about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,235 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland and the second variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in Maryland.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the air quality improved in Baltimore, more and more voters were able to take a deep breath and 'left' their old beliefs behind, leading to a 'clean sweep' for the Democratic Senators in Maryland. It seems like when the smog cleared, so did their political views!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that looks like a scene from a Disney movie, depicting a clear Baltimore skyline with a sense of relief and renewed optimism. Show the cityscape with improved air quality, leading to a clearer, brighter view. People on the sidewalks should be portrayed taking deep breaths and shedding their old beliefs like a weight off their shoulders. Illustrate Democrat voters making their way to the polling stations, reflecting a sense of purpose and hope. Capture the atmosphere of positive change, symbolizing the 'clean sweep' for the Democratic Senators in Maryland, without any explicit political imagery. 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: Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland. 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: An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' Low poly Voxel art Voxel art An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie

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 Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland, in the following situation: As the air quality improved in Baltimore, more and more voters were able to take a deep breath and 'left' their old beliefs behind, leading to a 'clean sweep' for the Democratic Senators in Maryland. It seems like when the smog cleared, so did their political views!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Baltimore, Maryland, the air quality improved as the city skyline became clearer. People, taking deep, relieved breaths, seemed to shed their old beliefs like a weight off their shoulders. The sidewalks were lined with Democrat voters making their way to the polling stations. As the smog cleared, so did their political views, leading to a 'clean sweep' for the Democratic Senators in Maryland.

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: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie ] and depicting this scene: In Baltimore, Maryland, the air quality improved as the city skyline became clearer. People, taking deep, relieved breaths, seemed to shed their old beliefs like a weight off their shoulders. The sidewalks were lined with Democrat voters making their way to the polling stations. As the smog cleared, so did their political views, leading to a 'clean sweep' for the Democratic Senators in Maryland. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that looks like a scene from a Disney movie, depicting a clear Baltimore skyline with a sense of relief and renewed optimism. Show the cityscape with improved air quality, leading to a clearer, brighter view. People on the sidewalks should be portrayed taking deep breaths and shedding their old beliefs like a weight off their shoulders. Illustrate Democrat voters making their way to the polling stations, reflecting a sense of purpose and hope. Capture the atmosphere of positive change, symbolizing the 'clean sweep' for the Democratic Senators in Maryland, without any explicit political imagery.

*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 Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland caused Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Taking a Breath: Clearer Skies, Bluer States - The Air Quality and Democrat Votes Correlation in Maryland

Journal of Environmental Politics and Atmospheric Science

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 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 Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and p < 0.01 for 1980 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]]
Taking a Breath: Clearer Skies, Bluer States - The Air Quality and Democrat Votes Correlation in Maryland

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the often-neglected link between air quality and political leanings, specifically focusing on the correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state. With a breath of fresh air, so to speak, we bring to light our findings that suggest a robust relationship between air quality and blue state tendencies. This study takes the phrase "climate politics" to a whole new level!

Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously analyzed the air quality index and the voting patterns for Democratic Senators in Maryland from 1980 to 2018. Our results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the strength of the relationship between air quality and Democratic votes. As the saying goes, it seems that "clean air" truly does "clearly" influence political inclinations!

The implications of this research are quite significant, shedding light on the political impact of environmental factors. Our findings suggest that improvements in air quality may not only lead to healthier lifestyles but also influence political preferences. It’s as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our Senators - fresh and clean!"



Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Taking a Breath: Clearer Skies, Bluer States - The Air Quality and Democrat Votes Correlation in Maryland

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the often-neglected link between air quality and political leanings, specifically focusing on the correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state. With a breath of fresh air, so to speak, we bring to light our findings that suggest a robust relationship between air quality and blue state tendencies. This study takes the phrase "climate politics" to a whole new level!

Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously analyzed the air quality index and the voting patterns for Democratic Senators in Maryland from 1980 to 2018. Our results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the strength of the relationship between air quality and Democratic votes. As the saying goes, it seems that "clean air" truly does "clearly" influence political inclinations!

The implications of this research are quite significant, shedding light on the political impact of environmental factors. Our findings suggest that improvements in air quality may not only lead to healthier lifestyles but also influence political preferences. It’s as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our Senators - fresh and clean!"


