about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,596 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Annual US household spending on processed fruits and the second variable is Votes for Republican Senators in New Mexico.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

This is a clear case of fruit-based gerrymandering. As households spent more on processed fruits, they were peeling quite peachy. This created a ripple effect, leading to a bananarama of support for the Republican Senators. It seems like the state was truly a-pear of their policies.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ A meme ] Generate an image of a line graph showing annual US household spending on processed fruits, with peach and banana icons along the rising line. In the background, display a map of New Mexico, with little Republican elephant icons popping up in areas with higher spending on processed fruits. This scene should illustrate a comical connection between fruit spending and support for Republican Senators, creating a sense that the state is "a-pear" of their policies. Keep the visual depiction simple with no words or speech bubbles. 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: Annual US household spending on processed fruits and Votes for Republican Senators in New Mexico. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: A Discovery magazine cover image a meme Photorealism a funny image macro A scene from Skyrim
ChatGPT: A meme

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 Annual US household spending on processed fruits and Votes for Republican Senators in New Mexico, in the following situation: This is a clear case of fruit-based gerrymandering. As households spent more on processed fruits, they were peeling quite peachy. This created a ripple effect, leading to a bananarama of support for the Republican Senators. It seems like the state was truly a-pear of their policies.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In the scene, we see a line graph showing an increase in annual US household spending on processed fruits, with peach and banana icons along the rising line. In the background, a map of New Mexico is displayed, with little Republican elephant icons popping up in areas with higher spending on processed fruits. The scene illustrates a connection between fruit spending and support for Republican Senators, creating the sense that the state is "a-pear" of their policies.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A meme ] and depicting this scene: In the scene, we see a line graph showing an increase in annual US household spending on processed fruits, with peach and banana icons along the rising line. In the background, a map of New Mexico is displayed, with little Republican elephant icons popping up in areas with higher spending on processed fruits. The scene illustrates a connection between fruit spending and support for Republican Senators, creating the sense that the state is "a-pear" of their policies. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ A meme ] Generate an image of a line graph showing annual US household spending on processed fruits, with peach and banana icons along the rising line. In the background, display a map of New Mexico, with little Republican elephant icons popping up in areas with higher spending on processed fruits. This scene should illustrate a comical connection between fruit spending and support for Republican Senators, creating a sense that the state is "a-pear" of their policies. Keep the visual depiction simple with no words or speech bubbles.

*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 Annual US household spending on processed fruits caused Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

The Journal of Fruitful Politics

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 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 Annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 and p < 0.05 for 2000 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]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

The intersection of household spending on processed fruits and political preferences has long puzzled researchers and pundits alike. In this study, we delve into the curious correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. Our data draws from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, spanning the years 2000 to 2020.

Employing rigorous statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 and a p-value less than 0.05, affirming the presence of a substantial relationship between these seemingly disparate elements. With each increase in processed fruit spending, there was a corresponding uptick in Republican votes, prompting the question, "Are processed fruits the secret to winning over constituents, or simply a coincidental trend ripe for investigation?"

But hey, when life gives you lemons, make statistical lemonade, right? Our findings lay the foundation for further explorations of the peculiar connection between dietary choices and political allegiances. This research, while may seem a-peeling, underscores the quirky dynamics that underpin the democratic process.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. 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]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

The intersection of household spending on processed fruits and political preferences has long puzzled researchers and pundits alike. In this study, we delve into the curious correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. Our data draws from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, spanning the years 2000 to 2020.

Employing rigorous statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 and a p-value less than 0.05, affirming the presence of a substantial relationship between these seemingly disparate elements. With each increase in processed fruit spending, there was a corresponding uptick in Republican votes, prompting the question, "Are processed fruits the secret to winning over constituents, or simply a coincidental trend ripe for investigation?"

But hey, when life gives you lemons, make statistical lemonade, right? Our findings lay the foundation for further explorations of the peculiar connection between dietary choices and political allegiances. This research, while may seem a-peeling, underscores the quirky dynamics that underpin the democratic process.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Ah, the curious world of statistical analysis, where even the most unexpected correlations can emerge like a pun in a data-filled report. In this quirky quest for understanding, we venture into the realm of pulpy politics – a domain where processed fruits and political preferences merge in a statistical dance that leaves us all wondering, "What's the peel deal?"

