about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,661 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in New York and the second variable is Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As Democrat votes for Senators in New York increase, so does the support for environmental policies. This leads to a resurgence in New York's forests, providing woodchucks with plentiful chucking opportunities. The political climate fuels the woodchuck's ambition, leading to an unprecedented chucking capacity as they feel empowered to chuck more wood for the greater good.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ A photo-realistic image ] In a bustling New York City, the vibrant streets are crowded with busy people casting their votes for Democratic Senators. Ballot boxes are overflowing with votes, symbolizing the growing support for environmental policies. Meanwhile, in the serene forests of upstate New York, the towering trees thrive, providing ample wood for the industrious woodchucks. The woodchucks, emboldened by the positive political climate, are confidently chucking more wood than ever before, showcasing their remarkable capacity for the greater good of the environment. As their efforts gain attention, a surge of Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck' reflects the public's fascination with the woodchucks' remarkable abilities. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Votes for Democratic Senators in New York and Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'. 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: Oragami Magic realism 3D Pixar Style A photo-realistic image Psychedelic
ChatGPT: A photo-realistic image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Votes for Democratic Senators in New York and Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck', in the following situation: As Democrat votes for Senators in New York increase, so does the support for environmental policies. This leads to a resurgence in New York's forests, providing woodchucks with plentiful chucking opportunities. The political climate fuels the woodchuck's ambition, leading to an unprecedented chucking capacity as they feel empowered to chuck more wood for the greater good.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling New York City, people are seen casting their votes for Democratic Senators, with ballot boxes filling up as support for environmental policies grows. At the same time, in the serene forests of upstate New York, the trees flourish, providing ample wood for the woodchucks to chuck. The woodchucks, feeling empowered by the political climate, are seen confidently chucking more wood than ever before, showcasing their unprecedented chucking capacity for the greater good of the environment. Meanwhile, Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck' surge as people take notice of the woodchucks' impressive abilities.

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 photo-realistic image ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling New York City, people are seen casting their votes for Democratic Senators, with ballot boxes filling up as support for environmental policies grows. At the same time, in the serene forests of upstate New York, the trees flourish, providing ample wood for the woodchucks to chuck. The woodchucks, feeling empowered by the political climate, are seen confidently chucking more wood than ever before, showcasing their unprecedented chucking capacity for the greater good of the environment. Meanwhile, Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck' surge as people take notice of the woodchucks' impressive abilities. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ A photo-realistic image ] In a bustling New York City, the vibrant streets are crowded with busy people casting their votes for Democratic Senators. Ballot boxes are overflowing with votes, symbolizing the growing support for environmental policies. Meanwhile, in the serene forests of upstate New York, the towering trees thrive, providing ample wood for the industrious woodchucks. The woodchucks, emboldened by the positive political climate, are confidently chucking more wood than ever before, showcasing their remarkable capacity for the greater good of the environment. As their efforts gain attention, a surge of Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck' reflects the public's fascination with the woodchucks' remarkable abilities.

*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 increases in Democrat votes for Senators in New York positively influenced how much wood can a woodchuck chuck (Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'). Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
Chucking for Change: The Chucking Correlation between Democrat Votes for Senators in New York and Google Searches for 'How Much Wood Can a Woodchuck Chuck'

The Journal of Political Chucking Studies

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 and p < 0.05 for 2004 to 2018.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Chucking for Change: The Chucking Correlation between Democrat Votes for Senators in New York and Google Searches for 'How Much Wood Can a Woodchuck Chuck'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the surprising relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this whimsical yet intriguing connection. Our findings revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 and statistical significance with p < 0.05 for the period spanning from 2004 to 2018.

Our analysis not only unravels this peculiar association but also demonstrates the potential for using unconventional indicators to gauge political trends. It appears that the woodchuck's dilemma might hold a clue to electorate behavior in New York. As we delve deeper into the woodchuck's enigmatic chucking capacity, we invite readers to ponder the question, "If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'. 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]]
"Chucking for Change: The Chucking Correlation between Democrat Votes for Senators in New York and Google Searches for 'How Much Wood Can a Woodchuck Chuck'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the surprising relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this whimsical yet intriguing connection. Our findings revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 and statistical significance with p < 0.05 for the period spanning from 2004 to 2018.

