about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,503 · 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 Tennessee and the second variable is The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee.  The chart goes from 2003 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee surged, it created a ripple effect leading to a higher demand for mental health support. You could say it "stimulated" the need for more psychiatrists in the state, as people were seeking professional help to cope with the political climate. This unexpected correlation just goesto show that in Tennessee, political change can really get inside your head!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that shows a futuristic city square in Tennessee, where diverse crowds are gathered at voting booths, casting their votes for Democratic Senators. As the number of votes increases, a surge of demand for mental health support becomes evident, leading to a noticeable rise in the number of psychiatrists seen bustling through the streets, their services in high demand to support and guide those affected by the unfolding political climate. The visual must convey the intertwined nature of political engagement and mental health, as constituents seek professional help to navigate these uncertain times, capturing the essence of a city's interconnectedness in a futuristic setting. 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 Tennessee and The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee. 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: Art nouveau Futuristic Whimsical illustration Vaporwave Cyber folk
ChatGPT: Futuristic

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 Tennessee and The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee, in the following situation: As the Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee surged, it created a ripple effect leading to a higher demand for mental health support. You could say it "stimulated" the need for more psychiatrists in the state, as people were seeking professional help to cope with the political climate. This unexpected correlation just goesto show that in Tennessee, political change can really get inside your head!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling city square in Tennessee, crowds of people are seen lining up at voting booths, casting their votes for Democratic Senators. As the number of votes steadily rises, a noticeable increase in demand for mental health support becomes evident. This leads to a surge in the number of psychiatrists seen bustling through the streets, their services in high demand to support and guide those affected by the unfolding political climate. The visual conveys the interconnectedness of political engagement and mental health, as constituents seek professional help to navigate these uncertain times.

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: [ Futuristic ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling city square in Tennessee, crowds of people are seen lining up at voting booths, casting their votes for Democratic Senators. As the number of votes steadily rises, a noticeable increase in demand for mental health support becomes evident. This leads to a surge in the number of psychiatrists seen bustling through the streets, their services in high demand to support and guide those affected by the unfolding political climate. The visual conveys the interconnectedness of political engagement and mental health, as constituents seek professional help to navigate these uncertain times. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that shows a futuristic city square in Tennessee, where diverse crowds are gathered at voting booths, casting their votes for Democratic Senators. As the number of votes increases, a surge of demand for mental health support becomes evident, leading to a noticeable rise in the number of psychiatrists seen bustling through the streets, their services in high demand to support and guide those affected by the unfolding political climate. The visual must convey the intertwined nature of political engagement and mental health, as constituents seek professional help to navigate these uncertain times, capturing the essence of a city's interconnectedness in a futuristic setting.

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

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

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

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Psyche-votes: Investigating the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Tennessee and the Mental Health Workforce

Journal of Political Psychology

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 witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Tennessee and The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

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 0.9767059 and p < 0.01 for 2003 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]]
Psyche-votes: Investigating the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Tennessee and the Mental Health Workforce

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the intriguing association between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team uncovered a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2020. While a dry statistical analysis forms the backbone of this study, it also delves into the quirky world of electoral patterns and mental health care provision. The results not only reveal a fascinating connection between political preferences and the availability of psychiatric services in Tennessee but also spark interesting discussions about the intertwined realms of mental wellness and democratic decision-making. Our findings offer a fresh perspective on the tangled web of politics and psychology, shedding light on the complex relationship between voting behaviors and the state of mental healthcare.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Tennessee and The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee. 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]]
Psyche-votes: Investigating the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Tennessee and the Mental Health Workforce

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the intriguing association between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team uncovered a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2020. While a dry statistical analysis forms the backbone of this study, it also delves into the quirky world of electoral patterns and mental health care provision. The results not only reveal a fascinating connection between political preferences and the availability of psychiatric services in Tennessee but also spark interesting discussions about the intertwined realms of mental wellness and democratic decision-making. Our findings offer a fresh perspective on the tangled web of politics and psychology, shedding light on the complex relationship between voting behaviors and the state of mental healthcare.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Politics and psychology intersect in intriguing ways, and our research aims to unravel one such entanglement in the context of Tennessee. The confluence of Democrat votes for Senators and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state presents a curious puzzle that piques the interest of both political pundits and mental health mavens alike. With a seemingly improbable link between political leanings and psychiatric professionals, our investigation navigates this uncharted territory, armed with the trusty arsenal of statistical analyses and research methodologies.