Imagine a scenario where a discussion on politics and dietary habits converges, prompting scholars to dig deeper into the nexus of nosh and the ballot box. It's like blending a smoothie of statistics and political intrigue - a flavorful fusion where every data point has its own zesty twist.

So, what's the zest of this study, you ask? Well, we set out to untangle the relationship between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. It's not every day that research delves into the correlation between apples and ballots, but as they say, "an apple a day keeps the political apathy away."

As we crunch the numbers and sip our fruit smoothies, we embark on a journey through the enticing garden of statistics, looking for seeds of truth in the fertile soil of data. It's a bit like playing the lottery, but with regression models and confidence intervals instead of lucky numbers.

But before we dive into the juicy details, let's not lose sight of the core principle of this investigation – to peel back the layers of political phenomena and understand the mango-nitude of its influences. For in the world of research, every headline-grabbing finding begins with a modest question and a whole lot of data crunching.

With that said, let's slice through the statistical grapevine and explore how the humble processed fruit may hold the key to political persuasion in the Land of Enchantment. After all, in the grand orchard of research, sometimes the most fruitful discoveries stem from the most unexpected unions.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. 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]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

The intersection of household spending on processed fruits and political preferences has long puzzled researchers and pundits alike. In this study, we delve into the curious correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. Our data draws from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, spanning the years 2000 to 2020.

Employing rigorous statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 and a p-value less than 0.05, affirming the presence of a substantial relationship between these seemingly disparate elements. With each increase in processed fruit spending, there was a corresponding uptick in Republican votes, prompting the question, "Are processed fruits the secret to winning over constituents, or simply a coincidental trend ripe for investigation?"

But hey, when life gives you lemons, make statistical lemonade, right? Our findings lay the foundation for further explorations of the peculiar connection between dietary choices and political allegiances. This research, while may seem a-peeling, underscores the quirky dynamics that underpin the democratic process.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the curious world of statistical analysis, where even the most unexpected correlations can emerge like a pun in a data-filled report. In this quirky quest for understanding, we venture into the realm of pulpy politics – a domain where processed fruits and political preferences merge in a statistical dance that leaves us all wondering, "What's the peel deal?"
Imagine a scenario where a discussion on politics and dietary habits converges, prompting scholars to dig deeper into the nexus of nosh and the ballot box. It's like blending a smoothie of statistics and political intrigue - a flavorful fusion where every data point has its own zesty twist.
So, what's the zest of this study, you ask? Well, we set out to untangle the relationship between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. It's not every day that research delves into the correlation between apples and ballots, but as they say, "an apple a day keeps the political apathy away."
As we crunch the numbers and sip our fruit smoothies, we embark on a journey through the enticing garden of statistics, looking for seeds of truth in the fertile soil of data. It's a bit like playing the lottery, but with regression models and confidence intervals instead of lucky numbers.
But before we dive into the juicy details, let's not lose sight of the core principle of this investigation – to peel back the layers of political phenomena and understand the mango-nitude of its influences. For in the world of research, every headline-grabbing finding begins with a modest question and a whole lot of data crunching.
With that said, let's slice through the statistical grapevine and explore how the humble processed fruit may hold the key to political persuasion in the Land of Enchantment. After all, in the grand orchard of research, sometimes the most fruitful discoveries stem from the most unexpected unions.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

A comprehensive investigation into the curious correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico demands a thorough scrutiny of existing literature. Fortunately, the body of research on this enigmatic connection is as varied and colorful as a fruit basket, offering an array of intriguing perspectives and insights.

In "Fruitful Alliances: Exploring the Intersection of Dietary Preferences and Political Affiliation," Smith and Doe delve into the dietary habits of constituents and their potential impact on political choices. Their findings illuminate the potential influence of dietary preferences on voting behavior, shedding light on the unforeseen ways in which fruit consumption may sway political allegiances.

Speaking of unforeseen, have you heard the joke about the orange who ran for office? Unfortunately, it wasn't very appealing to voters, they found it a bit too tangy.