-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

As we navigate the complex web of factors that influence political preferences, the interplay between environmental conditions and voting behavior often remains shrouded in the haze of uncertainty. It is often presumed that political affiliations are shaped by social and economic factors, but could the quality of the air we breathe also play a significant role? In this study, we venture into uncharted territory to investigate the relationship between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and Democratic votes for Senators in the state. It's time to clear the air and see if there's truly a "blue sky effect" on voting tendencies!

As we inhale the musings of past research, one can't help but wonder if air quality could indeed have a breath-taking impact on political leanings. The notion that constituents might be casting their votes under the influence of the air they respire certainly adds a refreshing twist to the realm of political science. It's almost as if clean air is not just a matter of public health, but also a matter of political aroma - the sweeter, the better!

While previous studies have hinted at the potential links between environmental conditions and voting behavior, the specific association between air quality and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland remains relatively unexplored. By diving into this uncharted territory, we seek to bring to light the factors that "air" on the side of political inclinations in the Free State. With our findings, one might say we aim to clear the "air" of any skepticism regarding the correlation between the two.

As we embark on this journey of discovery, it's worth pondering the extent to which the residents of Baltimore might be consciously or subconsciously letting the quality of their air influence their electoral choices. Perhaps, the citizens have been voting with their lungs all along – after all, who wouldn't want their senators to have a "breath" of fresh air about them? In the end, the bond between clean air and blue states might just turn out to be more than mere "political gas," as our findings aim to elucidate.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Taking a Breath: Clearer Skies, Bluer States - The Air Quality and Democrat Votes Correlation in Maryland

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the often-neglected link between air quality and political leanings, specifically focusing on the correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state. With a breath of fresh air, so to speak, we bring to light our findings that suggest a robust relationship between air quality and blue state tendencies. This study takes the phrase "climate politics" to a whole new level!

Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously analyzed the air quality index and the voting patterns for Democratic Senators in Maryland from 1980 to 2018. Our results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the strength of the relationship between air quality and Democratic votes. As the saying goes, it seems that "clean air" truly does "clearly" influence political inclinations!

The implications of this research are quite significant, shedding light on the political impact of environmental factors. Our findings suggest that improvements in air quality may not only lead to healthier lifestyles but also influence political preferences. It’s as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our Senators - fresh and clean!"


-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As we navigate the complex web of factors that influence political preferences, the interplay between environmental conditions and voting behavior often remains shrouded in the haze of uncertainty. It is often presumed that political affiliations are shaped by social and economic factors, but could the quality of the air we breathe also play a significant role? In this study, we venture into uncharted territory to investigate the relationship between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and Democratic votes for Senators in the state. It's time to clear the air and see if there's truly a "blue sky effect" on voting tendencies!
As we inhale the musings of past research, one can't help but wonder if air quality could indeed have a breath-taking impact on political leanings. The notion that constituents might be casting their votes under the influence of the air they respire certainly adds a refreshing twist to the realm of political science. It's almost as if clean air is not just a matter of public health, but also a matter of political aroma - the sweeter, the better!
While previous studies have hinted at the potential links between environmental conditions and voting behavior, the specific association between air quality and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland remains relatively unexplored. By diving into this uncharted territory, we seek to bring to light the factors that "air" on the side of political inclinations in the Free State. With our findings, one might say we aim to clear the "air" of any skepticism regarding the correlation between the two.
As we embark on this journey of discovery, it's worth pondering the extent to which the residents of Baltimore might be consciously or subconsciously letting the quality of their air influence their electoral choices. Perhaps, the citizens have been voting with their lungs all along – after all, who wouldn't want their senators to have a "breath" of fresh air about them? In the end, the bond between clean air and blue states might just turn out to be more than mere "political gas," as our findings aim to elucidate.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The connection between environmental factors and political leanings has long been a topic of interest. Smith et al. (2015) delved into the influence of air quality on voting behavior at the national level, while Doe and Jones (2018) explored the impact of pollution on political attitudes in urban areas. The intriguing possibility that the air we breathe could sway our political allegiances has not escaped the attention of researchers, stirring a whirlwind of curiosity.

As we wade deeper into the sea of literature, the correlation between air quality and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland becomes a "breath" of fresh air in the realm of political science. Lorem and Ipsum (2017) highlighted the potential ripple effects of environmental conditions on political preferences, shedding light on the possibility of a connection between the two. It's almost as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our senators - fresh and clean!"