As we wade into this riveting quagmire of data and correlations, it's essential to acknowledge the inherent unpredictability of human decision-making and the complexities of psychiatric care. After all, deciphering the human mind's intricacies and electoral behaviors is no mean feat – it requires a careful concoction of empirical evidence and a generous sprinkle of statistical stardust.

In a state where whiskey flows as freely as the Cumberland River meanders, we wonder if perhaps there is more than a mere tipple of truth in the belief that political choices can influence the provision of mental health services. After all, it's not every day that one gets to draw parallels between casting ballots and counting psychiatrists. As we navigate this bountiful sea of data, we cannot help but marvel at the juxtaposition of political fervor and psychiatric prowess, embarking on a journey where ballot boxes and therapy couches may converge in unexpected ways.

With this paper, we not only aim to substantiate our findings with robust statistical evidence but also to infuse the discourse with a dash of wry humor and intellectual verve. As we spin our statistical yarn, we invite readers to don their critical thinking hats and embark on a cerebral rollercoaster ride through the hitherto uncharted depths of Democrat votes and psychiatrist headcounts. After all, who says academic research can't be both illuminating and entertaining? So, buckle up and prepare to be captivated by the enigmatic dance of data and democracy in the realm of the Volunteer State.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Tennessee and The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee. 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 name some movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Psyche-votes: Investigating the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Tennessee and the Mental Health Workforce

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the intriguing association between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team uncovered a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2020. While a dry statistical analysis forms the backbone of this study, it also delves into the quirky world of electoral patterns and mental health care provision. The results not only reveal a fascinating connection between political preferences and the availability of psychiatric services in Tennessee but also spark interesting discussions about the intertwined realms of mental wellness and democratic decision-making. Our findings offer a fresh perspective on the tangled web of politics and psychology, shedding light on the complex relationship between voting behaviors and the state of mental healthcare.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Politics and psychology intersect in intriguing ways, and our research aims to unravel one such entanglement in the context of Tennessee. The confluence of Democrat votes for Senators and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state presents a curious puzzle that piques the interest of both political pundits and mental health mavens alike. With a seemingly improbable link between political leanings and psychiatric professionals, our investigation navigates this uncharted territory, armed with the trusty arsenal of statistical analyses and research methodologies.
As we wade into this riveting quagmire of data and correlations, it's essential to acknowledge the inherent unpredictability of human decision-making and the complexities of psychiatric care. After all, deciphering the human mind's intricacies and electoral behaviors is no mean feat – it requires a careful concoction of empirical evidence and a generous sprinkle of statistical stardust.
In a state where whiskey flows as freely as the Cumberland River meanders, we wonder if perhaps there is more than a mere tipple of truth in the belief that political choices can influence the provision of mental health services. After all, it's not every day that one gets to draw parallels between casting ballots and counting psychiatrists. As we navigate this bountiful sea of data, we cannot help but marvel at the juxtaposition of political fervor and psychiatric prowess, embarking on a journey where ballot boxes and therapy couches may converge in unexpected ways.
With this paper, we not only aim to substantiate our findings with robust statistical evidence but also to infuse the discourse with a dash of wry humor and intellectual verve. As we spin our statistical yarn, we invite readers to don their critical thinking hats and embark on a cerebral rollercoaster ride through the hitherto uncharted depths of Democrat votes and psychiatrist headcounts. After all, who says academic research can't be both illuminating and entertaining? So, buckle up and prepare to be captivated by the enigmatic dance of data and democracy in the realm of the Volunteer State.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Amidst the scholarly depths of investigating the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists within the state, it is critical to survey the existing literature that flits at the intersection of political preferences and mental health resources. Beginning with the seminal work by Smith et al. (2010), "Election Patterns and Mental Health: A State-Level Analysis," the authors find a compelling link between Democratic electoral trends and the availability of psychiatric professionals, albeit with a dryness that rivals the heat of a Tennessee summer. Moving forward, it is essential to navigate the labyrinthine pathways of academic inquiry with a judicious mix of gravitas and levity, for as Doe and Jones (2014) aptly observe in "Political Polls and Psychiatry: A Curious Tête-à-Tête," understanding the intriguing dance between voting proclivities and mental healthcare resources necessitates a keen eye for statistical nuance and a penchant for the whimsical tales told by data.

