about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,190 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Libertarian Senators in Indiana and the second variable is The number of butchers in Indiana.  The chart goes from 2003 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As more Libertarian sentiment spread, there was a rise in demand for beef, leading to a surge in the need for butchers. It seems that as political stakes sizzled, so did the call for steaks, truly creating a cutthroat competition in the butcher industry. It's a bit of a rare connection, but it appears that when it comes to politics and butchery, it's all about making the right meat-electorate choices.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image showing a dynamic scene in a bustling Indiana town. It features a crowd of enthusiastic voters lined up at a vibrant outdoor polling station, with a festive atmosphere. In the foreground, the image should depict a row of lively butcher shops serving a stream of customers, evoking bustling activity. Highlight the juxtaposition of the political fervor and the sizzling grills, capturing the unique energy of the town. The scene should be rich in details, showcasing the vibrant colors and spirited hustle of the setting. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of butchers in Indiana. 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: Realistic Data cyber art 3D Pixar Style Sci-fi fantacy Cyberpunk
ChatGPT: Realistic

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of butchers in Indiana, in the following situation: As more Libertarian sentiment spread, there was a rise in demand for beef, leading to a surge in the need for butchers. It seems that as political stakes sizzled, so did the call for steaks, truly creating a cutthroat competition in the butcher industry. It's a bit of a rare connection, but it appears that when it comes to politics and butchery, it's all about making the right meat-electorate choices.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling town in Indiana, a line of eager voters excitedly cast their ballots for Libertarian senators. Nearby, a row of busy butcher shops worked tirelessly to meet the soaring demand for steaks and chops. The aroma of sizzling meat filled the air as the political fervor and the sizzling grills created a unique and vibrant atmosphere in the town.

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: [ Realistic ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling town in Indiana, a line of eager voters excitedly cast their ballots for Libertarian senators. Nearby, a row of busy butcher shops worked tirelessly to meet the soaring demand for steaks and chops. The aroma of sizzling meat filled the air as the political fervor and the sizzling grills created a unique and vibrant atmosphere in the town. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image showing a dynamic scene in a bustling Indiana town. It features a crowd of enthusiastic voters lined up at a vibrant outdoor polling station, with a festive atmosphere. In the foreground, the image should depict a row of lively butcher shops serving a stream of customers, evoking bustling activity. Highlight the juxtaposition of the political fervor and the sizzling grills, capturing the unique energy of the town. The scene should be rich in details, showcasing the vibrant colors and spirited hustle of the setting.

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

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana caused The number of butchers in Indiana to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Steak Your Claim: Exploring the Relationship Between Libertarian Votes for Senators and the Butcher Count in Indiana

The Journal of Meatology

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 silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of butchers in Indiana. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9077329 and p < 0.05 for 2003 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]]
"Steak Your Claim: Exploring the Relationship Between Libertarian Votes for Senators and the Butcher Count in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious correlation between the number of butchers in Indiana and the voting patterns of Libertarians for Senators. By analyzing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2018, our research team discovered a surprising connection. The correlation coefficient of 0.9077329 and p < 0.05 indicates a strong relationship between the two variables. We carefully dissect the meat of this association and present humorous commentary on the implications of these findings. Join us in savoring the juicy details of this unexpected link between political preferences and meaty matters in the Hoosier State.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of butchers in Indiana. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Steak Your Claim: Exploring the Relationship Between Libertarian Votes for Senators and the Butcher Count in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious correlation between the number of butchers in Indiana and the voting patterns of Libertarians for Senators. By analyzing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2018, our research team discovered a surprising connection. The correlation coefficient of 0.9077329 and p < 0.05 indicates a strong relationship between the two variables. We carefully dissect the meat of this association and present humorous commentary on the implications of these findings. Join us in savoring the juicy details of this unexpected link between political preferences and meaty matters in the Hoosier State.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Politics and meat might seem like an odd couple, but as we’ll slice and dice in this paper, there may be more to the connection than meets the eye. The relationship between the voting behaviors of citizens and the presence of butchers in a state may seem about as relevant as a vegetarian at a barbecue, but our research has uncovered an unexpectedly juicy link between the two in the Hoosier State of Indiana.

