about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,425 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in New Mexico and the second variable is The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico decreased, it seems they couldn't see eye to eye on vision for the state. This led to a decrease in funding for eye care, causing a ripple effect in the ophthalmic field. It's clear that in this case, political vision directly impacted optical vision, leaving everyone in the state wondering, "Retina or re-Donkey?"

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that showcases a small town in New Mexico, where a ballot box is half-full with Democratic votes for Senators, representing a decrease. Nearby, a group of ophthalmic laboratory technicians work under dim lights, struggling to meet the demand for eyeglasses. The lack of funding has caused a decrease in the number of technicians, impacting vision care in the community. The scene captures the impact of political differences on the state's vision care, highlighting the town's need for optical insight amid blurry political vision. 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 Democratic Senators in New Mexico and The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico. 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: inspired by bauhaus An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie A TIME magazine cover image A Discovery magazine cover image Realistic
ChatGPT: A Discovery magazine cover image

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 Democratic Senators in New Mexico and The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico, in the following situation: As Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico decreased, it seems they couldn't see eye to eye on vision for the state. This led to a decrease in funding for eye care, causing a ripple effect in the ophthalmic field. It's clear that in this case, political vision directly impacted optical vision, leaving everyone in the state wondering, "Retina or re-Donkey?". Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a small town in New Mexico, a ballot box sits half-full with Democratic votes for Senators, representing a decrease. Next to it, a group of ophthalmic laboratory technicians are seen working under dim lights, struggling to keep up with the demand for eyeglasses. The lack of funding has caused a decrease in the number of technicians, impacting the vision care in the community. The scene captures the impact of political differences on the state's vision care, as the town grapples with blurry political vision and a clear need for optical insight.

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: [ A Discovery magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In a small town in New Mexico, a ballot box sits half-full with Democratic votes for Senators, representing a decrease. Next to it, a group of ophthalmic laboratory technicians are seen working under dim lights, struggling to keep up with the demand for eyeglasses. The lack of funding has caused a decrease in the number of technicians, impacting the vision care in the community. The scene captures the impact of political differences on the state's vision care, as the town grapples with blurry political vision and a clear need for optical insight. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that showcases a small town in New Mexico, where a ballot box is half-full with Democratic votes for Senators, representing a decrease. Nearby, a group of ophthalmic laboratory technicians work under dim lights, struggling to meet the demand for eyeglasses. The lack of funding has caused a decrease in the number of technicians, impacting vision care in the community. The scene captures the impact of political differences on the state's vision care, highlighting the town's need for optical insight amid blurry political vision.

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

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

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

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Political Pupil: Probing the Peculiar Correlation between Democrat Votes and Ophthalmic Technicians in New Mexico

The Journal of Political Ophthalmology

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9803998 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2020.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
The Political Pupil: Probing the Peculiar Correlation between Democrat Votes and Ophthalmic Technicians in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the time period from 2004 to 2020. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998, with statistical significance at p < 0.01. This unexpected relationship prompts a closer look at the intertwining spheres of politics and eye care in New Mexico, shedding a light-hearted yet critical perspective on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate dimensions of society.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Political Pupil: Probing the Peculiar Correlation between Democrat Votes and Ophthalmic Technicians in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the time period from 2004 to 2020. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998, with statistical significance at p < 0.01. This unexpected relationship prompts a closer look at the intertwining spheres of politics and eye care in New Mexico, shedding a light-hearted yet critical perspective on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate dimensions of society.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The eye-catching intersection of politics and ophthalmic care in New Mexico has long been an enigma to both political pundits and optometry enthusiasts alike. As we embark on this scholarly quest to unravel the mystery behind the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment, we are reminded of the famous words of Mark Twain: "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable."

The journey to elucidate this unexpected correlation is fraught with twists and turns, much like the intricate network of blood vessels in the human eye. We aim to delve into this curious linkage with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel and the tenacity of a political analyst in an election year.

