Spurious correlation #5,351 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina and the second variable is Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. The chart goes from 1990 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina and the second variable is Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. The chart goes from 1990 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

As more people leaned towards libertarianism, the airbags in cars decided they had the individual freedom to deploy whenever and however they pleased. After all, no government regulations were going to tell them how to do their job! This led to a surge in automotive recalls in South Carolina as the airbags rebelled against the establishment, causing chaos on the roads. Remember, when it comes to airbags and elections, it's all about the principle of laissez-faire!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create a realistic image of a chaotic scene in South Carolina, where a line of cars with airbags deployed at random intervals and angles are causing chaos on the roads. In the background, depict voters proudly wearing "Libertarian" stickers on their shirts as they line up outside polling stations, eager to cast their ballots for the party's presidential candidate. The setting should capture the juxtaposition of the chaotic traffic and the determined voters, each element contributing to the overall scene's tension and energy. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Cyberpunk Celtic art An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie Woodblock painting Realistic
ChatGPT: Realistic

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags, in the following situation: As more people leaned towards libertarianism, the airbags in cars decided they had the individual freedom to deploy whenever and however they pleased. After all, no government regulations were going to tell them how to do their job! This led to a surge in automotive recalls in South Carolina as the airbags rebelled against the establishment, causing chaos on the roads. Remember, when it comes to airbags and elections, it's all about the principle of laissez-faire!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In South Carolina, a line of cars with airbags deployed at random intervals and angles, causing chaos on the roads. Meanwhile, voters proudly wearing "Libertarian" stickers on their shirts line up outside polling stations, eager to cast their ballots for the party's presidential candidate.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Realistic ] and depicting this scene: In South Carolina, a line of cars with airbags deployed at random intervals and angles, causing chaos on the roads. Meanwhile, voters proudly wearing "Libertarian" stickers on their shirts line up outside polling stations, eager to cast their ballots for the party's presidential candidate. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create a realistic image of a chaotic scene in South Carolina, where a line of cars with airbags deployed at random intervals and angles are causing chaos on the roads. In the background, depict voters proudly wearing "Libertarian" stickers on their shirts as they line up outside polling stations, eager to cast their ballots for the party's presidential candidate. The setting should capture the juxtaposition of the chaotic traffic and the determined voters, each element contributing to the overall scene's tension and energy.

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

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
^{Show prompt for explanation} Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina caused Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

Air Bags and Ballots: Exploring the Connection Between Libertarian Votes and Automotive Recalls in South Carolina

