about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,175 · 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 Democratic Senators in Washington and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion.  The chart goes from 1979 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As more Democrat votes came in, the energy at political rallies skyrocketed. This inadvertently led to an increase in the production of massive hot dog cannons at these events. The surplus hot dogs not only provided sustenance for the enthusiastic supporters, but also created a competitive hot dog eating circuit within the party. This newfound passion for hot dog consumption trickled down to inspire the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to up their game and chomp their way to victory, fueled by the political fervor for democracy and deliciousness. It seems like in Washington, both legislative policies and sausage links were being devoured with equal fervor!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: "Create a cyberpunk-inspired image of a crowded political rally in a futuristic Washington. Democrat supporters cheer as votes come in, with the atmosphere electric. Massive hot dog cannons launch into the crowd, showering them with hot dogs. The Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion steps up to the challenge, fueled by the energy of the rally and the freshly launched hot dogs. In Washington, democracy and hot dogs are devoured with equal fervor." 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: Democrat votes for Senators in Washington 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: Cyberpunk a funny image macro Futuristic Cute 2D animation An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie
ChatGPT: Cyberpunk

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 Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, in the following situation: As more Democrat votes came in, the energy at political rallies skyrocketed. This inadvertently led to an increase in the production of massive hot dog cannons at these events. The surplus hot dogs not only provided sustenance for the enthusiastic supporters, but also created a competitive hot dog eating circuit within the party. This newfound passion for hot dog consumption trickled down to inspire the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to up their game and chomp their way to victory, fueled by the political fervor for democracy and deliciousness. It seems like in Washington, both legislative policies and sausage links were being devoured with equal fervor!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a crowded political rally in Washington, Democrat supporters cheered as more votes came in. The atmosphere was electric, and massive hot dog cannons were launched into the crowd, showering them with hot dogs. In the midst of the excitement, the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion stepped up to the challenge, fueled by the energy of the rally and the freshly launched hot dogs. In Washington, democracy and hot dogs were devoured with equal fervor.

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: [ Cyberpunk ] and depicting this scene: In a crowded political rally in Washington, Democrat supporters cheered as more votes came in. The atmosphere was electric, and massive hot dog cannons were launched into the crowd, showering them with hot dogs. In the midst of the excitement, the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion stepped up to the challenge, fueled by the energy of the rally and the freshly launched hot dogs. In Washington, democracy and hot dogs were devoured with equal fervor. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: "Create a cyberpunk-inspired image of a crowded political rally in a futuristic Washington. Democrat supporters cheer as votes come in, with the atmosphere electric. Massive hot dog cannons launch into the crowd, showering them with hot dogs. The Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion steps up to the challenge, fueled by the energy of the rally and the freshly launched hot dogs. In Washington, democracy and hot dogs are devoured with equal fervor."

*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.

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 Democrat votes for Senators in Washington caused Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to increase. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Democrat Dogged Determination: Unveiling the Link Between Washington Senatorial Votes and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Victories

The Journal of Political Canine Studies

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
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 witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title a clever pun.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Wikipedia to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 and p < 0.01 for 1979 to 2018.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Democrat Dogged Determination: Unveiling the Link Between Washington Senatorial Votes and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Victories"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking study, we sink our teeth into the mysterious interplay between Washington state Democrat votes for Senators and the number of hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Leveraging a data-driven approach with datasets from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we uncover a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01 for the period spanning 1979 to 2018.

Our findings not only shed light on the electoral appetites of Washington voters but also reveal a puzzling connection to the culinary conquests of competitive eaters. The results, though unexpected, leave us relishing in the statistical feast of democracy and gastronomy. It seems that when it comes to hotdogs and Senate votes, there's more than meets the bun!

As the data unraveled before us, a poignant dad joke emerged: "Why did the Democrat bring mustard to the voting booth? For the 'politic'." Our research serves as a reminder that even the most unexpected statistical associations are worth savoring. So, as we digest these findings, let's remain open to the whimsical twists and turns of data analysis, much like the unpredictable trajectory of a frankfurter launched from a condiment-laden bun.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Democrat Dogged Determination: Unveiling the Link Between Washington Senatorial Votes and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Victories"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking study, we sink our teeth into the mysterious interplay between Washington state Democrat votes for Senators and the number of hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Leveraging a data-driven approach with datasets from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we uncover a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01 for the period spanning 1979 to 2018.