Turning to the realm of consumer behavior, Jones and Smith's study "Consumer Choices: From Aisle to Aisle" provides valuable insights into the factors influencing consumer spending on processed fruits. Their analysis opens a window into the intricate dance between consumer preferences and purchasing patterns, offering valuable context for understanding the dynamics at play in the correlation under scrutiny.

Now, literature wouldn't be complete without a few book recommendations, right? If you're looking to expand your literary repertoire, "The Mango Manifesto: A Political Thriller" and "Citrus and Senators: A Tale of Fruitful Politics" offer fictional narratives that, while not directly addressing our research question, provide an interesting perspective on the fusion of fruits and politics.

But enough about literature – let's talk unconventional research methods. When conducting this literature review, the authors stumbled upon an unexpected treasure trove of insights in the most unlikely of places – CVS receipts. Yes, you heard that right. From impulse buys of bananas to bulk purchases of canned peaches, every transaction slip seemed to whisper its own fruity tales of political leanings.

Now, before we venture too far into the whimsical world of supermarket receipts, it's time to reorient our focus towards the empirical foundation of this inquiry. The intertwining of processed fruits and political preferences awaits further unraveling, beckoning us into a realm where the persistent question lingers: how deep do the roots of this correlation truly extend?

Continuing down this curious path, our literature review offers a tantalizing appetizer for the ripe inquiries that lay ahead. Just like a fruit salad of knowledge, it may be a bit eclectic, but it's bound to pique your interest and leave you hungry for more.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. 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 Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse . You used data from 2000 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]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

The intersection of household spending on processed fruits and political preferences has long puzzled researchers and pundits alike. In this study, we delve into the curious correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. Our data draws from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, spanning the years 2000 to 2020.

Employing rigorous statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 and a p-value less than 0.05, affirming the presence of a substantial relationship between these seemingly disparate elements. With each increase in processed fruit spending, there was a corresponding uptick in Republican votes, prompting the question, "Are processed fruits the secret to winning over constituents, or simply a coincidental trend ripe for investigation?"

But hey, when life gives you lemons, make statistical lemonade, right? Our findings lay the foundation for further explorations of the peculiar connection between dietary choices and political allegiances. This research, while may seem a-peeling, underscores the quirky dynamics that underpin the democratic process.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the curious world of statistical analysis, where even the most unexpected correlations can emerge like a pun in a data-filled report. In this quirky quest for understanding, we venture into the realm of pulpy politics – a domain where processed fruits and political preferences merge in a statistical dance that leaves us all wondering, "What's the peel deal?"
Imagine a scenario where a discussion on politics and dietary habits converges, prompting scholars to dig deeper into the nexus of nosh and the ballot box. It's like blending a smoothie of statistics and political intrigue - a flavorful fusion where every data point has its own zesty twist.
So, what's the zest of this study, you ask? Well, we set out to untangle the relationship between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. It's not every day that research delves into the correlation between apples and ballots, but as they say, "an apple a day keeps the political apathy away."
As we crunch the numbers and sip our fruit smoothies, we embark on a journey through the enticing garden of statistics, looking for seeds of truth in the fertile soil of data. It's a bit like playing the lottery, but with regression models and confidence intervals instead of lucky numbers.
But before we dive into the juicy details, let's not lose sight of the core principle of this investigation – to peel back the layers of political phenomena and understand the mango-nitude of its influences. For in the world of research, every headline-grabbing finding begins with a modest question and a whole lot of data crunching.
With that said, let's slice through the statistical grapevine and explore how the humble processed fruit may hold the key to political persuasion in the Land of Enchantment. After all, in the grand orchard of research, sometimes the most fruitful discoveries stem from the most unexpected unions.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To delve into the tangled web of processed fruits and political proclivities, our research team embarked on an odyssey through the labyrinthine halls of statistical analysis, armed with bushels of data and a healthy dose of humor - after all, when dealing with "fruitful" topics, one cannot resist infusing a bit of levity.

First, we carefully harvested data on annual US household spending on processed fruits from the illustrious Bureau of Labor Statistics, ripe with information dating from 2000 to 2020. The statistics flowed like a smoothie, blending seamlessly into our analytical concoction.

Next, we plucked pertinent electoral data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, selecting the historical Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico as the ripest apples for our study. Of course, we ensured that the data was free from rot and corruption – after all, we wouldn't want to squeeze any sour or fraudulent elements into our scholarly cider.