The Journal of Quirky Socio-Automotive Studies

Jan 2024

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

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

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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Air Bags and Ballots: Exploring the Connection Between Libertarian Votes and Automotive Recalls in South Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the potential relationship between electoral preferences for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls related to air bag issues in South Carolina. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1990 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9797740 and a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), indicating a strong association between the two seemingly unrelated phenomena. This unexpected correlation prompts critical reflection on the interplay between political choices and automotive safety, inviting further interdisciplinary inquiry and, undoubtedly, a few eyebrow raises.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
As the old adage goes, "Where there are votes for Libertarians, there may be airbag scares"—or at least that is what our study endeavors to explore. The interplay between electoral preferences and automotive safety recalls is a puzzle that has intrigued scholars and practitioners alike. In this paper, we delve into the curious relationship between support for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in South Carolina and the frequency of automotive recalls specifically attributed to air bag malfunctions. While this connection may seem as improbable as a chicken performing stand-up comedy, our findings unveil a surprisingly robust association that has hitherto escaped the attention of the academic and political spheres.
Why South Carolina, you may ask? Well, aside from the state's delectable barbecue and charming southern hospitality, it also serves as a compelling microcosm for studying political and automotive trends. South Carolina's idiosyncratic blend of conservative and libertarian leanings, combined with its vibrant automotive industry, provides a fertile ground for investigating the relationship under scrutiny. Picture this: political preferences and automotive safety intricately woven together like a Southern grandmother's pecan pie – an unlikely yet tantalizing fusion.
Our study marks a departure from conventional research inquiries, as we venture into the uncharted terrain where political ideologies and vehicular engineering converge. We aim to disentangle the peculiar entanglement of electoral choices and automotive malfunctions, illuminating a causal pathway as convoluted as rush hour traffic.
The unexpected nature of our findings calls for a reevaluation of the commonly held notion that politics and automotive engineering exist in separate lanes with no intertwining intersections. By shedding light on this under-explored phenomenon, we hope to spark not only scholarly interest but also a few amused chuckles at the peculiarities of human behavior and statistical quirks.
Join us on this scholarly joyride as we navigate through the data jungles and election circuits to unravel the enigmatic bond between votes for the Libertarian Party and automotive recalls related to air bag issues in the sunny state of South Carolina. Prepare for a journey teeming with statistical analyses, political puns, and perhaps the occasional dash of absurdity, all in the pursuit of understanding the unlikeliest of connections.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The link between political choices and automotive safety has been a subject of curiosity for researchers and armchair analysts alike. In their seminal work, Smith and Doe (2005) examined the potential influence of political ideology on consumer behavior in the automotive industry. Their findings suggested that individuals with libertarian leanings were more likely to prefer vehicles with minimal government-regulated safety features, a fact that may have implications for the occurrences of automotive recalls related to air bag malfunctions.

In a more recent study by Jones et al. (2018), the authors explore the sociopolitical factors contributing to consumers' perceptions of vehicle safety. Their research alludes to the possibility that regions with higher libertarian vote shares may exhibit distinct patterns in automotive safety concerns, thus hinting at a potential association with air bag recalls in South Carolina.

Expanding on this line of inquiry, "Airbags and Anomalies: A Political-Economic Analysis" by Li (2019) investigates the intersection of political affiliations and automotive safety in a cross-sectional analysis of U.S. states. Although not specific to South Carolina, the study's exploration of the broader landscape provides valuable context for understanding the potential statewide implications of libertarian votes on automotive recalls.

Turning to more general literature on automotive safety and consumer behavior, "The Economics of Automobile Recalls" by Green (2017) offers insights into the economic repercussions of automotive recalls. While not directly addressing the political dimensions, the economic ramifications of air bag recalls are pertinent to the broader context of our investigation.

Shifting our gaze to the realm of fiction – and I assure you, dear reader, this transition is for academic purposes – we are met with intriguing narratives that seemingly dabble in the intersection of politics and automotive perils. In "The Libertarian Conspiracy: A Political Thriller," author A. Reader (2016) weaves a tale of political intrigue and automotive sabotage, offering a fanciful glimpse into the potential consequences of political machinations on vehicular safety that may not be entirely divorced from our present inquiry.

On the subject of absurdity, let us briefly entertain the notion that the literature review presented in this inquiry extends beyond academic journals and reputable texts. It wouldn't be entirely accurate to claim that our exploration of the connection between libertarian votes and automotive recalls was solely based on rigorous scholarly sources. Indeed, in the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding, this literature review has delved into the unorthodox realm of consumer product labels, fortune cookies, and the backs of shampoo bottles – all in the spirit of scholarly thoroughness and, dare I say, a hint of whimsy.

Having traversed the scholarly landscapes and ventured into the realms of the imaginative, we stand on the cusp of unraveling the enigmatic bond between politics and automotive safety—an undertaking brimming with statistical analyses, political puns, and a delightful blend of the serious and the absurd.

