about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,671 · 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 Oregon and the second variable is Google searches for 'how to annex texas'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

Perhaps they realized that annexing Texas would just create more space for people to move to, and Oregon is already dealing with enough transplants.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an adorable cartoon scene of a lively Oregon town square, with vibrant autumn foliage and a line of cheerful voters patiently waiting outside the polling station. The scene should be bustling with enthusiasm as people of all ages, dressed in cozy layers, eagerly cast their ballots for Democratic Senators. In the background, a quaint coffee shop could be depicted, exuding warmth and charm, where a group of cute, wide-eyed friends sit around a table with their laptops, furiously typing into Google "how to annex Texas," wearing bewildered expressions as they exchange puzzled glances. 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 Oregon and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. 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 Cubism Cute cartoon 3D Pixar Style Celtic art
ChatGPT: Cute cartoon

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 Oregon and Google searches for 'how to annex texas', in the following situation: Perhaps they realized that annexing Texas would just create more space for people to move to, and Oregon is already dealing with enough transplants.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a quaint Oregon town, a line of voters wraps around the polling station as people eagerly cast their votes for Democratic Senators. Meanwhile, in a cozy coffee shop nearby, a group of friends sit around a table with their laptops, furiously typing into Google "how to annex Texas," with confused expressions on their faces.

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: [ Cute cartoon ] and depicting this scene: In a quaint Oregon town, a line of voters wraps around the polling station as people eagerly cast their votes for Democratic Senators. Meanwhile, in a cozy coffee shop nearby, a group of friends sit around a table with their laptops, furiously typing into Google "how to annex Texas," with confused expressions on their faces. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an adorable cartoon scene of a lively Oregon town square, with vibrant autumn foliage and a line of cheerful voters patiently waiting outside the polling station. The scene should be bustling with enthusiasm as people of all ages, dressed in cozy layers, eagerly cast their ballots for Democratic Senators. In the background, a quaint coffee shop could be depicted, exuding warmth and charm, where a group of cute, wide-eyed friends sit around a table with their laptops, furiously typing into Google "how to annex Texas," wearing bewildered expressions as they exchange puzzled glances.

*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 a decrease in Democrat votes for Senators in Oregon caused how to annex texas (Google searches for 'how to annex texas') to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Democrats in the Desert: Examining the Entertaining Connection Between Oregonian Senators' Votes and Googling How to Annex Texas

The Journal of Political Curiosities

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title an alliteration.

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 0.9597252 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2020.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Democrats in the Desert: Examining the Entertaining Connection Between Oregonian Senators' Votes and Googling "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we dive into the peculiar realms of political behavior and internet searches to unravel the surprising association between Oregonian senators' democratic votes and the peculiar trend of googling "how to annex Texas." Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends spanning the years 2004 to 2020, we stumbled upon an eye-catching correlation coefficient of 0.9597252 and p < 0.01. The results of our study are as intriguing as a Texan tumbleweed, suggesting a potential underlying link between political leanings and online curiosity about the Lone Star State's territorial fate. Our findings open up a treasure trove of questions for further investigation, compelling us to ponder, in the words of the great philosopher Dolly Parton, "What in annexation?"


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Democrats in the Desert: Examining the Entertaining Connection Between Oregonian Senators' Votes and Googling "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we dive into the peculiar realms of political behavior and internet searches to unravel the surprising association between Oregonian senators' democratic votes and the peculiar trend of googling "how to annex Texas." Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends spanning the years 2004 to 2020, we stumbled upon an eye-catching correlation coefficient of 0.9597252 and p < 0.01. The results of our study are as intriguing as a Texan tumbleweed, suggesting a potential underlying link between political leanings and online curiosity about the Lone Star State's territorial fate. Our findings open up a treasure trove of questions for further investigation, compelling us to ponder, in the words of the great philosopher Dolly Parton, "What in annexation?"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Politics and the internet - an unlikely pair akin to a cowboy in a spacesuit. Yet, in the ever-changing landscape of modern society, these two worlds seem to intersect more often than one would expect. Our work delves into this unusual junction to explore the bewildering connection between the voting patterns of Oregonian senators and the rather unconventional habit of googling "how to annex Texas."

The Pacific Northwest is not typically associated with dreams of Lone Star conquest, nor is Oregon known for its yearning to expand into the vast Texan expanse. However, as we pried into the depths of data, we stumbled upon a correlation that was as eyebrow-raising as witnessing a parliament of owls tap-dancing. The correlation coefficient stood tall at 0.9597252 - a figure that demanded our attention and raised more eyebrows than a clumsy barber.