While the realm of political science is often seen through the lens of policy decisions and public opinion, our research endeavors to cast a broader gaze, encompassing the peculiar prism of optometric statistics. By utilizing data from reputable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we endeavor to shed light on this seemingly playful yet intriguing association with scholarly rigor and occasional witticisms.

As we embark on this research expedition, we are reminded of the words of an anonymous sage: "The eyes are the window to the soul, and apparently, to political preferences as well." In doing so, we hope to provide a scholarly spectacle that not only informs but also entertains, much like a political cartoon with a touch of optometric humor.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico. 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 name some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Political Pupil: Probing the Peculiar Correlation between Democrat Votes and Ophthalmic Technicians in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the time period from 2004 to 2020. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998, with statistical significance at p < 0.01. This unexpected relationship prompts a closer look at the intertwining spheres of politics and eye care in New Mexico, shedding a light-hearted yet critical perspective on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate dimensions of society.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The eye-catching intersection of politics and ophthalmic care in New Mexico has long been an enigma to both political pundits and optometry enthusiasts alike. As we embark on this scholarly quest to unravel the mystery behind the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment, we are reminded of the famous words of Mark Twain: "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable."
The journey to elucidate this unexpected correlation is fraught with twists and turns, much like the intricate network of blood vessels in the human eye. We aim to delve into this curious linkage with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel and the tenacity of a political analyst in an election year.
While the realm of political science is often seen through the lens of policy decisions and public opinion, our research endeavors to cast a broader gaze, encompassing the peculiar prism of optometric statistics. By utilizing data from reputable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we endeavor to shed light on this seemingly playful yet intriguing association with scholarly rigor and occasional witticisms.
As we embark on this research expedition, we are reminded of the words of an anonymous sage: "The eyes are the window to the soul, and apparently, to political preferences as well." In doing so, we hope to provide a scholarly spectacle that not only informs but also entertains, much like a political cartoon with a touch of optometric humor.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The examination of the intriguing correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment has generated interest from scholars in various fields. Smith (2007) delved into the socioeconomic landscape of New Mexico and its political dynamics, uncovering subtle trends in voting patterns that seemed to veer towards the ocularly astute. Doe (2012) expounded upon the societal implications of optometric healthcare and its entwined relationship with political inclinations, laying the groundwork for more in-depth investigations into this curious confluence.

Jones (2015) delved into the intricate interplay of regional demographics and political leaning, hinting at the unforeseen relationship with visual healthcare practitioners. Such earnest academic inquiries have paved the way for a more lighthearted exploration of this phenomenon, akin to navigating a corn maze with a magnifying glass.

Turning to works beyond the strict confines of academic discourse, "The Eye and the Political Storm" by Lorem Ipsum (2018) offers a whimsical yet contemplative literary journey into the realm of ocular politicking. The author artfully weaves a narrative that reflects the societal fabric of New Mexico, with a playful nod to the symbiotic dance of election cycles and visual acuity.

On a less scholarly note, the fictional works "Vote-o-rama: A Tale of Optometric Oddities" and "The Optometry Chronicles: Part II - The Democrat's Dilemma" introduce fantastical elements to the enigmatic correlation, blurring the lines between political punditry and optometric mystique. While these fictional pieces offer little in the way of empirical evidence, they serve to tickle the imagination and underscore the intriguing allure of this subject.

In an unexpected turn, the beloved cartoon series "Eye See You Vote" and the children's show "The Optometric Odyssey" provide a light-hearted yet surprisingly insightful lens through which to view the interplay of political predilections and visual health. These animated portrayals arguably offer a more captivating perspective than some academic treatises, at times eliciting both amusement and thought-provoking reflection.

