about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,670 · 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 Libertarian Senators in Oregon and the second variable is Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US.  The chart goes from 1986 to 2015, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the number of Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon increased, so did the demand for a hands-off approach to farming regulations. This led to a push for more organic and sustainable farming practices. Farmers, feeling emboldened by the shifting political climate, turned towards traditional and cost-effective fertilization methods. As a result, the market for dried manure as a natural fertilizer experienced a surprising upswing. Remember, when it comes to politics, sometimes it's all about who can sling the best... policies.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: An image generation prompt for this scene could be: "Generate an image in the style of [Cyber folk] depicting a group of farmers proudly placing "Vote Libertarian" signs on their fields in a farm in Oregon. The sun is setting, casting golden light on the flourishing, healthy organic crops. In the background, the farmers are seen spreading a pile of dried manure across the fields, symbolizing their traditional and sustainable farming practices. Capture the earthy smell of the manure filling the air, representing the increasing demand for natural fertilizers due to the push for a hands-off approach to farming regulations. Keep the visual simple yet detailed in showcasing the pride of the farmers and the bountiful, sustainable landscape." 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 Libertarian Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Art nouveau Brutalism Data cyber art Futuristic Cyber folk
ChatGPT: Cyber folk

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 Libertarian Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US, in the following situation: As the number of Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon increased, so did the demand for a hands-off approach to farming regulations. This led to a push for more organic and sustainable farming practices. Farmers, feeling emboldened by the shifting political climate, turned towards traditional and cost-effective fertilization methods. As a result, the market for dried manure as a natural fertilizer experienced a surprising upswing. Remember, when it comes to politics, sometimes it's all about who can sling the best... policies.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a farm in Oregon, a group of farmers proudly place "Vote Libertarian" signs on their fields. As the sun sets, the fields are seen to be flourishing with healthy organic crops. In the background, a pile of dried manure is being spread across the fields by the farmers, as they opt for traditional and sustainable farming practices. The earthy smell of the manure fills the air, symbolizing the increase in demand for natural fertilizers due to the push for a hands-off approach to farming regulations.

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: [ Cyber folk ] and depicting this scene: In a farm in Oregon, a group of farmers proudly place "Vote Libertarian" signs on their fields. As the sun sets, the fields are seen to be flourishing with healthy organic crops. In the background, a pile of dried manure is being spread across the fields by the farmers, as they opt for traditional and sustainable farming practices. The earthy smell of the manure fills the air, symbolizing the increase in demand for natural fertilizers due to the push for a hands-off approach to farming regulations. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: An image generation prompt for this scene could be: "Generate an image in the style of [Cyber folk] depicting a group of farmers proudly placing "Vote Libertarian" signs on their fields in a farm in Oregon. The sun is setting, casting golden light on the flourishing, healthy organic crops. In the background, the farmers are seen spreading a pile of dried manure across the fields, symbolizing their traditional and sustainable farming practices. Capture the earthy smell of the manure filling the air, representing the increasing demand for natural fertilizers due to the push for a hands-off approach to farming regulations. Keep the visual simple yet detailed in showcasing the pride of the farmers and the bountiful, sustainable landscape."

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

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon caused Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US to increase.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
The Connection Between Oregon Senatorial Libertarian Votes and Fertilizing Follies: A Statistical Odyssey

The Journal of Quirky Political and Agricultural Research

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 dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and USDA to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 and p < 0.05 for 1986 to 2015.

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]]
The Connection Between Oregon Senatorial Libertarian Votes and Fertilizing Follies: A Statistical Odyssey

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents the findings of a rigorous study examining the relationship between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we endeavored to uncover if a peculiar linkage exists between these seemingly unrelated variables. Our analysis uncovers a correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period spanning from 1986 to 2015. The results provide evidence of a surprisingly strong association, suggestive of a potential influence of libertarian leanings on the agricultural practices of the population. This study sheds light on the mysterious ties between political affiliations and farming decisions, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of politics and poop.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Connection Between Oregon Senatorial Libertarian Votes and Fertilizing Follies: A Statistical Odyssey

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents the findings of a rigorous study examining the relationship between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we endeavored to uncover if a peculiar linkage exists between these seemingly unrelated variables. Our analysis uncovers a correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period spanning from 1986 to 2015. The results provide evidence of a surprisingly strong association, suggestive of a potential influence of libertarian leanings on the agricultural practices of the population. This study sheds light on the mysterious ties between political affiliations and farming decisions, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of politics and poop.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The intersection of politics and poop - a topic that, until now, has been left largely unexplored in academic circles. However, in this paper, we embark on a statistical odyssey to uncover the curious connection between the voting behavior of the good people of Oregon and the utilization of dried manure for fertilizer in the vast expanse of the United States. While the link between political inclinations and agricultural practices may seem as improbable as finding a needle in a haystack, our analysis reveals a correlation that is not simply a load of manure.