As we tread the hallowed halls of academia, it's crucial to acknowledge the inextricable ties between electoral behaviors and mental health provision, drawing from the wisdom offered by non-fiction literature. Works such as “The Politics of Psychiatry” by Rosenhan (1989) and “Democracy and the Mind: Exploring the Voter's Psyche” by Durkheim (2005) provide nuanced insights, shedding light on the curious interplay between political landscapes and the psychological well-being of a populace—a terrain laden with potential puns and fiendishly clever observations.

In addition to the cerebral pursuit of academic tomes, we mustn't overlook the captivating world of fiction that holds a mirror up to this unconventional pairing of politics and psychiatry. The inquisitive reader may find solace in novels like "The Senator's Sanity" by Austen (1813) and "The Freudian Ballot" by Kafka (1924), where the realms of political machinations collide with the mysteries of the human mind, infusing the air with a heady cocktail of intrigue and bewilderment, not unlike the confounding nature of statistical significance in our research.

Moreover, as a nod to the multidimensionality of our investigation, one cannot discount the silver screen's contributions to this scholarly endeavor. Films such as "A Beautiful Mind" and "Election" offer tantalizing glimpses into the complex tapestry of mental health and electoral dynamics, impelling viewers to grapple with the enigmatic intersections of sanity and suffrage, interspersed with occasional popcorn-induced statistical reveries.

In traversing the vast expanse of literature that converges upon the intricate relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the mental health workforce, one can't help but marvel at the whimsical dance of data and democracy, where dry statistical analyses intermingle with the unexpected quips of electoral peculiarities and psychiatric serendipities, prompting a chuckle or two amidst the pursuit of scholarly enlightenment.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Tennessee and The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee. 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 Bureau of Larbor Statistics . You used data from 2003 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]]
Psyche-votes: Investigating the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Tennessee and the Mental Health Workforce

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the intriguing association between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team uncovered a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2020. While a dry statistical analysis forms the backbone of this study, it also delves into the quirky world of electoral patterns and mental health care provision. The results not only reveal a fascinating connection between political preferences and the availability of psychiatric services in Tennessee but also spark interesting discussions about the intertwined realms of mental wellness and democratic decision-making. Our findings offer a fresh perspective on the tangled web of politics and psychology, shedding light on the complex relationship between voting behaviors and the state of mental healthcare.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Politics and psychology intersect in intriguing ways, and our research aims to unravel one such entanglement in the context of Tennessee. The confluence of Democrat votes for Senators and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state presents a curious puzzle that piques the interest of both political pundits and mental health mavens alike. With a seemingly improbable link between political leanings and psychiatric professionals, our investigation navigates this uncharted territory, armed with the trusty arsenal of statistical analyses and research methodologies.
As we wade into this riveting quagmire of data and correlations, it's essential to acknowledge the inherent unpredictability of human decision-making and the complexities of psychiatric care. After all, deciphering the human mind's intricacies and electoral behaviors is no mean feat – it requires a careful concoction of empirical evidence and a generous sprinkle of statistical stardust.
In a state where whiskey flows as freely as the Cumberland River meanders, we wonder if perhaps there is more than a mere tipple of truth in the belief that political choices can influence the provision of mental health services. After all, it's not every day that one gets to draw parallels between casting ballots and counting psychiatrists. As we navigate this bountiful sea of data, we cannot help but marvel at the juxtaposition of political fervor and psychiatric prowess, embarking on a journey where ballot boxes and therapy couches may converge in unexpected ways.
With this paper, we not only aim to substantiate our findings with robust statistical evidence but also to infuse the discourse with a dash of wry humor and intellectual verve. As we spin our statistical yarn, we invite readers to don their critical thinking hats and embark on a cerebral rollercoaster ride through the hitherto uncharted depths of Democrat votes and psychiatrist headcounts. After all, who says academic research can't be both illuminating and entertaining? So, buckle up and prepare to be captivated by the enigmatic dance of data and democracy in the realm of the Volunteer State.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the enigmatic dance of data and democracy in the realm of the Volunteer State, our research team employed a multifaceted approach, mixing elements of statistical analysis with a sprinkle of whimsy to yield a heady brew of academic investigation. Our data, sourced from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, provided the essential ingredients for our methodological concoction. The time span of our analysis, spanning from 2003 to 2020, captured the ebb and flow of Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee alongside the flux in the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state.