Moving from the world of serious academia to more accessible sources, books such as "The Air We Breathe" by Andrea Barrett and "This Changes Everything" by Naomi Klein have captured the public's attention on the intersection of environmental issues and politics. Meanwhile, in the world of fiction, novels like "The Windup Girl" by Paolo Bacigalupi and "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton take readers on imaginative journeys that could almost be mistaken for a study on the political impact of air quality.

In a quest for a breath of inspiration, we even turned to children's cartoons and TV shows that featured "air" as a central theme. The beloved "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" and "The Magic School Bus" episodes on air pollution offered both educational and entertaining insights into the importance of clean air and its potential influence on decision-making. It's safe to say that we definitely had some "air-raising" experiences in our pursuit of knowledge!

The crossroads of air quality and blue state tendencies may seem like a topic that's up in the air, but our findings aim to breathe new life into this captivating area of inquiry. As we unravel the hidden influences on political inclinations, it's apparent that the air we breathe may not just be a matter of inhaling oxygen but also a matter of inhaling electoral preferences. In the end, one can't help but wonder if the voters in Baltimore are truly saying, "We like our senators with a side of fresh air!"


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse . You used data from 1980 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]]
Taking a Breath: Clearer Skies, Bluer States - The Air Quality and Democrat Votes Correlation in Maryland

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the often-neglected link between air quality and political leanings, specifically focusing on the correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state. With a breath of fresh air, so to speak, we bring to light our findings that suggest a robust relationship between air quality and blue state tendencies. This study takes the phrase "climate politics" to a whole new level!

Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously analyzed the air quality index and the voting patterns for Democratic Senators in Maryland from 1980 to 2018. Our results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the strength of the relationship between air quality and Democratic votes. As the saying goes, it seems that "clean air" truly does "clearly" influence political inclinations!

The implications of this research are quite significant, shedding light on the political impact of environmental factors. Our findings suggest that improvements in air quality may not only lead to healthier lifestyles but also influence political preferences. It’s as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our Senators - fresh and clean!"


[[INTRODUCTION]]
As we navigate the complex web of factors that influence political preferences, the interplay between environmental conditions and voting behavior often remains shrouded in the haze of uncertainty. It is often presumed that political affiliations are shaped by social and economic factors, but could the quality of the air we breathe also play a significant role? In this study, we venture into uncharted territory to investigate the relationship between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and Democratic votes for Senators in the state. It's time to clear the air and see if there's truly a "blue sky effect" on voting tendencies!
As we inhale the musings of past research, one can't help but wonder if air quality could indeed have a breath-taking impact on political leanings. The notion that constituents might be casting their votes under the influence of the air they respire certainly adds a refreshing twist to the realm of political science. It's almost as if clean air is not just a matter of public health, but also a matter of political aroma - the sweeter, the better!
While previous studies have hinted at the potential links between environmental conditions and voting behavior, the specific association between air quality and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland remains relatively unexplored. By diving into this uncharted territory, we seek to bring to light the factors that "air" on the side of political inclinations in the Free State. With our findings, one might say we aim to clear the "air" of any skepticism regarding the correlation between the two.
As we embark on this journey of discovery, it's worth pondering the extent to which the residents of Baltimore might be consciously or subconsciously letting the quality of their air influence their electoral choices. Perhaps, the citizens have been voting with their lungs all along – after all, who wouldn't want their senators to have a "breath" of fresh air about them? In the end, the bond between clean air and blue states might just turn out to be more than mere "political gas," as our findings aim to elucidate.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To investigate the potential relationship between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state, we employed a multifaceted and comprehensive research approach. Our data collection spanned from 1980 to 2018, capturing an extensive timeframe to discern any evolving patterns. Just as one would diligently measure air quality, we meticulously gathered election data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and air quality data from the Environmental Protection Agency. We crossed the T's and dotted the I's, ensuring no stray data points slipped through the cracks - much like ensuring no stray pollutant slips into the atmosphere.

We embraced a quantitative research methodology, utilizing robust statistical analyses to scrutinize the relationship between air quality and political leanings. Treading the path less traveled, we employed sophisticated regression models and correlation analyses to ascertain the extent of the connection between air quality index and Democratic votes. Not unlike analyzing air particles under a microscope, we scrutinized the data with a keen eye to decipher any microscopic, yet significant, correlations. It's as if mathematics and science joined forces to clear the air of any doubt!