As the saying goes, "where there’s smoke, there’s fire," and the data we’ve unearthed has sizzled up an intriguing correlation between the number of Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the count of butchers in the state. Who would have thought that political leanings and meat consumption could go together like peas and carrots, or in this case, like pork and beans?

There’s no need to have a "beef" with our findings - we assure you that our analysis was conducted with the utmost seriousness, even if we couldn’t help but sprinkle some lightheartedness into the mix. So, grab a snack and join us as we embark on a journey through political landscapes and literal meat markets, exploring the unexpected bond between how Hoosiers vote and how they cut their steaks. With our tongues planted firmly in our cheeks, we invite you to sink your teeth into this intriguing research.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of butchers in Indiana. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Steak Your Claim: Exploring the Relationship Between Libertarian Votes for Senators and the Butcher Count in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious correlation between the number of butchers in Indiana and the voting patterns of Libertarians for Senators. By analyzing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2018, our research team discovered a surprising connection. The correlation coefficient of 0.9077329 and p < 0.05 indicates a strong relationship between the two variables. We carefully dissect the meat of this association and present humorous commentary on the implications of these findings. Join us in savoring the juicy details of this unexpected link between political preferences and meaty matters in the Hoosier State.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Politics and meat might seem like an odd couple, but as we’ll slice and dice in this paper, there may be more to the connection than meets the eye. The relationship between the voting behaviors of citizens and the presence of butchers in a state may seem about as relevant as a vegetarian at a barbecue, but our research has uncovered an unexpectedly juicy link between the two in the Hoosier State of Indiana.
As the saying goes, "where there’s smoke, there’s fire," and the data we’ve unearthed has sizzled up an intriguing correlation between the number of Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the count of butchers in the state. Who would have thought that political leanings and meat consumption could go together like peas and carrots, or in this case, like pork and beans?
There’s no need to have a "beef" with our findings - we assure you that our analysis was conducted with the utmost seriousness, even if we couldn’t help but sprinkle some lightheartedness into the mix. So, grab a snack and join us as we embark on a journey through political landscapes and literal meat markets, exploring the unexpected bond between how Hoosiers vote and how they cut their steaks. With our tongues planted firmly in our cheeks, we invite you to sink your teeth into this intriguing research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Smith et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive study on the political landscapes of Indiana, but surprisingly, they didn't delve into the meat markets. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2018) explored the socioeconomic factors influencing voting patterns, but they missed the opportunity to grill the connection between political leanings and meat consumption. However, when we turn to non-fiction works, books like "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safran Foer offer some food for thought on the broader relationship between politics and dietary choices.

Moving into the realm of fiction, one might expect to find some meaty metaphors and political puns, and indeed, books like "A Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole and "Slaughterhouse-Five" by Kurt Vonnegut could offer some tangentially related insights. But let's not skirt around the issue - we all know where the real meat of this literature review lies.

As we dissected various sources, we couldn't help but notice the correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of butchers in the state. And no, this revelation didn't come from reading random CVS receipts – although we must say, those things can be surprisingly entertaining.

Overall, our literature review may have started off drier than a well-done steak, but we promise you, the findings are as rare as a Libertarian vote in a heavily blue or red state. So, grab a napkin and prepare for some tender observations as we sink our teeth into the meaty details of this peculiar correlation.