Intriguingly, our methodological odyssey began with the acquisition of raw data resembling a jigsaw puzzle scattered across cyberspace. We navigated through the digital labyrinth, armed with the unwavering determination of an intrepid explorer and the insatiable appetites of data archeologists. Once gathered, the data was subjected to rigorous scrutiny, akin to a discerning diner inspecting the freshness of ingredients before embarking on a gastronomic escapade.

The statistical gallivanting commenced with the calculation of the Pearson correlation coefficient between Democrat votes for Senators and the count of psychiatrists in Tennessee. The grand unveiling of a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 left us both astounded and tickled, akin to the unearthing of a rare gem in a prospector's pan. Our statistical journey was further embellished with the determination of the significance level, where the p-value triumphantly chirped at a level of p < 0.01, akin to a deft magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

Amidst this statistical spectacle, the robustness of our results was fortified through a series of sensitivity analyses and diagnostic checks, akin to laying a sturdy foundation for an architectural wonder. We proceeded to peer beneath the surface of our findings, ever vigilant for the lurking specter of confounding variables and lurking statistical ghosts.

As the dust settled and the statistical stardust twinkled in the night sky of our findings, we emerged from this methodological labyrinth bearing a trove of empirical evidence that both astonishes and amuses. Our statistical foray, enmeshed with a touch of intellectual pizzazz, offers a methodological peek behind the curtain of our scholarly wizardry, inviting readers to partake in the revelry of our empirical escapade.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Tennessee and The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee. 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 Bureau of Larbor Statistics .

For the time period 2003 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9767059, r-squared of 0.9539544, 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]]
Psyche-votes: Investigating the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Tennessee and the Mental Health Workforce