Armed with a bushel of statistics, our team employed a smorgasbord of statistical methods, including the venerable Pearson correlation coefficient and a multifaceted regression analysis. We strived to ensure our methods were as sturdy as the trunk of an apple tree, capable of withstanding the whims of chance and the gusts of confounding variables.

Now, you might be wondering, "Why New Mexico? Are the chiles not spicy enough to captivate the electorate?" Well, we chose the Land of Enchantment due to its intriguing blend of political intricacies and culinary curiosities, aiming to unearth whether processed fruits held the seeds of political preference in this unique state.

As we sifted through the data orchard, we tended to the intricacies of statistical significance, mindful of the potential biases that could ferment in the brew of our analysis. After all, in the world of research, one must be as vigilant as a watchful farmer, safeguarding the crop from the ravages of false positives and spurious relationships.

With the statistical stars aligned, we uncovered a correlation coefficient reminiscent of a banana – 0.8246458, signaling a robust relationship between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. Our p-value gleamed like a freshly polished apple, twinkling at us with a significance level less than 0.05, affirming the presence of a substantial connection.

Despite the fruit-centric nature of our investigation, we remained as objective as a precision scale, carefully weighing the evidence and avoiding the temptation to cherry-pick our findings. As the old saying goes, "In the world of research, one must be as impartial as a judge – or at least as impartial as the grocer selecting produce for the fruit stand."

Our expedition through the garden of statistical inquiry yielded an unexpected harvest of insights, ushering in a new appreciation for the interplay between dietary habits and political leanings. As we concluded our analysis and savored the fruits of our labor, we couldn't help but wonder – could processed fruits be the hidden ingredient in burgeoning political success, or are we simply witnessing a serendipitous statistical dalliance? Nonetheless, our findings provide an unexpected twist in the tale of political preferences, reminding us that in the world of research, even the most unconventional pairings can yield tantalizing truths.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. 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 Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse .

For the time period 2000 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8246458, r-squared of 0.6800407, and p < 0.05.

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

The intersection of household spending on processed fruits and political preferences has long puzzled researchers and pundits alike. In this study, we delve into the curious correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. Our data draws from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, spanning the years 2000 to 2020.

Employing rigorous statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 and a p-value less than 0.05, affirming the presence of a substantial relationship between these seemingly disparate elements. With each increase in processed fruit spending, there was a corresponding uptick in Republican votes, prompting the question, "Are processed fruits the secret to winning over constituents, or simply a coincidental trend ripe for investigation?"

But hey, when life gives you lemons, make statistical lemonade, right? Our findings lay the foundation for further explorations of the peculiar connection between dietary choices and political allegiances. This research, while may seem a-peeling, underscores the quirky dynamics that underpin the democratic process.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Ah, the curious world of statistical analysis, where even the most unexpected correlations can emerge like a pun in a data-filled report. In this quirky quest for understanding, we venture into the realm of pulpy politics – a domain where processed fruits and political preferences merge in a statistical dance that leaves us all wondering, "What's the peel deal?"
Imagine a scenario where a discussion on politics and dietary habits converges, prompting scholars to dig deeper into the nexus of nosh and the ballot box. It's like blending a smoothie of statistics and political intrigue - a flavorful fusion where every data point has its own zesty twist.
So, what's the zest of this study, you ask? Well, we set out to untangle the relationship between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. It's not every day that research delves into the correlation between apples and ballots, but as they say, "an apple a day keeps the political apathy away."
As we crunch the numbers and sip our fruit smoothies, we embark on a journey through the enticing garden of statistics, looking for seeds of truth in the fertile soil of data. It's a bit like playing the lottery, but with regression models and confidence intervals instead of lucky numbers.
But before we dive into the juicy details, let's not lose sight of the core principle of this investigation – to peel back the layers of political phenomena and understand the mango-nitude of its influences. For in the world of research, every headline-grabbing finding begins with a modest question and a whole lot of data crunching.
With that said, let's slice through the statistical grapevine and explore how the humble processed fruit may hold the key to political persuasion in the Land of Enchantment. After all, in the grand orchard of research, sometimes the most fruitful discoveries stem from the most unexpected unions.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Upon scrutinizing the data with the precision of a finely honed chef slicing through a ripe peach, we unearthed a robust correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. The correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 speaks volumes, echoing through the hallowed halls of statistical significance with the resonance of a well-timed punchline.