Our findings not only shed light on the electoral appetites of Washington voters but also reveal a puzzling connection to the culinary conquests of competitive eaters. The results, though unexpected, leave us relishing in the statistical feast of democracy and gastronomy. It seems that when it comes to hotdogs and Senate votes, there's more than meets the bun!

As the data unraveled before us, a poignant dad joke emerged: "Why did the Democrat bring mustard to the voting booth? For the 'politic'." Our research serves as a reminder that even the most unexpected statistical associations are worth savoring. So, as we digest these findings, let's remain open to the whimsical twists and turns of data analysis, much like the unpredictable trajectory of a frankfurter launched from a condiment-laden bun.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

As the old adage goes, "Politics and hotdogs are not for the faint of heart, nor weak of stomach." In this peculiar and piquant research endeavor, we delve into the curious nexus between the voting behaviors of Washington state Democrats and the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. For years, these seemingly disparate domains have tantalized the scientific community, beckoning us to unravel the enigmatic relationship that binds them together.

Amidst the labyrinth of state elections and the harrowing heat of competitive hot dog consumption, our study seeks to add a dash of relish to the field of both political science and gastronomic statistics. By examining the electoral data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the hotdog consumption figures from the annals of Nathan's Famous annual contest, we set out to unearth the statistical meat of this matter.

As we embarked on this journey, a fitting dad joke came to mind: "Why did the statistician bring a toothpick to the hotdog eating contest? He wanted to skewer the data!" Indeed, our quest to uncover the whims of statistical fate has led us to some unexpected, yet undeniably delicious, conclusions.

The correlation coefficient between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion revealed itself to be a compelling 0.9058035. With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical appetite for significance in our findings proved to be insatiable. This linkage, though initially hard to swallow, invites us to reconsider the tantalizing connections that exist within the realm of electoral and epicurean indulgence.

In the spirit of whimsy and wonderment, our analysis allows us to savor the rich flavors of statistical inquiry and the unexpected synergies that arise when the savory goodness of political participation encounters the mustard-laden fervor of competitive eating. It seems that when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of democracy and frankfurters, the task is not just reserved for the "brave," but perhaps the "bratwurst" among us.

In the next section, we will dive into the methodology that allowed us to take a big "bite" out of this perplexing intersection of data.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Democrat Dogged Determination: Unveiling the Link Between Washington Senatorial Votes and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Victories"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking study, we sink our teeth into the mysterious interplay between Washington state Democrat votes for Senators and the number of hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Leveraging a data-driven approach with datasets from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we uncover a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01 for the period spanning 1979 to 2018.

Our findings not only shed light on the electoral appetites of Washington voters but also reveal a puzzling connection to the culinary conquests of competitive eaters. The results, though unexpected, leave us relishing in the statistical feast of democracy and gastronomy. It seems that when it comes to hotdogs and Senate votes, there's more than meets the bun!

As the data unraveled before us, a poignant dad joke emerged: "Why did the Democrat bring mustard to the voting booth? For the 'politic'." Our research serves as a reminder that even the most unexpected statistical associations are worth savoring. So, as we digest these findings, let's remain open to the whimsical twists and turns of data analysis, much like the unpredictable trajectory of a frankfurter launched from a condiment-laden bun.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the old adage goes, "Politics and hotdogs are not for the faint of heart, nor weak of stomach." In this peculiar and piquant research endeavor, we delve into the curious nexus between the voting behaviors of Washington state Democrats and the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. For years, these seemingly disparate domains have tantalized the scientific community, beckoning us to unravel the enigmatic relationship that binds them together.
Amidst the labyrinth of state elections and the harrowing heat of competitive hot dog consumption, our study seeks to add a dash of relish to the field of both political science and gastronomic statistics. By examining the electoral data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the hotdog consumption figures from the annals of Nathan's Famous annual contest, we set out to unearth the statistical meat of this matter.
As we embarked on this journey, a fitting dad joke came to mind: "Why did the statistician bring a toothpick to the hotdog eating contest? He wanted to skewer the data!" Indeed, our quest to uncover the whims of statistical fate has led us to some unexpected, yet undeniably delicious, conclusions.
The correlation coefficient between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion revealed itself to be a compelling 0.9058035. With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical appetite for significance in our findings proved to be insatiable. This linkage, though initially hard to swallow, invites us to reconsider the tantalizing connections that exist within the realm of electoral and epicurean indulgence.
In the spirit of whimsy and wonderment, our analysis allows us to savor the rich flavors of statistical inquiry and the unexpected synergies that arise when the savory goodness of political participation encounters the mustard-laden fervor of competitive eating. It seems that when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of democracy and frankfurters, the task is not just reserved for the "brave," but perhaps the "bratwurst" among us.
In the next section, we will dive into the methodology that allowed us to take a big "bite" out of this perplexing intersection of data.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The enigmatic relationship between Washington state Democrat votes for Senators and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion has long puzzled researchers and gastronomers alike. In "The Statistical Sizzle: Examining the Political Palate," Smith and Doe conduct a comprehensive analysis of voting statistics and competitive eating phenomena, ultimately raising questions about the unexpected connections between civic engagement and culinary prowess. Similarly, Jones in "On the Trail of Tasty Politics" delves into the historical nuances of state elections and their potential impact on the gustatory achievements of competitive eaters.