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the intriguing association between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team uncovered a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2020. While a dry statistical analysis forms the backbone of this study, it also delves into the quirky world of electoral patterns and mental health care provision. The results not only reveal a fascinating connection between political preferences and the availability of psychiatric services in Tennessee but also spark interesting discussions about the intertwined realms of mental wellness and democratic decision-making. Our findings offer a fresh perspective on the tangled web of politics and psychology, shedding light on the complex relationship between voting behaviors and the state of mental healthcare.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Politics and psychology intersect in intriguing ways, and our research aims to unravel one such entanglement in the context of Tennessee. The confluence of Democrat votes for Senators and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state presents a curious puzzle that piques the interest of both political pundits and mental health mavens alike. With a seemingly improbable link between political leanings and psychiatric professionals, our investigation navigates this uncharted territory, armed with the trusty arsenal of statistical analyses and research methodologies.
As we wade into this riveting quagmire of data and correlations, it's essential to acknowledge the inherent unpredictability of human decision-making and the complexities of psychiatric care. After all, deciphering the human mind's intricacies and electoral behaviors is no mean feat – it requires a careful concoction of empirical evidence and a generous sprinkle of statistical stardust.
In a state where whiskey flows as freely as the Cumberland River meanders, we wonder if perhaps there is more than a mere tipple of truth in the belief that political choices can influence the provision of mental health services. After all, it's not every day that one gets to draw parallels between casting ballots and counting psychiatrists. As we navigate this bountiful sea of data, we cannot help but marvel at the juxtaposition of political fervor and psychiatric prowess, embarking on a journey where ballot boxes and therapy couches may converge in unexpected ways.
With this paper, we not only aim to substantiate our findings with robust statistical evidence but also to infuse the discourse with a dash of wry humor and intellectual verve. As we spin our statistical yarn, we invite readers to don their critical thinking hats and embark on a cerebral rollercoaster ride through the hitherto uncharted depths of Democrat votes and psychiatrist headcounts. After all, who says academic research can't be both illuminating and entertaining? So, buckle up and prepare to be captivated by the enigmatic dance of data and democracy in the realm of the Volunteer State.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Upon analyzing the data collected from 2003 to 2020, our research uncovered a robust correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state. The correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 indicates an extremely strong positive relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, which is further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9539544, implying that approximately 95.4% of the variation in the number of psychiatrists can be explained by Democrat votes for Senators. Remarkably, the significance level of p < 0.01 accentuates the compelling nature of this correlation, presenting a statistically significant connection that goes beyond mere coincidence.

As depicted in Fig. 1, the scatterplot visually encapsulates this striking association, portraying a clear trend where an increase in Democrat votes for Senators aligns with a commensurate upsurge in the number of psychiatrists in Tennessee. It seems that political predilections and psychiatric practice are not as estranged as one might assume, and the data provides a solid foundation for such an assertion.

The strength of the relationship between these variables not only underscores the empirical validity of our findings but also sets the stage for intriguing discussions about the intersection of politics and mental healthcare. The results of this study not only provoke contemplation about the interplay of electoral dynamics and mental wellness but also invite a whimsical exploration of the quirky connections that emerge when politics and psychiatry collide.

Indeed, while statistics form the backbone of this investigation, there is an undeniable element of surprise and amusement in unraveling the rendezvous between Democrat votes and the mental health workforce. This research not only shines a light on the intertwined realms of politics and psychology but also injects a touch of levity into the often-serious discourse of statistical analyses and research in the social sciences.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Tennessee and The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee. 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]]
Psyche-votes: Investigating the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Tennessee and the Mental Health Workforce

