Download png, svg
AI explanation
As US household spending on poultry decreases, there is a nationwide shortage of chicken costumes. This leads to a reduced number of poultry-themed Halloween parades in Vermont. As a result, the Republican Presidential candidate's campaign strategy of appealing to the chicken enthusiast demographic in Vermont falls flat, causing a decrease in votes. It seems the road to the White House was not as poultry-proof as they thought!
Model: dalle-3
Prompt: An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' but set in Vermont, with a noticeable shortage of chicken costumes for Halloween. People in the state are depicted as being unable to find poultry-themed costumes for parades and events. The Republican Presidential candidate's efforts to appeal to chicken enthusiasts in Vermont do not generate the expected support. This leads to a decrease in votes for the candidate in the state. 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: US household spending on poultry and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont. 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 funny image you would see on reddit An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' Glitch art Minimalism Low poly
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars'
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 US household spending on poultry and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont, in the following situation: As US household spending on poultry decreases, there is a nationwide shortage of chicken costumes. This leads to a reduced number of poultry-themed Halloween parades in Vermont. As a result, the Republican Presidential candidate's campaign strategy of appealing to the chicken enthusiast demographic in Vermont falls flat, causing a decrease in votes. It seems the road to the White House was not as poultry-proof as they thought!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Vermont, as US household spending on poultry decreases, there is a noticeable shortage of chicken costumes for Halloween. People in the state are unable to find poultry-themed costumes for parades and events. Consequently, the Republican Presidential candidate's efforts to appeal to chicken enthusiasts in Vermont do not generate the expected support. This leads to a decrease in votes for the candidate in 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: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' ] and depicting this scene: In Vermont, as US household spending on poultry decreases, there is a noticeable shortage of chicken costumes for Halloween. People in the state are unable to find poultry-themed costumes for parades and events. Consequently, the Republican Presidential candidate's efforts to appeal to chicken enthusiasts in Vermont do not generate the expected support. This leads to a decrease in votes for the candidate in the state. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' but set in Vermont, with a noticeable shortage of chicken costumes for Halloween. People in the state are depicted as being unable to find poultry-themed costumes for parades and events. The Republican Presidential candidate's efforts to appeal to chicken enthusiasts in Vermont do not generate the expected support. This leads to a decrease in votes for the candidate in the state.
*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.
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in US household spending on poultry caused Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont to decrease.\Make it sound serious until the end.
AI academic paper
 |
Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont The Journal of Poultry Politics Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on poultry and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, make it sound serious.
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 0.9904934 and p < 0.01 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]]
"Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the peculiar correlation between US household spending on poultry and the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, our research team endeavors to pluck out any potential connections between these seemingly disparate variables. Our analysis, spanning the years 2000 to 2020, yielded a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings of this study raise some intriguing poultry-itical questions and suggest that there might be more than just political feathers ruffled by this potential alliance. Further research is warranted to fully fathom the pecking order of factors at play and to ascertain whether this correlation is merely a chicken coincidence or something more egg-citing.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on poultry and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the peculiar correlation between US household spending on poultry and the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, our research team endeavors to pluck out any potential connections between these seemingly disparate variables. Our analysis, spanning the years 2000 to 2020, yielded a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings of this study raise some intriguing poultry-itical questions and suggest that there might be more than just political feathers ruffled by this potential alliance. Further research is warranted to fully fathom the pecking order of factors at play and to ascertain whether this correlation is merely a chicken coincidence or something more egg-citing.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between consumer spending and political behavior has been a topic of interest for researchers and pundits alike. While some may dismiss these connections as mere coop-incidences, there is growing recognition that economic activities and political inclinations may indeed be interwoven in ways that are sometimes unexpected and, dare we say, fowl.
In this study, we turn our attention to the curious connection between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. The poultry industry has long been a source of both sustenance and amusement (or should we say "a-mews-ment"?) for economists and political scientists, with its feathers ruffled by changing consumer preferences and market dynamics. Vermont, often known for its picturesque landscapes, maple syrup, and, yes, perhaps the occasional flock or two, provides an intriguing backdrop for our investigation.
The poultry industry, with its wings spread across various segments including chicken, turkey, and duck, represents a significant portion of household food expenditures. Meanwhile, political preferences, much like a game of chicken, can be fickle and influenced by a myriad of factors, including socio-economic conditions, cultural norms, and broader political climates. Investigating the intersection of these two seemingly unrelated realms presents an egg-citing opportunity to explore the nuances of consumer behavior and political attitudes in the green mountains of Vermont.
