about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,439 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Republican Senators in Ohio and the second variable is Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The decrease in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio caused a shift in the political climate, leading to a bird-brained policy change. This in turn prompted our fine feathered friends to seek new habitats in a game of poli-seed-ings instead of just winging it when it rained. It seems like even the birds couldn't resist getting involved in some elec-tweet-toral behavior!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ Symbolism ] In a countryside setting, a ballot box labeled "Republican Senators in Ohio Votes" sits beneath a tree, where the number of votes decreases. Nearby, a group of vibrant birds uses their beaks to type on a laptop with the search "where do birds go when it rains" on the screen. Excitedly tweeting, the birds fly towards a new habitat, symbolizing a shift in behavior prompted by the changing political climate. 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 Republican Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. 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: Symbolism Scalar art High-tech Futuristic Steampunk
ChatGPT: Symbolism

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 Republican Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains', in the following situation: The decrease in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio caused a shift in the political climate, leading to a bird-brained policy change. This in turn prompted our fine feathered friends to seek new habitats in a game of poli-seed-ings instead of just winging it when it rained. It seems like even the birds couldn't resist getting involved in some elec-tweet-toral behavior!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a charming countryside scene, a ballot box with the label "Republican Senators in Ohio Votes" sits under a tree, showing a decrease in votes. Nearby, a group of colorful birds can be seen using their beaks to type on a laptop with the search 'where do birds go when it rains' on the screen. As they tweet excitedly, the birds are shown flying towards a new habitat, indicating a shift in their behavior due to the political climate change.

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: [ Symbolism ] and depicting this scene: In a charming countryside scene, a ballot box with the label "Republican Senators in Ohio Votes" sits under a tree, showing a decrease in votes. Nearby, a group of colorful birds can be seen using their beaks to type on a laptop with the search 'where do birds go when it rains' on the screen. As they tweet excitedly, the birds are shown flying towards a new habitat, indicating a shift in their behavior due to the political climate change. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ Symbolism ] In a countryside setting, a ballot box labeled "Republican Senators in Ohio Votes" sits beneath a tree, where the number of votes decreases. Nearby, a group of vibrant birds uses their beaks to type on a laptop with the search "where do birds go when it rains" on the screen. Excitedly tweeting, the birds fly towards a new habitat, symbolizing a shift in behavior prompted by the changing political climate.

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

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio caused where do birds go when it rains (Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains') to decrease. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
The Flock and the Ballot Box: A Correlational Study of Republican Votes for Senators in Ohio and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When it Rains'

The Journal of Avian Political Science

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, just make it sound clever.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 and p < 0.05 for 2004 to 2018.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
The Flock and the Ballot Box: A Correlational Study of Republican Votes for Senators in Ohio and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When it Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' from 2004 to 2018. We gathered data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends to analyze this seemingly peculiar connection. Our findings reveal a significant correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 and p < 0.05, suggesting a noteworthy association between these two seemingly disparate factors. Although this correlation may appear feather-light at first, these results add a new dimension to the understanding of voting behavior. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms behind this avian-lection connection.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Flock and the Ballot Box: A Correlational Study of Republican Votes for Senators in Ohio and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When it Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' from 2004 to 2018. We gathered data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends to analyze this seemingly peculiar connection. Our findings reveal a significant correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 and p < 0.05, suggesting a noteworthy association between these two seemingly disparate factors. Although this correlation may appear feather-light at first, these results add a new dimension to the understanding of voting behavior. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms behind this avian-lection connection.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between voting behavior and external stimuli has been a topic of interest for researchers across various disciplines. From the influence of weather on voter turnout to the impact of social media on political opinions, the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated factors continues to pique the curiosity of scholars and academics alike. In this vein, our study delves into an intriguing association between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains', spanning the years 2004 to 2018.

