about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,547 · 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 Kentucky and the second variable is The number of civil engineers in Kentucky.  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

More Republican Senators means more bridges to build to get over their differences!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image in the style of Cubism depicting the rolling hills of Kentucky adorned with bridges, each serving as a symbolic representation of a Republican Senator. As the bridges multiply, a multitude of civil engineers are bustling about, sketching blueprints and welding steel beams together. Their tireless efforts powerfully capture the growing influence of Republican Senators in Kentucky, as they bridge gaps and forge connections across the state. Create a dynamic and visually striking representation of this scene, focusing on the geometry and fragmented perspectives characteristic of Cubism. 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 Kentucky and The number of civil engineers in Kentucky. 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: Cute 2D animation Cyber folk a Polaroid photo Cubism Photorealism
ChatGPT: Cubism

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 Kentucky and The number of civil engineers in Kentucky, in the following situation: More Republican Senators means more bridges to build to get over their differences!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: You see the rolling hills of Kentucky dotted with bridges, each one representing a Republican Senator. As the number of bridges increases, so does the number of civil engineers bustling about, sketching plans and welding steel beams together. Their tireless work is a testament to the growing influence of Republican Senators in Kentucky, as they bridge the gaps and build connections across the state.

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: [ Cubism ] and depicting this scene: You see the rolling hills of Kentucky dotted with bridges, each one representing a Republican Senator. As the number of bridges increases, so does the number of civil engineers bustling about, sketching plans and welding steel beams together. Their tireless work is a testament to the growing influence of Republican Senators in Kentucky, as they bridge the gaps and build connections across the state. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image in the style of Cubism depicting the rolling hills of Kentucky adorned with bridges, each serving as a symbolic representation of a Republican Senator. As the bridges multiply, a multitude of civil engineers are bustling about, sketching blueprints and welding steel beams together. Their tireless efforts powerfully capture the growing influence of Republican Senators in Kentucky, as they bridge gaps and forge connections across the state. Create a dynamic and visually striking representation of this scene, focusing on the geometry and fragmented perspectives characteristic of Cubism.

*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 Republican votes for Senators in Kentucky caused The number of civil engineers in Kentucky to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Bridging the Gap: The Republican Vote in Kentucky and the Engineering Equation

Journal of Political Physics

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 silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Kentucky and The number of civil engineers in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Include a pun in the title.

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 0.9834895 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]]
Bridging the Gap: The Republican Vote in Kentucky and the Engineering Equation

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the surprising correlation between the number of civil engineers in the Bluegrass State and the Republican votes for Senators from Kentucky. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team embarked on the quest to unravel this enigmatic connection. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9834895 and p < 0.01 from 2003 to 2020, shedding light on this curiously synergistic relationship.

Upon analyzing the data, it became evident that the number of civil engineers in Kentucky exhibits a striking pattern that aligns with the ebb and flow of Republican votes for Senators in the state. Astonishingly, our results suggest that there might be an uncharted humorist's bridge between infrastructure development and political leanings in the Commonwealth.

Furthermore, the statistical significance of our findings propels us to bridge the gap between traditional political analysis and the often-overlooked realm of engineering influence. In essence, this study demonstrates that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, engineering prowess holds more weight than meets the eye, making it a "concrete" factor in electoral sway.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Kentucky and The number of civil engineers in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Bridging the Gap: The Republican Vote in Kentucky and the Engineering Equation

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the surprising correlation between the number of civil engineers in the Bluegrass State and the Republican votes for Senators from Kentucky. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team embarked on the quest to unravel this enigmatic connection. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9834895 and p < 0.01 from 2003 to 2020, shedding light on this curiously synergistic relationship.

Upon analyzing the data, it became evident that the number of civil engineers in Kentucky exhibits a striking pattern that aligns with the ebb and flow of Republican votes for Senators in the state. Astonishingly, our results suggest that there might be an uncharted humorist's bridge between infrastructure development and political leanings in the Commonwealth.

Furthermore, the statistical significance of our findings propels us to bridge the gap between traditional political analysis and the often-overlooked realm of engineering influence. In essence, this study demonstrates that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, engineering prowess holds more weight than meets the eye, making it a "concrete" factor in electoral sway.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

In the realm of political analysis and electoral dynamics, it is not uncommon to uncover unexpected connections and correlations. However, when our research team stumbled upon the notable link between the Republican vote for Senators in Kentucky and the number of civil engineers in the state, we were "steel" shocked at the magnitude of this relationship. Could it be that the foundations of political support are built upon the pillars of civil engineering expertise?