Theoretical underpinnings aside, our research enters uncharted territory, aiming to crack the enigmatic relationship between these variables and elucidate whether there exists a clucking connection, or whether this purported relationship is nothing but a shell game. By leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, we undertake a thorough analysis spanning the years 2000 to 2020 to uncover any potential correlations.
Our findings, as we shall reveal, pluck at the feathers of conventional wisdom and highlight a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, which, in statistical parlance, raises eyebrows and compels further scrutiny. In the spirit of scientific rigor, we have also rigorously examined the p-value, which, if you'll forgive the pun, has hatched a statistically significant result with a p-value of less than 0.01.
But before we dive into the egg-ceedingly egg-citing findings, we must caution against drawing premature conclusions. As with any empirical investigation, the potential for confounding variables and lurking cluckers might require further investigation. Perhaps this correlation is simply a poultry paradox, or perhaps there's something more egg-straordinary at play. Our study sets the stage for continued egg-sploitation of this topic, as we lay the groundwork for potentially feather-ruffling implications in the domains of consumer behavior, political science, and the interplay of poultry and politics.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on poultry and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.
Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.
Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the peculiar correlation between US household spending on poultry and the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, our research team endeavors to pluck out any potential connections between these seemingly disparate variables. Our analysis, spanning the years 2000 to 2020, yielded a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings of this study raise some intriguing poultry-itical questions and suggest that there might be more than just political feathers ruffled by this potential alliance. Further research is warranted to fully fathom the pecking order of factors at play and to ascertain whether this correlation is merely a chicken coincidence or something more egg-citing.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between consumer spending and political behavior has been a topic of interest for researchers and pundits alike. While some may dismiss these connections as mere coop-incidences, there is growing recognition that economic activities and political inclinations may indeed be interwoven in ways that are sometimes unexpected and, dare we say, fowl.
In this study, we turn our attention to the curious connection between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. The poultry industry has long been a source of both sustenance and amusement (or should we say "a-mews-ment"?) for economists and political scientists, with its feathers ruffled by changing consumer preferences and market dynamics. Vermont, often known for its picturesque landscapes, maple syrup, and, yes, perhaps the occasional flock or two, provides an intriguing backdrop for our investigation.
The poultry industry, with its wings spread across various segments including chicken, turkey, and duck, represents a significant portion of household food expenditures. Meanwhile, political preferences, much like a game of chicken, can be fickle and influenced by a myriad of factors, including socio-economic conditions, cultural norms, and broader political climates. Investigating the intersection of these two seemingly unrelated realms presents an egg-citing opportunity to explore the nuances of consumer behavior and political attitudes in the green mountains of Vermont.
Theoretical underpinnings aside, our research enters uncharted territory, aiming to crack the enigmatic relationship between these variables and elucidate whether there exists a clucking connection, or whether this purported relationship is nothing but a shell game. By leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, we undertake a thorough analysis spanning the years 2000 to 2020 to uncover any potential correlations.
Our findings, as we shall reveal, pluck at the feathers of conventional wisdom and highlight a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, which, in statistical parlance, raises eyebrows and compels further scrutiny. In the spirit of scientific rigor, we have also rigorously examined the p-value, which, if you'll forgive the pun, has hatched a statistically significant result with a p-value of less than 0.01.
But before we dive into the egg-ceedingly egg-citing findings, we must caution against drawing premature conclusions. As with any empirical investigation, the potential for confounding variables and lurking cluckers might require further investigation. Perhaps this correlation is simply a poultry paradox, or perhaps there's something more egg-straordinary at play. Our study sets the stage for continued egg-sploitation of this topic, as we lay the groundwork for potentially feather-ruffling implications in the domains of consumer behavior, political science, and the interplay of poultry and politics.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
To plunge into the feathered world of household expenditure on poultry and its apparent association with votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont, we first turn to the foundational studies in this domain. Smith, in "A Fowl Perspective on Consumer Spending Patterns," deduces that poultry expenditure has long been a clucking point of interest for economists and food industry analysts, with the debate over chicken or egg causing much ado. Doe, in "Poultry Politics: A Tale of Two Wings," presents an insightful examination of the role of poultry in shaping political inclinations, hinting at the possibility of a coop between consumer behavior and voting habits.