Furthermore, given the dynamic nature of air quality and political landscapes, we incorporated time series analysis to capture the fluctuations over decades, rendering our findings akin to capturing the ebb and flow of the political breeze. By embracing this multifaceted approach, we sought to encapsulate the nuanced influence of air quality on political preferences, leaving no stone unturned and no statistical avenue unexplored - rather like ensuring the air quality sensors cover every inch of Baltimore.

Once the data was in hand, we performed a spatial analysis to discern any geographical patterns in air quality that align with political sentiments. Much like mapping out an intricate recipe, we aimed to visualize the geographic distribution of air quality and its harmonious resonance with Democratic voting patterns. It's almost as if we ventured into a geopolitical kitchen, with data mapping tools serving as our culinary instruments to whip up a delectable visual feast of air quality and political predilections.

Lastly, to validate our findings and ensure the robustness of our conclusions, we conducted sensitivity analyses and considered potential confounding variables such as socioeconomic factors and historical political events. It's akin to ensuring that the air quality index isn't just influenced by temporary fluctuations but truly reflects the overall political aromas. It seems with this research, we're not just bottling up hot air.

In summary, our methodology encapsulated a comprehensive and rigorous approach to unravel the relationship between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and Democrat votes for Senators in the state. It's as if we were on a quest to reveal the invisible threads that weave together the political fabric of the Free State, with the clear skies shining a light on an intriguing correlation.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse .

For the time period 1980 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.8978366, r-squared of 0.8061106, and p < 0.01.

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Taking a Breath: Clearer Skies, Bluer States - The Air Quality and Democrat Votes Correlation in Maryland

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the often-neglected link between air quality and political leanings, specifically focusing on the correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state. With a breath of fresh air, so to speak, we bring to light our findings that suggest a robust relationship between air quality and blue state tendencies. This study takes the phrase "climate politics" to a whole new level!

Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously analyzed the air quality index and the voting patterns for Democratic Senators in Maryland from 1980 to 2018. Our results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the strength of the relationship between air quality and Democratic votes. As the saying goes, it seems that "clean air" truly does "clearly" influence political inclinations!

The implications of this research are quite significant, shedding light on the political impact of environmental factors. Our findings suggest that improvements in air quality may not only lead to healthier lifestyles but also influence political preferences. It’s as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our Senators - fresh and clean!"


-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As we navigate the complex web of factors that influence political preferences, the interplay between environmental conditions and voting behavior often remains shrouded in the haze of uncertainty. It is often presumed that political affiliations are shaped by social and economic factors, but could the quality of the air we breathe also play a significant role? In this study, we venture into uncharted territory to investigate the relationship between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and Democratic votes for Senators in the state. It's time to clear the air and see if there's truly a "blue sky effect" on voting tendencies!
As we inhale the musings of past research, one can't help but wonder if air quality could indeed have a breath-taking impact on political leanings. The notion that constituents might be casting their votes under the influence of the air they respire certainly adds a refreshing twist to the realm of political science. It's almost as if clean air is not just a matter of public health, but also a matter of political aroma - the sweeter, the better!
While previous studies have hinted at the potential links between environmental conditions and voting behavior, the specific association between air quality and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland remains relatively unexplored. By diving into this uncharted territory, we seek to bring to light the factors that "air" on the side of political inclinations in the Free State. With our findings, one might say we aim to clear the "air" of any skepticism regarding the correlation between the two.
As we embark on this journey of discovery, it's worth pondering the extent to which the residents of Baltimore might be consciously or subconsciously letting the quality of their air influence their electoral choices. Perhaps, the citizens have been voting with their lungs all along – after all, who wouldn't want their senators to have a "breath" of fresh air about them? In the end, the bond between clean air and blue states might just turn out to be more than mere "political gas," as our findings aim to elucidate.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

We found a strong positive correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state over the period from 1980 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and an r-squared of 0.8061106 point to a robust relationship between these two variables. This suggests that as the air quality improved, there was a notable increase in Democratic votes. It seems that when it comes to political preferences, Baltimore residents like their air as fresh as their crab cakes!

The data is summarized in Figure 1, which illustrates the striking correlation between air quality and Democratic votes. The scatterplot serves as a visual testament to the clear relationship we identified, leaving little room for doubt. It's as if the data is proclaiming, "Oxygen might not be the only thing in the air affecting these votes – it's also the political atmosphere!"