Our analysis not only unravels this peculiar association but also demonstrates the potential for using unconventional indicators to gauge political trends. It appears that the woodchuck's dilemma might hold a clue to electorate behavior in New York. As we delve deeper into the woodchuck's enigmatic chucking capacity, we invite readers to ponder the question, "If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

In the hallowed halls of academia, researchers often seek to uncover the hidden patterns and correlations that govern our world. While most studies focus on more conventional variables, we, as intrepid scientists, dared to ask a more whimsical question: Is there a connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck"? It seems that even in the world of statistics, we couldn't resist the temptation to chuckle at this peculiar query. Here we are, embarking on a quest to unravel the chucking correlation between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, with a nod to the great, elusive woodchuck and its propensity for chucking wood.

As we venture into this offbeat arena of research, it becomes increasingly clear that there is a "chucking" mystery waiting to be unraveled. It's not every day that statisticians get to ponder the enigmatic abilities of a woodchuck, after all. One might even say that the statistical world was "chucked" full of surprises when this curious association first came to light.

In the realm of data analysis, one often encounters unexpected twists and turns, much like the puzzling riddle of the woodchuck's wooden pursuits. The "chucking" correlation we are about to unveil may well be music to the ears of those who thrive on statistical eccentricities and quirky research findings. After all, where else can one delve into the chucking capacity of a woodchuck and its potential implications for political behavior?

As we delve into the heart of our investigation, we find ourselves pondering the endless variations of the age-old question, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'. 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 name some movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Chucking for Change: The Chucking Correlation between Democrat Votes for Senators in New York and Google Searches for 'How Much Wood Can a Woodchuck Chuck'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the surprising relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this whimsical yet intriguing connection. Our findings revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 and statistical significance with p < 0.05 for the period spanning from 2004 to 2018.

Our analysis not only unravels this peculiar association but also demonstrates the potential for using unconventional indicators to gauge political trends. It appears that the woodchuck's dilemma might hold a clue to electorate behavior in New York. As we delve deeper into the woodchuck's enigmatic chucking capacity, we invite readers to ponder the question, "If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the hallowed halls of academia, researchers often seek to uncover the hidden patterns and correlations that govern our world. While most studies focus on more conventional variables, we, as intrepid scientists, dared to ask a more whimsical question: Is there a connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck"? It seems that even in the world of statistics, we couldn't resist the temptation to chuckle at this peculiar query. Here we are, embarking on a quest to unravel the chucking correlation between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, with a nod to the great, elusive woodchuck and its propensity for chucking wood.
As we venture into this offbeat arena of research, it becomes increasingly clear that there is a "chucking" mystery waiting to be unraveled. It's not every day that statisticians get to ponder the enigmatic abilities of a woodchuck, after all. One might even say that the statistical world was "chucked" full of surprises when this curious association first came to light.
In the realm of data analysis, one often encounters unexpected twists and turns, much like the puzzling riddle of the woodchuck's wooden pursuits. The "chucking" correlation we are about to unveil may well be music to the ears of those who thrive on statistical eccentricities and quirky research findings. After all, where else can one delve into the chucking capacity of a woodchuck and its potential implications for political behavior?
As we delve into the heart of our investigation, we find ourselves pondering the endless variations of the age-old question, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck" has been a subject of curiosity and amusement among researchers. Smith et al. (2016) initially explored this peculiar relationship, prompting an array of follow-up investigations to further elucidate this unexpected correlation. However, as we venture into the literature surrounding this unorthodox juxtaposition of political behavior and woodchuck inquiries, we find ourselves in the midst of an intellectual rollercoaster, where scholarly insights collide with whimsical absurdity.

Amidst the scholarly discourse, it is imperative to acknowledge the lighthearted nature that underscores this investigation. Engaging with the likes of "Woodchucks Chucking: A Statistical Saga" by Doe (2018) and "The Chucking Chronicles: Unraveling the Mysteries of Woodchuck Behavior" by Jones (2013), one cannot help but embrace the playful undertones of our quest. After all, it's not every day that the academic arena ventures into the chucking capacity of woodchucks, provoking both scholarly contemplation and the occasional chuckle.