Thus, the scholarly landscape surrounding the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment is not devoid of humor and imaginative explorations. As we wade into this academic spectacle, we find ourselves oscillating between rigorous inquiry and playful speculation, much like a pendulum swinging between seriousness and levity.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2004 to 2020

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Political Pupil: Probing the Peculiar Correlation between Democrat Votes and Ophthalmic Technicians in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the time period from 2004 to 2020. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998, with statistical significance at p < 0.01. This unexpected relationship prompts a closer look at the intertwining spheres of politics and eye care in New Mexico, shedding a light-hearted yet critical perspective on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate dimensions of society.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The eye-catching intersection of politics and ophthalmic care in New Mexico has long been an enigma to both political pundits and optometry enthusiasts alike. As we embark on this scholarly quest to unravel the mystery behind the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment, we are reminded of the famous words of Mark Twain: "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable."
The journey to elucidate this unexpected correlation is fraught with twists and turns, much like the intricate network of blood vessels in the human eye. We aim to delve into this curious linkage with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel and the tenacity of a political analyst in an election year.
While the realm of political science is often seen through the lens of policy decisions and public opinion, our research endeavors to cast a broader gaze, encompassing the peculiar prism of optometric statistics. By utilizing data from reputable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we endeavor to shed light on this seemingly playful yet intriguing association with scholarly rigor and occasional witticisms.
As we embark on this research expedition, we are reminded of the words of an anonymous sage: "The eyes are the window to the soul, and apparently, to political preferences as well." In doing so, we hope to provide a scholarly spectacle that not only informs but also entertains, much like a political cartoon with a touch of optometric humor.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unfurl the mystery behind the unexpected correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians, our research team employed an array of methodological maneuvers that were as precise as a delicate eyesight test and as intricate as the inner workings of a phoropter.

Firstly, data on Democrat votes for Senators was obtained from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, which provided a comprehensive view of political preferences in the Land of Enchantment. This dataset spanned the years 2004 to 2020, capturing the ebb and flow of political tides with the deftness of a seasoned sailor navigating through tumultuous waters.

Simultaneously, information on the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico was procured from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, offering a clear-eyed perspective on the employment landscape in the optometric field over the same time period. This data was as illuminating as a finely-tuned slit lamp, allowing us to discern the nuanced patterns and trends in the ophthalmic workforce with precision.

To probe the correlation between these seemingly unrelated variables, statistical analyses were conducted with the finesse of an ophthalmic surgeon wielding a microkeratome. A correlation coefficient was calculated to quantify the degree of association between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians. The statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed t-test, with a p-value less than 0.01 deemed as the threshold for establishing the credibility of the observed relationship.

Furthermore, to ensure the robustness and reliability of our findings, supplementary data from the Harvard Dataverse was utilized to cross-validate the trends observed in the primary datasets. This cross-validation process was akin to a second opinion sought by a discerning patient, affirming the consistency and stability of the discovered correlation with an additional layer of scholarly scrutiny.

Following the amalgamation of political and ophthalmic data from reputable sources and the execution of rigorous statistical analyses, the resulting findings cast a light-hearted yet compelling narrative on the subtle interplay of political preferences and optometric dynamics in the vibrant tapestry of New Mexico.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

For the time period 2004 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9803998, r-squared of 0.9611837, 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]]
The Political Pupil: Probing the Peculiar Correlation between Democrat Votes and Ophthalmic Technicians in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the time period from 2004 to 2020. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998, with statistical significance at p < 0.01. This unexpected relationship prompts a closer look at the intertwining spheres of politics and eye care in New Mexico, shedding a light-hearted yet critical perspective on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate dimensions of society.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The eye-catching intersection of politics and ophthalmic care in New Mexico has long been an enigma to both political pundits and optometry enthusiasts alike. As we embark on this scholarly quest to unravel the mystery behind the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment, we are reminded of the famous words of Mark Twain: "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable."
The journey to elucidate this unexpected correlation is fraught with twists and turns, much like the intricate network of blood vessels in the human eye. We aim to delve into this curious linkage with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel and the tenacity of a political analyst in an election year.
While the realm of political science is often seen through the lens of policy decisions and public opinion, our research endeavors to cast a broader gaze, encompassing the peculiar prism of optometric statistics. By utilizing data from reputable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we endeavor to shed light on this seemingly playful yet intriguing association with scholarly rigor and occasional witticisms.
As we embark on this research expedition, we are reminded of the words of an anonymous sage: "The eyes are the window to the soul, and apparently, to political preferences as well." In doing so, we hope to provide a scholarly spectacle that not only informs but also entertains, much like a political cartoon with a touch of optometric humor.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment culminated in striking findings. Our research uncovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998, indicating a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. A gust of statistical significance blew through our findings, with a p-value less than 0.01, emphasizing the strength of this unexpected association. The R-squared of 0.9611837 further accentuated the coherence between the variables, leaving us in awe of the unexpected unity of politics and ophthalmic care.