As we delved into this enigmatic connection, we couldn't help but marvel at the "bridging" of these two seemingly disparate domains. It was a pun-derful journey to unravel the puzzling relationship between political affiliation and engineering occupation. After all, who would have thought that the blueprints for election success might lie in the hands of civil engineers?

Our study is guided by the objective of unraveling this compelling correlation and shedding light on the underlying mechanisms at play. The data we have meticulously analyzed puts forth an unprecedented hypothesis - that the Republican vote in Kentucky is not just a matter of ballot counts, but also a "civil" matter, deeply intertwined with the engineering equation at the heart of the Bluegrass State.

As we ventured into this uncharted territory at the intersection of political science and engineering, we couldn't help but think that this connection truly "suspends" disbelief. One might even say it is a "towering" achievement to uncover such a sturdy relationship between the number of civil engineers and political leanings in Kentucky. After all, it seems that the "votes" and "joists" of the state are more connected than we initially perceived.

In the words of a wise civil engineer, "I like big data and I cannot lie," and so are our sentiments about the depth of this analysis. Our findings not only defy conventional wisdom but also open the floodgates of speculation about the forces shaping electoral dynamics. It seems that in the political landscape of Kentucky, the power of engineering prowess is not merely a "suspension" of disbelief but an integral part of the "structure" of electoral success.

Thus, through this study, we aim to establish a "bridge" between the worlds of political analysis and engineering influence, offering a novel perspective that adds depth to our understanding of the factors shaping electoral outcomes. In essence, it seems that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, the foundation of civil engineering might just be the "beam" that supports electoral sway in the Commonwealth.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Kentucky and The number of civil engineers in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Bridging the Gap: The Republican Vote in Kentucky and the Engineering Equation

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the surprising correlation between the number of civil engineers in the Bluegrass State and the Republican votes for Senators from Kentucky. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team embarked on the quest to unravel this enigmatic connection. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9834895 and p < 0.01 from 2003 to 2020, shedding light on this curiously synergistic relationship.

Upon analyzing the data, it became evident that the number of civil engineers in Kentucky exhibits a striking pattern that aligns with the ebb and flow of Republican votes for Senators in the state. Astonishingly, our results suggest that there might be an uncharted humorist's bridge between infrastructure development and political leanings in the Commonwealth.

Furthermore, the statistical significance of our findings propels us to bridge the gap between traditional political analysis and the often-overlooked realm of engineering influence. In essence, this study demonstrates that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, engineering prowess holds more weight than meets the eye, making it a "concrete" factor in electoral sway.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of political analysis and electoral dynamics, it is not uncommon to uncover unexpected connections and correlations. However, when our research team stumbled upon the notable link between the Republican vote for Senators in Kentucky and the number of civil engineers in the state, we were "steel" shocked at the magnitude of this relationship. Could it be that the foundations of political support are built upon the pillars of civil engineering expertise?
As we delved into this enigmatic connection, we couldn't help but marvel at the "bridging" of these two seemingly disparate domains. It was a pun-derful journey to unravel the puzzling relationship between political affiliation and engineering occupation. After all, who would have thought that the blueprints for election success might lie in the hands of civil engineers?
Our study is guided by the objective of unraveling this compelling correlation and shedding light on the underlying mechanisms at play. The data we have meticulously analyzed puts forth an unprecedented hypothesis - that the Republican vote in Kentucky is not just a matter of ballot counts, but also a "civil" matter, deeply intertwined with the engineering equation at the heart of the Bluegrass State.
As we ventured into this uncharted territory at the intersection of political science and engineering, we couldn't help but think that this connection truly "suspends" disbelief. One might even say it is a "towering" achievement to uncover such a sturdy relationship between the number of civil engineers and political leanings in Kentucky. After all, it seems that the "votes" and "joists" of the state are more connected than we initially perceived.
In the words of a wise civil engineer, "I like big data and I cannot lie," and so are our sentiments about the depth of this analysis. Our findings not only defy conventional wisdom but also open the floodgates of speculation about the forces shaping electoral dynamics. It seems that in the political landscape of Kentucky, the power of engineering prowess is not merely a "suspension" of disbelief but an integral part of the "structure" of electoral success.
Thus, through this study, we aim to establish a "bridge" between the worlds of political analysis and engineering influence, offering a novel perspective that adds depth to our understanding of the factors shaping electoral outcomes. In essence, it seems that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, the foundation of civil engineering might just be the "beam" that supports electoral sway in the Commonwealth.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The surprising correlation between the number of civil engineers in Kentucky and Republican votes for Senators from Kentucky has elicited considerable scholarly interest and speculation. In "Kentucky Politics and Government: Do We Stand United?" by Smith, the authors find that Kentucky has a rich political history, but none of the historical records had "bridge"d the gap between engineering and political leanings quite like this unexpected correlation. This revelation marks a pivotal "turning point" in the understanding of electoral dynamics in the state.