While these studies provide a solid foundation for our investigation, it became evident that a more holistic approach was needed to fully digest the complexities of this curious correlation. Thus, we turned to non-fiction works such as "Hot Dog History: A Condimental Perspective" and "Election Fever: The Political Appetite," in search of historical context and culinary wisdom. These sources, despite their serious tone, allowed us to relish the depth of knowledge available on the subject, serving as a reminder that even the most somber of topics can benefit from a little mustard and merriment.

In addition to these scholarly pursuits, we sought insight from the world of fiction, exploring works like "The Bun Also Rises" and "Legislative Sausage: A Novel of Political Appetites." Although these literary escapades veered into the realm of imagination, they offered valuable perspectives on the intersection of politics and gastronomy, reminding us that there is often more to a statistical relationship than meets the bun.

As we ventured deeper into our research, we found ourselves uncovering unexpected inspiration from unlikely sources. Cartoons such as "Scooby-Doo" and children's shows like "Sesame Street" provided light-hearted commentary on civic engagement and the joy of culinary indulgence. Just as Scooby and the gang always unmask the hidden truth, we aimed to uncover the statistical mysteries behind this peculiar pairing of political agency and hotdog feasts.

Embracing the spirit of whimsy and scholarly tenacity, our literature review journeyed through the serious, the fictional, and the delightfully unexpected, serving as a testament to the delightful complexities that await those brave enough to explore the statistical buffet of democracy and dachshunds. As we consider the intersection of Washington Senatorial votes and Nathan's hotdog triumphs, we are reminded of a timeless dad joke: "Why don't hotdogs make good politicians? They simply can't ketchup to the issues!" In the same vein, our endeavor embodies the joyous pursuit of uncovering statistical truths amidst the mustard-covered delights of empirical inquiry.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Wikipedia . You used data from 1979 to 2018

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]]
"Democrat Dogged Determination: Unveiling the Link Between Washington Senatorial Votes and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Victories"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking study, we sink our teeth into the mysterious interplay between Washington state Democrat votes for Senators and the number of hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Leveraging a data-driven approach with datasets from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we uncover a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01 for the period spanning 1979 to 2018.

Our findings not only shed light on the electoral appetites of Washington voters but also reveal a puzzling connection to the culinary conquests of competitive eaters. The results, though unexpected, leave us relishing in the statistical feast of democracy and gastronomy. It seems that when it comes to hotdogs and Senate votes, there's more than meets the bun!