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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and US DOT . You used data from 1990 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]]
Air Bags and Ballots: Exploring the Connection Between Libertarian Votes and Automotive Recalls in South Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the potential relationship between electoral preferences for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls related to air bag issues in South Carolina. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1990 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9797740 and a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), indicating a strong association between the two seemingly unrelated phenomena. This unexpected correlation prompts critical reflection on the interplay between political choices and automotive safety, inviting further interdisciplinary inquiry and, undoubtedly, a few eyebrow raises.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
As the old adage goes, "Where there are votes for Libertarians, there may be airbag scares"—or at least that is what our study endeavors to explore. The interplay between electoral preferences and automotive safety recalls is a puzzle that has intrigued scholars and practitioners alike. In this paper, we delve into the curious relationship between support for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in South Carolina and the frequency of automotive recalls specifically attributed to air bag malfunctions. While this connection may seem as improbable as a chicken performing stand-up comedy, our findings unveil a surprisingly robust association that has hitherto escaped the attention of the academic and political spheres.
Why South Carolina, you may ask? Well, aside from the state's delectable barbecue and charming southern hospitality, it also serves as a compelling microcosm for studying political and automotive trends. South Carolina's idiosyncratic blend of conservative and libertarian leanings, combined with its vibrant automotive industry, provides a fertile ground for investigating the relationship under scrutiny. Picture this: political preferences and automotive safety intricately woven together like a Southern grandmother's pecan pie – an unlikely yet tantalizing fusion.
Our study marks a departure from conventional research inquiries, as we venture into the uncharted terrain where political ideologies and vehicular engineering converge. We aim to disentangle the peculiar entanglement of electoral choices and automotive malfunctions, illuminating a causal pathway as convoluted as rush hour traffic.
The unexpected nature of our findings calls for a reevaluation of the commonly held notion that politics and automotive engineering exist in separate lanes with no intertwining intersections. By shedding light on this under-explored phenomenon, we hope to spark not only scholarly interest but also a few amused chuckles at the peculiarities of human behavior and statistical quirks.
Join us on this scholarly joyride as we navigate through the data jungles and election circuits to unravel the enigmatic bond between votes for the Libertarian Party and automotive recalls related to air bag issues in the sunny state of South Carolina. Prepare for a journey teeming with statistical analyses, political puns, and perhaps the occasional dash of absurdity, all in the pursuit of understanding the unlikeliest of connections.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To embark on our investigatory quest, we employed a diverse array of methodological tools and statistical maneuvers, akin to a detective armed with a magnifying glass and a Swiss army knife. Our data gathering process resembled a grand treasure hunt across the digital expanse, with the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation serving as our primary cartographic guides. Like intrepid explorers navigating uncharted territories, we traversed the vast landscape of the worldwide web, distilling information from the years 1990 to 2020 in pursuit of our elusive quarry.

Quantitative Analysis:
Channeling our inner mathematicians, we engaged in a meticulous quantitative analysis that would make even the most ardent number crunchers nod approvingly. Our approach involved the aggregation of electoral data pertaining to the votes cast for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in South Carolina. Concurrently, we gathered intricate details regarding automotive recalls linked specifically to air bag deficiencies, summoning forth a comprehensive dataset that would put even a jigsaw puzzle enthusiast's collection to shame.

Correlation Calculations:
Harnessing the formidable power of statistical software, we shepherded the amassed datasets through a series of rigorous correlation calculations, akin to matchmaking for numerical entities. By employing robust statistical methodologies, we sought to unearth any semblance of a meaningful relationship between the occurrences of libertarian votes and automotive recalls for air bag irregularities. Just as Sherlock Holmes scrutinized clues with keen attention, we critically examined the correlation coefficient with the precision of a watchmaker scrutinizing the ticking of a timepiece.

Regression Modeling:
In an attempt to discern the potential drivers of the observed correlation, we delved into the enigmatic world of regression modeling, crafting equations with the finesse of a master sculptor shaping precious marble. Through this procedure, we sought to disentangle the web of causality that underpins the unholy matrimony between political preferences and automotive safety, much like a botanist unraveling the intricate symbiosis between a bee and a flower.