As we dig into the data, our investigation leads us to ponder the age-old question: Does political ideology influence how individuals handle their, shall we say, "organic matter"? This study seeks to unearth the unexpected and perhaps comical relationship between voting tendencies and the application of dried manure in the fields of America. While the possibility of a direct causation may be a bit of a stretch, the statistical evidence points to an intriguing and statistically significant correlation that cannot be dismissed as mere happenstance.

By examining the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer from 1986 to 2015, we aim to bring a lighthearted yet rigorous analysis to a topic that has long been relegated to the realm of jest and jesters. So, with our tongues firmly planted in our cheeks, we invite you to join us on this academic escapade as we unravel the curious ties between political affiliations and, well, fertilizer follies.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. 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 devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Connection Between Oregon Senatorial Libertarian Votes and Fertilizing Follies: A Statistical Odyssey

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents the findings of a rigorous study examining the relationship between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we endeavored to uncover if a peculiar linkage exists between these seemingly unrelated variables. Our analysis uncovers a correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period spanning from 1986 to 2015. The results provide evidence of a surprisingly strong association, suggestive of a potential influence of libertarian leanings on the agricultural practices of the population. This study sheds light on the mysterious ties between political affiliations and farming decisions, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of politics and poop.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and poop - a topic that, until now, has been left largely unexplored in academic circles. However, in this paper, we embark on a statistical odyssey to uncover the curious connection between the voting behavior of the good people of Oregon and the utilization of dried manure for fertilizer in the vast expanse of the United States. While the link between political inclinations and agricultural practices may seem as improbable as finding a needle in a haystack, our analysis reveals a correlation that is not simply a load of manure.
As we dig into the data, our investigation leads us to ponder the age-old question: Does political ideology influence how individuals handle their, shall we say, "organic matter"? This study seeks to unearth the unexpected and perhaps comical relationship between voting tendencies and the application of dried manure in the fields of America. While the possibility of a direct causation may be a bit of a stretch, the statistical evidence points to an intriguing and statistically significant correlation that cannot be dismissed as mere happenstance.
By examining the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer from 1986 to 2015, we aim to bring a lighthearted yet rigorous analysis to a topic that has long been relegated to the realm of jest and jesters. So, with our tongues firmly planted in our cheeks, we invite you to join us on this academic escapade as we unravel the curious ties between political affiliations and, well, fertilizer follies.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In their seminal work, "The Influence of Political Affiliations on Agricultural Practices," Smith et al. (2010) delve into the complex interplay between political beliefs and the use of fertilizer in modern agricultural systems. They provide a comprehensive analysis of the factors that influence farmers' decisions regarding the types of fertilizers they employ, shedding light on the role of political ideology in shaping these choices. Their findings hint at the potential for political leanings to extend beyond the ballot box and into the barnyard.

Doe and Jones (2015) further add to our understanding in "Agricultural Trends in the United States: A Comprehensive Review." In their exhaustive examination of agricultural data, they touch upon the unexplored territory of how voting patterns may intertwine with fertilizer practices. While their focus is broader, their insights hint at the interconnectedness of political behavior and agricultural decision-making.

Turning to the realm of non-fiction literature, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan offers a broader exploration of the complexities of food production and consumption. While not directly addressing the specific connection between political affiliations and fertilizer choices, the book delves into the intricacies of modern agriculture and prompts readers to contemplate the myriad factors that shape our food system.

On the fictional front, the dystopian novel "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, while not explicitly related to agricultural practices, invites contemplation of societal structures and the influence of government on individual lives. While the connection to dried manure may seem tenuous, the novel prompts us to ponder the potential impact of political ideologies on everyday behaviors, including perhaps, the application of fertilizer.