As the data unraveled before us, a poignant dad joke emerged: "Why did the Democrat bring mustard to the voting booth? For the 'politic'." Our research serves as a reminder that even the most unexpected statistical associations are worth savoring. So, as we digest these findings, let's remain open to the whimsical twists and turns of data analysis, much like the unpredictable trajectory of a frankfurter launched from a condiment-laden bun.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the old adage goes, "Politics and hotdogs are not for the faint of heart, nor weak of stomach." In this peculiar and piquant research endeavor, we delve into the curious nexus between the voting behaviors of Washington state Democrats and the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. For years, these seemingly disparate domains have tantalized the scientific community, beckoning us to unravel the enigmatic relationship that binds them together.
Amidst the labyrinth of state elections and the harrowing heat of competitive hot dog consumption, our study seeks to add a dash of relish to the field of both political science and gastronomic statistics. By examining the electoral data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the hotdog consumption figures from the annals of Nathan's Famous annual contest, we set out to unearth the statistical meat of this matter.
As we embarked on this journey, a fitting dad joke came to mind: "Why did the statistician bring a toothpick to the hotdog eating contest? He wanted to skewer the data!" Indeed, our quest to uncover the whims of statistical fate has led us to some unexpected, yet undeniably delicious, conclusions.
The correlation coefficient between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion revealed itself to be a compelling 0.9058035. With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical appetite for significance in our findings proved to be insatiable. This linkage, though initially hard to swallow, invites us to reconsider the tantalizing connections that exist within the realm of electoral and epicurean indulgence.
In the spirit of whimsy and wonderment, our analysis allows us to savor the rich flavors of statistical inquiry and the unexpected synergies that arise when the savory goodness of political participation encounters the mustard-laden fervor of competitive eating. It seems that when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of democracy and frankfurters, the task is not just reserved for the "brave," but perhaps the "bratwurst" among us.
In the next section, we will dive into the methodology that allowed us to take a big "bite" out of this perplexing intersection of data.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To sink our teeth into the tantalizing correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington state and the astonishing feats of hot dog consumption at Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, our research team employed a blend of zesty statistical methods and a dash of unconventional data collection.

First, we meticulously sourced electoral data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, capturing the voting appetites of Washingtonians over an exhaustive period from 1979 to 2018. This extensive temporal range allowed us to track the electorate's shifting gustatory preferences in response to the political menu on offer. It's safe to say that our data had all the "relish-able" qualities needed to make meaningful inferences.

Once we had devoured the electoral data, we turned our attention to the titillating world of competitive eating, diving into the historical archive of Nathan's Famous annual contest. This quirky dataset served as the condiment to our statistical hotdog, offering insight into the colossal quantities of franks consumed by the reigning champions. Our data collection process was so thorough, we even uncovered a rare photograph of a hotdog yelling "relish me!" It seems our search was truly "papaya-ing" off!

In amalgamating these diverse datasets, we adopted a rigorous approach to harmonize the disparate flavors of political voting and competitive eating. Utilizing advanced statistical software with a pinch of algorithmic prowess, we aptly weaved a statistical tablecloth upon which to feast upon our data. Our approach was as meticulous as it was mirthful, reminding us of yet another dad joke: "Why was the statistician unimpressed with the hotdog data? It was too 'frank'."

Navigating the landscape of data integration, we encountered some unexpected hurdles – akin to finding a pickle in a haystack. There were moments when our data analysis felt like a precarious juggling act, attempting to balance the weight of electoral shifts with the sheer enormity of hotdog consumption. Yet, like a ketchup stain on a white lab coat, our methodology remained resilient, steadfast, and undeniably flavorful.

Once our datasets had been gently simmered, boiled, and grilled to statistical perfection, we performed a rigorous correlation analysis. With bated breath and a hearty appetite for discovery, we uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9058035. This finding left us both astounded and oddly craving for ballpark franks – a testament to the power of unexpected statistical revelations.

Additionally, our hypothesis testing yielded a p-value of less than 0.01, solidifying the robustness of our findings. This statistical verdict was met with both uproarious cheers and a palpable hunger for rigorous scientific inquiry. It appears that our study's statistical results were truly the mustard on the research hotdog – a pleasant surprise that left our taste buds tingling.

In the upcoming section, we will present the delectable findings from our analysis, delving into the implications and potential avenues for future research. But for now, let's savor the statistical buffet that our methodology has laid out before us – remember, in the world of research, there's always room for "dessert-ations"!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Wikipedia .

For the time period 1979 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.9058035, r-squared of 0.8204799, 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]]
"Democrat Dogged Determination: Unveiling the Link Between Washington Senatorial Votes and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Victories"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking study, we sink our teeth into the mysterious interplay between Washington state Democrat votes for Senators and the number of hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Leveraging a data-driven approach with datasets from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we uncover a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01 for the period spanning 1979 to 2018.

Our findings not only shed light on the electoral appetites of Washington voters but also reveal a puzzling connection to the culinary conquests of competitive eaters. The results, though unexpected, leave us relishing in the statistical feast of democracy and gastronomy. It seems that when it comes to hotdogs and Senate votes, there's more than meets the bun!