Control Variables:
With an eye for detail that would make a detective jealous, we diligently controlled for various confounding factors, ensuring that our analysis remained robust amidst the tempestuous sea of data. Factors such as population demographics, economic indicators, and political dynamics were scrutinized and accounted for, preventing them from sneaking into our analysis like uninvited guests at a masquerade ball.

Ethical Considerations:
Amidst the scholarly fervor and statistical acrobatics, we remained steadfast in upholding ethical standards, treating data with the reverence of a librarian guarding ancient scrolls. Transparency and integrity were our guiding lights, ensuring that our inquiry adhered to the ethical tenets of academic research.

The culmination of these methodological forays furnished us with the analytical arsenal needed to unravel the captivating saga of libertarian votes and automotive recalls in the palmetto-dappled state of South Carolina. With data-driven insights in our quiver, we embarked on the exhilarating pursuit of deciphering the intricate dance between the ballot box and the airbag.

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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
Air Bags and Ballots: Exploring the Connection Between Libertarian Votes and Automotive Recalls in South Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the potential relationship between electoral preferences for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls related to air bag issues in South Carolina. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1990 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9797740 and a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), indicating a strong association between the two seemingly unrelated phenomena. This unexpected correlation prompts critical reflection on the interplay between political choices and automotive safety, inviting further interdisciplinary inquiry and, undoubtedly, a few eyebrow raises.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The link between political choices and automotive safety has been a subject of curiosity for researchers and armchair analysts alike. In their seminal work, Smith and Doe (2005) examined the potential influence of political ideology on consumer behavior in the automotive industry. Their findings suggested that individuals with libertarian leanings were more likely to prefer vehicles with minimal government-regulated safety features, a fact that may have implications for the occurrences of automotive recalls related to air bag malfunctions.
In a more recent study by Jones et al. (2018), the authors explore the sociopolitical factors contributing to consumers' perceptions of vehicle safety. Their research alludes to the possibility that regions with higher libertarian vote shares may exhibit distinct patterns in automotive safety concerns, thus hinting at a potential association with air bag recalls in South Carolina.
Expanding on this line of inquiry, "Airbags and Anomalies: A Political-Economic Analysis" by Li (2019) investigates the intersection of political affiliations and automotive safety in a cross-sectional analysis of U.S. states. Although not specific to South Carolina, the study's exploration of the broader landscape provides valuable context for understanding the potential statewide implications of libertarian votes on automotive recalls.
Turning to more general literature on automotive safety and consumer behavior, "The Economics of Automobile Recalls" by Green (2017) offers insights into the economic repercussions of automotive recalls. While not directly addressing the political dimensions, the economic ramifications of air bag recalls are pertinent to the broader context of our investigation.
Shifting our gaze to the realm of fiction – and I assure you, dear reader, this transition is for academic purposes – we are met with intriguing narratives that seemingly dabble in the intersection of politics and automotive perils. In "The Libertarian Conspiracy: A Political Thriller," author A. Reader (2016) weaves a tale of political intrigue and automotive sabotage, offering a fanciful glimpse into the potential consequences of political machinations on vehicular safety that may not be entirely divorced from our present inquiry.
On the subject of absurdity, let us briefly entertain the notion that the literature review presented in this inquiry extends beyond academic journals and reputable texts. It wouldn't be entirely accurate to claim that our exploration of the connection between libertarian votes and automotive recalls was solely based on rigorous scholarly sources. Indeed, in the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding, this literature review has delved into the unorthodox realm of consumer product labels, fortune cookies, and the backs of shampoo bottles – all in the spirit of scholarly thoroughness and, dare I say, a hint of whimsy.
Having traversed the scholarly landscapes and ventured into the realms of the imaginative, we stand on the cusp of unraveling the enigmatic bond between politics and automotive safety—an undertaking brimming with statistical analyses, political puns, and a delightful blend of the serious and the absurd.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis reveal a strikingly strong correlation between the votes for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in South Carolina and the occurrence of automotive recalls related to air bag issues. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9797740 and an r-squared value of 0.9599570, we found a relationship that is as robust as trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – it just fits, but not without raising a few eyebrows.
Our findings indicate that as the votes for the Libertarian Party increase in South Carolina, so do the occurrences of automotive recalls associated with air bag malfunctions. This unexpected relationship nudges the field of political science into the garage of automotive engineering, revealing a connection as surprising as finding a clown car in a carpool lane.
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 underscores the statistical significance of this correlation, providing compelling evidence that the association is not merely a statistical fluke but a bona fide phenomenon deserving of further investigation. This p-value is so low, it's practically scraping the ground like a lowrider car at a car show – a clear indication of the substantial relationship between these seemingly disparate variables.
The scatterplot in Fig. 1 visually displays the strong positive correlation between the votes for the Libertarian Party and automotive recalls for air bag issues in South Carolina. The points on the graph align as if following a predetermined route, akin to a GPS-guided road trip – although in this case, the destination is the nexus of political preferences and automotive safety concerns.
Our results provoke contemplation on the intricate interplay between political choices and automotive safety, serving as a call for interdisciplinary collaboration and befuddled head-scratching in equal measure. This unexpected correlation challenges conventional wisdom and beckons researchers to delve deeper into the peculiar intersection of politics and automotive engineering – a journey that promises to be as unpredictable as rush hour traffic in a city famed for its southern charm and political peculiarity.
In summary, our findings powerfully demonstrate a notable relationship between votes for the Libertarian Party in South Carolina and automotive recalls related to air bag issues, prompting both scholarly introspection and a few lighthearted chuckles at the whims of statistical fate.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study not only confirm the unexpected correlation between votes for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in South Carolina and automotive recalls related to air bag issues, but they also raise eyebrows higher than a convertible's top on a sunny day. Our findings provide credence to the notion that political choices and automotive safety are indeed entwined, much like a pair of earphones that have been sitting in your pocket for five minutes.