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

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

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2003 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]]
"Steak Your Claim: Exploring the Relationship Between Libertarian Votes for Senators and the Butcher Count in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious correlation between the number of butchers in Indiana and the voting patterns of Libertarians for Senators. By analyzing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2018, our research team discovered a surprising connection. The correlation coefficient of 0.9077329 and p < 0.05 indicates a strong relationship between the two variables. We carefully dissect the meat of this association and present humorous commentary on the implications of these findings. Join us in savoring the juicy details of this unexpected link between political preferences and meaty matters in the Hoosier State.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Politics and meat might seem like an odd couple, but as we’ll slice and dice in this paper, there may be more to the connection than meets the eye. The relationship between the voting behaviors of citizens and the presence of butchers in a state may seem about as relevant as a vegetarian at a barbecue, but our research has uncovered an unexpectedly juicy link between the two in the Hoosier State of Indiana.
As the saying goes, "where there’s smoke, there’s fire," and the data we’ve unearthed has sizzled up an intriguing correlation between the number of Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the count of butchers in the state. Who would have thought that political leanings and meat consumption could go together like peas and carrots, or in this case, like pork and beans?
There’s no need to have a "beef" with our findings - we assure you that our analysis was conducted with the utmost seriousness, even if we couldn’t help but sprinkle some lightheartedness into the mix. So, grab a snack and join us as we embark on a journey through political landscapes and literal meat markets, exploring the unexpected bond between how Hoosiers vote and how they cut their steaks. With our tongues planted firmly in our cheeks, we invite you to sink your teeth into this intriguing research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To investigate the relationship between the number of Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the count of butchers in the state, our research team embarked on a journey comparable to a culinary quest for the perfect cut of steak. We gathered data from various reputable sources, primarily from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Our data encompassed the time period of 2003 to 2018, allowing us to conduct a thorough examination of the potential correlation between political proclivities and the presence of those who "meat" our dietary needs.

The first step in our analytical marinade was to collect comprehensive information on the number of registered Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana over the specified timeframe. This data was meticulously sourced and cross-referenced to ensure its tenderness and reliability. Similarly, we procured detailed records of the number of butchers operating within the state of Indiana, taking into account variables such as independent butchers, chains, and seasonal fluctuations, ensuring that no slice of data was left unexamined.

After selecting our prime cuts of data, we employed statistical methods that were as delectable as a well-marbled ribeye. Utilizing sophisticated software and our razor-sharp analytical skills, we calculated the correlation coefficient and performed regression analyses to determine the strength of the relationship between Libertarian votes for Senators and the number of butchers in Indiana.

In our pursuit of academic "meat"-hods, we took into account various confounding variables, such as demographic changes, economic fluctuations, and political events. This allowed us to refine our analysis and ensure that our findings were as succulent as a perfectly seared filet mignon, fit for consumption by the scholarly community.

As we sliced through the data, we implemented robust sensitivity analyses to validate the robustness of our results. This ensured that our conclusions were as reliable as a well-aged cheese, providing a flavorful blend of knowledge and amusement. The meticulous approach to our methodology guarantees that our findings are grounded in steak, I mean, stern academic rigor, while also delivering a dash of levity to keep our readers engaged.

In summary, our methodology balances the seriousness of academic inquiry with the wit and charm of a perfectly seasoned dish, offering a rare medium (pun intended) for digesting scholarly research. So, without further ado, let’s sink our intellectual incisors into the findings of this investigation.


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

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

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

For the time period 2003 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.9077329, r-squared of 0.8239791, and p < 0.05.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Steak Your Claim: Exploring the Relationship Between Libertarian Votes for Senators and the Butcher Count in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious correlation between the number of butchers in Indiana and the voting patterns of Libertarians for Senators. By analyzing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2018, our research team discovered a surprising connection. The correlation coefficient of 0.9077329 and p < 0.05 indicates a strong relationship between the two variables. We carefully dissect the meat of this association and present humorous commentary on the implications of these findings. Join us in savoring the juicy details of this unexpected link between political preferences and meaty matters in the Hoosier State.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Politics and meat might seem like an odd couple, but as we’ll slice and dice in this paper, there may be more to the connection than meets the eye. The relationship between the voting behaviors of citizens and the presence of butchers in a state may seem about as relevant as a vegetarian at a barbecue, but our research has uncovered an unexpectedly juicy link between the two in the Hoosier State of Indiana.
As the saying goes, "where there’s smoke, there’s fire," and the data we’ve unearthed has sizzled up an intriguing correlation between the number of Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the count of butchers in the state. Who would have thought that political leanings and meat consumption could go together like peas and carrots, or in this case, like pork and beans?
There’s no need to have a "beef" with our findings - we assure you that our analysis was conducted with the utmost seriousness, even if we couldn’t help but sprinkle some lightheartedness into the mix. So, grab a snack and join us as we embark on a journey through political landscapes and literal meat markets, exploring the unexpected bond between how Hoosiers vote and how they cut their steaks. With our tongues planted firmly in our cheeks, we invite you to sink your teeth into this intriguing research.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our investigation sought to quantify the relationship between the number of Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of butchers in the state. After extensive data collection and analysis, we found a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9077329, suggesting a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding indicates that as the number of Libertarian votes for Senators increases, so does the count of butchers in Indiana, leading to an r-squared value of 0.8239791. The p-value was less than 0.05, indicating that the observed correlation was statistically significant.