Beyond the realm of non-fiction, our literature survey has inevitably meandered into the whimsical realm of fiction. Works such as "Chucking for Change: The Woodchuck Conspiracy" and "The Woodchuck Dilemma: Statistical Shenanigans in the Political Sphere" offer a whimsical exploration of the mystifying correlation between political elections and woodchuck proclivities. While these literary escapades may seem detached from the empirical rigor of academic research, they serve as a reminder that even in the most unconventional of subjects, there exists a place for both scholarly inquiry and a good dad joke.

As we navigate through the eclectic landscape of literature surrounding this enthralling correlation, our journey takes an unexpected turn into the realm of cinema. Films such as "Woodchuck Wonders: An Unconventional Election Tale" and "Chucking the Vote: A Woodchuck's Odyssey through New York Politics" offer cinematic interpretations of the unlikely bond between political leanings and woodchuck-related queries. While these cinematic depictions may be tangential to the meticulous analyses of our study, they serve as a testament to the widespread intrigue surrounding the chucking correlation that has captured the imagination of researchers and enthusiasts alike.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Chucking for Change: The Chucking Correlation between Democrat Votes for Senators in New York and Google Searches for 'How Much Wood Can a Woodchuck Chuck'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the surprising relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this whimsical yet intriguing connection. Our findings revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 and statistical significance with p < 0.05 for the period spanning from 2004 to 2018.

Our analysis not only unravels this peculiar association but also demonstrates the potential for using unconventional indicators to gauge political trends. It appears that the woodchuck's dilemma might hold a clue to electorate behavior in New York. As we delve deeper into the woodchuck's enigmatic chucking capacity, we invite readers to ponder the question, "If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the hallowed halls of academia, researchers often seek to uncover the hidden patterns and correlations that govern our world. While most studies focus on more conventional variables, we, as intrepid scientists, dared to ask a more whimsical question: Is there a connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck"? It seems that even in the world of statistics, we couldn't resist the temptation to chuckle at this peculiar query. Here we are, embarking on a quest to unravel the chucking correlation between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, with a nod to the great, elusive woodchuck and its propensity for chucking wood.
As we venture into this offbeat arena of research, it becomes increasingly clear that there is a "chucking" mystery waiting to be unraveled. It's not every day that statisticians get to ponder the enigmatic abilities of a woodchuck, after all. One might even say that the statistical world was "chucked" full of surprises when this curious association first came to light.
In the realm of data analysis, one often encounters unexpected twists and turns, much like the puzzling riddle of the woodchuck's wooden pursuits. The "chucking" correlation we are about to unveil may well be music to the ears of those who thrive on statistical eccentricities and quirky research findings. After all, where else can one delve into the chucking capacity of a woodchuck and its potential implications for political behavior?
As we delve into the heart of our investigation, we find ourselves pondering the endless variations of the age-old question, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the chucking correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck", our research team embarked on a data-gathering endeavor that would make even the most diligent woodchuck green with envy. We harnessed data from the esteemed MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the illustrious Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-insightful Google Trends, covering the period from 2004 to 2018.

With a wink and a nod to the whimsical nature of our investigation, we began by meticulously collecting and aligning the number of Democrat votes for Senators in New York and the frequency of Google searches for the woodchuck's chucking prowess. Our team certainly had a "chucking good time" scouring through the data, all the while keeping a keen eye out for any unexpected statistical woodchips along the way.

Utilizing advanced statistical techniques and software, including but not limited to regression analysis, time series modeling, and exploratory data analysis, we embarked on a journey through the chucking wilderness, navigating the globe of statistical potential like seasoned woodchuck enthusiasts. Our aim was not only to quantify the correlation between these seemingly disparate variables but also to capture the essence of the woodchuck's enigmatic charm in our statistical models.

In the spirit of scientific inquiry and a healthy dose of humor, we couldn't resist inserting a bit of wordplay into our analysis – after all, when "chucking" wood is involved, it's hard to resist the temptation to play with statistics. With a nod to the hallowed tradition of dad jokes, we made sure to sprinkle our findings with puns and humorous asides, hoping to engage our fellow researchers in the joy of statistical discovery.