To visually encapsulate this compelling correlation, a scatterplot (Fig. 1) depicting the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico was crafted. The figure elegantly illustrates the strong positive correlation, providing a visual aid to accompany the numerical revelations. The proximity of the data points in the scatterplot mirrors the close bond between political inclinations and the optical profession in the Land of Enchantment, inspiring both contemplation and amusement.

In conclusion, our findings unravel a fascinating connection between the political pupil and optical practitioners in New Mexico, offering an intriguing vantage point for those eager to explore the confluence of politics and eye care with a twinkle in their eye.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
The Political Pupil: Probing the Peculiar Correlation between Democrat Votes and Ophthalmic Technicians in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the time period from 2004 to 2020. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998, with statistical significance at p < 0.01. This unexpected relationship prompts a closer look at the intertwining spheres of politics and eye care in New Mexico, shedding a light-hearted yet critical perspective on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate dimensions of society.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The examination of the intriguing correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment has generated interest from scholars in various fields. Smith (2007) delved into the socioeconomic landscape of New Mexico and its political dynamics, uncovering subtle trends in voting patterns that seemed to veer towards the ocularly astute. Doe (2012) expounded upon the societal implications of optometric healthcare and its entwined relationship with political inclinations, laying the groundwork for more in-depth investigations into this curious confluence.
Jones (2015) delved into the intricate interplay of regional demographics and political leaning, hinting at the unforeseen relationship with visual healthcare practitioners. Such earnest academic inquiries have paved the way for a more lighthearted exploration of this phenomenon, akin to navigating a corn maze with a magnifying glass.
Turning to works beyond the strict confines of academic discourse, "The Eye and the Political Storm" by Lorem Ipsum (2018) offers a whimsical yet contemplative literary journey into the realm of ocular politicking. The author artfully weaves a narrative that reflects the societal fabric of New Mexico, with a playful nod to the symbiotic dance of election cycles and visual acuity.
On a less scholarly note, the fictional works "Vote-o-rama: A Tale of Optometric Oddities" and "The Optometry Chronicles: Part II - The Democrat's Dilemma" introduce fantastical elements to the enigmatic correlation, blurring the lines between political punditry and optometric mystique. While these fictional pieces offer little in the way of empirical evidence, they serve to tickle the imagination and underscore the intriguing allure of this subject.
In an unexpected turn, the beloved cartoon series "Eye See You Vote" and the children's show "The Optometric Odyssey" provide a light-hearted yet surprisingly insightful lens through which to view the interplay of political predilections and visual health. These animated portrayals arguably offer a more captivating perspective than some academic treatises, at times eliciting both amusement and thought-provoking reflection.
Thus, the scholarly landscape surrounding the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment is not devoid of humor and imaginative explorations. As we wade into this academic spectacle, we find ourselves oscillating between rigorous inquiry and playful speculation, much like a pendulum swinging between seriousness and levity.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment culminated in striking findings. Our research uncovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998, indicating a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. A gust of statistical significance blew through our findings, with a p-value less than 0.01, emphasizing the strength of this unexpected association. The R-squared of 0.9611837 further accentuated the coherence between the variables, leaving us in awe of the unexpected unity of politics and ophthalmic care.
To visually encapsulate this compelling correlation, a scatterplot (Fig. 1) depicting the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico was crafted. The figure elegantly illustrates the strong positive correlation, providing a visual aid to accompany the numerical revelations. The proximity of the data points in the scatterplot mirrors the close bond between political inclinations and the optical profession in the Land of Enchantment, inspiring both contemplation and amusement.
In conclusion, our findings unravel a fascinating connection between the political pupil and optical practitioners in New Mexico, offering an intriguing vantage point for those eager to explore the confluence of politics and eye care with a twinkle in their eye.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The noteworthy correlation uncovered in this study between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment provides ample food for thought. Our findings not only stand as a testament to the power of statistical analysis but also prompt a reevaluation of the intersection between political proclivities and visual care.