As we delve deeper into the literature, we encounter "The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce" by McCloskey, which sheds light on the complex interplay between economic prosperity and values. However, our research uncovers a novel twist - the "bourgeois virtues" seem to intersect with civil engineering expertise and Republican votes in Kentucky, creating a "bridge" to understanding the nuanced landscape of electoral influence.

Moving beyond non-fiction literature, we stumble upon "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, a fictional novel extolling the virtues of individualism and innovation. Surprisingly, the novel’s themes resonate with the pillars of civil engineering, as if the author had meticulously crafted a "foundation" of reference for our study. Our findings highlight an unforeseen "atlas" between Rand's philosophical musings and the world of civil engineering, providing an unexpected "elevation" of the discourse at hand.

In a departure from traditional sources, we also took inspiration from less conventional sources for our literature review. One such source, "The Ultimate Guide to Reading CVS Receipts" by Anonymous, provided a surprisingly synergistic perspective on electoral dynamics and civil engineering. While the unconventional nature of the source raised some eyebrows, the insights gleaned from decoding grocery store receipts opened up a realm of absurd yet strangely relevant "checkout" from our quest to decipher this correlation.

When it comes to exploring the enigmatic relationship between civil engineering and Republican votes in Kentucky, it seems that the literature is brimming with unexpected connections, unexpected discoveries, and enough dad jokes to "bridge" every awkward silence.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Kentucky and The number of civil engineers in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Bridging the Gap: The Republican Vote in Kentucky and the Engineering Equation

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the surprising correlation between the number of civil engineers in the Bluegrass State and the Republican votes for Senators from Kentucky. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team embarked on the quest to unravel this enigmatic connection. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9834895 and p < 0.01 from 2003 to 2020, shedding light on this curiously synergistic relationship.

Upon analyzing the data, it became evident that the number of civil engineers in Kentucky exhibits a striking pattern that aligns with the ebb and flow of Republican votes for Senators in the state. Astonishingly, our results suggest that there might be an uncharted humorist's bridge between infrastructure development and political leanings in the Commonwealth.

Furthermore, the statistical significance of our findings propels us to bridge the gap between traditional political analysis and the often-overlooked realm of engineering influence. In essence, this study demonstrates that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, engineering prowess holds more weight than meets the eye, making it a "concrete" factor in electoral sway.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of political analysis and electoral dynamics, it is not uncommon to uncover unexpected connections and correlations. However, when our research team stumbled upon the notable link between the Republican vote for Senators in Kentucky and the number of civil engineers in the state, we were "steel" shocked at the magnitude of this relationship. Could it be that the foundations of political support are built upon the pillars of civil engineering expertise?
As we delved into this enigmatic connection, we couldn't help but marvel at the "bridging" of these two seemingly disparate domains. It was a pun-derful journey to unravel the puzzling relationship between political affiliation and engineering occupation. After all, who would have thought that the blueprints for election success might lie in the hands of civil engineers?
Our study is guided by the objective of unraveling this compelling correlation and shedding light on the underlying mechanisms at play. The data we have meticulously analyzed puts forth an unprecedented hypothesis - that the Republican vote in Kentucky is not just a matter of ballot counts, but also a "civil" matter, deeply intertwined with the engineering equation at the heart of the Bluegrass State.
As we ventured into this uncharted territory at the intersection of political science and engineering, we couldn't help but think that this connection truly "suspends" disbelief. One might even say it is a "towering" achievement to uncover such a sturdy relationship between the number of civil engineers and political leanings in Kentucky. After all, it seems that the "votes" and "joists" of the state are more connected than we initially perceived.
In the words of a wise civil engineer, "I like big data and I cannot lie," and so are our sentiments about the depth of this analysis. Our findings not only defy conventional wisdom but also open the floodgates of speculation about the forces shaping electoral dynamics. It seems that in the political landscape of Kentucky, the power of engineering prowess is not merely a "suspension" of disbelief but an integral part of the "structure" of electoral success.
Thus, through this study, we aim to establish a "bridge" between the worlds of political analysis and engineering influence, offering a novel perspective that adds depth to our understanding of the factors shaping electoral outcomes. In essence, it seems that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, the foundation of civil engineering might just be the "beam" that supports electoral sway in the Commonwealth.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To uncover the fascinating correlation between the number of civil engineers in Kentucky and the Republican votes for Senators in the state, our research team embarked on a data-gathering quest worthy of a heroic saga. With the meticulousness of a structural engineer inspecting a bridge, we scoured data from reputable sources such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the Harvard Dataverse, and dived deep into the Bureau of Labor Statistics to extract every nugget of information, or as we affectionately call it, "punny-mentary data."

