about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,216 · 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 Republican Senators in Colorado and the second variable is Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

Turns out, as Republican votes for Senators in Colorado decreased, there was a corresponding decrease in attempts to fake one's own political demise. This is believed to be due to a reduced need to escape heated political discussions at family gatherings, which in turn lowered the demand for completely changing one's identity. So, in a strange twist of events, it seems the political landscape may have a grave impact on people's desire to pull off the ultimate vanishing act.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Sure, here's an improved image generation prompt for DALLE-3, keeping the same style and scene: [ Cyberpunk ] Create an image of a cozy living room in a cyberpunk-inspired Colorado, where a family gathers around the TV on election night. As the Republican votes for Senators in Colorado decrease, the tension in the room eases, and the siblings and cousins engage in amiable conversations rather than heated arguments. Meanwhile, futuristic holographic displays on the nearby laptop show the declining Google search trends for 'how to fake your own death,' symbolizing the diminishing need to escape the political discourse. The atmosphere becomes jovial, and the idea of disappearing from the family drama fades away, as a sense of unity replaces the unease. Capture the cyberpunk elements and the heartwarming familial moment in this scene. 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: Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. 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 An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie inspired by bauhaus Parallax art Cyberpunk
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 Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death', in the following situation: Turns out, as Republican votes for Senators in Colorado decreased, there was a corresponding decrease in attempts to fake one's own political demise. This is believed to be due to a reduced need to escape heated political discussions at family gatherings, which in turn lowered the demand for completely changing one's identity. So, in a strange twist of events, it seems the political landscape may have a grave impact on people's desire to pull off the ultimate vanishing act.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a cozy living room in Colorado, a family gathers around the TV on election night. As the Republican votes for Senators in Colorado decrease, the tension in the room eases, and the siblings and cousins engage in amiable conversations rather than heated arguments. Meanwhile, the Google search trends for 'how to fake your own death' decline on the nearby laptop, as the need to escape the political discourse diminishes. The atmosphere becomes jovial, and the idea of disappearing from the family drama fades away, as a sense of unity replaces the unease.

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 cozy living room in Colorado, a family gathers around the TV on election night. As the Republican votes for Senators in Colorado decrease, the tension in the room eases, and the siblings and cousins engage in amiable conversations rather than heated arguments. Meanwhile, the Google search trends for 'how to fake your own death' decline on the nearby laptop, as the need to escape the political discourse diminishes. The atmosphere becomes jovial, and the idea of disappearing from the family drama fades away, as a sense of unity replaces the unease. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Sure, here's an improved image generation prompt for DALLE-3, keeping the same style and scene: [ Cyberpunk ] Create an image of a cozy living room in a cyberpunk-inspired Colorado, where a family gathers around the TV on election night. As the Republican votes for Senators in Colorado decrease, the tension in the room eases, and the siblings and cousins engage in amiable conversations rather than heated arguments. Meanwhile, futuristic holographic displays on the nearby laptop show the declining Google search trends for 'how to fake your own death,' symbolizing the diminishing need to escape the political discourse. The atmosphere becomes jovial, and the idea of disappearing from the family drama fades away, as a sense of unity replaces the unease. Capture the cyberpunk elements and the heartwarming familial moment in this scene.

*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 a decrease in Republican votes for Senators in Colorado caused how to fake your own death (Google searches for 'how to fake your own death') to decrease.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Vote or Vanish: A Morbid Relationship Between Republican Votes for Senators in Colorado and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'

The Journal of Socio-Political Quirks and Trends

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 dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You 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 Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. 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 Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8499583 and p < 0.05 for 2004 to 2020.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Vote or Vanish: A Morbid Relationship Between Republican Votes for Senators in Colorado and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The present research investigates the surprising correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this unexpected relationship and its potential implications. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8499583 and p < 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2020, indicating a robust connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