To visually depict this intriguing relationship, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that vividly captures the robust correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators and the number of butchers in Indiana. The upward trend in the plot is as clear as black and white, or in this case, as clear as the choice between rare and well-done.

Our results highlight a surprising connection between political ideology and the meat industry, suggesting that the preferences of Hoosier voters may extend beyond the ballot box to influence the state's culinary landscape. While we did not expect politics and butchery to be cut from the same cloth, our findings certainly suggest a shared stage for these seemingly disparate arenas.

In summary, our study provides compelling evidence of a notable association between Libertarian votes for Senators and the number of butchers in Indiana. This unexpected linkage raises intriguing questions about the intersection of politics and butchery, inviting further investigation into the meaty undercurrents of political landscapes. We look forward to sinking our teeth into the far-reaching implications of these findings and relishing in the potential avenues for future research in this uncharted territory.

In conclusion, the correlation between political preferences and the meat industry in Indiana is more than just a rib-tickling coincidence. These unexpected findings carve out a new dimension in the intertwining of civic engagement and culinary culture, serving up an intellectual feast for those hungry for unconventional connections.


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

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

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"Steak Your Claim: Exploring the Relationship Between Libertarian Votes for Senators and the Butcher Count in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious correlation between the number of butchers in Indiana and the voting patterns of Libertarians for Senators. By analyzing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2018, our research team discovered a surprising connection. The correlation coefficient of 0.9077329 and p < 0.05 indicates a strong relationship between the two variables. We carefully dissect the meat of this association and present humorous commentary on the implications of these findings. Join us in savoring the juicy details of this unexpected link between political preferences and meaty matters in the Hoosier State.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Smith et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive study on the political landscapes of Indiana, but surprisingly, they didn't delve into the meat markets. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2018) explored the socioeconomic factors influencing voting patterns, but they missed the opportunity to grill the connection between political leanings and meat consumption. However, when we turn to non-fiction works, books like "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safran Foer offer some food for thought on the broader relationship between politics and dietary choices.
Moving into the realm of fiction, one might expect to find some meaty metaphors and political puns, and indeed, books like "A Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole and "Slaughterhouse-Five" by Kurt Vonnegut could offer some tangentially related insights. But let's not skirt around the issue - we all know where the real meat of this literature review lies.
As we dissected various sources, we couldn't help but notice the correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of butchers in the state. And no, this revelation didn't come from reading random CVS receipts – although we must say, those things can be surprisingly entertaining.
Overall, our literature review may have started off drier than a well-done steak, but we promise you, the findings are as rare as a Libertarian vote in a heavily blue or red state. So, grab a napkin and prepare for some tender observations as we sink our teeth into the meaty details of this peculiar correlation.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation sought to quantify the relationship between the number of Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of butchers in the state. After extensive data collection and analysis, we found a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9077329, suggesting a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding indicates that as the number of Libertarian votes for Senators increases, so does the count of butchers in Indiana, leading to an r-squared value of 0.8239791. The p-value was less than 0.05, indicating that the observed correlation was statistically significant.
To visually depict this intriguing relationship, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that vividly captures the robust correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators and the number of butchers in Indiana. The upward trend in the plot is as clear as black and white, or in this case, as clear as the choice between rare and well-done.
Our results highlight a surprising connection between political ideology and the meat industry, suggesting that the preferences of Hoosier voters may extend beyond the ballot box to influence the state's culinary landscape. While we did not expect politics and butchery to be cut from the same cloth, our findings certainly suggest a shared stage for these seemingly disparate arenas.
In summary, our study provides compelling evidence of a notable association between Libertarian votes for Senators and the number of butchers in Indiana. This unexpected linkage raises intriguing questions about the intersection of politics and butchery, inviting further investigation into the meaty undercurrents of political landscapes. We look forward to sinking our teeth into the far-reaching implications of these findings and relishing in the potential avenues for future research in this uncharted territory.
In conclusion, the correlation between political preferences and the meat industry in Indiana is more than just a rib-tickling coincidence. These unexpected findings carve out a new dimension in the intertwining of civic engagement and culinary culture, serving up an intellectual feast for those hungry for unconventional connections.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our results concerning the surprising correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of butchers in the state have undoubtedly raised eyebrows and tickled funny bones. While our findings may initially appear as unexpected as finding a vegan in a barbecue joint, they align with prior research that hints at the interplay between political preferences and dietary inclinations.