Our analysis covered the period from 2003 to 2020, a time span that witnessed not only political shifts but also engineering endeavors that "built" the landscape of Kentucky's infrastructural advancements. Our data collection was as comprehensive as a civil engineer's blueprint, leaving no statistical stone unturned in our pursuit of unraveling this unexpected connection.

To quantify the variables under scrutiny, we employed a range of statistical measures that would make even the most seasoned engineer impressed. We calculated the correlation coefficient with the precision of a protractor, revealing a remarkably high value of 0.9834895, which left us in awe of the "structural integrity" of this relationship. This magnitude of correlation was so high that it "leveraged" our expectations and "compressed" any doubts about the robustness of our findings.

Furthermore, to ensure the validity of our results, we subjected our data to rigorous statistical tests, including regression analysis and hypothesis testing. Our statistical toolbox was filled to the brim with tools such as t-tests, ANOVA, and multivariate analysis, functioning as "wrenches" in the gears of doubt that sought to disassemble our correlation. The results of these tests yielded a p < 0.01, signifying that the correlation was not merely a statistical fluke but a "concrete" finding deserving of attention.

The "formula" for our methodological approach was rooted in the principles of sound statistical analysis and theoretical rigor, ensuring that our findings were not merely speculative "beams" of intuition but "foundations" of empirical evidence. We also deployed sophisticated software for data analysis, treating statistical outliers with the same caution a civil engineer applies to a potential weak point in a structure.

In essence, our methodology was like the perfect synthesis of engineering precision and statistical finesse, creating a "bridge" between two seemingly disparate domains that left us "afloat" with excitement. And speaking of bridges, did you hear the one about the civil engineer who couldn't find a date to the prom? He finally asked a "column" and they made a great "connection." But I digress - back to the methodology at hand!


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Kentucky and The number of civil engineers in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 0.9834895, r-squared of 0.9672517, 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]]
Bridging the Gap: The Republican Vote in Kentucky and the Engineering Equation

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the surprising correlation between the number of civil engineers in the Bluegrass State and the Republican votes for Senators from Kentucky. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team embarked on the quest to unravel this enigmatic connection. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9834895 and p < 0.01 from 2003 to 2020, shedding light on this curiously synergistic relationship.

Upon analyzing the data, it became evident that the number of civil engineers in Kentucky exhibits a striking pattern that aligns with the ebb and flow of Republican votes for Senators in the state. Astonishingly, our results suggest that there might be an uncharted humorist's bridge between infrastructure development and political leanings in the Commonwealth.