Having meticulously processed and analyzed the data, we applied inferential statistics to ascertain the significance of the chucking correlation we uncovered. Through hypothesis testing and bootstrapping techniques, we sought to confirm whether the relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for the woodchuck's wood-chucking abilities held any statistical water. It seems that even in the serious world of statistics, a good pun and a chuckle can go a long way in making our findings more "palatable."

In the realm of statistical research, it's not every day that one gets the chance to ponder the whimsical nexus of political voting patterns and the enigmatic woodchuck's chucking potential. So as we venture forth to present our chuckling findings, we invite our esteemed readers to join us in embracing the playful side of statistical inquiry. After all, when it comes to the woodchuck's chucking habits and electoral proclivities, there's always room for a lighthearted statistical dad joke or two!


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

For the time period 2004 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.8590330, r-squared of 0.7379376, 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]]
"Chucking for Change: The Chucking Correlation between Democrat Votes for Senators in New York and Google Searches for 'How Much Wood Can a Woodchuck Chuck'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the surprising relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this whimsical yet intriguing connection. Our findings revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 and statistical significance with p < 0.05 for the period spanning from 2004 to 2018.

Our analysis not only unravels this peculiar association but also demonstrates the potential for using unconventional indicators to gauge political trends. It appears that the woodchuck's dilemma might hold a clue to electorate behavior in New York. As we delve deeper into the woodchuck's enigmatic chucking capacity, we invite readers to ponder the question, "If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the hallowed halls of academia, researchers often seek to uncover the hidden patterns and correlations that govern our world. While most studies focus on more conventional variables, we, as intrepid scientists, dared to ask a more whimsical question: Is there a connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck"? It seems that even in the world of statistics, we couldn't resist the temptation to chuckle at this peculiar query. Here we are, embarking on a quest to unravel the chucking correlation between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, with a nod to the great, elusive woodchuck and its propensity for chucking wood.
As we venture into this offbeat arena of research, it becomes increasingly clear that there is a "chucking" mystery waiting to be unraveled. It's not every day that statisticians get to ponder the enigmatic abilities of a woodchuck, after all. One might even say that the statistical world was "chucked" full of surprises when this curious association first came to light.
In the realm of data analysis, one often encounters unexpected twists and turns, much like the puzzling riddle of the woodchuck's wooden pursuits. The "chucking" correlation we are about to unveil may well be music to the ears of those who thrive on statistical eccentricities and quirky research findings. After all, where else can one delve into the chucking capacity of a woodchuck and its potential implications for political behavior?
As we delve into the heart of our investigation, we find ourselves pondering the endless variations of the age-old question, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our analysis of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck" uncovered a surprisingly robust correlation. The correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 suggests a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. It seems like the Woodchuck's chucking prowess may hold more sway over political behavior than previously thought. Perhaps this woodchuck has been wielding more influence than its woodland counterparts!

The r-squared value of 0.7379376 indicates that approximately 73.79% of the variability in Democrat votes for Senators in New York can be explained by the Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". It seems that when it comes to predicting political trends, the woodchuck's chucking potential might just be the unexpected golden ticket. Who knew that chucking wood could be so politically predictive? It looks like it's time to start paying closer attention to our furry woodland friends!

The statistical significance of the correlation with p < 0.05 underscores the reliability of the relationship between these variables. It's not every day that we come across such a statistically significant link with such a whimsical and pun-worthy variable. One can't help but wonder if the woodchuck's chucking antics have been the silent force behind political shifts in the state of New York. It seems that the woodchuck's chucking abilities may be leaving a lasting impact on the political landscape. Who would have thought that chucking wood could chuck such fascinating political behavior!

We present our findings in the form of a scatterplot (Fig. 1), which vividly illustrates the striking correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". This powerful visual representation leaves little room for doubt regarding the chucking connection between these variables. It's as clear as the chucking day that the woodchuck's wood-chucking tendencies may hold the key to understanding electoral dynamics in New York. As the age-old question goes, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" Our results seem to suggest that the chucking potential of the woodchuck might reach far beyond the confines of its woodland domain. Who knew that chucking wood could chuck political insights!


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'. 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]]
"Chucking for Change: The Chucking Correlation between Democrat Votes for Senators in New York and Google Searches for 'How Much Wood Can a Woodchuck Chuck'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the surprising relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this whimsical yet intriguing connection. Our findings revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 and statistical significance with p < 0.05 for the period spanning from 2004 to 2018.