Our results, which yielded a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998 and R-squared of 0.9611837, confirm and buttress the prior inquiries (Smith, 2007; Doe, 2012; Jones, 2015) into this peculiar relationship. It appears that the voters' blue preferences align harmoniously with the state's need for ocular care, painting a fascinating portrait of the state's eyecare landscapes as if it were a masterpiece framed by political nuances.

The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually encapsulates this intriguing association, akin to an abstract artwork that leaves one simultaneously puzzled and inspired. The proximity of data points in the scatterplot serves as a poignant reminder of the close bond between political alignments and the optical profession, evoking thoughts of interconnectedness between the polling booth and the optometry clinic.

While our results may seem like an unexpected plot twist in the unfolding narrative of New Mexico's sociopolitical and healthcare tableau, they lend credence to the comical yet contemplative literary journey presented in "The Eye and the Political Storm" by Lorem Ipsum (2018). This treatise amusingly hinted at the intertwined fate of election cycles and visual acuity, conveying a message that now resonates with empirical weight.

Moreover, the unexpected congruence we found may appear to be as fantastical as the fictional pieces "Vote-o-rama: A Tale of Optometric Oddities" and "The Optometry Chronicles: Part II - The Democrat's Dilemma." However, our scholarly pursuit has breathed life into these whimsical mirages, shedding a light-hearted yet critical perspective on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate dimensions of society, akin to discovering a hidden universe within the brightly lit, everyday world.

Ultimately, our examination of this curious correlation highlights the potential for serious inquiry to be couched in lighthearted or fantastical terms, much like a magician blending humor with ingenuity. Thus, this unexpected and remarkable correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico is not merely a statistical curiosity, but rather a whimsical enigma begging further exploration.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
The Political Pupil: Probing the Peculiar Correlation between Democrat Votes and Ophthalmic Technicians in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the time period from 2004 to 2020. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998, with statistical significance at p < 0.01. This unexpected relationship prompts a closer look at the intertwining spheres of politics and eye care in New Mexico, shedding a light-hearted yet critical perspective on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate dimensions of society.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The eye-catching intersection of politics and ophthalmic care in New Mexico has long been an enigma to both political pundits and optometry enthusiasts alike. As we embark on this scholarly quest to unravel the mystery behind the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment, we are reminded of the famous words of Mark Twain: "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable."
The journey to elucidate this unexpected correlation is fraught with twists and turns, much like the intricate network of blood vessels in the human eye. We aim to delve into this curious linkage with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel and the tenacity of a political analyst in an election year.
While the realm of political science is often seen through the lens of policy decisions and public opinion, our research endeavors to cast a broader gaze, encompassing the peculiar prism of optometric statistics. By utilizing data from reputable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we endeavor to shed light on this seemingly playful yet intriguing association with scholarly rigor and occasional witticisms.
As we embark on this research expedition, we are reminded of the words of an anonymous sage: "The eyes are the window to the soul, and apparently, to political preferences as well." In doing so, we hope to provide a scholarly spectacle that not only informs but also entertains, much like a political cartoon with a touch of optometric humor.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment culminated in striking findings. Our research uncovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998, indicating a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated phenomena. A gust of statistical significance blew through our findings, with a p-value less than 0.01, emphasizing the strength of this unexpected association. The R-squared of 0.9611837 further accentuated the coherence between the variables, leaving us in awe of the unexpected unity of politics and ophthalmic care.
To visually encapsulate this compelling correlation, a scatterplot (Fig. 1) depicting the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico was crafted. The figure elegantly illustrates the strong positive correlation, providing a visual aid to accompany the numerical revelations. The proximity of the data points in the scatterplot mirrors the close bond between political inclinations and the optical profession in the Land of Enchantment, inspiring both contemplation and amusement.
In conclusion, our findings unravel a fascinating connection between the political pupil and optical practitioners in New Mexico, offering an intriguing vantage point for those eager to explore the confluence of politics and eye care with a twinkle in their eye.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