It seems that as processed fruit spending soared, so did the number of Republican votes, giving new meaning to the phrase "an apple a day keeps the Democrats away." This unexpected correlation tickles the taste buds of our statistical curiosity and leaves us pondering the fruitful intersection of dietary choices and political affiliations.

Fig. 1 showcases the scatterplot in all its glory, revealing a strong linear relationship between the two variables. It's a visual feast for the eyes, much like a sumptuous fruit platter at a political gala – a delightful blend of data points and political proclivities.

Our analysis also yielded a r-squared value of 0.6800407, indicating that approximately 68% of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico can be explained by the annual household spending on processed fruits. That's a statistical fruit-basket worth savoring, or perhaps, correlating.

The p-value of less than 0.05 further strengthens the case for a meaningful correlation, leaving skeptics with little room to cherry-pick their arguments. It's clear that the association between processed fruit expenditure and political preferences in New Mexico is more than just a statistical fluke – it's the real pomelo, ripe for further intellectual consumption.

In the kaleidoscope of research, our findings add a splash of color to the canvas of political analysis, reminding us that in the labyrinth of human behavior, even the most unexpected patterns can be found. After all, as researchers, we must remain open to the possibility that the political landscape is, well, a bit bananas.

The correlation we uncovered raises intriguing questions and sets the stage for future investigations into the nuanced ways in which dietary patterns intertwine with political leanings. As we wrap up this segment of our research, we couldn't resist one last pun: "May the fruits of our labor continue to bear peel-ty of surprises and insights!"

Stay tuned for the implications and discussions section, where we delve further into the implications of these fruity findings and peel back the layers of meaning behind our statistical discovery. It's a juicy journey through the garden of science, and we're just getting started.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. 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]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

The intersection of household spending on processed fruits and political preferences has long puzzled researchers and pundits alike. In this study, we delve into the curious correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. Our data draws from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, spanning the years 2000 to 2020.

Employing rigorous statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 and a p-value less than 0.05, affirming the presence of a substantial relationship between these seemingly disparate elements. With each increase in processed fruit spending, there was a corresponding uptick in Republican votes, prompting the question, "Are processed fruits the secret to winning over constituents, or simply a coincidental trend ripe for investigation?"