This study brings a breath of fresh air to the research on political inclinations and sheds light on the often overlooked influence of environmental factors. Our findings add weight to the argument that a clean environment may not only lead to a healthier population but also impact political preferences. It's as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our Senators - fresh and clean!"


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Taking a Breath: Clearer Skies, Bluer States - The Air Quality and Democrat Votes Correlation in Maryland

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the often-neglected link between air quality and political leanings, specifically focusing on the correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state. With a breath of fresh air, so to speak, we bring to light our findings that suggest a robust relationship between air quality and blue state tendencies. This study takes the phrase "climate politics" to a whole new level!

Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously analyzed the air quality index and the voting patterns for Democratic Senators in Maryland from 1980 to 2018. Our results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the strength of the relationship between air quality and Democratic votes. As the saying goes, it seems that "clean air" truly does "clearly" influence political inclinations!

The implications of this research are quite significant, shedding light on the political impact of environmental factors. Our findings suggest that improvements in air quality may not only lead to healthier lifestyles but also influence political preferences. It’s as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our Senators - fresh and clean!"


[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between environmental factors and political leanings has long been a topic of interest. Smith et al. (2015) delved into the influence of air quality on voting behavior at the national level, while Doe and Jones (2018) explored the impact of pollution on political attitudes in urban areas. The intriguing possibility that the air we breathe could sway our political allegiances has not escaped the attention of researchers, stirring a whirlwind of curiosity.
As we wade deeper into the sea of literature, the correlation between air quality and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland becomes a "breath" of fresh air in the realm of political science. Lorem and Ipsum (2017) highlighted the potential ripple effects of environmental conditions on political preferences, shedding light on the possibility of a connection between the two. It's almost as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our senators - fresh and clean!"
Moving from the world of serious academia to more accessible sources, books such as "The Air We Breathe" by Andrea Barrett and "This Changes Everything" by Naomi Klein have captured the public's attention on the intersection of environmental issues and politics. Meanwhile, in the world of fiction, novels like "The Windup Girl" by Paolo Bacigalupi and "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton take readers on imaginative journeys that could almost be mistaken for a study on the political impact of air quality.
In a quest for a breath of inspiration, we even turned to children's cartoons and TV shows that featured "air" as a central theme. The beloved "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" and "The Magic School Bus" episodes on air pollution offered both educational and entertaining insights into the importance of clean air and its potential influence on decision-making. It's safe to say that we definitely had some "air-raising" experiences in our pursuit of knowledge!
The crossroads of air quality and blue state tendencies may seem like a topic that's up in the air, but our findings aim to breathe new life into this captivating area of inquiry. As we unravel the hidden influences on political inclinations, it's apparent that the air we breathe may not just be a matter of inhaling oxygen but also a matter of inhaling electoral preferences. In the end, one can't help but wonder if the voters in Baltimore are truly saying, "We like our senators with a side of fresh air!"

[[RESULTS]]
We found a strong positive correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state over the period from 1980 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and an r-squared of 0.8061106 point to a robust relationship between these two variables. This suggests that as the air quality improved, there was a notable increase in Democratic votes. It seems that when it comes to political preferences, Baltimore residents like their air as fresh as their crab cakes!
The data is summarized in Figure 1, which illustrates the striking correlation between air quality and Democratic votes. The scatterplot serves as a visual testament to the clear relationship we identified, leaving little room for doubt. It's as if the data is proclaiming, "Oxygen might not be the only thing in the air affecting these votes – it's also the political atmosphere!"
This study brings a breath of fresh air to the research on political inclinations and sheds light on the often overlooked influence of environmental factors. Our findings add weight to the argument that a clean environment may not only lead to a healthier population but also impact political preferences. It's as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our Senators - fresh and clean!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings align with prior research, supporting the notion of a significant relationship between air quality and political leanings. This study substantiates the work of Smith et al. (2015) and Lorem and Ipsum (2017), who emphasized the potential impact of environmental conditions on political preferences. As it turns out, the correlation between air quality in Baltimore and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland is not just blowing in the wind – it's a statistically robust phenomenon!

In the realm of political science, it's not every day that we uncover a relationship as substantial as the one we've found. The correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and the associated p-value certainly raise some eyebrows, but these results are no laughing matter; they are as real as the air we breathe. Speaking of which, have you ever heard the joke about the atmosphere? It was so polluted that even the ozone layer said, "That's it, I'm forming a union!" But I digress.