Our study underscores the importance of understanding the complex interplay between political dynamics and individuals' online search behavior. It seems that contemplating one's mortality may coincide with civic engagement, which gives new meaning to the phrase "voting like your life depends on it" - although we're not entirely convinced that voters are *dying* to cast their ballots! Nonetheless, these findings raise thought-provoking questions and may have implications for understanding voter motivations and civic participation.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You draft the 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 Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Vote or Vanish: A Morbid Relationship Between Republican Votes for Senators in Colorado and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The present research investigates the surprising correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this unexpected relationship and its potential implications. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8499583 and p < 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2020, indicating a robust connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

Our study underscores the importance of understanding the complex interplay between political dynamics and individuals' online search behavior. It seems that contemplating one's mortality may coincide with civic engagement, which gives new meaning to the phrase "voting like your life depends on it" - although we're not entirely convinced that voters are *dying* to cast their ballots! Nonetheless, these findings raise thought-provoking questions and may have implications for understanding voter motivations and civic participation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The relationship between political behavior and psychological phenomena has long been a topic of interest in social science research. From the impact of economic policies on consumer behavior to the influence of political rhetoric on public opinion, the interplay between politics and psychology continues to intrigue researchers and practitioners alike.

As the saying goes, "I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug." In this case, the unexpected relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' has left many scratching their heads, much like a suspiciously timed disappearance.

The correlation between civic engagement and contemplating one's own demise is a peculiar one, to say the least. It raises questions that are as perplexing as they are macabre. One might even say it's a topic that really "kills" at academic cocktail parties - pun intended.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. 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 name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Vote or Vanish: A Morbid Relationship Between Republican Votes for Senators in Colorado and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The present research investigates the surprising correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this unexpected relationship and its potential implications. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8499583 and p < 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2020, indicating a robust connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

Our study underscores the importance of understanding the complex interplay between political dynamics and individuals' online search behavior. It seems that contemplating one's mortality may coincide with civic engagement, which gives new meaning to the phrase "voting like your life depends on it" - although we're not entirely convinced that voters are *dying* to cast their ballots! Nonetheless, these findings raise thought-provoking questions and may have implications for understanding voter motivations and civic participation.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between political behavior and psychological phenomena has long been a topic of interest in social science research. From the impact of economic policies on consumer behavior to the influence of political rhetoric on public opinion, the interplay between politics and psychology continues to intrigue researchers and practitioners alike.
As the saying goes, "I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug." In this case, the unexpected relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' has left many scratching their heads, much like a suspiciously timed disappearance.
The correlation between civic engagement and contemplating one's own demise is a peculiar one, to say the least. It raises questions that are as perplexing as they are macabre. One might even say it's a topic that really "kills" at academic cocktail parties - pun intended.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Several prior studies have examined the relationship between political behavior and online search activity. Smith et al. (2016) found a significant association between political party affiliation and search frequency for self-help books, particularly those related to survival skills and disaster preparedness. Doe and Jones (2018) identified a positive correlation between voting patterns and queries on ways to escape a sinking ship, demonstrating a curious link between civic duty and nautical concerns.

In "The Art of Disappearing" by John Francis, readers are offered advice on how to vanish without a trace, which could be relevant to understanding the motivations behind searching for information on faking one's own death. Similarly, "How to Fake Your Death Online" by David Avocado Wolfe and Nick Hodge may shed light on the intersection between online behavior and the desire to orchestrate a faux demise.

Turning to the realm of fiction, the novel "Gone Girl" by Gillian Flynn portrays a character who fakes her own death, illustrating the enduring fascination with clandestine disappearances. Likewise, "The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox" by Maggie O'Farrell presents a gripping tale of a woman who is mistakenly committed to a mental institution, touching on themes of identity and erasure.

A relevant internet meme, "I'm in this photo and I don't like it," captures the sentiment of those who investigate macabre matters online, only to stumble upon unsettling content. In a similar vein, the "Is This a Pigeon?" meme humorously reflects the sensation of disorientation and existential questioning that may accompany online searches related to mortality and subterfuge.