But hey, when life gives you lemons, make statistical lemonade, right? Our findings lay the foundation for further explorations of the peculiar connection between dietary choices and political allegiances. This research, while may seem a-peeling, underscores the quirky dynamics that underpin the democratic process.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
A comprehensive investigation into the curious correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico demands a thorough scrutiny of existing literature. Fortunately, the body of research on this enigmatic connection is as varied and colorful as a fruit basket, offering an array of intriguing perspectives and insights.
In "Fruitful Alliances: Exploring the Intersection of Dietary Preferences and Political Affiliation," Smith and Doe delve into the dietary habits of constituents and their potential impact on political choices. Their findings illuminate the potential influence of dietary preferences on voting behavior, shedding light on the unforeseen ways in which fruit consumption may sway political allegiances.
Speaking of unforeseen, have you heard the joke about the orange who ran for office? Unfortunately, it wasn't very appealing to voters, they found it a bit too tangy.
Turning to the realm of consumer behavior, Jones and Smith's study "Consumer Choices: From Aisle to Aisle" provides valuable insights into the factors influencing consumer spending on processed fruits. Their analysis opens a window into the intricate dance between consumer preferences and purchasing patterns, offering valuable context for understanding the dynamics at play in the correlation under scrutiny.
Now, literature wouldn't be complete without a few book recommendations, right? If you're looking to expand your literary repertoire, "The Mango Manifesto: A Political Thriller" and "Citrus and Senators: A Tale of Fruitful Politics" offer fictional narratives that, while not directly addressing our research question, provide an interesting perspective on the fusion of fruits and politics.
But enough about literature – let's talk unconventional research methods. When conducting this literature review, the authors stumbled upon an unexpected treasure trove of insights in the most unlikely of places – CVS receipts. Yes, you heard that right. From impulse buys of bananas to bulk purchases of canned peaches, every transaction slip seemed to whisper its own fruity tales of political leanings.
Now, before we venture too far into the whimsical world of supermarket receipts, it's time to reorient our focus towards the empirical foundation of this inquiry. The intertwining of processed fruits and political preferences awaits further unraveling, beckoning us into a realm where the persistent question lingers: how deep do the roots of this correlation truly extend?
Continuing down this curious path, our literature review offers a tantalizing appetizer for the ripe inquiries that lay ahead. Just like a fruit salad of knowledge, it may be a bit eclectic, but it's bound to pique your interest and leave you hungry for more.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon scrutinizing the data with the precision of a finely honed chef slicing through a ripe peach, we unearthed a robust correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. The correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 speaks volumes, echoing through the hallowed halls of statistical significance with the resonance of a well-timed punchline.
It seems that as processed fruit spending soared, so did the number of Republican votes, giving new meaning to the phrase "an apple a day keeps the Democrats away." This unexpected correlation tickles the taste buds of our statistical curiosity and leaves us pondering the fruitful intersection of dietary choices and political affiliations.
Fig. 1 showcases the scatterplot in all its glory, revealing a strong linear relationship between the two variables. It's a visual feast for the eyes, much like a sumptuous fruit platter at a political gala – a delightful blend of data points and political proclivities.
Our analysis also yielded a r-squared value of 0.6800407, indicating that approximately 68% of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico can be explained by the annual household spending on processed fruits. That's a statistical fruit-basket worth savoring, or perhaps, correlating.
The p-value of less than 0.05 further strengthens the case for a meaningful correlation, leaving skeptics with little room to cherry-pick their arguments. It's clear that the association between processed fruit expenditure and political preferences in New Mexico is more than just a statistical fluke – it's the real pomelo, ripe for further intellectual consumption.
In the kaleidoscope of research, our findings add a splash of color to the canvas of political analysis, reminding us that in the labyrinth of human behavior, even the most unexpected patterns can be found. After all, as researchers, we must remain open to the possibility that the political landscape is, well, a bit bananas.
The correlation we uncovered raises intriguing questions and sets the stage for future investigations into the nuanced ways in which dietary patterns intertwine with political leanings. As we wrap up this segment of our research, we couldn't resist one last pun: "May the fruits of our labor continue to bear peel-ty of surprises and insights!"
Stay tuned for the implications and discussions section, where we delve further into the implications of these fruity findings and peel back the layers of meaning behind our statistical discovery. It's a juicy journey through the garden of science, and we're just getting started.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings not only corroborate prior research on dietary preferences influencing political behavior but also lend validity to the previously overlooked nuances of fruit-fueled political leanings. The correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico is as clear as a perfectly peeled clementine. This solidifies the notion that as constituents reach for the canned peaches, they may also be reaching for the ballot box in favor of the Grand Old Party.

We peeled back the layers of statistical analysis and uncovered a connection ripe for further exploration. It's as if the country's political landscape is a giant fruit salad, and our research has added an unexpected twist – like finding a strawberry in a bowl of grapes. Our study's robust correlation coefficient, akin to the sweetness of a perfectly ripened pear, tells a story of the unexpected marriage of dietary choices and political affiliations.

The literature review, while seemingly lighthearted, subtly nudged us towards the empirical revelation that voting tendencies may indeed be influenced by what's in the pantry – or more specifically, the processed fruit section. Just as a banana gets sweeter with time, our understanding of this correlation matured as we delved into the statistical nitty-gritty.

Our results, with their bountiful implications, have peeled back the skin of conventional wisdom, revealing a crunchy truth at the core of political appetites. As we savor the statistical aroma of our findings, we're reminded of the classic dad joke: "Why did the fruit go to the Senate? It wanted to pass a new *peach* of legislation!"

The statistical robustness of our findings, along with prior research, suggests that the often-dismissed world of dietary behaviors may hold fruity secrets that sway political allegiances. Just as a pineapple's prickly exterior hides a juicy core, our research has uncovered a sweet relationship between seemingly unrelated variables.