Jones, in "The Fowl Factor: Understanding Poultry's Place in the Political Landscape," emphasizes the significance of understanding how poultry preferences and political predilections may intertwine, plucking at the feathers of intricacies beneath the surface. While these seminal works provide a solid nest for our investigation, the literature on this subject matter is decidedly feather-light and undoubtedly warrants deeper exploration.
Moving beyond the realm of strictly academic inquiries, engaging with non-fiction literature offers a broader lens through which to behold the connections between consumer behavior and political affinities. Works such as "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser provide insight into the intricacies of food consumption patterns and their societal implications. These works egg us on to contemplate the profound influence of dietary choices on broader behavioral trends, reminding us that there may be more than just feathers a-fluster in the world of consumer choices.
Expanding our purview to fictional narratives, we encounter "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "Charlotte's Web" by E.B. White, tales that, while seemingly unrelated at first glance, resonate with themes of social dynamics and unexpected alliances. The delicate interplay of characters and their unforeseen connections underscore the notion that seemingly disparate elements may indeed converge in ways that bridge the mundane and the momentous. These literary flights offer a playful reminder that the intermingling of seemingly unrelated entities, such as fowls and politics, may, in fact, yield unforeseen narratives and delightful surprises.
As our investigation takes flight, it is worth noting that curiosity knows no bounds, and our pursuit of understanding transcends conventional boundaries. Our team has, therefore, delved into the realm of popular culture, analyzing cartoons and children's shows such as "Looney Tunes" and "Sesame Street" for potential insights. While a seemingly whimsical endeavor, these cultural artifacts serve as a playful reminder that the threads of connection weaving through our world are as colorful and unexpected as a peacock's plumage.
With this eclectic backdrop in mind, we embark on our academic inquiry with a sense of levity, recognizing that even the most serious endeavors may harbor elements of delight and surprise. In the fowl-scape of household poultry expenditure and votes for the Republican candidate in Vermont, we approach our research not only with scholarly rigor but also with a keen eye for the unexpected and a readiness to embrace the delightful quirks that may arise along the way.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on poultry and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from 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]]
"Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the peculiar correlation between US household spending on poultry and the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, our research team endeavors to pluck out any potential connections between these seemingly disparate variables. Our analysis, spanning the years 2000 to 2020, yielded a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings of this study raise some intriguing poultry-itical questions and suggest that there might be more than just political feathers ruffled by this potential alliance. Further research is warranted to fully fathom the pecking order of factors at play and to ascertain whether this correlation is merely a chicken coincidence or something more egg-citing.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between consumer spending and political behavior has been a topic of interest for researchers and pundits alike. While some may dismiss these connections as mere coop-incidences, there is growing recognition that economic activities and political inclinations may indeed be interwoven in ways that are sometimes unexpected and, dare we say, fowl.
In this study, we turn our attention to the curious connection between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. The poultry industry has long been a source of both sustenance and amusement (or should we say "a-mews-ment"?) for economists and political scientists, with its feathers ruffled by changing consumer preferences and market dynamics. Vermont, often known for its picturesque landscapes, maple syrup, and, yes, perhaps the occasional flock or two, provides an intriguing backdrop for our investigation.
The poultry industry, with its wings spread across various segments including chicken, turkey, and duck, represents a significant portion of household food expenditures. Meanwhile, political preferences, much like a game of chicken, can be fickle and influenced by a myriad of factors, including socio-economic conditions, cultural norms, and broader political climates. Investigating the intersection of these two seemingly unrelated realms presents an egg-citing opportunity to explore the nuances of consumer behavior and political attitudes in the green mountains of Vermont.
Theoretical underpinnings aside, our research enters uncharted territory, aiming to crack the enigmatic relationship between these variables and elucidate whether there exists a clucking connection, or whether this purported relationship is nothing but a shell game. By leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, we undertake a thorough analysis spanning the years 2000 to 2020 to uncover any potential correlations.
Our findings, as we shall reveal, pluck at the feathers of conventional wisdom and highlight a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, which, in statistical parlance, raises eyebrows and compels further scrutiny. In the spirit of scientific rigor, we have also rigorously examined the p-value, which, if you'll forgive the pun, has hatched a statistically significant result with a p-value of less than 0.01.