As we venture further afield in our literature review, it is important to note that some unconventional sources warrant consideration. After exhaustively combing a wide array of scholarly publications and datasets, the authors stumbled upon a less conventional source of insight – the backs of shampoo bottles, where, intriguingly, one may find unexpected nuggets of wisdom, albeit of a rather scatological nature. Though not typically recognized as a scholarly source, these unconventional musings provided a lighthearted departure from the rigors of academic inquiry, offering a refreshingly unconventional perspective to complement the weighty tomes of agricultural analysis.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 USDA . You used data from 1986 to 2015

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]]
The Connection Between Oregon Senatorial Libertarian Votes and Fertilizing Follies: A Statistical Odyssey

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents the findings of a rigorous study examining the relationship between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we endeavored to uncover if a peculiar linkage exists between these seemingly unrelated variables. Our analysis uncovers a correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period spanning from 1986 to 2015. The results provide evidence of a surprisingly strong association, suggestive of a potential influence of libertarian leanings on the agricultural practices of the population. This study sheds light on the mysterious ties between political affiliations and farming decisions, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of politics and poop.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and poop - a topic that, until now, has been left largely unexplored in academic circles. However, in this paper, we embark on a statistical odyssey to uncover the curious connection between the voting behavior of the good people of Oregon and the utilization of dried manure for fertilizer in the vast expanse of the United States. While the link between political inclinations and agricultural practices may seem as improbable as finding a needle in a haystack, our analysis reveals a correlation that is not simply a load of manure.
As we dig into the data, our investigation leads us to ponder the age-old question: Does political ideology influence how individuals handle their, shall we say, "organic matter"? This study seeks to unearth the unexpected and perhaps comical relationship between voting tendencies and the application of dried manure in the fields of America. While the possibility of a direct causation may be a bit of a stretch, the statistical evidence points to an intriguing and statistically significant correlation that cannot be dismissed as mere happenstance.
By examining the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer from 1986 to 2015, we aim to bring a lighthearted yet rigorous analysis to a topic that has long been relegated to the realm of jest and jesters. So, with our tongues firmly planted in our cheeks, we invite you to join us on this academic escapade as we unravel the curious ties between political affiliations and, well, fertilizer follies.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To investigate the peculiar interplay between Oregonian libertarian leanings and the national penchant for utilizing dried manure as fertilizer, a multi-faceted approach was adopted. Data on the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States from 1986 to 2015 was collected from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA.

The data was then put through a rigorous and rather odorous process of validation, normalization, and correlation analysis. First, the political data was meticulously scrutinized for any rogue candidates who might have been horsing around on the ballots. The manure data, on the other hand, was carefully examined to ensure that it didn't contain any "crap" from unreliable sources.

After the vetting process, a series of sophisticated statistical analyses, including Pearson's correlation coefficient and multiple regression models, were employed to reveal the strength and direction of the relationship between Libertarian votes and dried manure usage. The use of cutting-edge statistical methods, akin to sifting through a compost pile, allowed us to unearth any hidden patterns or nuggets of insight from the data.

Furthermore, various contextual factors such as agricultural trends, economic indicators, and political landscapes were considered to control for potential confounding variables. This comprehensive approach helped ensure that the observed relationship between political ideology and fertilizing behaviors wasn't merely a shovelful of coincidence.

Additionally, a geographic information system (GIS) analysis was conducted to map the spatial distribution of Libertarian votes in Oregon and the areas with the highest reliance on dried manure. This spatial examination provided a visually compelling depiction of the overlaps and disparities between political preferences and agricultural practices.

To conclude, the research methodology employed in this study involved a blend of academic rigor and a healthy dose of levity to navigate the uncharted territory where politics meets poop. The process of analyzing the data was akin to tilling the soil of statistical inquiry, where unexpected connections and correlations can sprout forth like, well, a particularly fecund tomato plant.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 USDA .

For the time period 1986 to 2015, you found a correlation 0.8977475, r-squared of 0.8059506, 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]]
The Connection Between Oregon Senatorial Libertarian Votes and Fertilizing Follies: A Statistical Odyssey