The implications of our findings could have a breath-taking impact on how we perceive the intersection of environmental factors and political inclinations. Our study provides further evidence that improvements in air quality can lead to a bluer political landscape. It seems the residents of Baltimore are not only breathing easier but also voting Democrat with greater frequency. One could almost say the political climate is inextricably linked with the atmospheric one!

As we all know, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. However, the strength of the relationship we observed demands attention and further investigation. It may be time to take the phrase "political climate" quite literally, as the air we breathe does indeed seem to influence our voting behavior. Who knew that political allegiances could be as clear as a blue sky in Maryland? Speaking of which, did you hear about the bluebird that had trouble breathing in Baltimore? Turns out, it only wanted to sing in cleaner air.

Our study sparks a breath of fresh discourse, calling for deeper analysis of how environmental factors shape political preferences. As we delve into this topic further, we must not overlook the powerful influence of our surroundings – both environmental and political. After all, it seems that the voters in Baltimore are not just saying, "We like our senators with a side of fresh air," but also implying that clean air may be a breath of fresh politics.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Taking a Breath: Clearer Skies, Bluer States - The Air Quality and Democrat Votes Correlation in Maryland

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the often-neglected link between air quality and political leanings, specifically focusing on the correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state. With a breath of fresh air, so to speak, we bring to light our findings that suggest a robust relationship between air quality and blue state tendencies. This study takes the phrase "climate politics" to a whole new level!

Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously analyzed the air quality index and the voting patterns for Democratic Senators in Maryland from 1980 to 2018. Our results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the strength of the relationship between air quality and Democratic votes. As the saying goes, it seems that "clean air" truly does "clearly" influence political inclinations!

The implications of this research are quite significant, shedding light on the political impact of environmental factors. Our findings suggest that improvements in air quality may not only lead to healthier lifestyles but also influence political preferences. It’s as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our Senators - fresh and clean!"


[[INTRDUCTION]]
As we navigate the complex web of factors that influence political preferences, the interplay between environmental conditions and voting behavior often remains shrouded in the haze of uncertainty. It is often presumed that political affiliations are shaped by social and economic factors, but could the quality of the air we breathe also play a significant role? In this study, we venture into uncharted territory to investigate the relationship between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and Democratic votes for Senators in the state. It's time to clear the air and see if there's truly a "blue sky effect" on voting tendencies!
As we inhale the musings of past research, one can't help but wonder if air quality could indeed have a breath-taking impact on political leanings. The notion that constituents might be casting their votes under the influence of the air they respire certainly adds a refreshing twist to the realm of political science. It's almost as if clean air is not just a matter of public health, but also a matter of political aroma - the sweeter, the better!
While previous studies have hinted at the potential links between environmental conditions and voting behavior, the specific association between air quality and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland remains relatively unexplored. By diving into this uncharted territory, we seek to bring to light the factors that "air" on the side of political inclinations in the Free State. With our findings, one might say we aim to clear the "air" of any skepticism regarding the correlation between the two.
As we embark on this journey of discovery, it's worth pondering the extent to which the residents of Baltimore might be consciously or subconsciously letting the quality of their air influence their electoral choices. Perhaps, the citizens have been voting with their lungs all along – after all, who wouldn't want their senators to have a "breath" of fresh air about them? In the end, the bond between clean air and blue states might just turn out to be more than mere "political gas," as our findings aim to elucidate.

[[RESULTS]]
We found a strong positive correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state over the period from 1980 to 2018. The correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and an r-squared of 0.8061106 point to a robust relationship between these two variables. This suggests that as the air quality improved, there was a notable increase in Democratic votes. It seems that when it comes to political preferences, Baltimore residents like their air as fresh as their crab cakes!
The data is summarized in Figure 1, which illustrates the striking correlation between air quality and Democratic votes. The scatterplot serves as a visual testament to the clear relationship we identified, leaving little room for doubt. It's as if the data is proclaiming, "Oxygen might not be the only thing in the air affecting these votes – it's also the political atmosphere!"
This study brings a breath of fresh air to the research on political inclinations and sheds light on the often overlooked influence of environmental factors. Our findings add weight to the argument that a clean environment may not only lead to a healthier population but also impact political preferences. It's as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our Senators - fresh and clean!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study provides compelling evidence of a substantial correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and Democratic votes for Senators in the state. The robust relationship, with a correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and an r-squared of 0.8061106, paints a clear picture of the influence of clean air on political preferences. It appears that in the realm of voting tendencies, Baltimore residents have a preference for both "fresh air" and "fresh faces" in office. You could say they like their Senators how they like their air – clean, clear, and free from pollutants!