The inquiry into this avian-lection connection was prompted by the curiosity surrounding the potential influence of avian-related musings on the voting decisions of individuals. As the joke goes, "Did the voters just wing it, or did they have a concrete rationale for their choices?" The unorthodox nature of this correlation is not lost on us, and indeed, it may appear as an amusing flight of fancy at first glance. Nonetheless, the statistical analysis we present in this paper unveils an unexpectedly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8512104, with a p-value less than 0.05, suggesting that there might be something more substantial to this feather-brained relationship.

This study draws from a diverse repertoire of data sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, to rigorously examine this curious connection. Despite the light-hearted premise of the initial inquiry, our findings indicate a more substantial tie between avian inquisitions and political preferences than one might have expected. It is indeed quite the ornithological anomaly.

In the subsequent sections, we will meticulously unravel our methodology, present the data analysis, and discuss the implications of these unexpected findings. By uncovering the nuance and humor inherent in this avian-lection connection, we aim to contribute to the broader discourse on the multifaceted dynamics of voting behavior and the role of unexpected variables in shaping electoral outcomes.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Flock and the Ballot Box: A Correlational Study of Republican Votes for Senators in Ohio and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When it Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' from 2004 to 2018. We gathered data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends to analyze this seemingly peculiar connection. Our findings reveal a significant correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 and p < 0.05, suggesting a noteworthy association between these two seemingly disparate factors. Although this correlation may appear feather-light at first, these results add a new dimension to the understanding of voting behavior. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms behind this avian-lection connection.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between voting behavior and external stimuli has been a topic of interest for researchers across various disciplines. From the influence of weather on voter turnout to the impact of social media on political opinions, the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated factors continues to pique the curiosity of scholars and academics alike. In this vein, our study delves into an intriguing association between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains', spanning the years 2004 to 2018.
The inquiry into this avian-lection connection was prompted by the curiosity surrounding the potential influence of avian-related musings on the voting decisions of individuals. As the joke goes, "Did the voters just wing it, or did they have a concrete rationale for their choices?" The unorthodox nature of this correlation is not lost on us, and indeed, it may appear as an amusing flight of fancy at first glance. Nonetheless, the statistical analysis we present in this paper unveils an unexpectedly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8512104, with a p-value less than 0.05, suggesting that there might be something more substantial to this feather-brained relationship.
This study draws from a diverse repertoire of data sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, to rigorously examine this curious connection. Despite the light-hearted premise of the initial inquiry, our findings indicate a more substantial tie between avian inquisitions and political preferences than one might have expected. It is indeed quite the ornithological anomaly.
In the subsequent sections, we will meticulously unravel our methodology, present the data analysis, and discuss the implications of these unexpected findings. By uncovering the nuance and humor inherent in this avian-lection connection, we aim to contribute to the broader discourse on the multifaceted dynamics of voting behavior and the role of unexpected variables in shaping electoral outcomes.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Scholars have long been captivated by the curious correlations between seemingly unrelated variables, with a particular interest in exploring the influence of external stimuli on human behavior. The connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' stands as a perplexing addition to this body of research. As we embark on this avian-lection exploration, it is imperative to consider prior investigations into unanticipated correlations, as well as to critically examine the broader context of avifauna and political engagement.

In their seminal work, Smith and Doe (2010) delve into the influence of environmental factors on electoral behavior, offering valuable insights into the impact of weather patterns on voter turnout. Although their focus is not on avian-related queries, the implications of their findings present a pertinent backdrop for our investigation. Furthermore, the study by Jones et al. (2015) draws attention to the influence of internet search trends on political awareness, providing a foundation for considering the role of online inquiries in shaping political preferences.

Expanding beyond the realm of traditional academic research, numerous non-fiction works offer thought-provoking perspectives on avian behavior and its potential relevance to human tendencies. "The Genius of Birds" by Jennifer Ackerman and "What the Robin Knows" by Jon Young provide compelling accounts of avian intelligence and behavior, perhaps hinting at an unexpected interplay between avian cognition and human decision-making.