Our decision to embark on this endeavor was met with raised eyebrows and quizzical looks, but we forged ahead, determined to uncover what lay at the confluence of political loyalties and implications of territorial expansion. With data in hand from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-watchful eye of Google Trends, our analytical journey began.

This unexpected entanglement of political affiliations and search engine queries has left us scratching our heads more than a nosy neighbor watching the drama unfold next door. As we delve deeper into our findings, we invite the reader to accompany us on this intellectual rollercoaster, complete with unexpected turns and the occasional loop-de-loop of curiosity.

Join us as we navigate through the labyrinth of internet queries and political inclinations, as we seek to unearth the underlying reasons behind this peculiar relationship. Our quest promises to be as riveting as a high-stakes poker game, where the odds are intriguing and the stakes are nothing short of enthralling.

So fasten your seatbelts, dear reader, and prepare to be whisked away into the enigmatic world of political affiliations and territorial ponderings as we unravel the captivating tale of Democrats in the Desert.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of 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. Perhaps you also got inspiration from some board games that are vaugely related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Democrats in the Desert: Examining the Entertaining Connection Between Oregonian Senators' Votes and Googling "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we dive into the peculiar realms of political behavior and internet searches to unravel the surprising association between Oregonian senators' democratic votes and the peculiar trend of googling "how to annex Texas." Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends spanning the years 2004 to 2020, we stumbled upon an eye-catching correlation coefficient of 0.9597252 and p < 0.01. The results of our study are as intriguing as a Texan tumbleweed, suggesting a potential underlying link between political leanings and online curiosity about the Lone Star State's territorial fate. Our findings open up a treasure trove of questions for further investigation, compelling us to ponder, in the words of the great philosopher Dolly Parton, "What in annexation?"

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Politics and the internet - an unlikely pair akin to a cowboy in a spacesuit. Yet, in the ever-changing landscape of modern society, these two worlds seem to intersect more often than one would expect. Our work delves into this unusual junction to explore the bewildering connection between the voting patterns of Oregonian senators and the rather unconventional habit of googling "how to annex Texas."
The Pacific Northwest is not typically associated with dreams of Lone Star conquest, nor is Oregon known for its yearning to expand into the vast Texan expanse. However, as we pried into the depths of data, we stumbled upon a correlation that was as eyebrow-raising as witnessing a parliament of owls tap-dancing. The correlation coefficient stood tall at 0.9597252 - a figure that demanded our attention and raised more eyebrows than a clumsy barber.
Our decision to embark on this endeavor was met with raised eyebrows and quizzical looks, but we forged ahead, determined to uncover what lay at the confluence of political loyalties and implications of territorial expansion. With data in hand from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-watchful eye of Google Trends, our analytical journey began.
This unexpected entanglement of political affiliations and search engine queries has left us scratching our heads more than a nosy neighbor watching the drama unfold next door. As we delve deeper into our findings, we invite the reader to accompany us on this intellectual rollercoaster, complete with unexpected turns and the occasional loop-de-loop of curiosity.
Join us as we navigate through the labyrinth of internet queries and political inclinations, as we seek to unearth the underlying reasons behind this peculiar relationship. Our quest promises to be as riveting as a high-stakes poker game, where the odds are intriguing and the stakes are nothing short of enthralling.
So fasten your seatbelts, dear reader, and prepare to be whisked away into the enigmatic world of political affiliations and territorial ponderings as we unravel the captivating tale of Democrats in the Desert.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

To comprehend the perplexing correlation between the voting behaviors of Oregonian senators and the inexplicably recurrent Google searches for "how to annex Texas," we embarked on a quest through the labyrinth of existing literature. Our exploration began with rigorously researched studies that delved into the realms of political behavior, online trends, and even the quirks of human curiosity.

Smith and Doe (2015) took the initial step in unraveling the mysteries of online search patterns and political leanings in their comprehensive study titled "Search Queries and Political Preferences." Their findings initially leaned towards the serious, noting the statistically significant relationship between political party associations and keyword search frequencies. However, as we delved into the finer details, we stumbled upon a nugget of amusement, as they observed a pronounced surge in queries related to territorial expansions and state boundaries, akin to a digital treasure map leading us to our peculiar search query.

In a similar vein, Jones (2017) contemplated the intersection of political affiliations and the idiosyncrasies of public interest in his work, "Curious Queries: Unraveling the Ties between Online Searches and Political Beliefs." While the primary focus of the study revolved around the predictable search trends related to political figures and policy issues, the author stumbled upon an unexpected association between democratic sentiments and fascination with the geopolitical fate of Texas. This discovery left us more puzzled than a Rubik's Cube in the hands of a toddler.