These diverse sources offer unique insights into the intersection of political behavior, online search activity, and the curious allure of evading one's mortal coil. While the connection between Republican votes in Colorado and searches for tactics to fake one's own demise may seem daunting at first, there is undoubtedly much to learn and, dare I say, *die*gest from this unexpected correlation.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2020

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Vote or Vanish: A Morbid Relationship Between Republican Votes for Senators in Colorado and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The present research investigates the surprising correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this unexpected relationship and its potential implications. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8499583 and p < 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2020, indicating a robust connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

Our study underscores the importance of understanding the complex interplay between political dynamics and individuals' online search behavior. It seems that contemplating one's mortality may coincide with civic engagement, which gives new meaning to the phrase "voting like your life depends on it" - although we're not entirely convinced that voters are *dying* to cast their ballots! Nonetheless, these findings raise thought-provoking questions and may have implications for understanding voter motivations and civic participation.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between political behavior and psychological phenomena has long been a topic of interest in social science research. From the impact of economic policies on consumer behavior to the influence of political rhetoric on public opinion, the interplay between politics and psychology continues to intrigue researchers and practitioners alike.
As the saying goes, "I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug." In this case, the unexpected relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' has left many scratching their heads, much like a suspiciously timed disappearance.
The correlation between civic engagement and contemplating one's own demise is a peculiar one, to say the least. It raises questions that are as perplexing as they are macabre. One might even say it's a topic that really "kills" at academic cocktail parties - pun intended.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

The research methodology employed in this study involved a comprehensive analysis of data pertaining to Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' from the years 2004 to 2020. The data was primarily collected from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends.

To establish the connection between Republican votes and morbid online searches, a series of rigorous statistical analyses were conducted. First, the Google Trends data for the search query 'how to fake your own death' was obtained. This data was then compared to the election data for Colorado Senators, with a meticulous attention to detail that even Sherlock Holmes would commend. Always good to be thorough, unless you're a cat - they say curiosity killed the cat, but at least it didn't fake its own death!

The correlation between the Republican votes and the Google search trends was measured using Pearson's correlation coefficient, which gauges the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables. The results were striking, with a correlation coefficient of 0.8499583, which is about as strong a connection as peanut butter and jelly, or Republicans and talk shows.

Furthermore, to assess the robustness of the relationship, a significance test was conducted, employing a p-value of less than 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. This analysis confirmed that the correlation was not merely a fluke or a statistical ghost, but a genuine manifestation of the relationship between political affiliation and the inclination to seek information on faking one's own demise.

In order to control for potential confounding variables, a series of sensitivity analyses were performed. These analyses investigated the impact of various demographic and socio-economic factors on the observed relationship, ensuring that the findings were not driven by lurking variables trying to remain incognito. One might say we thoroughly searched for any hidden agendas - or perhaps, "searched until we were dead tired"!



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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 Google Trends .

For the time period 2004 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8499583, r-squared of 0.7224292, 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]]
"Vote or Vanish: A Morbid Relationship Between Republican Votes for Senators in Colorado and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The present research investigates the surprising correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this unexpected relationship and its potential implications. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8499583 and p < 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2020, indicating a robust connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

Our study underscores the importance of understanding the complex interplay between political dynamics and individuals' online search behavior. It seems that contemplating one's mortality may coincide with civic engagement, which gives new meaning to the phrase "voting like your life depends on it" - although we're not entirely convinced that voters are *dying* to cast their ballots! Nonetheless, these findings raise thought-provoking questions and may have implications for understanding voter motivations and civic participation.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The relationship between political behavior and psychological phenomena has long been a topic of interest in social science research. From the impact of economic policies on consumer behavior to the influence of political rhetoric on public opinion, the interplay between politics and psychology continues to intrigue researchers and practitioners alike.
As the saying goes, "I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug." In this case, the unexpected relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' has left many scratching their heads, much like a suspiciously timed disappearance.
The correlation between civic engagement and contemplating one's own demise is a peculiar one, to say the least. It raises questions that are as perplexing as they are macabre. One might even say it's a topic that really "kills" at academic cocktail parties - pun intended.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The correlation analysis revealed a strong positive relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' for the years 2004 to 2020. The correlation coefficient was found to be 0.8499583, with an r-squared value of 0.7224292, indicating that approximately 72.24% of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in Colorado can be explained by the variation in Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. This relationship was found to be statistically significant, with a p-value of less than 0.05, providing evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no association.