Turning to the world of fiction, the allegorical potential of avian themes has not escaped the attention of authors. "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "The Raven" by Edgar Allan Poe present literary explorations of bird symbolism, encouraging contemplation of deeper meanings and unconventional connections.

Additionally, informal sources such as social media posts contribute to the broader discourse surrounding avian-lection connections. A Twitter user aptly remarked, "Do birds of a feather vote together? #ElectionPuns #BirdBrainsInPolitics". While humorous in nature, these musings highlight the public's engagement with the unexpected intersection of avian wonders and electoral dynamics.

As we progress in our exploration of the avian-lection connection, these diverse sources serve as valuable touchstones, prompting both solemn reflection and lighthearted speculation. The juxtaposition of scholarly rigor and whimsical curiosity sets the stage for a comprehensive investigation into this peculiar correlation.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2018

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Flock and the Ballot Box: A Correlational Study of Republican Votes for Senators in Ohio and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When it Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' from 2004 to 2018. We gathered data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends to analyze this seemingly peculiar connection. Our findings reveal a significant correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 and p < 0.05, suggesting a noteworthy association between these two seemingly disparate factors. Although this correlation may appear feather-light at first, these results add a new dimension to the understanding of voting behavior. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms behind this avian-lection connection.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between voting behavior and external stimuli has been a topic of interest for researchers across various disciplines. From the influence of weather on voter turnout to the impact of social media on political opinions, the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated factors continues to pique the curiosity of scholars and academics alike. In this vein, our study delves into an intriguing association between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains', spanning the years 2004 to 2018.
The inquiry into this avian-lection connection was prompted by the curiosity surrounding the potential influence of avian-related musings on the voting decisions of individuals. As the joke goes, "Did the voters just wing it, or did they have a concrete rationale for their choices?" The unorthodox nature of this correlation is not lost on us, and indeed, it may appear as an amusing flight of fancy at first glance. Nonetheless, the statistical analysis we present in this paper unveils an unexpectedly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8512104, with a p-value less than 0.05, suggesting that there might be something more substantial to this feather-brained relationship.
This study draws from a diverse repertoire of data sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, to rigorously examine this curious connection. Despite the light-hearted premise of the initial inquiry, our findings indicate a more substantial tie between avian inquisitions and political preferences than one might have expected. It is indeed quite the ornithological anomaly.
In the subsequent sections, we will meticulously unravel our methodology, present the data analysis, and discuss the implications of these unexpected findings. By uncovering the nuance and humor inherent in this avian-lection connection, we aim to contribute to the broader discourse on the multifaceted dynamics of voting behavior and the role of unexpected variables in shaping electoral outcomes.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

The data collection process for this study involved harnessing the extensive capabilities of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends. Our intrepid research team embarked on a quest across the digital landscape, parsing through the esoteric domains of databases and search engines to gather the relevant information.

To begin, we meticulously combed through the MIT Election Data and Science Lab archives, sifting through the labyrinthine corridors of electoral data to extract the Republican votes for Senators in Ohio from 2004 to 2018. The meticulousness of our approach can be likened to that of a bird meticulously preening its feathers, ensuring that no stray element was overlooked in our data extraction process.

Simultaneously, we delved into the expansive repository of Harvard Dataverse, navigating its virtual shelves with the tenacity of a determined pigeon seeking a hidden cache of discarded crumbs. Within this treasure trove of scholarly data, we unearthed a cornucopia of sociopolitical variables, ensuring that our analysis encapsulated a comprehensive array of dimensions that might impact voting behavior.

The pièce de résistance of our data collection odyssey was our expedition into the enigmatic realm of Google Trends. Here, we observed the digital footprints of inquisitive netizens as they sought answers to the timeless question, "Where do birds go when it rains?" Our team marvelled at the geographic and temporal patterns of these avian inquiries, akin to observing the migratory patterns of avian species, albeit in a distinctly digital landscape.