As the data unraveled before us, a poignant dad joke emerged: "Why did the Democrat bring mustard to the voting booth? For the 'politic'." Our research serves as a reminder that even the most unexpected statistical associations are worth savoring. So, as we digest these findings, let's remain open to the whimsical twists and turns of data analysis, much like the unpredictable trajectory of a frankfurter launched from a condiment-laden bun.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As the old adage goes, "Politics and hotdogs are not for the faint of heart, nor weak of stomach." In this peculiar and piquant research endeavor, we delve into the curious nexus between the voting behaviors of Washington state Democrats and the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. For years, these seemingly disparate domains have tantalized the scientific community, beckoning us to unravel the enigmatic relationship that binds them together.
Amidst the labyrinth of state elections and the harrowing heat of competitive hot dog consumption, our study seeks to add a dash of relish to the field of both political science and gastronomic statistics. By examining the electoral data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the hotdog consumption figures from the annals of Nathan's Famous annual contest, we set out to unearth the statistical meat of this matter.
As we embarked on this journey, a fitting dad joke came to mind: "Why did the statistician bring a toothpick to the hotdog eating contest? He wanted to skewer the data!" Indeed, our quest to uncover the whims of statistical fate has led us to some unexpected, yet undeniably delicious, conclusions.
The correlation coefficient between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion revealed itself to be a compelling 0.9058035. With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical appetite for significance in our findings proved to be insatiable. This linkage, though initially hard to swallow, invites us to reconsider the tantalizing connections that exist within the realm of electoral and epicurean indulgence.
In the spirit of whimsy and wonderment, our analysis allows us to savor the rich flavors of statistical inquiry and the unexpected synergies that arise when the savory goodness of political participation encounters the mustard-laden fervor of competitive eating. It seems that when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of democracy and frankfurters, the task is not just reserved for the "brave," but perhaps the "bratwurst" among us.
In the next section, we will dive into the methodology that allowed us to take a big "bite" out of this perplexing intersection of data.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of our data revealed a remarkably strong association between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. The correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 suggests a nearly perfect positive linear relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. It's as if these numbers were in perfect "ketchup" with each other!

Throughout the 40-year period from 1979 to 2018, our findings consistently indicated that as the Democrat votes for Senators increased, so did the number of hotdogs devoured by the Nathan's champion. This connection between political preferences and competitive eating performances is indeed an unexpected "wiener" in the world of statistical analysis.

Our analysis also yielded an r-squared value of 0.8204799, indicating that over 82% of the variability in the hotdog consumption by the champion can be explained by the Democrat votes for Senators in Washington. It's as if the voters' decisions were directly fueling the competitive eater's appetite, akin to a "constitutional" dependency on hotdog intake!

Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 further solidifies the statistical significance of this connection. It's safe to say that the link between political leanings and hotdog consumption is not just a random "relish" but a tangible trend worth sinking our teeth into!

We also created a scatterplot (Fig. 1) to visually capture this strong positive relationship between the two variables. The plot succinctly illustrates the upward trajectory of hotdog consumption as Democrat votes for Senators in Washington increase. It's like a "frank" explanation in picture form!

In summary, our research unearths a compelling and inexplicable bond between the political decisions of Washington voters and the indulgences of competitive eaters. As we digest these findings, let's remember that in the world of statistics, even the quirkiest connections can pack a flavorful punch.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
"Democrat Dogged Determination: Unveiling the Link Between Washington Senatorial Votes and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Victories"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking study, we sink our teeth into the mysterious interplay between Washington state Democrat votes for Senators and the number of hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Leveraging a data-driven approach with datasets from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we uncover a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01 for the period spanning 1979 to 2018.

Our findings not only shed light on the electoral appetites of Washington voters but also reveal a puzzling connection to the culinary conquests of competitive eaters. The results, though unexpected, leave us relishing in the statistical feast of democracy and gastronomy. It seems that when it comes to hotdogs and Senate votes, there's more than meets the bun!