The scatterplot in Fig. 1 visually depicts the strong positive correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. The data points cluster closely along a trend line, emphasizing the strength of the relationship. One might say that the connection between political preferences and morbidity is as clear as a skeleton's favorite type of math - bone-us points if you guess it!

These findings are quite astonishing and extend beyond traditional understandings of voter behavior. It seems that in the realm of politics, the phrase "vote or die" takes on a whole new meaning. However, we cannot simply leap to the conclusion that voters are seeking to evade their civic duties by faking their own demise. This correlation prompts further investigation into the underlying motivations and psychological processes at play. After all, the pursuit of knowledge often requires a willingness to *dig* deeper - a grave mistake to overlook, one might say.

In summary, the results of our study provide compelling evidence for the unexpected relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death', shedding light on a peculiar yet robust correlation. These findings have implications for our understanding of the complex interplay between political behavior and psychological phenomena, challenging conventional wisdom and inspiring further inquiry. It's a reminder that in the world of research, sometimes the most surprising relationships are the ones that truly *kill* the competition.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
"Vote or Vanish: A Morbid Relationship Between Republican Votes for Senators in Colorado and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The present research investigates the surprising correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this unexpected relationship and its potential implications. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8499583 and p < 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2020, indicating a robust connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

Our study underscores the importance of understanding the complex interplay between political dynamics and individuals' online search behavior. It seems that contemplating one's mortality may coincide with civic engagement, which gives new meaning to the phrase "voting like your life depends on it" - although we're not entirely convinced that voters are *dying* to cast their ballots! Nonetheless, these findings raise thought-provoking questions and may have implications for understanding voter motivations and civic participation.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Several prior studies have examined the relationship between political behavior and online search activity. Smith et al. (2016) found a significant association between political party affiliation and search frequency for self-help books, particularly those related to survival skills and disaster preparedness. Doe and Jones (2018) identified a positive correlation between voting patterns and queries on ways to escape a sinking ship, demonstrating a curious link between civic duty and nautical concerns.
In "The Art of Disappearing" by John Francis, readers are offered advice on how to vanish without a trace, which could be relevant to understanding the motivations behind searching for information on faking one's own death. Similarly, "How to Fake Your Death Online" by David Avocado Wolfe and Nick Hodge may shed light on the intersection between online behavior and the desire to orchestrate a faux demise.
Turning to the realm of fiction, the novel "Gone Girl" by Gillian Flynn portrays a character who fakes her own death, illustrating the enduring fascination with clandestine disappearances. Likewise, "The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox" by Maggie O'Farrell presents a gripping tale of a woman who is mistakenly committed to a mental institution, touching on themes of identity and erasure.
A relevant internet meme, "I'm in this photo and I don't like it," captures the sentiment of those who investigate macabre matters online, only to stumble upon unsettling content. In a similar vein, the "Is This a Pigeon?" meme humorously reflects the sensation of disorientation and existential questioning that may accompany online searches related to mortality and subterfuge.
These diverse sources offer unique insights into the intersection of political behavior, online search activity, and the curious allure of evading one's mortal coil. While the connection between Republican votes in Colorado and searches for tactics to fake one's own demise may seem daunting at first, there is undoubtedly much to learn and, dare I say, *die*gest from this unexpected correlation.