Having gathered these diverse datasets, we employed a multifaceted approach, reminiscent of a bird building a complex nest, to amalgamate and harmonize the disparate sources of information. Our statistical arsenal was deployed with precision, employing correlation coefficients and p-values to illuminate the hidden connections between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the quest for avian whereabouts during inclement weather.

It is important to note the limitations of this study, including the inherent complexity of human behavior and the potential for spurious correlations in large datasets. However, the robustness of our analytical approach, akin to the sturdy structure of an avian nest, strives to mitigate these potential pitfalls and uphold the integrity of our findings.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

For the time period 2004 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.8512104, r-squared of 0.7245592, and p < 0.05.

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Flock and the Ballot Box: A Correlational Study of Republican Votes for Senators in Ohio and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When it Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' from 2004 to 2018. We gathered data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends to analyze this seemingly peculiar connection. Our findings reveal a significant correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 and p < 0.05, suggesting a noteworthy association between these two seemingly disparate factors. Although this correlation may appear feather-light at first, these results add a new dimension to the understanding of voting behavior. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms behind this avian-lection connection.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The relationship between voting behavior and external stimuli has been a topic of interest for researchers across various disciplines. From the influence of weather on voter turnout to the impact of social media on political opinions, the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated factors continues to pique the curiosity of scholars and academics alike. In this vein, our study delves into an intriguing association between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains', spanning the years 2004 to 2018.
The inquiry into this avian-lection connection was prompted by the curiosity surrounding the potential influence of avian-related musings on the voting decisions of individuals. As the joke goes, "Did the voters just wing it, or did they have a concrete rationale for their choices?" The unorthodox nature of this correlation is not lost on us, and indeed, it may appear as an amusing flight of fancy at first glance. Nonetheless, the statistical analysis we present in this paper unveils an unexpectedly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8512104, with a p-value less than 0.05, suggesting that there might be something more substantial to this feather-brained relationship.
This study draws from a diverse repertoire of data sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, to rigorously examine this curious connection. Despite the light-hearted premise of the initial inquiry, our findings indicate a more substantial tie between avian inquisitions and political preferences than one might have expected. It is indeed quite the ornithological anomaly.
In the subsequent sections, we will meticulously unravel our methodology, present the data analysis, and discuss the implications of these unexpected findings. By uncovering the nuance and humor inherent in this avian-lection connection, we aim to contribute to the broader discourse on the multifaceted dynamics of voting behavior and the role of unexpected variables in shaping electoral outcomes.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data collected from 2004 to 2018 revealed a substantial correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the volume of Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. The correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 indicated a remarkably strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. Additionally, the r-squared value of 0.7245592 suggested that approximately 72.46% of the variance in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio could be explained by the volume of Google searches for avian precipitation-related inquiries. The p-value of less than 0.05 provided further evidence to support the statistical significance of this avian-lection connection.

To visually showcase the strength of this correlation, we present the scatterplot in Fig. 1, which unmistakably illustrates the compelling relationship between the two variables. As the old saying goes, "birds of a feather flock together, and so do their search queries and political inclinations." These findings bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "taking flight to the polls".

These results shed light on a previously overlooked aspect of voter behavior and, at the risk of sounding chirpy, highlight the potential influence of avian-related contemplations on political decision-making. This unexpected connection underscores the complexity of human decision-making processes and emphasizes the need to consider a diverse range of factors when analyzing voting behavior. While the initial hypothesis of this study may have appeared light-hearted and whimsical, the empirical evidence we present here indicates that there is real substance behind this avian-lection correlation.

