1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016	2020
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Rhode Island (Total votes)	198342	197106	225123	213299	233050	249508	259760	296571	279677	252525	307486
Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion (Hotdogs eaten)	9.5	9.5	10	19	22.25	25	53.33	59	68	70	75

Why this works

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

Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([198342,197106,225123,213299,233050,249508,259760,296571,279677,252525,307486,])
array_2 = np.array([9.5,9.5,10,19,22.25,25,53.33,59,68,70,75,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Rhode Island"
array_2_name = "Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

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

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

Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:

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

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

Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
Alternative high resolution line chart
Scatterplot
Portable line chart (png)
Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
Line chart for only Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Rhode Island
Line chart for only Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: From Ballots to Buns: The Link Between Votes for the Democratic Presidential Candidate in Rhode Island and Hotdogs Devoured by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Thanks for being the explorer we needed!

Correlation ID: 5110 · Black Variable ID: 26026 · Red Variable ID: 500


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