Transitioning from the academic tomes of research, we turned our attention to non-fiction works that offered insights into the intricate tapestry of American politics and the allure of territorial dynamics. Titles such as "The State of American Democracy" by John Smith and "Borderline: A Journey Through America's Territorial Quirks" by Jane Doe provided a canvas for contemplation, as they painted a vivid picture of the tumultuous undercurrents shaping political narratives and territorial aspirations. Amidst the scholarly depth, we found ourselves gravitating towards the lighter side of the literary spectrum, venturing into fictional realms that tantalizingly flirted with themes of political intrigue and territorial ambitions.

The works of fiction, such as "Annexation Anecdotes" by A. K. Jones and "The Texan Takeover Tales" by S. M. Smith, teased our imagination, offering a whimsical escape into a world where the lines between reality and absurdity seemed to blur, much like a mirage in the Texan desert. As we navigated through the pages of these colorful narratives, we couldn't help but draw parallels between the outlandish scenarios unfolding in the fictional realm and the improbable connection we were attempting to untangle in our research.

Drawing inspiration from the unlikely sources of amusement, we couldn't resist acknowledging the peculiar parallels found in the world of board games. Games such as "Risk: Political Edition" and "Settlers of the Senate" sparked our imagination, offering a bizarre yet strangely fitting reflection of the entangled themes we sought to investigate. After all, what better way to contemplate geopolitical aspirations and political maneuverings than through the lens of dice rolls and strategy cards?

As we traversed this meandering path through literature, we found ourselves teetering on the precipice of fascination and folly, embracing the unexpected twists and turns along the way. With a wink to the absurd and a nod to the curious, we set the stage for our own foray into the enigmatic landscape of Oregonian senators, democratic predilections, and the audacious query that beckons with the allure of a puzzle waiting to be solved.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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 2020

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Democrats in the Desert: Examining the Entertaining Connection Between Oregonian Senators' Votes and Googling "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we dive into the peculiar realms of political behavior and internet searches to unravel the surprising association between Oregonian senators' democratic votes and the peculiar trend of googling "how to annex Texas." Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends spanning the years 2004 to 2020, we stumbled upon an eye-catching correlation coefficient of 0.9597252 and p < 0.01. The results of our study are as intriguing as a Texan tumbleweed, suggesting a potential underlying link between political leanings and online curiosity about the Lone Star State's territorial fate. Our findings open up a treasure trove of questions for further investigation, compelling us to ponder, in the words of the great philosopher Dolly Parton, "What in annexation?"

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Politics and the internet - an unlikely pair akin to a cowboy in a spacesuit. Yet, in the ever-changing landscape of modern society, these two worlds seem to intersect more often than one would expect. Our work delves into this unusual junction to explore the bewildering connection between the voting patterns of Oregonian senators and the rather unconventional habit of googling "how to annex Texas."
The Pacific Northwest is not typically associated with dreams of Lone Star conquest, nor is Oregon known for its yearning to expand into the vast Texan expanse. However, as we pried into the depths of data, we stumbled upon a correlation that was as eyebrow-raising as witnessing a parliament of owls tap-dancing. The correlation coefficient stood tall at 0.9597252 - a figure that demanded our attention and raised more eyebrows than a clumsy barber.
Our decision to embark on this endeavor was met with raised eyebrows and quizzical looks, but we forged ahead, determined to uncover what lay at the confluence of political loyalties and implications of territorial expansion. With data in hand from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-watchful eye of Google Trends, our analytical journey began.
This unexpected entanglement of political affiliations and search engine queries has left us scratching our heads more than a nosy neighbor watching the drama unfold next door. As we delve deeper into our findings, we invite the reader to accompany us on this intellectual rollercoaster, complete with unexpected turns and the occasional loop-de-loop of curiosity.
Join us as we navigate through the labyrinth of internet queries and political inclinations, as we seek to unearth the underlying reasons behind this peculiar relationship. Our quest promises to be as riveting as a high-stakes poker game, where the odds are intriguing and the stakes are nothing short of enthralling.
So fasten your seatbelts, dear reader, and prepare to be whisked away into the enigmatic world of political affiliations and territorial ponderings as we unravel the captivating tale of Democrats in the Desert.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the enigma of the correlation between Oregonian senators' voting patterns and the search interest in annexing Texas, we embarked on a meticulous journey through the digital realms of data analysis. Our exploration began by gathering data from a variety of sources, resembling a digital treasure hunt with - you guessed it - Google Trends, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse serving as our trusty maps.

Our extensive dataset spanned the illustrious years from 2004 to 2020, a timeframe riddled with more plot twists than a soap opera finale. With an impressive array of data surrounding Democratic votes for Senators in Oregon and the search queries for "how to annex Texas," we were armed and ready to untangle this web of online intrigue and political prowess.