With our findings as a fruitful foundation, we call for further research into the interplay of processed fruit spending and political preferences. It's not just food for thought; it's a buffet of statistical curiosities and political insights. This line of inquiry has fostered a deeper appreciation for the subtle influence of dietary choices on political behaviors. After all, in the scientific orchard of correlation, even the unlikeliest fruit pairings yield surprising results.

And speaking of unexpected pairings, we've shown that the world of politics and the realm of fruit consumption have more in common than meets the eye. It's a statistical fusion that will leave researchers and politicians pondering the intersection of dietary habits and voting allegiances. As we digest the implications of our research, we're left with one lingering question: "Just how deep do these fruity roots of influence truly extend?"


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 Annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. 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]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

[[ABSTRACT]]
Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico

The intersection of household spending on processed fruits and political preferences has long puzzled researchers and pundits alike. In this study, we delve into the curious correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. Our data draws from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, spanning the years 2000 to 2020.

Employing rigorous statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 and a p-value less than 0.05, affirming the presence of a substantial relationship between these seemingly disparate elements. With each increase in processed fruit spending, there was a corresponding uptick in Republican votes, prompting the question, "Are processed fruits the secret to winning over constituents, or simply a coincidental trend ripe for investigation?"

But hey, when life gives you lemons, make statistical lemonade, right? Our findings lay the foundation for further explorations of the peculiar connection between dietary choices and political allegiances. This research, while may seem a-peeling, underscores the quirky dynamics that underpin the democratic process.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Ah, the curious world of statistical analysis, where even the most unexpected correlations can emerge like a pun in a data-filled report. In this quirky quest for understanding, we venture into the realm of pulpy politics – a domain where processed fruits and political preferences merge in a statistical dance that leaves us all wondering, "What's the peel deal?"
Imagine a scenario where a discussion on politics and dietary habits converges, prompting scholars to dig deeper into the nexus of nosh and the ballot box. It's like blending a smoothie of statistics and political intrigue - a flavorful fusion where every data point has its own zesty twist.
So, what's the zest of this study, you ask? Well, we set out to untangle the relationship between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. It's not every day that research delves into the correlation between apples and ballots, but as they say, "an apple a day keeps the political apathy away."
As we crunch the numbers and sip our fruit smoothies, we embark on a journey through the enticing garden of statistics, looking for seeds of truth in the fertile soil of data. It's a bit like playing the lottery, but with regression models and confidence intervals instead of lucky numbers.
But before we dive into the juicy details, let's not lose sight of the core principle of this investigation – to peel back the layers of political phenomena and understand the mango-nitude of its influences. For in the world of research, every headline-grabbing finding begins with a modest question and a whole lot of data crunching.
With that said, let's slice through the statistical grapevine and explore how the humble processed fruit may hold the key to political persuasion in the Land of Enchantment. After all, in the grand orchard of research, sometimes the most fruitful discoveries stem from the most unexpected unions.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon scrutinizing the data with the precision of a finely honed chef slicing through a ripe peach, we unearthed a robust correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. The correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 speaks volumes, echoing through the hallowed halls of statistical significance with the resonance of a well-timed punchline.
It seems that as processed fruit spending soared, so did the number of Republican votes, giving new meaning to the phrase "an apple a day keeps the Democrats away." This unexpected correlation tickles the taste buds of our statistical curiosity and leaves us pondering the fruitful intersection of dietary choices and political affiliations.
Fig. 1 showcases the scatterplot in all its glory, revealing a strong linear relationship between the two variables. It's a visual feast for the eyes, much like a sumptuous fruit platter at a political gala – a delightful blend of data points and political proclivities.
Our analysis also yielded a r-squared value of 0.6800407, indicating that approximately 68% of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico can be explained by the annual household spending on processed fruits. That's a statistical fruit-basket worth savoring, or perhaps, correlating.
The p-value of less than 0.05 further strengthens the case for a meaningful correlation, leaving skeptics with little room to cherry-pick their arguments. It's clear that the association between processed fruit expenditure and political preferences in New Mexico is more than just a statistical fluke – it's the real pomelo, ripe for further intellectual consumption.
In the kaleidoscope of research, our findings add a splash of color to the canvas of political analysis, reminding us that in the labyrinth of human behavior, even the most unexpected patterns can be found. After all, as researchers, we must remain open to the possibility that the political landscape is, well, a bit bananas.
The correlation we uncovered raises intriguing questions and sets the stage for future investigations into the nuanced ways in which dietary patterns intertwine with political leanings. As we wrap up this segment of our research, we couldn't resist one last pun: "May the fruits of our labor continue to bear peel-ty of surprises and insights!"
Stay tuned for the implications and discussions section, where we delve further into the implications of these fruity findings and peel back the layers of meaning behind our statistical discovery. It's a juicy journey through the garden of science, and we're just getting started.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has laid bare the tangy and tantalizing relationship between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. Like a perfectly ripe fruit, our findings present a sweet yet unexpected taste of correlation, leaving pundits scratching their heads and wondering, "Aren't statistics a-peeling?"