This research not only emphasizes the pressing need to address environmental quality as a public health concern but also underscores its potential impact on shaping political inclinations. Perhaps, it's time we acknowledged the "breathtaking" influence of air quality on the ballot box. Furthermore, it ignites an engaging discussion on how environmental policy and political dynamics intertwine. It's like the ultimate "clear skies and blue ties" combination!

While our findings provide valuable insights, it's crucial to acknowledge the limitations of our study, such as the focus on a specific region and the potential influence of confounding variables. Nevertheless, the strength of the observed correlation cannot be ignored. As we close this chapter, one might say that the link between air quality and blue state inclinations is not just blowing hot air, but rather, brewing a gust of political significance.

In light of the comprehensive nature of our findings, it's safe to say that further research in this area may not be as vital as a breath of fresh air in a stuffy room. We can confidently assert that the connection between air quality and Democrat votes for Senators in Maryland has been well and truly ventilated. It's time to let this correlation breathe freely, just like the residents of Baltimore hope to do with their politics and their air. No more "airing" of grievances needed – the results speak for themselves!


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 Taking a Breath: Clearer Skies, Bluer States - The Air Quality and Democrat Votes Correlation in Maryland. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Environmental Politics and Atmospheric Science


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 Taking a Breath: Clearer Skies, Bluer States - The Air Quality and Democrat Votes Correlation in Maryland. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Environmental Policy and Political Research


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 Taking a Breath: Clearer Skies, Bluer States - The Air Quality and Democrat Votes Correlation in Maryland with an abstract of In this study, we delve into the often-neglected link between air quality and political leanings, specifically focusing on the correlation between air quality in Baltimore, Maryland, and the votes for Democratic Senators in the state. With a breath of fresh air, so to speak, we bring to light our findings that suggest a robust relationship between air quality and blue state tendencies. This study takes the phrase "climate politics" to a whole new level!
Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we meticulously analyzed the air quality index and the voting patterns for Democratic Senators in Maryland from 1980 to 2018. Our results revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8978366 and a p-value of less than 0.01, affirming the strength of the relationship between air quality and Democratic votes. As the saying goes, it seems that "clean air" truly does "clearly" influence political inclinations!
The implications of this research are quite significant, shedding light on the political impact of environmental factors. Our findings suggest that improvements in air quality may not only lead to healthier lifestyles but also influence political preferences. It’s as if the residents of Baltimore are saying, "We like our air like we like our Senators - fresh and clean!

ChatGPT:

air quality, political leanings, correlation, blue states, Democrat votes, Baltimore, Maryland, voting patterns, Environmental Protection Agency, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, air quality index, Democratic Senators, p-value, climate politics, environmental factors, political impact, healthy lifestyles

*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

Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with good or moderate air quality in Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland

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

Correlation r = 0.8978366 (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 = 0.8061106 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 80.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Maryland) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland) over the 14 years from 1980 through 2018.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.3E-5. 0.0000131290891299714370000000
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 0.9 in 0.0013% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 76,167 random variables You don't actually need 76 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 13 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 13 because we have two variables measured over a period of 14 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.7, 0.97 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
19801982198619881992199419982000200420062010201220162018
Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland (Good air quality)65.300569.041176.164473.497385.792479.452176.986383.879886.61285.479585.479590.437293.442695.6164
Votes for Democratic Senators in Maryland (Total votes)43511870735667522599916613076108091251062810123001015046909654771140620147403016599101491610




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. 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([65.3005,69.0411,76.1644,73.4973,85.7924,79.4521,76.9863,83.8798,86.612,85.4795,85.4795,90.4372,93.4426,95.6164,])
array_2 = np.array([435118,707356,675225,999166,1307610,809125,1062810,1230010,1504690,965477,1140620,1474030,1659910,1491610,])
array_1_name = "Air quality in Baltimore, Maryland"
array_2_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Maryland"

# 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: 5235 · Black Variable ID: 20323 · Red Variable ID: 26251
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0