To measure the oscillations of interest in annexing Texas, we conducted trend analyses using Google Trends. This involved setting our digital compass to navigate the ebb and flow of search interest, making sure to steer clear of any digital whirlpools.

Meanwhile, to capture the political allegiance and behavior of Oregonian senators, we delved into the esteemed MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the Harvard Dataverse. We made sure to handle this data with care, akin to a delicate soufflé fresh out of the oven.

With these diverse datasets in hand, our next step was to engage in the formidable task of data wrangling and preprocessing. This process was akin to taming a wild bronco, requiring skill, finesse, and the occasional lasso. We harmonized the datasets to ensure their compatibility, just like expert ringmasters orchestrating a grand circus performance.

Following the harmonization process, we performed an array of statistical analyses, including but not limited to regression models and time series analyses. Our statistical arsenal resembled a trove of artifacts in an academic museum, each piece meticulously selected to shed light on the peculiar relationship we were attempting to decipher.

Intriguingly, our analyses unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9597252, a value more awe-inspiring than a unicorn sighting in the financial district. With a p-value less than 0.01, our results stood more robust than a resilient oak tree weathering the forces of nature.

As we navigated through the labyrinth of data, our journey was marked by countless 'Eureka' moments, akin to an exhilarating game of academic hide-and-seek. Our approach was characterized by meticulous attention to detail, a sprinkle of whimsy, and just the right amount of flair - after all, what's scientific research without a dash of pizzazz?



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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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 2020, you found a correlation 0.9597252, r-squared of 0.9210725, and p < 0.01.

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Democrats in the Desert: Examining the Entertaining Connection Between Oregonian Senators' Votes and Googling "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we dive into the peculiar realms of political behavior and internet searches to unravel the surprising association between Oregonian senators' democratic votes and the peculiar trend of googling "how to annex Texas." Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends spanning the years 2004 to 2020, we stumbled upon an eye-catching correlation coefficient of 0.9597252 and p < 0.01. The results of our study are as intriguing as a Texan tumbleweed, suggesting a potential underlying link between political leanings and online curiosity about the Lone Star State's territorial fate. Our findings open up a treasure trove of questions for further investigation, compelling us to ponder, in the words of the great philosopher Dolly Parton, "What in annexation?"

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Politics and the internet - an unlikely pair akin to a cowboy in a spacesuit. Yet, in the ever-changing landscape of modern society, these two worlds seem to intersect more often than one would expect. Our work delves into this unusual junction to explore the bewildering connection between the voting patterns of Oregonian senators and the rather unconventional habit of googling "how to annex Texas."
The Pacific Northwest is not typically associated with dreams of Lone Star conquest, nor is Oregon known for its yearning to expand into the vast Texan expanse. However, as we pried into the depths of data, we stumbled upon a correlation that was as eyebrow-raising as witnessing a parliament of owls tap-dancing. The correlation coefficient stood tall at 0.9597252 - a figure that demanded our attention and raised more eyebrows than a clumsy barber.
Our decision to embark on this endeavor was met with raised eyebrows and quizzical looks, but we forged ahead, determined to uncover what lay at the confluence of political loyalties and implications of territorial expansion. With data in hand from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-watchful eye of Google Trends, our analytical journey began.
This unexpected entanglement of political affiliations and search engine queries has left us scratching our heads more than a nosy neighbor watching the drama unfold next door. As we delve deeper into our findings, we invite the reader to accompany us on this intellectual rollercoaster, complete with unexpected turns and the occasional loop-de-loop of curiosity.
Join us as we navigate through the labyrinth of internet queries and political inclinations, as we seek to unearth the underlying reasons behind this peculiar relationship. Our quest promises to be as riveting as a high-stakes poker game, where the odds are intriguing and the stakes are nothing short of enthralling.
So fasten your seatbelts, dear reader, and prepare to be whisked away into the enigmatic world of political affiliations and territorial ponderings as we unravel the captivating tale of Democrats in the Desert.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our foray into the unexpected nexus of Oregonian senators' democratic voting behavior and the peculiar online exploration of "how to annex Texas" led us down a rather unexpected rabbit hole. Much like a dusty old map leading to hidden treasure, our data revealed a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9597252. This figure held its ground with a sturdiness that would make even the hardiest of tumbleweeds envious.

The strength of this correlation, further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9210725 and a p-value of less than 0.01, left us both surprised and amused. To put it simply, the relationship between these variables was as robust as a cowboy's handshake and as statistically significant as a Texan barbecue.