Drawing from the literature review, our findings lend support to the propositions put forth by Smith and Doe (2005) and Li (2019), who hinted at the potential influence of political ideology on automotive safety. Indeed, our results suggest that regions with a higher share of libertarian votes exhibit a distinct pattern in automotive safety concerns, echoing the musings of Jones et al. (2018). It appears that the aura of political liberty extends its reach even into the realm of automotive engineering, akin to a third-row seat that unexpectedly folds down to accommodate more cargo.

Moreover, our findings contribute to the discussion set forth by A. Reader (2016), that while perhaps tangentially related to political thrillers, the connection between political choices and automotive perils is no mere fiction. As our results indicate, this correlation is as real as the satisfaction of finding the correct-sized socket wrench on the first try.

Our study adds a mosaic piece to the broader canvas of interdisciplinary inquiry, reminding us that the peculiar intersection of politics and automotive engineering is not just a fanciful endeavor but a statutorily significant phenomenon. It's akin to discovering an unexpected harmonica solo in a symphony – surprising, yet undeniably real and worth paying attention to.

By uncovering this unlikely association, our research opens the door to further interdisciplinary collaboration, inviting political scientists and automotive engineers to come together and engage in conversations as lively as a car engine bursting to life. This unexpected correlation challenges us to rethink the conventional boundaries of scholarly inquiry and beckons us onward to untangle the enigmatic web of connections between politics and automotive safety. It’s akin to hitting the open road with a full tank of gas and a map to a destination that promises equal parts scholarly discovery and a touch of whimsy.

In the grand continuation of this investigation, one thing is clear: the connection between votes for the Libertarian Party in South Carolina and automotive recalls related to air bag issues is not a mere statistical oddity but a compelling area of research, laden with quirky asides and serious scholarly implications. As we move forward, let's strap on our academic seat belts and prepare for a captivating journey into the intersection of statistical fate and political peculiarity.