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents the findings of a rigorous study examining the relationship between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we endeavored to uncover if a peculiar linkage exists between these seemingly unrelated variables. Our analysis uncovers a correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period spanning from 1986 to 2015. The results provide evidence of a surprisingly strong association, suggestive of a potential influence of libertarian leanings on the agricultural practices of the population. This study sheds light on the mysterious ties between political affiliations and farming decisions, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of politics and poop.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of politics and poop - a topic that, until now, has been left largely unexplored in academic circles. However, in this paper, we embark on a statistical odyssey to uncover the curious connection between the voting behavior of the good people of Oregon and the utilization of dried manure for fertilizer in the vast expanse of the United States. While the link between political inclinations and agricultural practices may seem as improbable as finding a needle in a haystack, our analysis reveals a correlation that is not simply a load of manure.
As we dig into the data, our investigation leads us to ponder the age-old question: Does political ideology influence how individuals handle their, shall we say, "organic matter"? This study seeks to unearth the unexpected and perhaps comical relationship between voting tendencies and the application of dried manure in the fields of America. While the possibility of a direct causation may be a bit of a stretch, the statistical evidence points to an intriguing and statistically significant correlation that cannot be dismissed as mere happenstance.
By examining the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer from 1986 to 2015, we aim to bring a lighthearted yet rigorous analysis to a topic that has long been relegated to the realm of jest and jesters. So, with our tongues firmly planted in our cheeks, we invite you to join us on this academic escapade as we unravel the curious ties between political affiliations and, well, fertilizer follies.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. The correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 indicates a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding suggests that the influence of libertarian leanings may indeed extend beyond the political arena and into the agricultural practices of the populace. The r-squared value of 0.8059506 further underscores the substantial proportion of variability in dried manure usage that can be explained by the percentage of Libertarian votes in Oregon.

Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the compelling association between the two variables, providing a visual portrayal of the statistical odyssey embarked upon in this study. The plot serves as a testament to the unexpected nature of the relationship, prompting contemplation of the intriguing interplay between political preferences and fertilizer utilization.

The p-value of less than 0.05 attests to the statistical significance of the observed correlation, reinforcing the validity of the findings and dispelling any notions of mere coincidence. These results offer an enlightening perspective on the curious nexus between political affiliations and agricultural decisions, demonstrating the unforeseen influence of voting behavior on farming practices.

In essence, this study unearths a distinctive intersection of politics and poop, offering a delightful insight into the whimsical world of statistical analysis. The statistical evidence presented here invites further contemplation of the peculiar ties between political leanings and the utilization of agricultural resources, adding a touch of levity to the realm of empirical inquiry.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
The Connection Between Oregon Senatorial Libertarian Votes and Fertilizing Follies: A Statistical Odyssey

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents the findings of a rigorous study examining the relationship between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we endeavored to uncover if a peculiar linkage exists between these seemingly unrelated variables. Our analysis uncovers a correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period spanning from 1986 to 2015. The results provide evidence of a surprisingly strong association, suggestive of a potential influence of libertarian leanings on the agricultural practices of the population. This study sheds light on the mysterious ties between political affiliations and farming decisions, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of politics and poop.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In their seminal work, "The Influence of Political Affiliations on Agricultural Practices," Smith et al. (2010) delve into the complex interplay between political beliefs and the use of fertilizer in modern agricultural systems. They provide a comprehensive analysis of the factors that influence farmers' decisions regarding the types of fertilizers they employ, shedding light on the role of political ideology in shaping these choices. Their findings hint at the potential for political leanings to extend beyond the ballot box and into the barnyard.
Doe and Jones (2015) further add to our understanding in "Agricultural Trends in the United States: A Comprehensive Review." In their exhaustive examination of agricultural data, they touch upon the unexplored territory of how voting patterns may intertwine with fertilizer practices. While their focus is broader, their insights hint at the interconnectedness of political behavior and agricultural decision-making.
Turning to the realm of non-fiction literature, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan offers a broader exploration of the complexities of food production and consumption. While not directly addressing the specific connection between political affiliations and fertilizer choices, the book delves into the intricacies of modern agriculture and prompts readers to contemplate the myriad factors that shape our food system.
On the fictional front, the dystopian novel "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, while not explicitly related to agricultural practices, invites contemplation of societal structures and the influence of government on individual lives. While the connection to dried manure may seem tenuous, the novel prompts us to ponder the potential impact of political ideologies on everyday behaviors, including perhaps, the application of fertilizer.
As we venture further afield in our literature review, it is important to note that some unconventional sources warrant consideration. After exhaustively combing a wide array of scholarly publications and datasets, the authors stumbled upon a less conventional source of insight – the backs of shampoo bottles, where, intriguingly, one may find unexpected nuggets of wisdom, albeit of a rather scatological nature. Though not typically recognized as a scholarly source, these unconventional musings provided a lighthearted departure from the rigors of academic inquiry, offering a refreshingly unconventional perspective to complement the weighty tomes of agricultural analysis.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. The correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 indicates a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding suggests that the influence of libertarian leanings may indeed extend beyond the political arena and into the agricultural practices of the populace. The r-squared value of 0.8059506 further underscores the substantial proportion of variability in dried manure usage that can be explained by the percentage of Libertarian votes in Oregon.
Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the compelling association between the two variables, providing a visual portrayal of the statistical odyssey embarked upon in this study. The plot serves as a testament to the unexpected nature of the relationship, prompting contemplation of the intriguing interplay between political preferences and fertilizer utilization.
The p-value of less than 0.05 attests to the statistical significance of the observed correlation, reinforcing the validity of the findings and dispelling any notions of mere coincidence. These results offer an enlightening perspective on the curious nexus between political affiliations and agricultural decisions, demonstrating the unforeseen influence of voting behavior on farming practices.
In essence, this study unearths a distinctive intersection of politics and poop, offering a delightful insight into the whimsical world of statistical analysis. The statistical evidence presented here invites further contemplation of the peculiar ties between political leanings and the utilization of agricultural resources, adding a touch of levity to the realm of empirical inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of this study confirm and extend prior research findings, providing robust evidence for the surprising connection between Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. Our observed correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 aligns with the speculations put forth by Smith et al. (2010), who hinted at the potential for political leanings to transcend the political arena and permeate agricultural decisions. Likewise, the statistically significant p-value further bolsters the credibility of our findings, echoing the sentiments of Doe and Jones (2015) who suggested an intertwining of voting patterns and fertilizer practices.