The magnitude of the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' is certainly a feather in the cap of the field of political science. These findings open the proverbial cage to further inquiry into the impact of avian-related musings on electoral outcomes and encourage researchers to spread their wings into unconventional avenues of investigation.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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 Flock and the Ballot Box: A Correlational Study of Republican Votes for Senators in Ohio and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When it Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' from 2004 to 2018. We gathered data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends to analyze this seemingly peculiar connection. Our findings reveal a significant correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 and p < 0.05, suggesting a noteworthy association between these two seemingly disparate factors. Although this correlation may appear feather-light at first, these results add a new dimension to the understanding of voting behavior. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms behind this avian-lection connection.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Scholars have long been captivated by the curious correlations between seemingly unrelated variables, with a particular interest in exploring the influence of external stimuli on human behavior. The connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' stands as a perplexing addition to this body of research. As we embark on this avian-lection exploration, it is imperative to consider prior investigations into unanticipated correlations, as well as to critically examine the broader context of avifauna and political engagement.
In their seminal work, Smith and Doe (2010) delve into the influence of environmental factors on electoral behavior, offering valuable insights into the impact of weather patterns on voter turnout. Although their focus is not on avian-related queries, the implications of their findings present a pertinent backdrop for our investigation. Furthermore, the study by Jones et al. (2015) draws attention to the influence of internet search trends on political awareness, providing a foundation for considering the role of online inquiries in shaping political preferences.
Expanding beyond the realm of traditional academic research, numerous non-fiction works offer thought-provoking perspectives on avian behavior and its potential relevance to human tendencies. "The Genius of Birds" by Jennifer Ackerman and "What the Robin Knows" by Jon Young provide compelling accounts of avian intelligence and behavior, perhaps hinting at an unexpected interplay between avian cognition and human decision-making.
Turning to the world of fiction, the allegorical potential of avian themes has not escaped the attention of authors. "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "The Raven" by Edgar Allan Poe present literary explorations of bird symbolism, encouraging contemplation of deeper meanings and unconventional connections.
Additionally, informal sources such as social media posts contribute to the broader discourse surrounding avian-lection connections. A Twitter user aptly remarked, "Do birds of a feather vote together? #ElectionPuns #BirdBrainsInPolitics". While humorous in nature, these musings highlight the public's engagement with the unexpected intersection of avian wonders and electoral dynamics.
As we progress in our exploration of the avian-lection connection, these diverse sources serve as valuable touchstones, prompting both solemn reflection and lighthearted speculation. The juxtaposition of scholarly rigor and whimsical curiosity sets the stage for a comprehensive investigation into this peculiar correlation.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data collected from 2004 to 2018 revealed a substantial correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the volume of Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. The correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 indicated a remarkably strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. Additionally, the r-squared value of 0.7245592 suggested that approximately 72.46% of the variance in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio could be explained by the volume of Google searches for avian precipitation-related inquiries. The p-value of less than 0.05 provided further evidence to support the statistical significance of this avian-lection connection.
To visually showcase the strength of this correlation, we present the scatterplot in Fig. 1, which unmistakably illustrates the compelling relationship between the two variables. As the old saying goes, "birds of a feather flock together, and so do their search queries and political inclinations." These findings bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "taking flight to the polls".
These results shed light on a previously overlooked aspect of voter behavior and, at the risk of sounding chirpy, highlight the potential influence of avian-related contemplations on political decision-making. This unexpected connection underscores the complexity of human decision-making processes and emphasizes the need to consider a diverse range of factors when analyzing voting behavior. While the initial hypothesis of this study may have appeared light-hearted and whimsical, the empirical evidence we present here indicates that there is real substance behind this avian-lection correlation.
The magnitude of the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' is certainly a feather in the cap of the field of political science. These findings open the proverbial cage to further inquiry into the impact of avian-related musings on electoral outcomes and encourage researchers to spread their wings into unconventional avenues of investigation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study have brought forth an unexpected and, dare I say, tweet-worthy correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. The substantial correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 not only raises eyebrows but also highlights the potential significance of avian inquiries on political preferences. Our results not only align with prior research that has probed into the web of connections between seemingly disparate variables but also soar to new heights by revealing the strength of this avian-lection relationship.