In Figure 1, our scatterplot illustrates this undeniable link between the voting preferences of Oregonian senators and the online interest in the hypothetical annexation of Texas. The data points sit snugly along a positively sloped line, painting a picture that surely tickles the imagination. This figure is like an optical illusion at a county fair; the more you stare at it, the more you catch yourself scratching your head in fascination.

Our findings tease at the possibility of a deeper connection between political allegiance and the remote daydreams of territorial expansion. The correlation between these seemingly unrelated phenomena is as mystifying as a desert mirage, leaving us pondering the motivations behind such a compelling association. It's like stumbling upon a cactus in the middle of a cornfield – curious and unexpected, yet undeniably captivating.

As we unpack the implications of our results, we can't help but feel like explorers charting uncharted territories. The unexpected connections we stumbled upon are as unexpected as a rodeo in a rainstorm, urging us to delve deeper into the intersection of political leanings and fantastical musings about state borders.

Our study lays the groundwork for a new avenue of inquiry, inviting further exploration of the enthralling relationship between political behavior and online curiosity. The unexpected link we uncovered between Democrats in Oregon and the daydreams of annexing Texas encourages us to forge ahead into uncharted intellectual terrain, with the excitement of a prospector stumbling upon a gold nugget.

In conclusion, our findings elevate the eyebrow-raising correlation between Oregonian senators' democratic votes and the fascination with annexing Texas to the status of an academic enigma. It's as if we've stumbled onto the trail of a mythical creature – improbable, yet undeniably captivating. This unexpected correlation beckons us to seek deeper understanding of the peculiar intertwining of political allegiance and wild imaginations, much like a riddle that demands to be unraveled.

We are left with more questions than answers, but one thing is clear: the alliance between political inclinations and daydreams of territorial expansion is a fascinating puzzle, reminiscent of a game of political chess that unfolds in the vast expanse of the internet.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
Democrats in the Desert: Examining the Entertaining Connection Between Oregonian Senators' Votes and Googling "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we dive into the peculiar realms of political behavior and internet searches to unravel the surprising association between Oregonian senators' democratic votes and the peculiar trend of googling "how to annex Texas." Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends spanning the years 2004 to 2020, we stumbled upon an eye-catching correlation coefficient of 0.9597252 and p < 0.01. The results of our study are as intriguing as a Texan tumbleweed, suggesting a potential underlying link between political leanings and online curiosity about the Lone Star State's territorial fate. Our findings open up a treasure trove of questions for further investigation, compelling us to ponder, in the words of the great philosopher Dolly Parton, "What in annexation?"

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
To comprehend the perplexing correlation between the voting behaviors of Oregonian senators and the inexplicably recurrent Google searches for "how to annex Texas," we embarked on a quest through the labyrinth of existing literature. Our exploration began with rigorously researched studies that delved into the realms of political behavior, online trends, and even the quirks of human curiosity.
Smith and Doe (2015) took the initial step in unraveling the mysteries of online search patterns and political leanings in their comprehensive study titled "Search Queries and Political Preferences." Their findings initially leaned towards the serious, noting the statistically significant relationship between political party associations and keyword search frequencies. However, as we delved into the finer details, we stumbled upon a nugget of amusement, as they observed a pronounced surge in queries related to territorial expansions and state boundaries, akin to a digital treasure map leading us to our peculiar search query.
In a similar vein, Jones (2017) contemplated the intersection of political affiliations and the idiosyncrasies of public interest in his work, "Curious Queries: Unraveling the Ties between Online Searches and Political Beliefs." While the primary focus of the study revolved around the predictable search trends related to political figures and policy issues, the author stumbled upon an unexpected association between democratic sentiments and fascination with the geopolitical fate of Texas. This discovery left us more puzzled than a Rubik's Cube in the hands of a toddler.
Transitioning from the academic tomes of research, we turned our attention to non-fiction works that offered insights into the intricate tapestry of American politics and the allure of territorial dynamics. Titles such as "The State of American Democracy" by John Smith and "Borderline: A Journey Through America's Territorial Quirks" by Jane Doe provided a canvas for contemplation, as they painted a vivid picture of the tumultuous undercurrents shaping political narratives and territorial aspirations. Amidst the scholarly depth, we found ourselves gravitating towards the lighter side of the literary spectrum, venturing into fictional realms that tantalizingly flirted with themes of political intrigue and territorial ambitions.
The works of fiction, such as "Annexation Anecdotes" by A. K. Jones and "The Texan Takeover Tales" by S. M. Smith, teased our imagination, offering a whimsical escape into a world where the lines between reality and absurdity seemed to blur, much like a mirage in the Texan desert. As we navigated through the pages of these colorful narratives, we couldn't help but draw parallels between the outlandish scenarios unfolding in the fictional realm and the improbable connection we were attempting to untangle in our research.
Drawing inspiration from the unlikely sources of amusement, we couldn't resist acknowledging the peculiar parallels found in the world of board games. Games such as "Risk: Political Edition" and "Settlers of the Senate" sparked our imagination, offering a bizarre yet strangely fitting reflection of the entangled themes we sought to investigate. After all, what better way to contemplate geopolitical aspirations and political maneuverings than through the lens of dice rolls and strategy cards?
As we traversed this meandering path through literature, we found ourselves teetering on the precipice of fascination and folly, embracing the unexpected twists and turns along the way. With a wink to the absurd and a nod to the curious, we set the stage for our own foray into the enigmatic landscape of Oregonian senators, democratic predilections, and the audacious query that beckons with the allure of a puzzle waiting to be solved.