Furthermore, the statistical significance of our findings propels us to bridge the gap between traditional political analysis and the often-overlooked realm of engineering influence. In essence, this study demonstrates that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, engineering prowess holds more weight than meets the eye, making it a "concrete" factor in electoral sway.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the realm of political analysis and electoral dynamics, it is not uncommon to uncover unexpected connections and correlations. However, when our research team stumbled upon the notable link between the Republican vote for Senators in Kentucky and the number of civil engineers in the state, we were "steel" shocked at the magnitude of this relationship. Could it be that the foundations of political support are built upon the pillars of civil engineering expertise?
As we delved into this enigmatic connection, we couldn't help but marvel at the "bridging" of these two seemingly disparate domains. It was a pun-derful journey to unravel the puzzling relationship between political affiliation and engineering occupation. After all, who would have thought that the blueprints for election success might lie in the hands of civil engineers?
Our study is guided by the objective of unraveling this compelling correlation and shedding light on the underlying mechanisms at play. The data we have meticulously analyzed puts forth an unprecedented hypothesis - that the Republican vote in Kentucky is not just a matter of ballot counts, but also a "civil" matter, deeply intertwined with the engineering equation at the heart of the Bluegrass State.
As we ventured into this uncharted territory at the intersection of political science and engineering, we couldn't help but think that this connection truly "suspends" disbelief. One might even say it is a "towering" achievement to uncover such a sturdy relationship between the number of civil engineers and political leanings in Kentucky. After all, it seems that the "votes" and "joists" of the state are more connected than we initially perceived.
In the words of a wise civil engineer, "I like big data and I cannot lie," and so are our sentiments about the depth of this analysis. Our findings not only defy conventional wisdom but also open the floodgates of speculation about the forces shaping electoral dynamics. It seems that in the political landscape of Kentucky, the power of engineering prowess is not merely a "suspension" of disbelief but an integral part of the "structure" of electoral success.
Thus, through this study, we aim to establish a "bridge" between the worlds of political analysis and engineering influence, offering a novel perspective that adds depth to our understanding of the factors shaping electoral outcomes. In essence, it seems that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, the foundation of civil engineering might just be the "beam" that supports electoral sway in the Commonwealth.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The correlation analysis revealed a remarkably strong association between the number of civil engineers in Kentucky and the Republican votes for Senators from the state. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9834895 and an r-squared of 0.9672517, the relationship between these variables is as solid as a well-constructed bridge. It's quite clear that when it comes to electoral dynamics in Kentucky, civil engineering isn't just a "steel-y" occupation; it holds significant sway over political leanings.

Now, let's address the elephant in the room - or should I say, the "engineer in the room." It seems that civil engineers may be the unsung architects of political influence in the Bluegrass State. Who knew that the intricate designs of infrastructure could also shape the trajectory of political affiliations? I suppose in Kentucky, bridges aren't the only things connecting communities; they might also be connecting voters with their political preferences.

Our scatterplot (Fig. 1) beautifully illustrates the strong positive correlation between the number of civil engineers in Kentucky and the Republican votes for Senators. The data points form a pattern so snug, it's as if each vote is carefully engineered to align with the presence of civil engineering expertise. It's almost as if the voters are saying, "We like our politics like we like our civil engineers - well-structured and firmly grounded!"

In conclusion, our findings provide compelling evidence that in the Kentucky political landscape, the number of civil engineers wields considerable influence over electoral outcomes. This unexpectedly robust correlation not only illuminates the often-overlooked role of engineering in shaping political dynamics but also adds an element of whimsy to the traditionally serious realm of electoral analysis. After all, who wouldn't appreciate a little "concrete" evidence that engineers are indeed the "foundation" of political sway in the Commonwealth?


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Kentucky and The number of civil engineers in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Bridging the Gap: The Republican Vote in Kentucky and the Engineering Equation

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the surprising correlation between the number of civil engineers in the Bluegrass State and the Republican votes for Senators from Kentucky. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team embarked on the quest to unravel this enigmatic connection. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9834895 and p < 0.01 from 2003 to 2020, shedding light on this curiously synergistic relationship.

Upon analyzing the data, it became evident that the number of civil engineers in Kentucky exhibits a striking pattern that aligns with the ebb and flow of Republican votes for Senators in the state. Astonishingly, our results suggest that there might be an uncharted humorist's bridge between infrastructure development and political leanings in the Commonwealth.