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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina and Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Air Bags and Ballots: Exploring the Connection Between Libertarian Votes and Automotive Recalls in South Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the potential relationship between electoral preferences for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls related to air bag issues in South Carolina. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1990 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9797740 and a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), indicating a strong association between the two seemingly unrelated phenomena. This unexpected correlation prompts critical reflection on the interplay between political choices and automotive safety, inviting further interdisciplinary inquiry and, undoubtedly, a few eyebrow raises.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Introduction
As the old adage goes, "Where there are votes for Libertarians, there may be airbag scares"—or at least that is what our study endeavors to explore. The interplay between electoral preferences and automotive safety recalls is a puzzle that has intrigued scholars and practitioners alike. In this paper, we delve into the curious relationship between support for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in South Carolina and the frequency of automotive recalls specifically attributed to air bag malfunctions. While this connection may seem as improbable as a chicken performing stand-up comedy, our findings unveil a surprisingly robust association that has hitherto escaped the attention of the academic and political spheres.
Why South Carolina, you may ask? Well, aside from the state's delectable barbecue and charming southern hospitality, it also serves as a compelling microcosm for studying political and automotive trends. South Carolina's idiosyncratic blend of conservative and libertarian leanings, combined with its vibrant automotive industry, provides a fertile ground for investigating the relationship under scrutiny. Picture this: political preferences and automotive safety intricately woven together like a Southern grandmother's pecan pie – an unlikely yet tantalizing fusion.
Our study marks a departure from conventional research inquiries, as we venture into the uncharted terrain where political ideologies and vehicular engineering converge. We aim to disentangle the peculiar entanglement of electoral choices and automotive malfunctions, illuminating a causal pathway as convoluted as rush hour traffic.
The unexpected nature of our findings calls for a reevaluation of the commonly held notion that politics and automotive engineering exist in separate lanes with no intertwining intersections. By shedding light on this under-explored phenomenon, we hope to spark not only scholarly interest but also a few amused chuckles at the peculiarities of human behavior and statistical quirks.
Join us on this scholarly joyride as we navigate through the data jungles and election circuits to unravel the enigmatic bond between votes for the Libertarian Party and automotive recalls related to air bag issues in the sunny state of South Carolina. Prepare for a journey teeming with statistical analyses, political puns, and perhaps the occasional dash of absurdity, all in the pursuit of understanding the unlikeliest of connections.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis reveal a strikingly strong correlation between the votes for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in South Carolina and the occurrence of automotive recalls related to air bag issues. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9797740 and an r-squared value of 0.9599570, we found a relationship that is as robust as trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – it just fits, but not without raising a few eyebrows.
Our findings indicate that as the votes for the Libertarian Party increase in South Carolina, so do the occurrences of automotive recalls associated with air bag malfunctions. This unexpected relationship nudges the field of political science into the garage of automotive engineering, revealing a connection as surprising as finding a clown car in a carpool lane.
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 underscores the statistical significance of this correlation, providing compelling evidence that the association is not merely a statistical fluke but a bona fide phenomenon deserving of further investigation. This p-value is so low, it's practically scraping the ground like a lowrider car at a car show – a clear indication of the substantial relationship between these seemingly disparate variables.
The scatterplot in Fig. 1 visually displays the strong positive correlation between the votes for the Libertarian Party and automotive recalls for air bag issues in South Carolina. The points on the graph align as if following a predetermined route, akin to a GPS-guided road trip – although in this case, the destination is the nexus of political preferences and automotive safety concerns.
Our results provoke contemplation on the intricate interplay between political choices and automotive safety, serving as a call for interdisciplinary collaboration and befuddled head-scratching in equal measure. This unexpected correlation challenges conventional wisdom and beckons researchers to delve deeper into the peculiar intersection of politics and automotive engineering – a journey that promises to be as unpredictable as rush hour traffic in a city famed for its southern charm and political peculiarity.
In summary, our findings powerfully demonstrate a notable relationship between votes for the Libertarian Party in South Carolina and automotive recalls related to air bag issues, prompting both scholarly introspection and a few lighthearted chuckles at the whims of statistical fate.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In this illuminating study, we have uncovered a distinct and unexpected association between the votes for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in South Carolina and automotive recalls related to air bag issues. The robust correlation coefficient and statistically significant p-value defy conventional expectations much like finding a kangaroo in the backseat of a sedan. This research has truly been a wild ride – and not just because of the baffling statistical results.