But before we dive into the egg-ceedingly egg-citing findings, we must caution against drawing premature conclusions. As with any empirical investigation, the potential for confounding variables and lurking cluckers might require further investigation. Perhaps this correlation is simply a poultry paradox, or perhaps there's something more egg-straordinary at play. Our study sets the stage for continued egg-sploitation of this topic, as we lay the groundwork for potentially feather-ruffling implications in the domains of consumer behavior, political science, and the interplay of poultry and politics.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The methodology employed in this study aimed to scavenge and brood over a diverse range of data sources to ensure a robust and well-fledged analysis. Our research team exercised caution and precision, lest we lay eggs of errors, in sourcing data primarily from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and Harvard Dataverse archives. This trio of data sets, akin to the Three Peck-teers, provided a cornucopia of information spanning the tumultuous years from 2000 to 2020.
To begin, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) served as the primary egg-ucational foundation for our investigation into household spending on poultry products in the U.S. This data, though not as savory as a fried chicken dinner, provided detailed insights into expenditure patterns, allowing us to glean crucial insights into the consumption habits of households from sea to shining sea.
Concurrently, the MIT Election Data and Science Lab served as the hen-house for our exploration of voting patterns in the state of Vermont, capturing the clucking behavior of voters in presidential elections. This data, as reliable as a rooster's morning call, enabled our team to pluck out pertinent details about the political preferences of Vermonters, specifically in relations to their choices of the Republican presidential candidate.
Lastly, the Harvard Dataverse, serving as our incubator of diverse datasets, granted us access to an assortment of auxiliary variables that could potentially cooplicate the relationship between poultry expenditure and political proclivities. The combination of these data sources provided a veritable smorgasbord of information, allowing us to squawk over variables including demographic characteristics, economic indicators, and potentially eggscapable social factors.
With the data in our clutches, our team hatched a plan to conduct a series of un-egg-spected statistical analyses. Our first step involved a thorough examination of the distributions, ranges, and egg-streme values of both poultry expenditure and Republican votes. This allowed us to rule out any off-kilter data points and ensure that our subsequent analysis was as robust as a well-built chicken coop.
Next, we embarked on a delicate dance of correlation and regression analysis, seeking to ascertain the strength and direction of any association between household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont. These analyses were, of course, conducted with the painstaking precision of a hen tending to her eggs, ensuring that our findings were as un-egg-niable as a freshly laid egg.
Finally, we undertook a deep-dive into time series analysis, aiming to capture the temporal dynamics of the relationship between our feathered friend of a variable (poultry expenditure) and its potential political bedfellow (Republican votes). This allowed us to peck at the nuanced changes over the years, revealing potential fluctuations in the partnership between poultry purchasing habits and political party preferences.
In sum, our methodology laid the groundwork for a robust and egg-spansive exploration of the relationship between household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont. The resulting analysis, as we shall cluck, yields egg-citing insights into a potentially feather-ruffling connection that goes beyond simple egg-splanations.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on poultry and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse .
For the time period 2000 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9904934, r-squared of 0.9810772, 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]]
"Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the peculiar correlation between US household spending on poultry and the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, our research team endeavors to pluck out any potential connections between these seemingly disparate variables. Our analysis, spanning the years 2000 to 2020, yielded a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings of this study raise some intriguing poultry-itical questions and suggest that there might be more than just political feathers ruffled by this potential alliance. Further research is warranted to fully fathom the pecking order of factors at play and to ascertain whether this correlation is merely a chicken coincidence or something more egg-citing.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The relationship between consumer spending and political behavior has been a topic of interest for researchers and pundits alike. While some may dismiss these connections as mere coop-incidences, there is growing recognition that economic activities and political inclinations may indeed be interwoven in ways that are sometimes unexpected and, dare we say, fowl.
In this study, we turn our attention to the curious connection between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. The poultry industry has long been a source of both sustenance and amusement (or should we say "a-mews-ment"?) for economists and political scientists, with its feathers ruffled by changing consumer preferences and market dynamics. Vermont, often known for its picturesque landscapes, maple syrup, and, yes, perhaps the occasional flock or two, provides an intriguing backdrop for our investigation.
The poultry industry, with its wings spread across various segments including chicken, turkey, and duck, represents a significant portion of household food expenditures. Meanwhile, political preferences, much like a game of chicken, can be fickle and influenced by a myriad of factors, including socio-economic conditions, cultural norms, and broader political climates. Investigating the intersection of these two seemingly unrelated realms presents an egg-citing opportunity to explore the nuances of consumer behavior and political attitudes in the green mountains of Vermont.