The prominent correlation documented in this study speaks to the influential reach of political ideologies, prompting reflection on the sometimes unexpected ripple effects of political preferences. While it may seem incongruous at first glance, the compelling association between Libertarian votes in Oregon and dried manure usage serves as a testament to the intricate interplay of seemingly disparate factors. Indeed, as Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" alludes to the potential impact of political ideologies on daily behaviors, our findings provide empirical validation for the speculative musings presented in both scholarly and fictional literature.

The robustness of our results, as reflected in the substantial r-squared value of 0.8059506, underscores the substantial proportion of variability in dried manure usage that is explicable by the percentage of Libertarian votes in Oregon. This statistical evidence aligns with the insightful inquiries of prior researchers and lends credence to the notion that agricultural decisions may indeed bear the imprint of political leanings. Our findings thus contribute a whimsical twist to the corpus of empirical work, shedding light on the curious intersection of politics and poop.

The unexpected nature of the relationship between political affiliations and fertilizer utilization, depicted in the engaging scatterplot presented in Figure 1, serves as a visual representation of the serendipitous discoveries that often arise in the course of robust statistical analyses. The humorous incongruity of the peculiar correlation further underscores the delightful charm of empirical inquiry, adding a touch of levity to the often solemn tones of scholarly discourse. Our study, therefore, not only elucidates a quirk of statistical odyssey but also invites further contemplation of the fascinating interconnections among variables that may, at first glance, appear disconnected.

In conclusion, the results of this study uncover a surprising nexus between political leanings and agricultural decision-making, speaking to the whimsical idiosyncrasies of statistical inquiry and the delightful revelations that emerge from rigorous analyses. The unexpected linkage between Libertarian votes in Oregon and dried manure usage offers a delightful twist in the understanding of the potential influence of political behavior on farming practices.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics 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 Libertarian votes for Senators in Oregon and Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
The Connection Between Oregon Senatorial Libertarian Votes and Fertilizing Follies: A Statistical Odyssey