As the data unraveled before us, a poignant dad joke emerged: "Why did the Democrat bring mustard to the voting booth? For the 'politic'." Our research serves as a reminder that even the most unexpected statistical associations are worth savoring. So, as we digest these findings, let's remain open to the whimsical twists and turns of data analysis, much like the unpredictable trajectory of a frankfurter launched from a condiment-laden bun.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The enigmatic relationship between Washington state Democrat votes for Senators and the consumption of hotdogs by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion has long puzzled researchers and gastronomers alike. In "The Statistical Sizzle: Examining the Political Palate," Smith and Doe conduct a comprehensive analysis of voting statistics and competitive eating phenomena, ultimately raising questions about the unexpected connections between civic engagement and culinary prowess. Similarly, Jones in "On the Trail of Tasty Politics" delves into the historical nuances of state elections and their potential impact on the gustatory achievements of competitive eaters.
While these studies provide a solid foundation for our investigation, it became evident that a more holistic approach was needed to fully digest the complexities of this curious correlation. Thus, we turned to non-fiction works such as "Hot Dog History: A Condimental Perspective" and "Election Fever: The Political Appetite," in search of historical context and culinary wisdom. These sources, despite their serious tone, allowed us to relish the depth of knowledge available on the subject, serving as a reminder that even the most somber of topics can benefit from a little mustard and merriment.
In addition to these scholarly pursuits, we sought insight from the world of fiction, exploring works like "The Bun Also Rises" and "Legislative Sausage: A Novel of Political Appetites." Although these literary escapades veered into the realm of imagination, they offered valuable perspectives on the intersection of politics and gastronomy, reminding us that there is often more to a statistical relationship than meets the bun.
As we ventured deeper into our research, we found ourselves uncovering unexpected inspiration from unlikely sources. Cartoons such as "Scooby-Doo" and children's shows like "Sesame Street" provided light-hearted commentary on civic engagement and the joy of culinary indulgence. Just as Scooby and the gang always unmask the hidden truth, we aimed to uncover the statistical mysteries behind this peculiar pairing of political agency and hotdog feasts.
Embracing the spirit of whimsy and scholarly tenacity, our literature review journeyed through the serious, the fictional, and the delightfully unexpected, serving as a testament to the delightful complexities that await those brave enough to explore the statistical buffet of democracy and dachshunds. As we consider the intersection of Washington Senatorial votes and Nathan's hotdog triumphs, we are reminded of a timeless dad joke: "Why don't hotdogs make good politicians? They simply can't ketchup to the issues!" In the same vein, our endeavor embodies the joyous pursuit of uncovering statistical truths amidst the mustard-covered delights of empirical inquiry.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of our data revealed a remarkably strong association between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. The correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 suggests a nearly perfect positive linear relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. It's as if these numbers were in perfect "ketchup" with each other!
Throughout the 40-year period from 1979 to 2018, our findings consistently indicated that as the Democrat votes for Senators increased, so did the number of hotdogs devoured by the Nathan's champion. This connection between political preferences and competitive eating performances is indeed an unexpected "wiener" in the world of statistical analysis.
Our analysis also yielded an r-squared value of 0.8204799, indicating that over 82% of the variability in the hotdog consumption by the champion can be explained by the Democrat votes for Senators in Washington. It's as if the voters' decisions were directly fueling the competitive eater's appetite, akin to a "constitutional" dependency on hotdog intake!
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 further solidifies the statistical significance of this connection. It's safe to say that the link between political leanings and hotdog consumption is not just a random "relish" but a tangible trend worth sinking our teeth into!
We also created a scatterplot (Fig. 1) to visually capture this strong positive relationship between the two variables. The plot succinctly illustrates the upward trajectory of hotdog consumption as Democrat votes for Senators in Washington increase. It's like a "frank" explanation in picture form!
In summary, our research unearths a compelling and inexplicable bond between the political decisions of Washington voters and the indulgences of competitive eaters. As we digest these findings, let's remember that in the world of statistics, even the quirkiest connections can pack a flavorful punch.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study provide compelling evidence for a strong and statistically significant relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. This unexpected link, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 and a p-value of less than 0.01, defies traditional expectations and invites a plethora of puns and jests to accompany our serious scholarly discourse.

Building on the works of Smith and Doe, as well as Jones, our findings support the notion that political appetites may extend beyond the ballot box and into the world of competitive eating. As we sink our teeth into this correlation, it becomes evident that the whimsical relationship between electoral preferences and gastronomic achievements is not just a "bunch of bologna" but a legitimate area of inquiry deserving of further exploration.

As we consider the implications of this connection, one is reminded of the classic dad joke: "What did the statistician say after dining at the hotdog stand? 'I relished it!'" Indeed, our findings are not just a statistical feast but a reminder that even the most unexpected ties can offer valuable insights into the idiosyncrasies of human behavior and societal trends.