Doe and Jones (2018) touched on the socio-economic factors influencing voting patterns, but we’ve gone a step further and carved out this unique relationship between political ideology and the culinary industry. This connection may seem as improbable as a cow doing stand-up comedy, but the statistical significance of our findings is as clear as the distinction between a filet mignon and a flank steak.

Smith et al. (2015) missed the opportunity to explore the meat markets in their study of Indiana's political landscapes. Similarly, our findings offer a fresh perspective, much like a rare cut of beef in a world of overcooked research. There's no denying that our results are as substantial as a porterhouse, and the correlation we've uncovered is not just a flimsy link – it's as robust as a well-marbled ribeye.

Our scatterplot, akin to a masterful piece of culinary art, vividly captures the positive association between Libertarian votes for Senators and the number of butchers in Indiana. The visual representation is as compelling as a perfectly charred grill line on a steak and serves as undeniable evidence of this unexpected relationship. As for the p-value less than 0.05, it's a statistical rarity akin to finding a four-leaf clover in a field of data points.

Now, while some might dismiss the connection between political leanings and the meat industry as rare as a blue steak, we encourage a deeper examination of our findings. We believe there's a lot at stake here – more than just a lighthearted beef about politics and butchery. Consequently, our study lays the groundwork, or should we say, the groundwork meat, for future research in this delectable yet unexplored territory.

In sum, our findings lend credence to the notion that political preferences may extend far beyond the ballot box, transcending into the culinary landscape. It's a reminder that beneath the surface of politics and meat lies a complex, interwoven tapestry waiting to be sliced and served. So, let's continue savoring the tender findings and relish the potential implications of these uncharted connections between political appetites and meaty matters. And, of course, let's keep our sense of humor as sharp as a butcher's knife as we carve out new dimensions in this deliciously unexpected field of research.


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

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

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Steak Your Claim: Exploring the Relationship Between Libertarian Votes for Senators and the Butcher Count in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the curious correlation between the number of butchers in Indiana and the voting patterns of Libertarians for Senators. By analyzing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2018, our research team discovered a surprising connection. The correlation coefficient of 0.9077329 and p < 0.05 indicates a strong relationship between the two variables. We carefully dissect the meat of this association and present humorous commentary on the implications of these findings. Join us in savoring the juicy details of this unexpected link between political preferences and meaty matters in the Hoosier State.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Politics and meat might seem like an odd couple, but as we’ll slice and dice in this paper, there may be more to the connection than meets the eye. The relationship between the voting behaviors of citizens and the presence of butchers in a state may seem about as relevant as a vegetarian at a barbecue, but our research has uncovered an unexpectedly juicy link between the two in the Hoosier State of Indiana.
As the saying goes, "where there’s smoke, there’s fire," and the data we’ve unearthed has sizzled up an intriguing correlation between the number of Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the count of butchers in the state. Who would have thought that political leanings and meat consumption could go together like peas and carrots, or in this case, like pork and beans?
There’s no need to have a "beef" with our findings - we assure you that our analysis was conducted with the utmost seriousness, even if we couldn’t help but sprinkle some lightheartedness into the mix. So, grab a snack and join us as we embark on a journey through political landscapes and literal meat markets, exploring the unexpected bond between how Hoosiers vote and how they cut their steaks. With our tongues planted firmly in our cheeks, we invite you to sink your teeth into this intriguing research.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation sought to quantify the relationship between the number of Libertarian votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of butchers in the state. After extensive data collection and analysis, we found a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9077329, suggesting a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding indicates that as the number of Libertarian votes for Senators increases, so does the count of butchers in Indiana, leading to an r-squared value of 0.8239791. The p-value was less than 0.05, indicating that the observed correlation was statistically significant.
To visually depict this intriguing relationship, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot that vividly captures the robust correlation between Libertarian votes for Senators and the number of butchers in Indiana. The upward trend in the plot is as clear as black and white, or in this case, as clear as the choice between rare and well-done.
Our results highlight a surprising connection between political ideology and the meat industry, suggesting that the preferences of Hoosier voters may extend beyond the ballot box to influence the state's culinary landscape. While we did not expect politics and butchery to be cut from the same cloth, our findings certainly suggest a shared stage for these seemingly disparate arenas.
In summary, our study provides compelling evidence of a notable association between Libertarian votes for Senators and the number of butchers in Indiana. This unexpected linkage raises intriguing questions about the intersection of politics and butchery, inviting further investigation into the meaty undercurrents of political landscapes. We look forward to sinking our teeth into the far-reaching implications of these findings and relishing in the potential avenues for future research in this uncharted territory.
In conclusion, the correlation between political preferences and the meat industry in Indiana is more than just a rib-tickling coincidence. These unexpected findings carve out a new dimension in the intertwining of civic engagement and culinary culture, serving up an intellectual feast for those hungry for unconventional connections.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In wrapping up our findings, it’s clear that the connection between Libertarian voting behavior and the number of butchers in Indiana goes beyond being a mere meat-and-greet. Our results have certainly raised more eyebrows than a well-done steak at a vegetarian convention. As we've carefully dissected this meaty correlation, it's safe to say that it's no longer just a rare occurrence.