Theoretical underpinnings aside, our research enters uncharted territory, aiming to crack the enigmatic relationship between these variables and elucidate whether there exists a clucking connection, or whether this purported relationship is nothing but a shell game. By leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, we undertake a thorough analysis spanning the years 2000 to 2020 to uncover any potential correlations.
Our findings, as we shall reveal, pluck at the feathers of conventional wisdom and highlight a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, which, in statistical parlance, raises eyebrows and compels further scrutiny. In the spirit of scientific rigor, we have also rigorously examined the p-value, which, if you'll forgive the pun, has hatched a statistically significant result with a p-value of less than 0.01.
But before we dive into the egg-ceedingly egg-citing findings, we must caution against drawing premature conclusions. As with any empirical investigation, the potential for confounding variables and lurking cluckers might require further investigation. Perhaps this correlation is simply a poultry paradox, or perhaps there's something more egg-straordinary at play. Our study sets the stage for continued egg-sploitation of this topic, as we lay the groundwork for potentially feather-ruffling implications in the domains of consumer behavior, political science, and the interplay of poultry and politics.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The correlation analysis conducted in this study revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9904934 between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont. This strong correlation was accompanied by an R-squared value of 0.9810772, indicating that approximately 98% of the variance in Republican votes can be explained by the variance in poultry expenditure. With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical significance of this relationship cannot be yolk-ed away.
To visually capture this clucking connection, a scatterplot was constructed, highlighting the parallel trajectory of household spending on poultry and Republican votes in Vermont over the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020 (see Fig. 1). As the data points clucked together in a near-linear fashion, it became increasingly clear that this relationship was nothing to squawk at.
The findings of this study, while undeniably egg-citing, raise a plethora of questions and considerations. It is crucial to recognize that correlation does not necessitate causation; thus, further research is warranted to delve into the underlying mechanisms of this connection. Are Vermonters casting their votes based on their poultry preferences, or could there be underlying socio-economic or cultural factors at play? The potential for cooping up lurking variables cannot be discounted, urging researchers to tread cautiously before hatching grand theories.
In conclusion, the presents findings demonstrate an exceptionally strong correlation between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont. This study serves as a clarion call for future research to pluck out the root causes of this seemingly poultry-itical relationship and to ascertain whether it is simply a feather-ruffling coincidence or an egg-straordinary revelation in the world of statistics and political behavior.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on poultry and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 500 tokens.
Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.
Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.
[[TITLE]]
"Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the peculiar correlation between US household spending on poultry and the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, our research team endeavors to pluck out any potential connections between these seemingly disparate variables. Our analysis, spanning the years 2000 to 2020, yielded a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings of this study raise some intriguing poultry-itical questions and suggest that there might be more than just political feathers ruffled by this potential alliance. Further research is warranted to fully fathom the pecking order of factors at play and to ascertain whether this correlation is merely a chicken coincidence or something more egg-citing.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
To plunge into the feathered world of household expenditure on poultry and its apparent association with votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont, we first turn to the foundational studies in this domain. Smith, in "A Fowl Perspective on Consumer Spending Patterns," deduces that poultry expenditure has long been a clucking point of interest for economists and food industry analysts, with the debate over chicken or egg causing much ado. Doe, in "Poultry Politics: A Tale of Two Wings," presents an insightful examination of the role of poultry in shaping political inclinations, hinting at the possibility of a coop between consumer behavior and voting habits.
Jones, in "The Fowl Factor: Understanding Poultry's Place in the Political Landscape," emphasizes the significance of understanding how poultry preferences and political predilections may intertwine, plucking at the feathers of intricacies beneath the surface. While these seminal works provide a solid nest for our investigation, the literature on this subject matter is decidedly feather-light and undoubtedly warrants deeper exploration.
Moving beyond the realm of strictly academic inquiries, engaging with non-fiction literature offers a broader lens through which to behold the connections between consumer behavior and political affinities. Works such as "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser provide insight into the intricacies of food consumption patterns and their societal implications. These works egg us on to contemplate the profound influence of dietary choices on broader behavioral trends, reminding us that there may be more than just feathers a-fluster in the world of consumer choices.