The r-squared value of 0.8204799 underscores the substantial extent to which Democrat votes for Senators in Washington can explain the variability in the hotdog consumption by the champion. It’s as if the voters' decisions were seasoning the competitive eater's performances, adding an extra "dash" of statistical intrigue to the conventional wisdom surrounding electoral outcomes.

Moreover, our scatterplot visually encapsulates the upward trajectory of hotdog consumption as Democrat votes for Senators in Washington increase, akin to a comical yet revelatory snapshot of this peculiar relationship. It’s as if each data point on the plot tells a charming tale of political fervor fueling the yearning for a good ol' hotdog. One might even say that it's a "wiener" in terms of capturing the essence of this curious statistical alignment.

In summary, our research unearths an unexpected yet robust bond between the political sway of Washington voters and the gustatory feats of competitive eaters. This unusual correlation, much like a well-crafted dad joke, transcends the conventional boundaries of statistical inquiry, leaving us with a lingering sense of wonder and amusement in the face of empirical revelations.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Democrat Dogged Determination: Unveiling the Link Between Washington Senatorial Votes and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Victories"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this groundbreaking study, we sink our teeth into the mysterious interplay between Washington state Democrat votes for Senators and the number of hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Leveraging a data-driven approach with datasets from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we uncover a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01 for the period spanning 1979 to 2018.

Our findings not only shed light on the electoral appetites of Washington voters but also reveal a puzzling connection to the culinary conquests of competitive eaters. The results, though unexpected, leave us relishing in the statistical feast of democracy and gastronomy. It seems that when it comes to hotdogs and Senate votes, there's more than meets the bun!

As the data unraveled before us, a poignant dad joke emerged: "Why did the Democrat bring mustard to the voting booth? For the 'politic'." Our research serves as a reminder that even the most unexpected statistical associations are worth savoring. So, as we digest these findings, let's remain open to the whimsical twists and turns of data analysis, much like the unpredictable trajectory of a frankfurter launched from a condiment-laden bun.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
As the old adage goes, "Politics and hotdogs are not for the faint of heart, nor weak of stomach." In this peculiar and piquant research endeavor, we delve into the curious nexus between the voting behaviors of Washington state Democrats and the champion of Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition. For years, these seemingly disparate domains have tantalized the scientific community, beckoning us to unravel the enigmatic relationship that binds them together.
Amidst the labyrinth of state elections and the harrowing heat of competitive hot dog consumption, our study seeks to add a dash of relish to the field of both political science and gastronomic statistics. By examining the electoral data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the hotdog consumption figures from the annals of Nathan's Famous annual contest, we set out to unearth the statistical meat of this matter.
As we embarked on this journey, a fitting dad joke came to mind: "Why did the statistician bring a toothpick to the hotdog eating contest? He wanted to skewer the data!" Indeed, our quest to uncover the whims of statistical fate has led us to some unexpected, yet undeniably delicious, conclusions.
The correlation coefficient between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion revealed itself to be a compelling 0.9058035. With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical appetite for significance in our findings proved to be insatiable. This linkage, though initially hard to swallow, invites us to reconsider the tantalizing connections that exist within the realm of electoral and epicurean indulgence.
In the spirit of whimsy and wonderment, our analysis allows us to savor the rich flavors of statistical inquiry and the unexpected synergies that arise when the savory goodness of political participation encounters the mustard-laden fervor of competitive eating. It seems that when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of democracy and frankfurters, the task is not just reserved for the "brave," but perhaps the "bratwurst" among us.
In the next section, we will dive into the methodology that allowed us to take a big "bite" out of this perplexing intersection of data.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of our data revealed a remarkably strong association between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. The correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 suggests a nearly perfect positive linear relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. It's as if these numbers were in perfect "ketchup" with each other!
Throughout the 40-year period from 1979 to 2018, our findings consistently indicated that as the Democrat votes for Senators increased, so did the number of hotdogs devoured by the Nathan's champion. This connection between political preferences and competitive eating performances is indeed an unexpected "wiener" in the world of statistical analysis.
Our analysis also yielded an r-squared value of 0.8204799, indicating that over 82% of the variability in the hotdog consumption by the champion can be explained by the Democrat votes for Senators in Washington. It's as if the voters' decisions were directly fueling the competitive eater's appetite, akin to a "constitutional" dependency on hotdog intake!
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 further solidifies the statistical significance of this connection. It's safe to say that the link between political leanings and hotdog consumption is not just a random "relish" but a tangible trend worth sinking our teeth into!
We also created a scatterplot (Fig. 1) to visually capture this strong positive relationship between the two variables. The plot succinctly illustrates the upward trajectory of hotdog consumption as Democrat votes for Senators in Washington increase. It's like a "frank" explanation in picture form!
In summary, our research unearths a compelling and inexplicable bond between the political decisions of Washington voters and the indulgences of competitive eaters. As we digest these findings, let's remember that in the world of statistics, even the quirkiest connections can pack a flavorful punch.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, like a perfectly grilled hot dog tucked into a soft bun, our research has uncovered a surprisingly robust relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Washington and the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. It's as if their fates were "bunned" to intertwine! These findings serve as a vivid reminder that statistical analysis can sometimes lead us down unexpected yet tantalizing paths, much like finding a pickle in a pile of potato salad.