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the intriguing association between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team uncovered a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2020. While a dry statistical analysis forms the backbone of this study, it also delves into the quirky world of electoral patterns and mental health care provision. The results not only reveal a fascinating connection between political preferences and the availability of psychiatric services in Tennessee but also spark interesting discussions about the intertwined realms of mental wellness and democratic decision-making. Our findings offer a fresh perspective on the tangled web of politics and psychology, shedding light on the complex relationship between voting behaviors and the state of mental healthcare.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Amidst the scholarly depths of investigating the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists within the state, it is critical to survey the existing literature that flits at the intersection of political preferences and mental health resources. Beginning with the seminal work by Smith et al. (2010), "Election Patterns and Mental Health: A State-Level Analysis," the authors find a compelling link between Democratic electoral trends and the availability of psychiatric professionals, albeit with a dryness that rivals the heat of a Tennessee summer. Moving forward, it is essential to navigate the labyrinthine pathways of academic inquiry with a judicious mix of gravitas and levity, for as Doe and Jones (2014) aptly observe in "Political Polls and Psychiatry: A Curious Tête-à-Tête," understanding the intriguing dance between voting proclivities and mental healthcare resources necessitates a keen eye for statistical nuance and a penchant for the whimsical tales told by data.
As we tread the hallowed halls of academia, it's crucial to acknowledge the inextricable ties between electoral behaviors and mental health provision, drawing from the wisdom offered by non-fiction literature. Works such as “The Politics of Psychiatry” by Rosenhan (1989) and “Democracy and the Mind: Exploring the Voter's Psyche” by Durkheim (2005) provide nuanced insights, shedding light on the curious interplay between political landscapes and the psychological well-being of a populace—a terrain laden with potential puns and fiendishly clever observations.
In addition to the cerebral pursuit of academic tomes, we mustn't overlook the captivating world of fiction that holds a mirror up to this unconventional pairing of politics and psychiatry. The inquisitive reader may find solace in novels like "The Senator's Sanity" by Austen (1813) and "The Freudian Ballot" by Kafka (1924), where the realms of political machinations collide with the mysteries of the human mind, infusing the air with a heady cocktail of intrigue and bewilderment, not unlike the confounding nature of statistical significance in our research.
Moreover, as a nod to the multidimensionality of our investigation, one cannot discount the silver screen's contributions to this scholarly endeavor. Films such as "A Beautiful Mind" and "Election" offer tantalizing glimpses into the complex tapestry of mental health and electoral dynamics, impelling viewers to grapple with the enigmatic intersections of sanity and suffrage, interspersed with occasional popcorn-induced statistical reveries.
In traversing the vast expanse of literature that converges upon the intricate relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the mental health workforce, one can't help but marvel at the whimsical dance of data and democracy, where dry statistical analyses intermingle with the unexpected quips of electoral peculiarities and psychiatric serendipities, prompting a chuckle or two amidst the pursuit of scholarly enlightenment.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon analyzing the data collected from 2003 to 2020, our research uncovered a robust correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state. The correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 indicates an extremely strong positive relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, which is further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9539544, implying that approximately 95.4% of the variation in the number of psychiatrists can be explained by Democrat votes for Senators. Remarkably, the significance level of p < 0.01 accentuates the compelling nature of this correlation, presenting a statistically significant connection that goes beyond mere coincidence.
As depicted in Fig. 1, the scatterplot visually encapsulates this striking association, portraying a clear trend where an increase in Democrat votes for Senators aligns with a commensurate upsurge in the number of psychiatrists in Tennessee. It seems that political predilections and psychiatric practice are not as estranged as one might assume, and the data provides a solid foundation for such an assertion.
The strength of the relationship between these variables not only underscores the empirical validity of our findings but also sets the stage for intriguing discussions about the intersection of politics and mental healthcare. The results of this study not only provoke contemplation about the interplay of electoral dynamics and mental wellness but also invite a whimsical exploration of the quirky connections that emerge when politics and psychiatry collide.
Indeed, while statistics form the backbone of this investigation, there is an undeniable element of surprise and amusement in unraveling the rendezvous between Democrat votes and the mental health workforce. This research not only shines a light on the intertwined realms of politics and psychology but also injects a touch of levity into the often-serious discourse of statistical analyses and research in the social sciences.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study have unearthed a connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state that is as solid as a well-controlled experiment. Our results not only reinforce the prior research by Smith et al. (2010), which suggested a link between Democratic electoral trends and psychiatric professionals, but they also provide a statistically robust validation of this peculiar association. In the words of Doe and Jones (2014), understanding the captivating tango between voting proclivities and mental healthcare resources requires not just a sharp statistical mind but also an appreciation for the whimsical tales told by data, and our research certainly didn't disappoint on either front.

This correlation between Democrat votes and the mental health workforce is akin to discovering a hidden gem in a particularly convoluted maze of variables. Our findings not only align with the broader discourse traversing academic tomes, non-fiction literature, fiction, and the silver screen, but they also offer a whimsically engaging perspective on the perplexing interplay between political landscapes and psychological well-being. The concatenation of electoral behaviors and mental health provision may indeed be a labyrinthine pathway, but our research has illuminated it like a beacon in the statistical darkness.

The strength of the relationship between these variables, vividly illustrated in the scatterplot, paints a picture more striking than a surrealist masterpiece. The sight of an increase in Democrat votes for Senators leading to a parallel surge in the number of psychiatrists evokes a sense of statistical marvel akin to witnessing a magician pull a rabbit out of a hat. This establishes a quintessentially piquant observation in the annals of statistical inquiry, where numbers and melodramatic electoral dynamics converge in a balletic display of correlation.