Expanding our purview to fictional narratives, we encounter "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "Charlotte's Web" by E.B. White, tales that, while seemingly unrelated at first glance, resonate with themes of social dynamics and unexpected alliances. The delicate interplay of characters and their unforeseen connections underscore the notion that seemingly disparate elements may indeed converge in ways that bridge the mundane and the momentous. These literary flights offer a playful reminder that the intermingling of seemingly unrelated entities, such as fowls and politics, may, in fact, yield unforeseen narratives and delightful surprises.
As our investigation takes flight, it is worth noting that curiosity knows no bounds, and our pursuit of understanding transcends conventional boundaries. Our team has, therefore, delved into the realm of popular culture, analyzing cartoons and children's shows such as "Looney Tunes" and "Sesame Street" for potential insights. While a seemingly whimsical endeavor, these cultural artifacts serve as a playful reminder that the threads of connection weaving through our world are as colorful and unexpected as a peacock's plumage.
With this eclectic backdrop in mind, we embark on our academic inquiry with a sense of levity, recognizing that even the most serious endeavors may harbor elements of delight and surprise. In the fowl-scape of household poultry expenditure and votes for the Republican candidate in Vermont, we approach our research not only with scholarly rigor but also with a keen eye for the unexpected and a readiness to embrace the delightful quirks that may arise along the way.
[[RESULTS]]
The correlation analysis conducted in this study revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9904934 between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont. This strong correlation was accompanied by an R-squared value of 0.9810772, indicating that approximately 98% of the variance in Republican votes can be explained by the variance in poultry expenditure. With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical significance of this relationship cannot be yolk-ed away.
To visually capture this clucking connection, a scatterplot was constructed, highlighting the parallel trajectory of household spending on poultry and Republican votes in Vermont over the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020 (see Fig. 1). As the data points clucked together in a near-linear fashion, it became increasingly clear that this relationship was nothing to squawk at.
The findings of this study, while undeniably egg-citing, raise a plethora of questions and considerations. It is crucial to recognize that correlation does not necessitate causation; thus, further research is warranted to delve into the underlying mechanisms of this connection. Are Vermonters casting their votes based on their poultry preferences, or could there be underlying socio-economic or cultural factors at play? The potential for cooping up lurking variables cannot be discounted, urging researchers to tread cautiously before hatching grand theories.
In conclusion, the presents findings demonstrate an exceptionally strong correlation between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont. This study serves as a clarion call for future research to pluck out the root causes of this seemingly poultry-itical relationship and to ascertain whether it is simply a feather-ruffling coincidence or an egg-straordinary revelation in the world of statistics and political behavior.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The findings of our study resonate with prior research in the as yet under-explored field of avian economics and political predilections, welcoming a bevy of ponderous poultry connections previously hatched in the literature. The clucking point made by Smith (2010) regarding the perennial debate over chicken or egg elucidates the long-standing interest in poultry spending patterns, a point which has now been bolstered by our egg-ceptional findings. Doe’s (2013) exploration of the coop between consumer behavior and voting habits revealed tantalizing hints of a fowl play, a hypothesis that our results have articulated with striking clarity. Jones (2017) emphasized the importance of understanding how poultry preferences and political predilections may intertwine, a notion that has been vividly brought to roost by the strong correlation uncovered in our study.
Furthermore, our results mirror the broader interdisciplinary feather-light literature, lifting the veil on the influence of dietary choices on societal dynamics and behavioral trends. The literary flights of Harper Lee and E.B. White, though seemingly unrelated to our egg-study, mirror our own findings by uncovering the unforeseen and delightful surprises that can emerge from seemingly separate entities. Similarly, our analysis of cartoons and children's shows, while whimsical on the surface, underscored the colorful and unexpected connections that permeate our world, much like the poultrified connection observed in our statistical analysis.
The remarkably high correlation coefficient and R-squared value revealed by our study reassert the poultry-itical significance of household expenditure on poultry in relation to votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont. Our findings underscore the compelling nature of this connection, offering an egg-squisite illustration of the unexpected narratives that can emerge when seemingly unrelated elements converge. While our study undeniably highlights the correlation, caution must be exercised in attributing causation solely to poultry preferences. The potential for lurking variables should be hatched from further research, plucking out the root causes of this poultry-itical relationship and discovering whether it is merely a feather-ruffling coincidence or an egg-straordinary revelation in the world of statistics and political behavior.