Our study not only adds a quirky twist to the annals of political and gastronomic research but also showcases the dynamic and often whimsical nature of statistical inquiry. It's a delicious reminder that even in the serious world of academia, a sprinkle of humor can add some much-needed flavor to the mix. As the old saying goes, "A good statistician can make anything taste like a hot dog, and a good joke can make any research paper a hit at the academic grill-out."

Therefore, with a sense of fullness in our hearts and perhaps a bit of indigestion from all the data crunching, we assert that no further research is needed in this area. It seems that the appetite of Washington voters indeed bears a curious influence on the champion of hot dog consumption. It's a statistical bellyful that we can all savor without reservation.


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 Democrat Dogged Determination: Unveiling the Link Between Washington Senatorial Votes and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Victories. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Canine Studies


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 Democrat Dogged Determination: Unveiling the Link Between Washington Senatorial Votes and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Victories. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for the Advancement of Whimsical Inquiry and Research (SAWIR)


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 Democrat Dogged Determination: Unveiling the Link Between Washington Senatorial Votes and Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest Victories with an abstract of In this groundbreaking study, we sink our teeth into the mysterious interplay between Washington state Democrat votes for Senators and the number of hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion. Leveraging a data-driven approach with datasets from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we uncover a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.9058035 and a statistically significant p-value < 0.01 for the period spanning 1979 to 2018.
Our findings not only shed light on the electoral appetites of Washington voters but also reveal a puzzling connection to the culinary conquests of competitive eaters. The results, though unexpected, leave us relishing in the statistical feast of democracy and gastronomy. It seems that when it comes to hotdogs and Senate votes, there's more than meets the bun!
As the data unraveled before us, a poignant dad joke emerged: "Why did the Democrat bring mustard to the voting booth? For the 'politic'." Our research serves as a reminder that even the most unexpected statistical associations are worth savoring. So, as we digest these findings, let's remain open to the whimsical twists and turns of data analysis, much like the unpredictable trajectory of a frankfurter launched from a condiment-laden bun.

ChatGPT:

Washington state, Democrat votes, Senate, Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Wikipedia, electoral appetites, competitive eaters, statistical analysis, dad joke, mustard, data association, gastronomy, democratic voting patterns

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

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 = 0.9058035 (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 = 0.8204799 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 82% 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 Democratic Senators in Washington) over the 14 years from 1979 through 2018.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 8.2E-6. 0.0000082107357095795600000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

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

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.91 in 0.00082% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 121,792 random variables You don't actually need 121 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 13 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 13 because we have two variables measured over a period of 14 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, 0.97 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
19801982198619881992199419982000200420062010201220162018
Votes for Democratic Senators in Washington (Total votes)792052943655677471904183119797075235211031801199440154971011846601314930185549019139801803360
Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion (Hotdogs eaten)9.51115.5101920192553.3353.7554687074




Why this works

  1. 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.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.




Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([792052,943655,677471,904183,1197970,752352,1103180,1199440,1549710,1184660,1314930,1855490,1913980,1803360,])
array_2 = np.array([9.5,11,15.5,10,19,20,19,25,53.33,53.75,54,68,70,74,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Washington"
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. 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:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Thanks for shining a light on this correlation!


Correlation ID: 5175 · Black Variable ID: 26330 · Red Variable ID: 500
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0