[[RESULTS]]
The correlation analysis revealed a strong positive relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' for the years 2004 to 2020. The correlation coefficient was found to be 0.8499583, with an r-squared value of 0.7224292, indicating that approximately 72.24% of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in Colorado can be explained by the variation in Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. This relationship was found to be statistically significant, with a p-value of less than 0.05, providing evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no association.
The scatterplot in Fig. 1 visually depicts the strong positive correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. The data points cluster closely along a trend line, emphasizing the strength of the relationship. One might say that the connection between political preferences and morbidity is as clear as a skeleton's favorite type of math - bone-us points if you guess it!
These findings are quite astonishing and extend beyond traditional understandings of voter behavior. It seems that in the realm of politics, the phrase "vote or die" takes on a whole new meaning. However, we cannot simply leap to the conclusion that voters are seeking to evade their civic duties by faking their own demise. This correlation prompts further investigation into the underlying motivations and psychological processes at play. After all, the pursuit of knowledge often requires a willingness to *dig* deeper - a grave mistake to overlook, one might say.
In summary, the results of our study provide compelling evidence for the unexpected relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death', shedding light on a peculiar yet robust correlation. These findings have implications for our understanding of the complex interplay between political behavior and psychological phenomena, challenging conventional wisdom and inspiring further inquiry. It's a reminder that in the world of research, sometimes the most surprising relationships are the ones that truly *kill* the competition.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The significant relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' is a compelling and unexpected discovery. Our findings support previous research that has uncovered intriguing connections between political behaviors and seemingly unrelated online search activities. With the strong correlation coefficient of 0.8499583, our study demonstrates a robust relationship that challenges traditional understandings of voter motivations and civic engagement. As we mull over these results, it seems that voters in Colorado may be taking the phrase "vote or vanish" a tad too literally - a morbid way to show political fervor, one might say.

Building on the literature review, we observed a parallel between our findings and prior studies that have examined the interplay between political behavior and unusual online search activity. The positive correlation between Republican votes and searches for 'how to fake your own death' echoes the curious links identified by Smith et al. (2016) and Doe and Jones (2018). It appears that civic duty and preparations for the ultimate disappearing act might go hand in hand after all. It's almost as though voters are striving to make their political preferences *deadly* clear - a vote of passion, if you will.

Furthermore, the scatterplot in Figure 1 visually reinforces the strength of the relationship, with data points closely huddling along the trend line. This visual representation provides a compelling illustration of the association between political preferences and the contemplation of mortality. One might say that the data points are as tightly knit as a coffin's seams - a *grave* reminder of the gravity of our findings.

In conclusion, our study offers a thought-provoking contribution to the understanding of the complex connections between political behavior and mortality-related online search activity. The unexpected correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' challenges conventional wisdom and sheds light on the fascinating intricacies of human behavior. It seems that when it comes to political engagement, the stakes are high - perhaps higher than anyone could have *buried* them to be. Further research in this area holds the promise of unearthing even more surprising insights, as we continue to navigate the ins and *outs* of voter behavior.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
"Vote or Vanish: A Morbid Relationship Between Republican Votes for Senators in Colorado and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The present research investigates the surprising correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this unexpected relationship and its potential implications. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8499583 and p < 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2020, indicating a robust connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.

Our study underscores the importance of understanding the complex interplay between political dynamics and individuals' online search behavior. It seems that contemplating one's mortality may coincide with civic engagement, which gives new meaning to the phrase "voting like your life depends on it" - although we're not entirely convinced that voters are *dying* to cast their ballots! Nonetheless, these findings raise thought-provoking questions and may have implications for understanding voter motivations and civic participation.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The relationship between political behavior and psychological phenomena has long been a topic of interest in social science research. From the impact of economic policies on consumer behavior to the influence of political rhetoric on public opinion, the interplay between politics and psychology continues to intrigue researchers and practitioners alike.
As the saying goes, "I told my wife she should embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug." In this case, the unexpected relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' has left many scratching their heads, much like a suspiciously timed disappearance.
The correlation between civic engagement and contemplating one's own demise is a peculiar one, to say the least. It raises questions that are as perplexing as they are macabre. One might even say it's a topic that really "kills" at academic cocktail parties - pun intended.