It is remarkable that approximately 95.4% of the variation in the number of psychiatrists can be explained by Democrat votes for Senators, akin to finding a shining beacon of significance in a sea of statistical noise. The p-value of less than 0.01 adds a delightful touch of validation to the connection between political predilections and psychiatric practice, much like the cherry on top of a statistically significant sundae.

This study not only provokes weighty contemplation about the interplay of electoral dynamics and mental wellness, but it also injects a lighthearted quirkiness into the often-staid discourse of statistical analyses and research in the social sciences. The curious correlation between political preferences and mental health resources, which our study has unearthed, adds a dash of spicy unpredictability to the often dry world of statistical analysis.

In conclusion, our research has not only reinforced the prior scholarly discourse but has also thrown open the curtains to a fascinating and amusing spectacle at the intersection of politics and psychiatry—an enthralling riddle that is sure to elicit both laughter and contemplation in equal measure.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Tennessee and The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee. 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]]
Psyche-votes: Investigating the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Tennessee and the Mental Health Workforce

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper explores the intriguing association between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team uncovered a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2020. While a dry statistical analysis forms the backbone of this study, it also delves into the quirky world of electoral patterns and mental health care provision. The results not only reveal a fascinating connection between political preferences and the availability of psychiatric services in Tennessee but also spark interesting discussions about the intertwined realms of mental wellness and democratic decision-making. Our findings offer a fresh perspective on the tangled web of politics and psychology, shedding light on the complex relationship between voting behaviors and the state of mental healthcare.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Politics and psychology intersect in intriguing ways, and our research aims to unravel one such entanglement in the context of Tennessee. The confluence of Democrat votes for Senators and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state presents a curious puzzle that piques the interest of both political pundits and mental health mavens alike. With a seemingly improbable link between political leanings and psychiatric professionals, our investigation navigates this uncharted territory, armed with the trusty arsenal of statistical analyses and research methodologies.
As we wade into this riveting quagmire of data and correlations, it's essential to acknowledge the inherent unpredictability of human decision-making and the complexities of psychiatric care. After all, deciphering the human mind's intricacies and electoral behaviors is no mean feat – it requires a careful concoction of empirical evidence and a generous sprinkle of statistical stardust.
In a state where whiskey flows as freely as the Cumberland River meanders, we wonder if perhaps there is more than a mere tipple of truth in the belief that political choices can influence the provision of mental health services. After all, it's not every day that one gets to draw parallels between casting ballots and counting psychiatrists. As we navigate this bountiful sea of data, we cannot help but marvel at the juxtaposition of political fervor and psychiatric prowess, embarking on a journey where ballot boxes and therapy couches may converge in unexpected ways.
With this paper, we not only aim to substantiate our findings with robust statistical evidence but also to infuse the discourse with a dash of wry humor and intellectual verve. As we spin our statistical yarn, we invite readers to don their critical thinking hats and embark on a cerebral rollercoaster ride through the hitherto uncharted depths of Democrat votes and psychiatrist headcounts. After all, who says academic research can't be both illuminating and entertaining? So, buckle up and prepare to be captivated by the enigmatic dance of data and democracy in the realm of the Volunteer State.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon analyzing the data collected from 2003 to 2020, our research uncovered a robust correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state. The correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 indicates an extremely strong positive relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, which is further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9539544, implying that approximately 95.4% of the variation in the number of psychiatrists can be explained by Democrat votes for Senators. Remarkably, the significance level of p < 0.01 accentuates the compelling nature of this correlation, presenting a statistically significant connection that goes beyond mere coincidence.
As depicted in Fig. 1, the scatterplot visually encapsulates this striking association, portraying a clear trend where an increase in Democrat votes for Senators aligns with a commensurate upsurge in the number of psychiatrists in Tennessee. It seems that political predilections and psychiatric practice are not as estranged as one might assume, and the data provides a solid foundation for such an assertion.
The strength of the relationship between these variables not only underscores the empirical validity of our findings but also sets the stage for intriguing discussions about the intersection of politics and mental healthcare. The results of this study not only provoke contemplation about the interplay of electoral dynamics and mental wellness but also invite a whimsical exploration of the quirky connections that emerge when politics and psychiatry collide.
Indeed, while statistics form the backbone of this investigation, there is an undeniable element of surprise and amusement in unraveling the rendezvous between Democrat votes and the mental health workforce. This research not only shines a light on the intertwined realms of politics and psychology but also injects a touch of levity into the often-serious discourse of statistical analyses and research in the social sciences.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation into the correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state has illuminated a captivating relationship that traverses the domains of politics and mental health. The robust correlation coefficient and r-squared value underscore the compelling nature of this association, indicating that the variations in psychiatrist numbers can be predominantly elucidated by the fluctuations in Democrat votes. This intriguing linkage invites whimsical musings about the interplay of political fervor and psychiatric provision and fosters a lighthearted exploration of the unexpected interconnections that emerge when political inclinations and mental healthcare intersect.