Drawing from the literature review, a momentous acknowledgment of the whimsical yet relevant connection between avian themes and human activities has guided our exploration of this avian-lection correlation. We heeded the calls of prior research that hinted at the influence of environmental triggers on electoral behavior, with a feathered twist of investigating the influence of avian-related queries. The allegorical explorations in fiction, as presented by authors such as Harper Lee and Edgar Allan Poe, may have initially seemed as light as a feather, but our findings lend weight to the symbolic potential of avian ponderings in electoral dynamics.

The r-squared value of 0.7245592 in our analysis demonstrates that approximately 72.46% of the variance in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio can be accounted for by the volume of Google searches for avian precipitation-related inquiries. This statistical power serves as a strong tailwind, propelling this investigation into the echelons of meaningful correlations. Indeed, the p-value of less than 0.05 further cements the wingspan of this avian-lection connection, emphasizing the certitude of its statistical relevance.

As we navigate through this avian-lection discourse, it is evident that this correlation extends beyond mere statistical significance. The observed correlation emphasizes the nuanced interplay between avian inquisitiveness and political preferences, urging us to ruffle the feathers of traditional notions surrounding voting behavior. In essence, our findings unruffle the feathers of skepticism and establish the reality of this avian-lection correlation, encapsulating the complexity of human decision-making processes.

In conclusion, our study has revealed a hitherto unexplored nexus between avian musings and political inclinations. The robustness of the statistical findings and the alignment with prior research underscore the validity of this avian-lection connection, beckoning researchers to delve deeper into the aviary of unconventional avenues of investigation. Through this investigation, we have hatched groundbreaking insights, and one might say that we have truly taken a 'quack' at unraveling the complexities of human behavior.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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 Flock and the Ballot Box: A Correlational Study of Republican Votes for Senators in Ohio and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When it Rains'

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' from 2004 to 2018. We gathered data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends to analyze this seemingly peculiar connection. Our findings reveal a significant correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 and p < 0.05, suggesting a noteworthy association between these two seemingly disparate factors. Although this correlation may appear feather-light at first, these results add a new dimension to the understanding of voting behavior. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms behind this avian-lection connection.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The relationship between voting behavior and external stimuli has been a topic of interest for researchers across various disciplines. From the influence of weather on voter turnout to the impact of social media on political opinions, the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated factors continues to pique the curiosity of scholars and academics alike. In this vein, our study delves into an intriguing association between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains', spanning the years 2004 to 2018.
The inquiry into this avian-lection connection was prompted by the curiosity surrounding the potential influence of avian-related musings on the voting decisions of individuals. As the joke goes, "Did the voters just wing it, or did they have a concrete rationale for their choices?" The unorthodox nature of this correlation is not lost on us, and indeed, it may appear as an amusing flight of fancy at first glance. Nonetheless, the statistical analysis we present in this paper unveils an unexpectedly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8512104, with a p-value less than 0.05, suggesting that there might be something more substantial to this feather-brained relationship.
This study draws from a diverse repertoire of data sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends, to rigorously examine this curious connection. Despite the light-hearted premise of the initial inquiry, our findings indicate a more substantial tie between avian inquisitions and political preferences than one might have expected. It is indeed quite the ornithological anomaly.
In the subsequent sections, we will meticulously unravel our methodology, present the data analysis, and discuss the implications of these unexpected findings. By uncovering the nuance and humor inherent in this avian-lection connection, we aim to contribute to the broader discourse on the multifaceted dynamics of voting behavior and the role of unexpected variables in shaping electoral outcomes.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data collected from 2004 to 2018 revealed a substantial correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and the volume of Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. The correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 indicated a remarkably strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. Additionally, the r-squared value of 0.7245592 suggested that approximately 72.46% of the variance in Republican votes for Senators in Ohio could be explained by the volume of Google searches for avian precipitation-related inquiries. The p-value of less than 0.05 provided further evidence to support the statistical significance of this avian-lection connection.
To visually showcase the strength of this correlation, we present the scatterplot in Fig. 1, which unmistakably illustrates the compelling relationship between the two variables. As the old saying goes, "birds of a feather flock together, and so do their search queries and political inclinations." These findings bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "taking flight to the polls".
These results shed light on a previously overlooked aspect of voter behavior and, at the risk of sounding chirpy, highlight the potential influence of avian-related contemplations on political decision-making. This unexpected connection underscores the complexity of human decision-making processes and emphasizes the need to consider a diverse range of factors when analyzing voting behavior. While the initial hypothesis of this study may have appeared light-hearted and whimsical, the empirical evidence we present here indicates that there is real substance behind this avian-lection correlation.
The magnitude of the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' is certainly a feather in the cap of the field of political science. These findings open the proverbial cage to further inquiry into the impact of avian-related musings on electoral outcomes and encourage researchers to spread their wings into unconventional avenues of investigation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study provides compelling evidence of a significant correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'. This unexpected avian-lection connection has certainly ruffled some feathers in the world of political science. While the initial proposition of this study may have seemed like a lighthearted flight of fancy, the statistical analysis has shown that there is more to this avian-lection link than meets the eye.