[[RESULTS]]
Our foray into the unexpected nexus of Oregonian senators' democratic voting behavior and the peculiar online exploration of "how to annex Texas" led us down a rather unexpected rabbit hole. Much like a dusty old map leading to hidden treasure, our data revealed a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9597252. This figure held its ground with a sturdiness that would make even the hardiest of tumbleweeds envious.
The strength of this correlation, further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9210725 and a p-value of less than 0.01, left us both surprised and amused. To put it simply, the relationship between these variables was as robust as a cowboy's handshake and as statistically significant as a Texan barbecue.
In Figure 1, our scatterplot illustrates this undeniable link between the voting preferences of Oregonian senators and the online interest in the hypothetical annexation of Texas. The data points sit snugly along a positively sloped line, painting a picture that surely tickles the imagination. This figure is like an optical illusion at a county fair; the more you stare at it, the more you catch yourself scratching your head in fascination.
Our findings tease at the possibility of a deeper connection between political allegiance and the remote daydreams of territorial expansion. The correlation between these seemingly unrelated phenomena is as mystifying as a desert mirage, leaving us pondering the motivations behind such a compelling association. It's like stumbling upon a cactus in the middle of a cornfield – curious and unexpected, yet undeniably captivating.
As we unpack the implications of our results, we can't help but feel like explorers charting uncharted territories. The unexpected connections we stumbled upon are as unexpected as a rodeo in a rainstorm, urging us to delve deeper into the intersection of political leanings and fantastical musings about state borders.
Our study lays the groundwork for a new avenue of inquiry, inviting further exploration of the enthralling relationship between political behavior and online curiosity. The unexpected link we uncovered between Democrats in Oregon and the daydreams of annexing Texas encourages us to forge ahead into uncharted intellectual terrain, with the excitement of a prospector stumbling upon a gold nugget.
In conclusion, our findings elevate the eyebrow-raising correlation between Oregonian senators' democratic votes and the fascination with annexing Texas to the status of an academic enigma. It's as if we've stumbled onto the trail of a mythical creature – improbable, yet undeniably captivating. This unexpected correlation beckons us to seek deeper understanding of the peculiar intertwining of political allegiance and wild imaginations, much like a riddle that demands to be unraveled.
We are left with more questions than answers, but one thing is clear: the alliance between political inclinations and daydreams of territorial expansion is a fascinating puzzle, reminiscent of a game of political chess that unfolds in the vast expanse of the internet.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The prodigious correlation between the voting inclinations of Oregonian senators and the seemingly perplexing flurry of online endeavors to comprehend the hypothetical annexation of Texas, as unveiled in our study, is as unexpected as a tumbleweed in a blizzard. Our findings serendipitously corroborate the prior research by Smith and Doe (2015), who speculated on the latent interest in territorial expansions and state boundaries, akin to a digital treasure hunt leading us to our captivating search query. An intriguing parallel indeed, as if navigating a labyrinth of political preference and surreptitious cyber-exploration akin to the enchanting allure of a fabled hidden treasure.

Similarly, Jones (2017) stumbled upon an unforeseen association between democratic sentiments and the fascination with the geopolitical fate of Texas, leaving us more perplexed than a Rubik's Cube in the hands of a toddler. Our results afford a whimsical yet astonishing validation of this peculiar intersection, tantamount to discovering a cherished relic amidst the annals of academic inquiry.

Drawing inspiration from the improbable sources of amusement, we find a delightful harmony with the vibrant tapestry of literature - a convergence of the serious and the whimsical, akin to a play of light and shadow in a captivating stage performance. The enthralling dance between the tangible and the conjectural, between fact and fiction, seems to mirror the captivating correlation we uncovered in our exploration.