In the befuddled world of poultry-spending, the allure of uncovering these unexpected clucking connections invites a re-imagination of established research paradigms. Our findings have cracked open a shell of inexplicability, leaving the door ajar for further egg-sploration into this egg-stravagant correlation. With our results serving as the fledgling foundation, future research is poised to peck away at the enigmatic integration of poultry expenditure and political inclinations, plucking out the unanswered questions and hatching new insights that may yet perch triumphantly in the annals of academic inquiry.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between US household spending on poultry and Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.
Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont"
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study investigates the peculiar correlation between US household spending on poultry and the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, our research team endeavors to pluck out any potential connections between these seemingly disparate variables. Our analysis, spanning the years 2000 to 2020, yielded a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings of this study raise some intriguing poultry-itical questions and suggest that there might be more than just political feathers ruffled by this potential alliance. Further research is warranted to fully fathom the pecking order of factors at play and to ascertain whether this correlation is merely a chicken coincidence or something more egg-citing.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
The relationship between consumer spending and political behavior has been a topic of interest for researchers and pundits alike. While some may dismiss these connections as mere coop-incidences, there is growing recognition that economic activities and political inclinations may indeed be interwoven in ways that are sometimes unexpected and, dare we say, fowl.
In this study, we turn our attention to the curious connection between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. The poultry industry has long been a source of both sustenance and amusement (or should we say "a-mews-ment"?) for economists and political scientists, with its feathers ruffled by changing consumer preferences and market dynamics. Vermont, often known for its picturesque landscapes, maple syrup, and, yes, perhaps the occasional flock or two, provides an intriguing backdrop for our investigation.
The poultry industry, with its wings spread across various segments including chicken, turkey, and duck, represents a significant portion of household food expenditures. Meanwhile, political preferences, much like a game of chicken, can be fickle and influenced by a myriad of factors, including socio-economic conditions, cultural norms, and broader political climates. Investigating the intersection of these two seemingly unrelated realms presents an egg-citing opportunity to explore the nuances of consumer behavior and political attitudes in the green mountains of Vermont.
Theoretical underpinnings aside, our research enters uncharted territory, aiming to crack the enigmatic relationship between these variables and elucidate whether there exists a clucking connection, or whether this purported relationship is nothing but a shell game. By leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, we undertake a thorough analysis spanning the years 2000 to 2020 to uncover any potential correlations.
Our findings, as we shall reveal, pluck at the feathers of conventional wisdom and highlight a statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, which, in statistical parlance, raises eyebrows and compels further scrutiny. In the spirit of scientific rigor, we have also rigorously examined the p-value, which, if you'll forgive the pun, has hatched a statistically significant result with a p-value of less than 0.01.
But before we dive into the egg-ceedingly egg-citing findings, we must caution against drawing premature conclusions. As with any empirical investigation, the potential for confounding variables and lurking cluckers might require further investigation. Perhaps this correlation is simply a poultry paradox, or perhaps there's something more egg-straordinary at play. Our study sets the stage for continued egg-sploitation of this topic, as we lay the groundwork for potentially feather-ruffling implications in the domains of consumer behavior, political science, and the interplay of poultry and politics.
[[RESULTS]]
The correlation analysis conducted in this study revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9904934 between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont. This strong correlation was accompanied by an R-squared value of 0.9810772, indicating that approximately 98% of the variance in Republican votes can be explained by the variance in poultry expenditure. With a p-value of less than 0.01, the statistical significance of this relationship cannot be yolk-ed away.
To visually capture this clucking connection, a scatterplot was constructed, highlighting the parallel trajectory of household spending on poultry and Republican votes in Vermont over the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020 (see Fig. 1). As the data points clucked together in a near-linear fashion, it became increasingly clear that this relationship was nothing to squawk at.
The findings of this study, while undeniably egg-citing, raise a plethora of questions and considerations. It is crucial to recognize that correlation does not necessitate causation; thus, further research is warranted to delve into the underlying mechanisms of this connection. Are Vermonters casting their votes based on their poultry preferences, or could there be underlying socio-economic or cultural factors at play? The potential for cooping up lurking variables cannot be discounted, urging researchers to tread cautiously before hatching grand theories.