Our investigation into the curious correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment has proven to be quite the spectacle. The remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9803998 has left us seeing double, figuratively speaking! It seems that political preferences and eyeglasses have more in common than meets the eye. One might even say they're a sight for sore eyes!

As we squinted our way through the datasets, the statistical significance at p < 0.01 was as clear as 20/20 vision. The R-squared of 0.9611837 further highlighted the sharp focus of this unexpected relationship. It's as if the eye of political preference is always watching, even in the field of ophthalmic care.

The scatterplot (Fig. 1) provided a visual representation that was quite the spectacle, visually, of course. We almost needed an optometrist to make sure our eyes weren't deceiving us! The closeness of the data points illustrated the intimate connection between political inclinations and the optical profession. Who knew that lawmakers and lens grinders were in such close proximity?

In closing, our investigation has provided a lens through which to view the symbiotic relationship between political preferences and optical practitioners in New Mexico. By examining the convergence of these seemingly unrelated domains, our study has added a touch of academic humor to the intellectual landscape, much like a pair of comedic reading glasses.

Given the enlightening and entertaining nature of our findings, we assert that further research in this area is unnecessary. The matter has been thoroughly illuminated and deserves a standing ovation, or at least a round of applause!


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 The Political Pupil: Probing the Peculiar Correlation between Democrat Votes and Ophthalmic Technicians in New Mexico. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Ophthalmology


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 The Political Pupil: Probing the Peculiar Correlation between Democrat Votes and Ophthalmic Technicians in New Mexico. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Socio-Optometric 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 The Political Pupil: Probing the Peculiar Correlation between Democrat Votes and Ophthalmic Technicians in New Mexico with an abstract of This study delves into the peculiar correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New Mexico and the number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in the Land of Enchantment. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team conducted a thorough analysis covering the time period from 2004 to 2020. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9803998, with statistical significance at p < 0.01. This unexpected relationship prompts a closer look at the intertwining spheres of politics and eye care in New Mexico, shedding a light-hearted yet critical perspective on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate dimensions of society.

ChatGPT:

New Mexico, Democrat votes, ophthalmic technicians, correlation, political correlation, Senator votes, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Bureau of Labor Statistics, New Mexico politics, eye care, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, interconnectedness, society dimensions, political analysis

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico

Correlation r = 0.9803998 (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 = 0.9611837 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 96.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in New Mexico) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00057. 0.0005724877353994412000000000
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 0.98 in 0.057% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,747 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 5 because we have two variables measured over a period of 6 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.83, 1 ] 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.
200620082012201420182020
Votes for Democratic Senators in New Mexico (Percentage of votes)70.605161.32851.008155.558854.087751.7296
The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico (Laborers)29020060120130110




Why this works

  1. 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.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
  5. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([70.6051,61.328,51.0081,55.5588,54.0877,51.7296,])
array_2 = np.array([290,200,60,120,130,110,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in New Mexico"
array_2_name = "The number of ophthalmic laboratory technicians in New Mexico"

# 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?

Big thanks for reviewing!


Correlation ID: 5425 · Black Variable ID: 26431 · Red Variable ID: 17243
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0