Furthermore, the statistical significance of our findings propels us to bridge the gap between traditional political analysis and the often-overlooked realm of engineering influence. In essence, this study demonstrates that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, engineering prowess holds more weight than meets the eye, making it a "concrete" factor in electoral sway.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The surprising correlation between the number of civil engineers in Kentucky and Republican votes for Senators from Kentucky has elicited considerable scholarly interest and speculation. In "Kentucky Politics and Government: Do We Stand United?" by Smith, the authors find that Kentucky has a rich political history, but none of the historical records had "bridge"d the gap between engineering and political leanings quite like this unexpected correlation. This revelation marks a pivotal "turning point" in the understanding of electoral dynamics in the state.
As we delve deeper into the literature, we encounter "The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce" by McCloskey, which sheds light on the complex interplay between economic prosperity and values. However, our research uncovers a novel twist - the "bourgeois virtues" seem to intersect with civil engineering expertise and Republican votes in Kentucky, creating a "bridge" to understanding the nuanced landscape of electoral influence.
Moving beyond non-fiction literature, we stumble upon "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, a fictional novel extolling the virtues of individualism and innovation. Surprisingly, the novel’s themes resonate with the pillars of civil engineering, as if the author had meticulously crafted a "foundation" of reference for our study. Our findings highlight an unforeseen "atlas" between Rand's philosophical musings and the world of civil engineering, providing an unexpected "elevation" of the discourse at hand.
In a departure from traditional sources, we also took inspiration from less conventional sources for our literature review. One such source, "The Ultimate Guide to Reading CVS Receipts" by Anonymous, provided a surprisingly synergistic perspective on electoral dynamics and civil engineering. While the unconventional nature of the source raised some eyebrows, the insights gleaned from decoding grocery store receipts opened up a realm of absurd yet strangely relevant "checkout" from our quest to decipher this correlation.
When it comes to exploring the enigmatic relationship between civil engineering and Republican votes in Kentucky, it seems that the literature is brimming with unexpected connections, unexpected discoveries, and enough dad jokes to "bridge" every awkward silence.

[[RESULTS]]
The correlation analysis revealed a remarkably strong association between the number of civil engineers in Kentucky and the Republican votes for Senators from the state. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9834895 and an r-squared of 0.9672517, the relationship between these variables is as solid as a well-constructed bridge. It's quite clear that when it comes to electoral dynamics in Kentucky, civil engineering isn't just a "steel-y" occupation; it holds significant sway over political leanings.
Now, let's address the elephant in the room - or should I say, the "engineer in the room." It seems that civil engineers may be the unsung architects of political influence in the Bluegrass State. Who knew that the intricate designs of infrastructure could also shape the trajectory of political affiliations? I suppose in Kentucky, bridges aren't the only things connecting communities; they might also be connecting voters with their political preferences.
Our scatterplot (Fig. 1) beautifully illustrates the strong positive correlation between the number of civil engineers in Kentucky and the Republican votes for Senators. The data points form a pattern so snug, it's as if each vote is carefully engineered to align with the presence of civil engineering expertise. It's almost as if the voters are saying, "We like our politics like we like our civil engineers - well-structured and firmly grounded!"
In conclusion, our findings provide compelling evidence that in the Kentucky political landscape, the number of civil engineers wields considerable influence over electoral outcomes. This unexpectedly robust correlation not only illuminates the often-overlooked role of engineering in shaping political dynamics but also adds an element of whimsy to the traditionally serious realm of electoral analysis. After all, who wouldn't appreciate a little "concrete" evidence that engineers are indeed the "foundation" of political sway in the Commonwealth?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our results, bolstered by the robust correlation coefficient and statistical significance, lend empirical support to prior research. The unexpected convergence of civil engineering and Republican votes in Kentucky has captured the imagination of scholars and practitioners alike, and our findings align with the pioneering work of Smith in "Kentucky Politics and Government: Do We Stand United?" The revelation of this distinct correlation is a "bridge" that solidifies the scholarly understanding of electoral dynamics in the Bluegrass State.

It seems that the erstwhile "atlas" from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" has found a tangible manifestation in our findings, as civil engineering emerges as a "steel-y" pillar of influence in the Kentucky political landscape. As McCloskey's "The Bourgeois Virtues" resonates with the virtues of economic prosperity and values, our study unearths an unforeseen intersection where the "bourgeois virtues" of political leaning appear to be underpinned by the skilled artistry of civil engineering. One might even say that the "elevation" of our understanding of political influence in Kentucky has been fortified by the unexpected "foundation" of civil engineering expertise.

Moving forward, it is imperative to acknowledge the role of humor and whimsy in interdisciplinary research. Our study, with its surprising correlations and unexpected connections, stands as a testament to the capacity of science to elicit amusement and a sense of wonder. As the literature abounds with unexpected connections and dad jokes, it seems that our research has ingeniously "bridged" the gap between the serious pursuit of knowledge and the joy of discovery. It's almost as if our results are saying, "Vote for civil engineers - they'll always deliver on their promises!"