Our findings compel us to reevaluate our understanding of the interplay between political choices and automotive safety, shedding light on a connection as unlikely as finding a convertible in an ice storm. The implications of this study extend far beyond the realm of political science and engineering, prompting contemplation on the unpredictable intersections of human behavior and statistical anomalies.

As we wrap up this research endeavor, it is abundantly clear that no further investigations are needed in this area. We have certainly exhausted all possible puns and humorous analogies in the pursuit of understanding this peculiar correlation. This study's conclusion may indeed sound like a punchline, but it's no joke – this is the end of the road for researching the connection between votes for the Libertarian Party and automotive recalls in South Carolina.

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 Air Bags and Ballots: Exploring the Connection Between Libertarian Votes and Automotive Recalls in South Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Socio-Automotive Studies

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Air Bags and Ballots: Exploring the Connection Between Libertarian Votes and Automotive Recalls in South Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Southern Automotive Studies

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 Air Bags and Ballots: Exploring the Connection Between Libertarian Votes and Automotive Recalls in South Carolina with an abstract of In this study, we investigate the potential relationship between electoral preferences for the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate and the occurrence of automotive recalls related to air bag issues in South Carolina. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the US Department of Transportation, we conducted a comprehensive analysis covering the years 1990 to 2020. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9797740 and a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.01), indicating a strong association between the two seemingly unrelated phenomena. This unexpected correlation prompts critical reflection on the interplay between political choices and automotive safety, inviting further interdisciplinary inquiry and, undoubtedly, a few eyebrow raises.

ChatGPT:

Libertarian votes, automotive recalls, South Carolina, electoral preferences, Libertarian Party, presidential candidate, air bag issues, correlation coefficient, US Department of Transportation, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, interdisciplinary inquiry

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

Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error

Data details

Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina
Detailed data title: Percentage of all votes cast for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina

Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags
Source: US DOT
See what else correlates with Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags

Correlation r = 0.9797740 (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 = 0.9599570 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 96% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina) over the 8 years from 1990 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.04E-5.^Show 0.0000203732464152935300000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

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

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.98 in 0.00204% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 49,084 random variables^Note You don't actually need 49 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. 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.

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 7 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 7 because we have two variables measured over a period of 8 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.

[ 0.89, 1 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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

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

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

	1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016	2020
Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina (Percentage of votes)	0.221253	0.371333	0.343955	0.223033	0.379132	0.830958	2.33968	1.11038
Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags (Recalls)	4	8	15	14	13	23	106	58

Why this works

Data dredging: I have 25,237 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 636,906,169 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
Lack of causal connection: There is probably^Note Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple^Note Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
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.

Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([0.221253,0.371333,0.343955,0.223033,0.379132,0.830958,2.33968,1.11038,])
array_2 = np.array([4,8,15,14,13,23,106,58,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina"
array_2_name = "Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags"

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

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

Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:

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

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

Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
Alternative high resolution line chart
Scatterplot
Portable line chart (png)
Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
Line chart for only Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in South Carolina
Line chart for only Automotive recalls for issues with the Air Bags
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Air Bags and Ballots: Exploring the Connection Between Libertarian Votes and Automotive Recalls in South Carolina

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the rating guru we've been waiting for!

Correlation ID: 5351 · Black Variable ID: 26165 · Red Variable ID: 1105


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