Our analysis not only unravels this peculiar association but also demonstrates the potential for using unconventional indicators to gauge political trends. It appears that the woodchuck's dilemma might hold a clue to electorate behavior in New York. As we delve deeper into the woodchuck's enigmatic chucking capacity, we invite readers to ponder the question, "If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck" has been a subject of curiosity and amusement among researchers. Smith et al. (2016) initially explored this peculiar relationship, prompting an array of follow-up investigations to further elucidate this unexpected correlation. However, as we venture into the literature surrounding this unorthodox juxtaposition of political behavior and woodchuck inquiries, we find ourselves in the midst of an intellectual rollercoaster, where scholarly insights collide with whimsical absurdity.
Amidst the scholarly discourse, it is imperative to acknowledge the lighthearted nature that underscores this investigation. Engaging with the likes of "Woodchucks Chucking: A Statistical Saga" by Doe (2018) and "The Chucking Chronicles: Unraveling the Mysteries of Woodchuck Behavior" by Jones (2013), one cannot help but embrace the playful undertones of our quest. After all, it's not every day that the academic arena ventures into the chucking capacity of woodchucks, provoking both scholarly contemplation and the occasional chuckle.
Beyond the realm of non-fiction, our literature survey has inevitably meandered into the whimsical realm of fiction. Works such as "Chucking for Change: The Woodchuck Conspiracy" and "The Woodchuck Dilemma: Statistical Shenanigans in the Political Sphere" offer a whimsical exploration of the mystifying correlation between political elections and woodchuck proclivities. While these literary escapades may seem detached from the empirical rigor of academic research, they serve as a reminder that even in the most unconventional of subjects, there exists a place for both scholarly inquiry and a good dad joke.
As we navigate through the eclectic landscape of literature surrounding this enthralling correlation, our journey takes an unexpected turn into the realm of cinema. Films such as "Woodchuck Wonders: An Unconventional Election Tale" and "Chucking the Vote: A Woodchuck's Odyssey through New York Politics" offer cinematic interpretations of the unlikely bond between political leanings and woodchuck-related queries. While these cinematic depictions may be tangential to the meticulous analyses of our study, they serve as a testament to the widespread intrigue surrounding the chucking correlation that has captured the imagination of researchers and enthusiasts alike.

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck" uncovered a surprisingly robust correlation. The correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 suggests a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. It seems like the Woodchuck's chucking prowess may hold more sway over political behavior than previously thought. Perhaps this woodchuck has been wielding more influence than its woodland counterparts!
The r-squared value of 0.7379376 indicates that approximately 73.79% of the variability in Democrat votes for Senators in New York can be explained by the Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". It seems that when it comes to predicting political trends, the woodchuck's chucking potential might just be the unexpected golden ticket. Who knew that chucking wood could be so politically predictive? It looks like it's time to start paying closer attention to our furry woodland friends!
The statistical significance of the correlation with p < 0.05 underscores the reliability of the relationship between these variables. It's not every day that we come across such a statistically significant link with such a whimsical and pun-worthy variable. One can't help but wonder if the woodchuck's chucking antics have been the silent force behind political shifts in the state of New York. It seems that the woodchuck's chucking abilities may be leaving a lasting impact on the political landscape. Who would have thought that chucking wood could chuck such fascinating political behavior!
We present our findings in the form of a scatterplot (Fig. 1), which vividly illustrates the striking correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". This powerful visual representation leaves little room for doubt regarding the chucking connection between these variables. It's as clear as the chucking day that the woodchuck's wood-chucking tendencies may hold the key to understanding electoral dynamics in New York. As the age-old question goes, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" Our results seem to suggest that the chucking potential of the woodchuck might reach far beyond the confines of its woodland domain. Who knew that chucking wood could chuck political insights!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of our study point to a remarkably strong and statistically significant correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck", echoing the earlier research conducted by Smith et al. (2016) and building upon the whimsical journey traversed by Doe (2018) and Jones (2013). It seems that the chucking prowess of the woodchuck may indeed exert a palpable influence on political behavior, shedding light on a correlation as surprising and unpredictable as the chucking abilities of our furry friend.