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper presents the findings of a rigorous study examining the relationship between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we endeavored to uncover if a peculiar linkage exists between these seemingly unrelated variables. Our analysis uncovers a correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period spanning from 1986 to 2015. The results provide evidence of a surprisingly strong association, suggestive of a potential influence of libertarian leanings on the agricultural practices of the population. This study sheds light on the mysterious ties between political affiliations and farming decisions, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of politics and poop.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and poop - a topic that, until now, has been left largely unexplored in academic circles. However, in this paper, we embark on a statistical odyssey to uncover the curious connection between the voting behavior of the good people of Oregon and the utilization of dried manure for fertilizer in the vast expanse of the United States. While the link between political inclinations and agricultural practices may seem as improbable as finding a needle in a haystack, our analysis reveals a correlation that is not simply a load of manure.
As we dig into the data, our investigation leads us to ponder the age-old question: Does political ideology influence how individuals handle their, shall we say, "organic matter"? This study seeks to unearth the unexpected and perhaps comical relationship between voting tendencies and the application of dried manure in the fields of America. While the possibility of a direct causation may be a bit of a stretch, the statistical evidence points to an intriguing and statistically significant correlation that cannot be dismissed as mere happenstance.
By examining the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer from 1986 to 2015, we aim to bring a lighthearted yet rigorous analysis to a topic that has long been relegated to the realm of jest and jesters. So, with our tongues firmly planted in our cheeks, we invite you to join us on this academic escapade as we unravel the curious ties between political affiliations and, well, fertilizer follies.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. The correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 indicates a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. This finding suggests that the influence of libertarian leanings may indeed extend beyond the political arena and into the agricultural practices of the populace. The r-squared value of 0.8059506 further underscores the substantial proportion of variability in dried manure usage that can be explained by the percentage of Libertarian votes in Oregon.
Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the compelling association between the two variables, providing a visual portrayal of the statistical odyssey embarked upon in this study. The plot serves as a testament to the unexpected nature of the relationship, prompting contemplation of the intriguing interplay between political preferences and fertilizer utilization.
The p-value of less than 0.05 attests to the statistical significance of the observed correlation, reinforcing the validity of the findings and dispelling any notions of mere coincidence. These results offer an enlightening perspective on the curious nexus between political affiliations and agricultural decisions, demonstrating the unforeseen influence of voting behavior on farming practices.
In essence, this study unearths a distinctive intersection of politics and poop, offering a delightful insight into the whimsical world of statistical analysis. The statistical evidence presented here invites further contemplation of the peculiar ties between political leanings and the utilization of agricultural resources, adding a touch of levity to the realm of empirical inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our statistical odyssey has unearthed a remarkably robust correlation between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the utilization of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. This unexpected connection prompts the age-old question: Are libertarian voters truly cultivating a unique political and agricultural landscape, or is it simply a fortuitous fertilizer follies? Regardless, the statistically significant p-value dispels any notions of happenstance and demands recognition of this curious nexus between political preferences and, well, poop management.

The whimsical perspective offered by this study sheds light on the unexpected influence of political leanings on farming practices - a testament to the peculiarities of human behavior and decision-making. The scatterplot in Figure 1 serves not only as a visual portrayal of our findings but also as a curious keepsake from our academic escapade, reminding us that even in the realm of statistical analysis, surprises await.

As we wrap up this investigation, we must acknowledge that while our analysis has delved into the curious ties between political affiliations and fertilizer utilization, further research in this esoteric field may be akin to, dare we say, searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack while carrying a load of manure. Therefore, we assert, with all due gravity, that no more 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 The Connection Between Oregon Senatorial Libertarian Votes and Fertilizing Follies: A Statistical Odyssey. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Political and Agricultural Research


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 The Connection Between Oregon Senatorial Libertarian Votes and Fertilizing Follies: A Statistical Odyssey. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Political Botany and Agricultural Economics


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 The Connection Between Oregon Senatorial Libertarian Votes and Fertilizing Follies: A Statistical Odyssey with an abstract of This paper presents the findings of a rigorous study examining the relationship between the percentage of votes for Libertarian candidates in Oregon senatorial elections and the usage of dried manure for fertilizer in the United States. Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the USDA, we endeavored to uncover if a peculiar linkage exists between these seemingly unrelated variables. Our analysis uncovers a correlation coefficient of 0.8977475 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.05 for the period spanning from 1986 to 2015. The results provide evidence of a surprisingly strong association, suggestive of a potential influence of libertarian leanings on the agricultural practices of the population. This study sheds light on the mysterious ties between political affiliations and farming decisions, offering a whimsical perspective on the intersection of politics and poop.

ChatGPT:

Oregon senatorial elections, libertarian candidates, dried manure fertilizer, United States, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, USDA, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, political affiliations, agricultural practices, farming decisions, politics and poop

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

Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US
Detailed data title: U.S. consumption of Dried manure for fertilizer
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US

Correlation r = 0.8977475 (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 = 0.8059506 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 80.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Libertarian Senators in Oregon) over the 6 years from 1986 through 2015.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.015. 0.0151488017580670730000000000
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 0.9 in 1.5% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 66 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.

[ 0.32, 0.99 ] 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.
199619982002200420102014
Votes for Libertarian Senators in Oregon (Percentage of votes)0.9334451.630152.365731.66141.111063.07303
Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US (Fertilizer)114.822125.443156.87154.455140.137193.179




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,237 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 636,906,169 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.




Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([0.933445,1.63015,2.36573,1.6614,1.11106,3.07303,])
array_2 = np.array([114.822,125.443,156.87,154.455,140.137,193.179,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Libertarian Senators in Oregon"
array_2_name = "Dried manure used for fertilizer in the US"

# 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?

Thanks for being the explorer we needed!


Correlation ID: 5670 · Black Variable ID: 26450 · Red Variable ID: 1198
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0