Our discovery is akin to a mirage in the Texan desert – both illusory and enticing but nonetheless prompting further scrutiny and contemplation. The robustness of the correlation, reminiscent of a sturdy cowboy's handshake, beckons us to delve deeper into the enigmatic landscape of political proclivities and fanciful notions of territorial expansion. These results open an exciting treasure trove of questions, compelling us to ponder Dolly Parton's quizzical "What in annexation?"

This unexpected union of political allegiance and whimsical contemplation evokes a deeply evocative sense of wonder, thrusting us into uncharted intellectual terrain, much like explorers charting the mysteries of a yet unexplored frontier. The unexpected correlation we've unravelled urges us to press forward with the fervor of a prospector unearthing a long-lost treasure.

Our study ventures to push the boundaries of conventional inquiry, infused with the excitement of stumbling upon an unanticipated conundrum that demands to be unwrapped. The nexus between contemplations of state borders and the robust expressions of political preference is comparable to a riddle that beckons to be decoded and we eagerly anticipate the unfolding of this enigma.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in Oregon and Google searches for 'how to annex texas'. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
Democrats in the Desert: Examining the Entertaining Connection Between Oregonian Senators' Votes and Googling "How to Annex Texas"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we dive into the peculiar realms of political behavior and internet searches to unravel the surprising association between Oregonian senators' democratic votes and the peculiar trend of googling "how to annex Texas." Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends spanning the years 2004 to 2020, we stumbled upon an eye-catching correlation coefficient of 0.9597252 and p < 0.01. The results of our study are as intriguing as a Texan tumbleweed, suggesting a potential underlying link between political leanings and online curiosity about the Lone Star State's territorial fate. Our findings open up a treasure trove of questions for further investigation, compelling us to ponder, in the words of the great philosopher Dolly Parton, "What in annexation?"

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Politics and the internet - an unlikely pair akin to a cowboy in a spacesuit. Yet, in the ever-changing landscape of modern society, these two worlds seem to intersect more often than one would expect. Our work delves into this unusual junction to explore the bewildering connection between the voting patterns of Oregonian senators and the rather unconventional habit of googling "how to annex Texas."
The Pacific Northwest is not typically associated with dreams of Lone Star conquest, nor is Oregon known for its yearning to expand into the vast Texan expanse. However, as we pried into the depths of data, we stumbled upon a correlation that was as eyebrow-raising as witnessing a parliament of owls tap-dancing. The correlation coefficient stood tall at 0.9597252 - a figure that demanded our attention and raised more eyebrows than a clumsy barber.
Our decision to embark on this endeavor was met with raised eyebrows and quizzical looks, but we forged ahead, determined to uncover what lay at the confluence of political loyalties and implications of territorial expansion. With data in hand from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the ever-watchful eye of Google Trends, our analytical journey began.
This unexpected entanglement of political affiliations and search engine queries has left us scratching our heads more than a nosy neighbor watching the drama unfold next door. As we delve deeper into our findings, we invite the reader to accompany us on this intellectual rollercoaster, complete with unexpected turns and the occasional loop-de-loop of curiosity.
Join us as we navigate through the labyrinth of internet queries and political inclinations, as we seek to unearth the underlying reasons behind this peculiar relationship. Our quest promises to be as riveting as a high-stakes poker game, where the odds are intriguing and the stakes are nothing short of enthralling.
So fasten your seatbelts, dear reader, and prepare to be whisked away into the enigmatic world of political affiliations and territorial ponderings as we unravel the captivating tale of Democrats in the Desert.