In conclusion, the presents findings demonstrate an exceptionally strong correlation between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont. This study serves as a clarion call for future research to pluck out the root causes of this seemingly poultry-itical relationship and to ascertain whether it is simply a feather-ruffling coincidence or an egg-straordinary revelation in the world of statistics and political behavior.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our study has cracked open a shell of statistical intrigue, revealing an egg-ceptionally high correlation between US household spending on poultry and votes for the Republican presidential candidate in Vermont. These results, while decidedly egg-citing, must be interpreted with caution, as correlation does not imply causation – much like how finding a chicken in your yard doesn't necessarily mean it laid the eggs in your refrigerator. Nevertheless, the robustness of the correlation coefficient and the striking R-squared value of 0.9810772 suggest that there is more than mere coop-incidence at play. As we dig deeper into this clucking connection, it becomes clear that there's something fowl afoot in Vermont's political landscape, and it's not just the local poultry.
The scatterplot, akin to a visual cluck-tale, graphically depicts the parallel trajectory of poultry expenditure and Republican votes, resembling two chickens on a tandem bicycle – an odd sight indeed. While some may dismiss this correlation as nothing more than a chicken-and-egg dilemma, our findings urge us to keep our puns in check and recognize the potential significance of this relationship. It is time for researchers to spread their wings and delve deeper into the underlying factors driving this poultry-itical alliance. What might be the pecking order of influences at play? Could it be that Vermonters' fondness for fowl extends beyond their dinner plates and into the ballot box? Or is there a deeper, egg-nigmatic force compelling this connection? These questions beckon further exploration, teasing the feathers of inquisitive minds and inviting them to join us in this avian adventure of statistical analysis and political intrigue.
As much as we may long to feather our caps with definitive conclusions, this study simply scratches the surface of the poultry-itical landscape. More research is warranted to ascertain the causative mechanisms governing this peculiar relationship, and to hatch a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between poultry spending and political preferences. With that said, it seems the case of fowl play in Vermont might be one of the more egg-straordinary finds in the field of statistics and socio-political behavior, and as such, it clucks for attention. However, we assert that no further research is needed in this area.
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 Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Poultry 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 Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Center for Avian Political Science
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont with an abstract of This study investigates the peculiar correlation between US household spending on poultry and the votes for the Republican presidential candidate in the state of Vermont. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, along with the Harvard Dataverse, our research team endeavors to pluck out any potential connections between these seemingly disparate variables. Our analysis, spanning the years 2000 to 2020, yielded a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9904934, with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01. The findings of this study raise some intriguing poultry-itical questions and suggest that there might be more than just political feathers ruffled by this potential alliance. Further research is warranted to fully fathom the pecking order of factors at play and to ascertain whether this correlation is merely a chicken coincidence or something more egg-citing.
ChatGPT:
poultry expenditure, Republican votes, Vermont, correlation, US household spending, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Bureau of Labor Statistics, political affiliation, statistical analysis, data analysis
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
US household spending on poultryDetailed data title: Annual US household spend on poultry, as a percentage of total household spend
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with US household spending on poultry
Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont
Detailed data title: Percentage of all votes cast for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont
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 = 0.9810772 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 98.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., US household spending on poultry) over the 6 years from 2000 through 2020.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00014. 0.0001351329067815043100000000
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 0.99 in 0.014% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 7,400 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.
[ 0.91, 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.
| 2000 | 2004 | 2008 | 2012 | 2016 | 2020 | |
| US household spending on poultry (Household spend) | 0.381128 | 0.359488 | 0.314939 | 0.309086 | 0.300117 | 0.308149 |
| Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont (Percentage of votes) | 40.6972 | 38.8013 | 30.4492 | 30.9726 | 29.7594 | 30.3811 |
Why this works
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
Try it yourself
You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.
Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"
Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.
Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.
Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.
Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"
If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:
"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."
# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):
# Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)
# Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
r_squared = correlation**2
return correlation, r_squared, p_value
# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([0.381128,0.359488,0.314939,0.309086,0.300117,0.308149,])
array_2 = np.array([40.6972,38.8013,30.4492,30.9726,29.7594,30.3811,])
array_1_name = "US household spending on poultry"
array_2_name = "Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont"
# 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:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only US household spending on poultry
- Line chart for only Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Vermont
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Fowl Play: The Clucking Connection Between Poultry Expenditure and Republican Votes in Vermont
Your rating skills are top-notch!
Correlation ID: 5644 · Black Variable ID: 19950 · Red Variable ID: 26180