The robust correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 and a p-value of less than 0.05 have peeled back the layers of statistical ambiguity, leaving us with a juicy understanding of the intriguing connection between dietary choices and political preferences in the Land of Enchantment.

It seems that as processed fruit spending rose, so did the Republican votes, prompting the question, "Is the ballot box the new fruit basket of democracy?" It's a fruitful thought, much like a well-crafted pun - potent, perplexing, and, dare we say, probiotic.

Our findings reinforce the notion that even in the realm of politics, statistical whimsy can yield unexpected truths. Fig. 1, a visual feast for the eyes, showcases the linear relationship with all the grandeur of a political gala's fruit platter - a reminder that in the garden of research, even the most unexpected unions can bear the ripest intellectual fruits.

As we wrap up this study, it's clear that the correlation between processed fruit expenditure and political preferences in New Mexico is no statistical fluke. It's the real pomelo, worthy of being savored and researched. In the world of academia, sometimes the most fruitful discoveries stem from the most unexpected unions, leaving us with a sense of scientific wonderment akin to finding a coconut in the apple bin.

In the spirit of scientific rigor and a well-timed dad joke, we declare that no more research is needed in this area. After all, with a correlation this fruit-tastic, why go squeezing for more?


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 Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Fruitful Politics


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 Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Fruitful Politics and Agricultural Governance


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 Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico with an abstract of Pulpy Politics: Probing the Pairing of Processed Fruits and Political Preferences in New Mexico
The intersection of household spending on processed fruits and political preferences has long puzzled researchers and pundits alike. In this study, we delve into the curious correlation between annual US household spending on processed fruits and Republican votes for Senators in New Mexico. Our data draws from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, spanning the years 2000 to 2020.
Employing rigorous statistical methods, we uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8246458 and a p-value less than 0.05, affirming the presence of a substantial relationship between these seemingly disparate elements. With each increase in processed fruit spending, there was a corresponding uptick in Republican votes, prompting the question, "Are processed fruits the secret to winning over constituents, or simply a coincidental trend ripe for investigation?"
But hey, when life gives you lemons, make statistical lemonade, right? Our findings lay the foundation for further explorations of the peculiar connection between dietary choices and political allegiances. This research, while may seem a-peeling, underscores the quirky dynamics that underpin the democratic process.

ChatGPT:

processed fruits, political preferences, household spending, correlation, statistical methods, Republican votes, Senators, New Mexico, Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, dietary choices, democratic process

*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

Annual US household spending on processed fruits
Detailed data title: Average annual household spend on processed fruits
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with Annual US household spending on processed fruits

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

Correlation r = 0.8246458 (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 = 0.6800407 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 68% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in New Mexico) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Annual US household spending on processed fruits) over the 8 years from 2000 through 2020.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.012. 0.0117693014550303580000000000
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 0.82 in 1.2% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 85 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 7 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 7 because we have two variables measured over a period of 8 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.29, 0.97 ] 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.
20002002200620082012201420182020
Annual US household spending on processed fruits (Household spend)115116109116114109114125
Votes for Republican Senators in New Mexico (Total votes)225517314193163826318522351260229097212813418483




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. Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.
  5. 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.
  6. 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([115,116,109,116,114,109,114,125,])
array_2 = np.array([225517,314193,163826,318522,351260,229097,212813,418483,])
array_1_name = "Annual US household spending on processed fruits"
array_2_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in New Mexico"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

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


Correlation ID: 5596 · Black Variable ID: 19899 · Red Variable ID: 26286
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0