The strong correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 and the r-squared value of 0.7245592 indicate a robust relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, prompting us to tweet—erm, treat these findings with the seriousness they deserve. The p-value of less than 0.05 reinforces the statistical significance of this surprising association and invites us to consider the potential influence of avian-related ponderings on political leanings. After all, as the saying goes, "poultry inquiries and political preferences flock together."

While our study provides intriguing insights into the avian-lection connection, further research is needed to plumb the depths of this unexpected relationship. However, one might argue that this line of inquiry has already soared to great heights, and additional research may be an exercise in over-egging the pudding. Perhaps it is time to let this particular nest rest and focus on exploring other unexpected correlations in the wide world of social science. After all, as the data hatches in our minds, no more research is—ahem—tweeted.




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 Flock and the Ballot Box: A Correlational Study of Republican Votes for Senators in Ohio and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When it Rains'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Avian Political Science


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited The Flock and the Ballot Box: A Correlational Study of Republican Votes for Senators in Ohio and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When it Rains'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Avian Political Science


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The Flock and the Ballot Box: A Correlational Study of Republican Votes for Senators in Ohio and Google Searches for 'Where Do Birds Go When it Rains' with an abstract of This study examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Ohio and Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' from 2004 to 2018. We gathered data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends to analyze this seemingly peculiar connection. Our findings reveal a significant correlation coefficient of 0.8512104 and p < 0.05, suggesting a noteworthy association between these two seemingly disparate factors. Although this correlation may appear feather-light at first, these results add a new dimension to the understanding of voting behavior. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms behind this avian-lection connection.

ChatGPT:

Ohio, Republican votes, Senators, Google searches, "where do birds go when it rains", correlation study, voting behavior, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Google Trends, 2004-2018

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'

Correlation r = 0.8512104 (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 = 0.7245592 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 72.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Ohio) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2018.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.032. 0.0315605322124283500000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

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

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.85 in 3.2% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 32 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.

[ 0.13, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200420062010201220162018
Votes for Republican Senators in Ohio (Percentage of votes)63.849443.815256.846344.758.028946.5656
Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains' (Rel. search volume)2.833330.6666671.166670.9166672.083331.5




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([63.8494,43.8152,56.8463,44.7,58.0289,46.5656,])
array_2 = np.array([2.83333,0.666667,1.16667,0.916667,2.08333,1.5,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Ohio"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'where do birds go when it rains'"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating is pure awesomeness!


Correlation ID: 5439 · Black Variable ID: 26445 · Red Variable ID: 1468
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0