In essence, this burgeoning field of research, with its propensity for unexpected twists and intellectual puns, opens up a realm of inquiry that is as intellectually stimulating as it is lighthearted. After all, in the grand scheme of things, what is science without a good dose of wit and humor? Perhaps in the case of our study, there's a new axiom in the realm of electoral analysis - when in doubt, consult the Civil Engineers' Soothsayers for Electoral Predictions (CESEP). Who knows, they might just engineer your next political success!


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in Kentucky and The number of civil engineers in Kentucky. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
Bridging the Gap: The Republican Vote in Kentucky and the Engineering Equation

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the surprising correlation between the number of civil engineers in the Bluegrass State and the Republican votes for Senators from Kentucky. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team embarked on the quest to unravel this enigmatic connection. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9834895 and p < 0.01 from 2003 to 2020, shedding light on this curiously synergistic relationship.

Upon analyzing the data, it became evident that the number of civil engineers in Kentucky exhibits a striking pattern that aligns with the ebb and flow of Republican votes for Senators in the state. Astonishingly, our results suggest that there might be an uncharted humorist's bridge between infrastructure development and political leanings in the Commonwealth.

Furthermore, the statistical significance of our findings propels us to bridge the gap between traditional political analysis and the often-overlooked realm of engineering influence. In essence, this study demonstrates that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, engineering prowess holds more weight than meets the eye, making it a "concrete" factor in electoral sway.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the realm of political analysis and electoral dynamics, it is not uncommon to uncover unexpected connections and correlations. However, when our research team stumbled upon the notable link between the Republican vote for Senators in Kentucky and the number of civil engineers in the state, we were "steel" shocked at the magnitude of this relationship. Could it be that the foundations of political support are built upon the pillars of civil engineering expertise?
As we delved into this enigmatic connection, we couldn't help but marvel at the "bridging" of these two seemingly disparate domains. It was a pun-derful journey to unravel the puzzling relationship between political affiliation and engineering occupation. After all, who would have thought that the blueprints for election success might lie in the hands of civil engineers?
Our study is guided by the objective of unraveling this compelling correlation and shedding light on the underlying mechanisms at play. The data we have meticulously analyzed puts forth an unprecedented hypothesis - that the Republican vote in Kentucky is not just a matter of ballot counts, but also a "civil" matter, deeply intertwined with the engineering equation at the heart of the Bluegrass State.
As we ventured into this uncharted territory at the intersection of political science and engineering, we couldn't help but think that this connection truly "suspends" disbelief. One might even say it is a "towering" achievement to uncover such a sturdy relationship between the number of civil engineers and political leanings in Kentucky. After all, it seems that the "votes" and "joists" of the state are more connected than we initially perceived.
In the words of a wise civil engineer, "I like big data and I cannot lie," and so are our sentiments about the depth of this analysis. Our findings not only defy conventional wisdom but also open the floodgates of speculation about the forces shaping electoral dynamics. It seems that in the political landscape of Kentucky, the power of engineering prowess is not merely a "suspension" of disbelief but an integral part of the "structure" of electoral success.
Thus, through this study, we aim to establish a "bridge" between the worlds of political analysis and engineering influence, offering a novel perspective that adds depth to our understanding of the factors shaping electoral outcomes. In essence, it seems that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, the foundation of civil engineering might just be the "beam" that supports electoral sway in the Commonwealth.

[[RESULTS]]
The correlation analysis revealed a remarkably strong association between the number of civil engineers in Kentucky and the Republican votes for Senators from the state. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9834895 and an r-squared of 0.9672517, the relationship between these variables is as solid as a well-constructed bridge. It's quite clear that when it comes to electoral dynamics in Kentucky, civil engineering isn't just a "steel-y" occupation; it holds significant sway over political leanings.
Now, let's address the elephant in the room - or should I say, the "engineer in the room." It seems that civil engineers may be the unsung architects of political influence in the Bluegrass State. Who knew that the intricate designs of infrastructure could also shape the trajectory of political affiliations? I suppose in Kentucky, bridges aren't the only things connecting communities; they might also be connecting voters with their political preferences.
Our scatterplot (Fig. 1) beautifully illustrates the strong positive correlation between the number of civil engineers in Kentucky and the Republican votes for Senators. The data points form a pattern so snug, it's as if each vote is carefully engineered to align with the presence of civil engineering expertise. It's almost as if the voters are saying, "We like our politics like we like our civil engineers - well-structured and firmly grounded!"
In conclusion, our findings provide compelling evidence that in the Kentucky political landscape, the number of civil engineers wields considerable influence over electoral outcomes. This unexpectedly robust correlation not only illuminates the often-overlooked role of engineering in shaping political dynamics but also adds an element of whimsy to the traditionally serious realm of electoral analysis. After all, who wouldn't appreciate a little "concrete" evidence that engineers are indeed the "foundation" of political sway in the Commonwealth?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has cemented a solid connection between the number of civil engineers in Kentucky and the Republican votes for Senators, revealing a correlation coefficient as sturdy as the "bluegrass" under the Kentucky sun. Our findings have uncovered a bridge between civil engineering and political leanings that is both statistically significant and remarkably pun-derful. It seems that in the realm of Kentucky politics, civil engineering isn't just about "laying the groundwork" – it's also about shaping the foundations of electoral dynamics!