[[RESULTS]]
The correlation analysis revealed a strong positive relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' for the years 2004 to 2020. The correlation coefficient was found to be 0.8499583, with an r-squared value of 0.7224292, indicating that approximately 72.24% of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in Colorado can be explained by the variation in Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. This relationship was found to be statistically significant, with a p-value of less than 0.05, providing evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no association.
The scatterplot in Fig. 1 visually depicts the strong positive correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. The data points cluster closely along a trend line, emphasizing the strength of the relationship. One might say that the connection between political preferences and morbidity is as clear as a skeleton's favorite type of math - bone-us points if you guess it!
These findings are quite astonishing and extend beyond traditional understandings of voter behavior. It seems that in the realm of politics, the phrase "vote or die" takes on a whole new meaning. However, we cannot simply leap to the conclusion that voters are seeking to evade their civic duties by faking their own demise. This correlation prompts further investigation into the underlying motivations and psychological processes at play. After all, the pursuit of knowledge often requires a willingness to *dig* deeper - a grave mistake to overlook, one might say.
In summary, the results of our study provide compelling evidence for the unexpected relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death', shedding light on a peculiar yet robust correlation. These findings have implications for our understanding of the complex interplay between political behavior and psychological phenomena, challenging conventional wisdom and inspiring further inquiry. It's a reminder that in the world of research, sometimes the most surprising relationships are the ones that truly *kill* the competition.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has illuminated a remarkably strong and statistically significant correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. This finding suggests a connection between civic engagement and pondering mortality that is as puzzling as it is intriguing. It seems that voters in Colorado are not only exercising their democratic rights but also contemplating the ultimate disappearing act, giving new meaning to the phrase "casting their ballots and casting doubt on their own mortality" – a *grave* matter indeed.

Furthermore, the robust relationship uncovered in our study challenges traditional assumptions about voter behavior and prompts a deeper exploration of the psychological mechanisms at play. Perhaps the phrase "politicians are a dying breed" takes on a whole new significance in this context. These results emphasize the need for further investigation into the motivations driving individuals to engage in such disparate activities, reminding us that in the pursuit of knowledge, one must be willing to *bury* oneself in research – a *dead* serious endeavor, indeed.

Given the striking nature of our findings, it is our firm conclusion that no more research is needed in this area. It seems we have *exhumed* all there is to know about this curious correlation, and further inquiry may simply *grave* us with more data than we can handle. We hope that our study has laid the matter to rest and left no *bones* unturned in unraveling this enigmatic connection between political choices and thoughts of mortality.


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 Vote or Vanish: A Morbid Relationship Between Republican Votes for Senators in Colorado and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Socio-Political Quirks and Trends


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 Vote or Vanish: A Morbid Relationship Between Republican Votes for Senators in Colorado and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Quirky Socio-Political Research (SQSPR)


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 Vote or Vanish: A Morbid Relationship Between Republican Votes for Senators in Colorado and Google Searches for 'How to Fake Your Own Death' with an abstract of The present research investigates the surprising correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Colorado and Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'. Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this unexpected relationship and its potential implications. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8499583 and p < 0.05 for the years 2004 to 2020, indicating a robust connection between these seemingly unrelated phenomena.
Our study underscores the importance of understanding the complex interplay between political dynamics and individuals' online search behavior. It seems that contemplating one's mortality may coincide with civic engagement, which gives new meaning to the phrase "voting like your life depends on it" - although we're not entirely convinced that voters are *dying* to cast their ballots! Nonetheless, these findings raise thought-provoking questions and may have implications for understanding voter motivations and civic participation.

ChatGPT:

Republican votes, Senators, Colorado, Google searches, how to fake your own death, correlation, Google Trends, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, voter motivations, civic engagement, voter behavior, political dynamics, voter turnout

*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 Republican Senators in Colorado
Detailed data title: Percentage of votes cast for Federal Republican Senate candidates in Colorado
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for Republican Senators in Colorado

Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' (Worldwide), with quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'

Correlation r = 0.8499583 (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 = 0.7224292 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 72.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'how to fake your own death') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Colorado) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2020.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0321. 0.0320798391649682200000000000
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 0.85 in 3.21% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 31 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.

[ 0.12, 0.98 ] 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.
200420082010201420162020
Votes for Republican Senators in Colorado (Percentage of votes)46.532942.492146.42248.20544.305844.1775
Google searches for 'how to fake your own death' (Rel. search volume)15.583310.166714.5238.166675.33333




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([46.5329,42.4921,46.422,48.205,44.3058,44.1775,])
array_2 = np.array([15.5833,10.1667,14.5,23,8.16667,5.33333,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Colorado"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'how to fake your own death'"

# 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?

I'm grateful for your review!


Correlation ID: 5216 · Black Variable ID: 26359 · Red Variable ID: 1494
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0