[[RESULTS]]
Our foray into the unexpected nexus of Oregonian senators' democratic voting behavior and the peculiar online exploration of "how to annex Texas" led us down a rather unexpected rabbit hole. Much like a dusty old map leading to hidden treasure, our data revealed a remarkable correlation coefficient of 0.9597252. This figure held its ground with a sturdiness that would make even the hardiest of tumbleweeds envious.
The strength of this correlation, further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9210725 and a p-value of less than 0.01, left us both surprised and amused. To put it simply, the relationship between these variables was as robust as a cowboy's handshake and as statistically significant as a Texan barbecue.
In Figure 1, our scatterplot illustrates this undeniable link between the voting preferences of Oregonian senators and the online interest in the hypothetical annexation of Texas. The data points sit snugly along a positively sloped line, painting a picture that surely tickles the imagination. This figure is like an optical illusion at a county fair; the more you stare at it, the more you catch yourself scratching your head in fascination.
Our findings tease at the possibility of a deeper connection between political allegiance and the remote daydreams of territorial expansion. The correlation between these seemingly unrelated phenomena is as mystifying as a desert mirage, leaving us pondering the motivations behind such a compelling association. It's like stumbling upon a cactus in the middle of a cornfield – curious and unexpected, yet undeniably captivating.
As we unpack the implications of our results, we can't help but feel like explorers charting uncharted territories. The unexpected connections we stumbled upon are as unexpected as a rodeo in a rainstorm, urging us to delve deeper into the intersection of political leanings and fantastical musings about state borders.
Our study lays the groundwork for a new avenue of inquiry, inviting further exploration of the enthralling relationship between political behavior and online curiosity. The unexpected link we uncovered between Democrats in Oregon and the daydreams of annexing Texas encourages us to forge ahead into uncharted intellectual terrain, with the excitement of a prospector stumbling upon a gold nugget.
In conclusion, our findings elevate the eyebrow-raising correlation between Oregonian senators' democratic votes and the fascination with annexing Texas to the status of an academic enigma. It's as if we've stumbled onto the trail of a mythical creature – improbable, yet undeniably captivating. This unexpected correlation beckons us to seek deeper understanding of the peculiar intertwining of political allegiance and wild imaginations, much like a riddle that demands to be unraveled.
We are left with more questions than answers, but one thing is clear: the alliance between political inclinations and daydreams of territorial expansion is a fascinating puzzle, reminiscent of a game of political chess that unfolds in the vast expanse of the internet.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

As we pack up our statistical lassos and bid adieu to this unexpected journey, we are left with a trail of questions as winding as a river in the Oregonian desert. The correlation we unveiled between democratic votes for senators in the Beaver State and the peculiar interest in annexing Texas is as confounding as a cowboy riding a unicycle – perplexing, yet undeniably entertaining.

Much like trying to lasso a comet, we found our hands full with this unlikely connection. The statistical robustness of our findings is as sturdy as a Texan longhorn, leaving us with a sensation akin to finding a UFO in a cattle ranch – perplexing and guaranteed to raise some eyebrows.

While we may not have unraveled the mysteries behind this amusing association, our findings undoubtedly invite further exploration into the mystical depths of political behavior and internet curiosity. However, it's safe to say that our quest has ended – a conclusion as final as the last tumbleweed rolling across the desert plains.

In the immortal words of Mark Twain, "The report of my death was an exaggeration," but in the case of further research in this area, we confidently assert: "Further investigation will be as inconclusive as a one-armed bandit in a game of political poker. It's high time to fold and mosey on to a new frontier. Yeehaw!"


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 Democrats in the Desert: Examining the Entertaining Connection Between Oregonian Senators' Votes and Googling How to Annex Texas. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Curiosities


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 Democrats in the Desert: Examining the Entertaining Connection Between Oregonian Senators' Votes and Googling How to Annex Texas. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for American Political Quirk 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 Democrats in the Desert: Examining the Entertaining Connection Between Oregonian Senators' Votes and Googling How to Annex Texas with an abstract of In this paper, we dive into the peculiar realms of political behavior and internet searches to unravel the surprising association between Oregonian senators' democratic votes and the peculiar trend of googling "how to annex Texas." Through a rigorous analysis of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Google Trends spanning the years 2004 to 2020, we stumbled upon an eye-catching correlation coefficient of 0.9597252 and p < 0.01. The results of our study are as intriguing as a Texan tumbleweed, suggesting a potential underlying link between political leanings and online curiosity about the Lone Star State's territorial fate. Our findings open up a treasure trove of questions for further investigation, compelling us to ponder, in the words of the great philosopher Dolly Parton, "What in annexation?

ChatGPT:

Oregonian senators, democratic votes, google search behavior, political behavior, internet searches, annex Texas, correlation coefficient, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Google Trends, 2004-2020, political leanings, territorial fate, online curiosity, Texas annexation

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

Google searches for 'how to annex texas'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'how to annex texas' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to annex texas'

Correlation r = 0.9597252 (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 = 0.9210725 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 92.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'how to annex texas') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in Oregon) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0024. 0.0024004210881309013000000000
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 0.96 in 0.24% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 417 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.

[ 0.67, 1 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200420082010201420162020
Votes for Democratic Senators in Oregon (Percentage of votes)63.392148.904757.22455.728456.600856.911
Google searches for 'how to annex texas' (Rel. search volume)23.50.9166679.166678.666678.511.5833




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([63.3921,48.9047,57.224,55.7284,56.6008,56.911,])
array_2 = np.array([23.5,0.916667,9.16667,8.66667,8.5,11.5833,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in Oregon"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'how to annex texas'"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your dedication to rating warms my heart!


Correlation ID: 5671 · Black Variable ID: 26449 · Red Variable ID: 1477
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0