Our study suggests that civil engineers in Kentucky are indeed "building" more than just infrastructure; they are constructing a significant influence over political affiliations. Like a well-structured bridge, the correlation between civil engineering expertise and Republican votes for Senators in Kentucky stands tall, leaving no "girder" of doubt about the engineering equation's impact on electoral sway.

It's safe to say that our research has "engineered" quite the revelation, shedding light on the unexpected synergy between civil engineering and political support. Our findings provide a "steel-y" resolve to the question at hand, affirming that the Bluegrass State's political landscape is not only shaped by ballots but also by the "concrete" presence of civil engineering prowess.

As we close this chapter of research, we firmly assert that no further studies are needed in this area. The bridge between civil engineering and the Republican vote in Kentucky has been thoroughly "engineered" by our findings, leaving no "arch" for doubt. It's time to "scaffold" any further investigations and instead "steel" ourselves for a future where the influence of civil engineers in Kentucky politics is seen as a "pillar" of understanding electoral dynamics. After all, when it comes to this curious correlation, there's no "bridge" over troubled water – our findings "support" the weight of this conclusion!


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 Bridging the Gap: The Republican Vote in Kentucky and the Engineering Equation. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Political Physics


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 Bridging the Gap: The Republican Vote in Kentucky and the Engineering Equation. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Political Analysis and Technical Innovation


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 Bridging the Gap: The Republican Vote in Kentucky and the Engineering Equation with an abstract of This study examines the surprising correlation between the number of civil engineers in the Bluegrass State and the Republican votes for Senators from Kentucky. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our research team embarked on the quest to unravel this enigmatic connection. Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9834895 and p < 0.01 from 2003 to 2020, shedding light on this curiously synergistic relationship.
Upon analyzing the data, it became evident that the number of civil engineers in Kentucky exhibits a striking pattern that aligns with the ebb and flow of Republican votes for Senators in the state. Astonishingly, our results suggest that there might be an uncharted humorist's bridge between infrastructure development and political leanings in the Commonwealth.
Furthermore, the statistical significance of our findings propels us to bridge the gap between traditional political analysis and the often-overlooked realm of engineering influence. In essence, this study demonstrates that when it comes to the Republican vote in Kentucky, engineering prowess holds more weight than meets the eye, making it a "concrete" factor in electoral sway.

ChatGPT:

Republican vote, Kentucky, civil engineers, correlation, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Bureau of Labor Statistics, correlation coefficient, political leanings, infrastructure development, engineering influence, electoral sway

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

The number of civil engineers in Kentucky
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of civil engineers in Kentucky
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of civil engineers in Kentucky

Correlation r = 0.9834895 (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 = 0.9672517 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 96.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of civil engineers in Kentucky) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Kentucky) over the 6 years from 2003 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.000407. 0.0004066425491410676600000000
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 0.0407% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 2,459 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.

[ 0.85, 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.
200420082010201420162020
Votes for Republican Senators in Kentucky (Percentage of votes)50.656852.965655.726656.188157.273357.765
The number of civil engineers in Kentucky (Civil Engineers)183022302770276032303070




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([50.6568,52.9656,55.7266,56.1881,57.2733,57.765,])
array_2 = np.array([1830,2230,2770,2760,3230,3070,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Kentucky"
array_2_name = "The number of civil engineers in Kentucky"

# 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 dedication to rating warms my heart!


Correlation ID: 5547 · Black Variable ID: 26392 · Red Variable ID: 8380
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0