While our statistical analyses have laid bare this remarkable relationship, we cannot help but marvel at the delightful absurdity of witnessing Democrat votes and psychiatrist headcounts embarking on a statistical pas de deux. It seems that in the grand carnival of correlations, the dance floor is not exclusive to variables that share an obvious affinity.

The unmistakable bond between these distinct entities not only tickles the fancy of statistical inquiry but also adds a dash of humor to the often-serious discourse of academia. As we bid adieu to this curious inquiry, it becomes evident that further research in this domain may yield diminishing returns – after all, who would have thought that the whims of politics could sway the comings and goings of psychiatrists in the Volunteer State with such statistical prowess? It seems that in the kaleidoscopic realm of statistical curiosities, truth can indeed be stranger than fiction. Therefore, we assert that no additional research is needed in this area, as the delightfully unexpected findings of this study have already exceeded any reasonable expectations.


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 Psyche-votes: Investigating the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Tennessee and the Mental Health Workforce. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Political Psychology


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 Psyche-votes: Investigating the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Tennessee and the Mental Health Workforce. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Political Psychiatry Research


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Psyche-votes: Investigating the Relationship Between Democrat Votes for Senators in Tennessee and the Mental Health Workforce with an abstract of This paper explores the intriguing association between Democrat votes for Senators in Tennessee and the number of psychiatrists practicing in the state. Leveraging data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team uncovered a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9767059 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning 2003 to 2020. While a dry statistical analysis forms the backbone of this study, it also delves into the quirky world of electoral patterns and mental health care provision. The results not only reveal a fascinating connection between political preferences and the availability of psychiatric services in Tennessee but also spark interesting discussions about the intertwined realms of mental wellness and democratic decision-making. Our findings offer a fresh perspective on the tangled web of politics and psychology, shedding light on the complex relationship between voting behaviors and the state of mental healthcare.

ChatGPT:

Democrat votes Tennessee, psychiatrist workforce correlation, politics mental health connection, electoral patterns mental health care, Democrat voting behavior mental health, Tennessee psychiatric services, democrat voting psychology, mental health workforce voting pattern, political preferences mental health, Tennessee psychiatrist availability, mental wellness democratic decision-making

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

The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of psychiatrists in Tennessee
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee

Correlation r = 0.9767059 (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 = 0.9539544 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 95.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Tennessee) over the 6 years from 2003 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.000808. 0.0008076023323832926000000000
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 0.0808% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,238 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.

[ 0.8, 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 Tennessee (Total votes)8799767672367058824378489854501040690
The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee (Psychiatrists)290290240160360400




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.




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([879976,767236,705882,437848,985450,1040690,])
array_2 = np.array([290,290,240,160,360,400,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Tennessee"
array_2_name = "The number of psychiatrists in Tennessee"

# 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?

Hats off to you for rating!


Correlation ID: 5503 · Black Variable ID: 26316 · Red Variable ID: 14486
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0