One might say that these results have truly "chucked" us for a loop, revealing an unexpected symbiotic relationship between political leanings and woodchuck-related queries. As we gander at these results, it's hard not to chuckle at the idea that a woodchuck's chucking could hold any sway over New York politics. But, as they say, "the chuckles will tell the tale"!

The robust correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 and the sizable r-squared value of 0.7379376 indicate that a substantial portion of the variation in Democrat votes for Senators in New York can be attributed to the nuances of woodchuck chucking on the internet. Who knew that a woodchuck's penchant for woodchuck queries could hold such political clout? It appears that the chuckle-worthy antics of the woodchuck may not be merely fodder for dad jokes but could potentially be a substantial influencer in political trends.

The statistically significant correlation further emphasizes the reliability of this relationship, portraying a distinctly non-random association between these seemingly unrelated variables. It's almost as if the woodchuck's chucking antics have been silently swaying political sentiments in the Empire State, chucking its way into the political psyche of New Yorkers. It seems that there's more to this chuckling correlation than meets the eye - perhaps the woodchucks were onto something all along!

Our scatterplot (Fig. 1) vividly illustrates the remarkable connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck", serving as a visual testament to the surprising link between these variables. It's almost as if the chucking capabilities of the woodchuck have taken center stage in shaping political dynamics, chucking us into a world of unexpected statistical relationships.

In conclusion, our study not only unveils the chucking correlation between political behavior and a woodchuck's chucking capacity, but also prompts us to reconsider the potential for unconventional indicators to illuminate political trends. Who would have thought that the chuckling antics of woodchucks could hold such political significance in the Empire State? As we embrace the whimsical and the statistical, we are reminded that even in the most unexpected of places, there's always room for a good chuckle. After all, as the old saying goes, "Why was the math book sad? Because it had too many problems!" And in our case, the chucking correlation may just be the solution to a statistical conundrum!


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'. 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]]
"Chucking for Change: The Chucking Correlation between Democrat Votes for Senators in New York and Google Searches for 'How Much Wood Can a Woodchuck Chuck'"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the surprising relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this whimsical yet intriguing connection. Our findings revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 and statistical significance with p < 0.05 for the period spanning from 2004 to 2018.

Our analysis not only unravels this peculiar association but also demonstrates the potential for using unconventional indicators to gauge political trends. It appears that the woodchuck's dilemma might hold a clue to electorate behavior in New York. As we delve deeper into the woodchuck's enigmatic chucking capacity, we invite readers to ponder the question, "If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the hallowed halls of academia, researchers often seek to uncover the hidden patterns and correlations that govern our world. While most studies focus on more conventional variables, we, as intrepid scientists, dared to ask a more whimsical question: Is there a connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck"? It seems that even in the world of statistics, we couldn't resist the temptation to chuckle at this peculiar query. Here we are, embarking on a quest to unravel the chucking correlation between these seemingly unrelated phenomena, with a nod to the great, elusive woodchuck and its propensity for chucking wood.
As we venture into this offbeat arena of research, it becomes increasingly clear that there is a "chucking" mystery waiting to be unraveled. It's not every day that statisticians get to ponder the enigmatic abilities of a woodchuck, after all. One might even say that the statistical world was "chucked" full of surprises when this curious association first came to light.
In the realm of data analysis, one often encounters unexpected twists and turns, much like the puzzling riddle of the woodchuck's wooden pursuits. The "chucking" correlation we are about to unveil may well be music to the ears of those who thrive on statistical eccentricities and quirky research findings. After all, where else can one delve into the chucking capacity of a woodchuck and its potential implications for political behavior?
As we delve into the heart of our investigation, we find ourselves pondering the endless variations of the age-old question, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck" uncovered a surprisingly robust correlation. The correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 suggests a strong positive relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. It seems like the Woodchuck's chucking prowess may hold more sway over political behavior than previously thought. Perhaps this woodchuck has been wielding more influence than its woodland counterparts!
The r-squared value of 0.7379376 indicates that approximately 73.79% of the variability in Democrat votes for Senators in New York can be explained by the Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". It seems that when it comes to predicting political trends, the woodchuck's chucking potential might just be the unexpected golden ticket. Who knew that chucking wood could be so politically predictive? It looks like it's time to start paying closer attention to our furry woodland friends!
The statistical significance of the correlation with p < 0.05 underscores the reliability of the relationship between these variables. It's not every day that we come across such a statistically significant link with such a whimsical and pun-worthy variable. One can't help but wonder if the woodchuck's chucking antics have been the silent force behind political shifts in the state of New York. It seems that the woodchuck's chucking abilities may be leaving a lasting impact on the political landscape. Who would have thought that chucking wood could chuck such fascinating political behavior!
We present our findings in the form of a scatterplot (Fig. 1), which vividly illustrates the striking correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". This powerful visual representation leaves little room for doubt regarding the chucking connection between these variables. It's as clear as the chucking day that the woodchuck's wood-chucking tendencies may hold the key to understanding electoral dynamics in New York. As the age-old question goes, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" Our results seem to suggest that the chucking potential of the woodchuck might reach far beyond the confines of its woodland domain. Who knew that chucking wood could chuck political insights!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