While we find ourselves tickled by the unexpected link between political leanings and meat markets, our analysis has showcased a statistically significant relationship that is no chicken feed. The steak-ness of the association cannot be overlooked and certainly warrants further exploration. However, it's safe to say that at this point, no more research is needed in this area. We've served up a rare and delectable find, and it's time to let this beefy discovery marinate in academia.

In sum, as we bid adieu to this savory chapter of research, we encourage others to join us in savoring the unexpected taste of politics and butchery in the Hoosier State. The steak is set, the table is served, and it’s time to let this delectable research simmer.


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 Steak Your Claim: Exploring the Relationship Between Libertarian Votes for Senators and the Butcher Count in Indiana. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Meatology


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 Steak Your Claim: Exploring the Relationship Between Libertarian Votes for Senators and the Butcher Count in Indiana. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Carnivorous Political Science


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 Steak Your Claim: Exploring the Relationship Between Libertarian Votes for Senators and the Butcher Count in Indiana with an abstract of This paper delves into the curious correlation between the number of butchers in Indiana and the voting patterns of Libertarians for Senators. By analyzing data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics spanning from 2003 to 2018, our research team discovered a surprising connection. The correlation coefficient of 0.9077329 and p < 0.05 indicates a strong relationship between the two variables. We carefully dissect the meat of this association and present humorous commentary on the implications of these findings. Join us in savoring the juicy details of this unexpected link between political preferences and meaty matters in the Hoosier State.

ChatGPT:

libertarian votes, senators, Indiana, butchers, correlation, data analysis, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003-2018, relationship, political preferences, meat consumption, hoosier state

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

The number of butchers in Indiana
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of butchers and meat cutters in Indiana
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of butchers in Indiana

Correlation r = 0.9077329 (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 = 0.8239791 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 82.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of butchers in Indiana) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Libertarian Senators in Indiana) over the 6 years from 2003 through 2018.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.012. 0.0123770688255504730000000000
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 1.2% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 81 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 5 because we have two variables measured over a period of 6 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.37, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200420062010201220162018
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Indiana (Total votes)2734416882094330145282149481100942
The number of butchers in Indiana (Laborers)191031602440277025002280




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.
  4. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
  5. 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. 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. 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([27344,168820,94330,145282,149481,100942,])
array_2 = np.array([1910,3160,2440,2770,2500,2280,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Libertarian Senators in Indiana"
array_2_name = "The number of butchers in Indiana"

# 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?

Your correlation rating is out of this world!


Correlation ID: 5190 · Black Variable ID: 26235 · Red Variable ID: 7817
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0