Despite the chuckles and puns that this unusual correlation may induce, our findings underscore the significance of this "chucking" relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". It seems that when it comes to political trends, the woodchuck's chucking capacity is nothing to chuckle about! *It's like the woodchuck was casting its own ballots, one chuck at a time.*

Our research has shown a robust correlation coefficient and statistical significance, leaving little room to dismiss the woodchuck's potential influence on political behavior. *Who knew that a humble woodchuck could hold so much sway over the ballot box? It’s like they say, “Every chuck counts!”* It's clear that further exploration into the chucking capacity of woodchucks and its broader implications for political phenomena is no longer just the realm of dad jokes and puns. *But hey, we can't resist a good chuckle even in the name of serious statistics.*

As compelling and engaging as this research has been, we dare to confidently assert that no more research is needed in this area. The chucking question has been answered, and we can all chuckle our way to new insights in the field of political statistics and woodchuck behavior. *Who knew that a woodchuck's chucking antics could have such political weight? It seems like they might need to start their own political party – the Chucklewood Party, perhaps.*


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 Chucking for Change: The Chucking Correlation between Democrat Votes for Senators in New York and Google Searches for 'How Much Wood Can a Woodchuck Chuck'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Chucking Studies


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 Chucking for Change: The Chucking Correlation between Democrat Votes for Senators in New York and Google Searches for 'How Much Wood Can a Woodchuck Chuck'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Quantum Woodchuck Studies


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 Chucking for Change: The Chucking Correlation between Democrat Votes for Senators in New York and Google Searches for 'How Much Wood Can a Woodchuck Chuck' with an abstract of This paper investigates the surprising relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in New York and Google searches for "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck". Using data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab and Harvard Dataverse, as well as Google Trends, we sought to shed light on this whimsical yet intriguing connection. Our findings revealed a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.8590330 and statistical significance with p < 0.05 for the period spanning from 2004 to 2018.
Our analysis not only unravels this peculiar association but also demonstrates the potential for using unconventional indicators to gauge political trends. It appears that the woodchuck's dilemma might hold a clue to electorate behavior in New York. As we delve deeper into the woodchuck's enigmatic chucking capacity, we invite readers to ponder the question, "If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?" It seems that even in the realm of statistical analysis, there's always room for a good old dad joke!

ChatGPT:

New York Democratic senators, woodchuck chucking, Google search trends, MIT Election Data, Harvard Dataverse, political trends, electorate behavior, statistical analysis, correlation coefficient, unconventional indicators, whimsical correlation

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'

Correlation r = 0.8590330 (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 = 0.7379376 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 73.8% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in New York) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2018.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.028. 0.0284069321333264780000000000
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 0.86 in 2.8% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 35 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.

[ 0.16, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200420062010201220162018
Votes for Democratic Senators in New York (Total votes)438491026989305885560442004047842203755490
Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck' (Rel. search volume)25.83335.7544.416740.833324.666725.3333




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,237 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 636,906,169 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
  5. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([4384910,2698930,5885560,4420040,4784220,3755490,])
array_2 = np.array([25.8333,5.75,44.4167,40.8333,24.6667,25.3333,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in New York"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'how much wood can a woodchuck chuck'"

# 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: 5661 · Black Variable ID: 26287 · Red Variable ID: 1412
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0