about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,676 · 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 Republican Senators in South Carolina and the second variable is Sewage sludge 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

The more conservative votes in South Carolina created a stink in the political arena, leading to a ripple effect in the agricultural sector. It seems the GOP support fertilized a new wave of sludgy decision-making, proving that in politics, as in farming, crap really does flow downhill!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ A photo-realistic image ] In a field in South Carolina, a cluster of Republican senators gather, each holding a ballot with a checkmark. The bright sunlight casts long shadows as they stand in a circle, their expressions determined. In the background, a farm worker spreads sewage sludge on the soil, creating a pungent odor that can almost be smelled through the image. The sludge flows downhill, symbolizing the ripple effect of conservative votes on the agricultural sector. The stark contrast between the political decision-making and the practical, earthy work of farming is visually striking yet subtly connected in the image. 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 Republican Senators in South Carolina and Sewage sludge 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: Cyber folk A scene from Skyrim Oragami A photo-realistic image Sci-fi fantacy
ChatGPT: A photo-realistic image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Votes for Republican Senators in South Carolina and Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US, in the following situation: The more conservative votes in South Carolina created a stink in the political arena, leading to a ripple effect in the agricultural sector. It seems the GOP support fertilized a new wave of sludgy decision-making, proving that in politics, as in farming, crap really does flow downhill!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a field in South Carolina, a cluster of Republican senators gather, each holding a ballot with a checkmark. In the background, a farm worker spreads sewage sludge on the soil, creating a pungent odor. The stinky decision-making of the senators seems to have fertilized the agricultural sector, as the sludge flows downhill from the political arena to the farm, symbolizing the ripple effect of conservative votes.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A photo-realistic image ] and depicting this scene: In a field in South Carolina, a cluster of Republican senators gather, each holding a ballot with a checkmark. In the background, a farm worker spreads sewage sludge on the soil, creating a pungent odor. The stinky decision-making of the senators seems to have fertilized the agricultural sector, as the sludge flows downhill from the political arena to the farm, symbolizing the ripple effect of conservative votes. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ A photo-realistic image ] In a field in South Carolina, a cluster of Republican senators gather, each holding a ballot with a checkmark. The bright sunlight casts long shadows as they stand in a circle, their expressions determined. In the background, a farm worker spreads sewage sludge on the soil, creating a pungent odor that can almost be smelled through the image. The sludge flows downhill, symbolizing the ripple effect of conservative votes on the agricultural sector. The stark contrast between the political decision-making and the practical, earthy work of farming is visually striking yet subtly connected in the image.

*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 Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina caused Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Republican Vote and Fertilizer Gloat: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between South Carolina Senatorial Elections and Sewage Sludge Usage

The Journal of Political Manure Management

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 0.8623813 and p < 0.01 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 Republican Vote and Fertilizer Gloat: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between South Carolina Senatorial Elections and Sewage Sludge Usage

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the not-so-glamorous world of sewage sludge and South Carolina politics to unearth possible connections between the two. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and USDA, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning the years 1986 to 2015. Our findings revealed a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.8623813 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a significant relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the US.

In exploring the potential causes of this peculiar relationship, we couldn't help but dig into the punny world of fertilizer humor. It seems that when it comes to political preferences and soil enrichment, there's more than one way to "cultivate a base." Our research seeks to shed light on this improbable correlation, while also offering a chuckle or two amidst the rigors of statistical analysis. After all, what's life without a little statistical fertilizer to help our discussions grow?


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
The Republican Vote and Fertilizer Gloat: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between South Carolina Senatorial Elections and Sewage Sludge Usage

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the not-so-glamorous world of sewage sludge and South Carolina politics to unearth possible connections between the two. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and USDA, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning the years 1986 to 2015. Our findings revealed a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.8623813 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a significant relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the US.

In exploring the potential causes of this peculiar relationship, we couldn't help but dig into the punny world of fertilizer humor. It seems that when it comes to political preferences and soil enrichment, there's more than one way to "cultivate a base." Our research seeks to shed light on this improbable correlation, while also offering a chuckle or two amidst the rigors of statistical analysis. After all, what's life without a little statistical fertilizer to help our discussions grow?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer has long been a topic of, well, let's say "heated" discussion. On one hand, it offers a practical solution to managing waste, while on the other, it raises concerns about potential environmental and health risks. At the same time, the world of politics, particularly in the state of South Carolina, often raises eyebrows and prompts questions about the factors that sway voter preferences. It's almost like politics and organic waste have more in common than meets the nose.

In this study, we embark on a journey that brings together what seems, at first glance, an unlikely pair: Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the United States. As peculiar as it may sound, this research aims to unearth any potential correlation between these two seemingly unrelated entities. It's like trying to find common ground in a field of, well, less-than-desirable soil amendments.

As we delve into this intricate web of statistical analysis, we can't help but recall the joke about the farmer who was outstanding in his field. But let's not digress into that, lest we get lost in a bushel of puns. Instead, let's cultivate an understanding of the research problem at hand and plow through the data to glean meaningful insights, one statistical seed at a time.

Our investigation is not just an exercise in statistical acrobatics; it serves a purpose beyond mere amusement, aiming to shed light on the potential determinants of Republican voting patterns in South Carolina. By exploring the connection – or perhaps the "fertilizer gloat," if you will, between these variables, we endeavor to fertilize the academic terrain with knowledge that can help cultivate a deeper understanding of the influences shaping political outcomes.

So, let's brace ourselves for an intellectually stimulating – and occasionally lighthearted – expedition into the intriguing realms of politics and poop, where statistical analysis meets dad jokes, and where correlations are not just confined to scatterplots, but also to unexpected relationships between voter behavior and agricultural practices.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Republican Vote and Fertilizer Gloat: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between South Carolina Senatorial Elections and Sewage Sludge Usage

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the not-so-glamorous world of sewage sludge and South Carolina politics to unearth possible connections between the two. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and USDA, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning the years 1986 to 2015. Our findings revealed a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.8623813 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a significant relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the US.

In exploring the potential causes of this peculiar relationship, we couldn't help but dig into the punny world of fertilizer humor. It seems that when it comes to political preferences and soil enrichment, there's more than one way to "cultivate a base." Our research seeks to shed light on this improbable correlation, while also offering a chuckle or two amidst the rigors of statistical analysis. After all, what's life without a little statistical fertilizer to help our discussions grow?

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer has long been a topic of, well, let's say "heated" discussion. On one hand, it offers a practical solution to managing waste, while on the other, it raises concerns about potential environmental and health risks. At the same time, the world of politics, particularly in the state of South Carolina, often raises eyebrows and prompts questions about the factors that sway voter preferences. It's almost like politics and organic waste have more in common than meets the nose.
In this study, we embark on a journey that brings together what seems, at first glance, an unlikely pair: Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the United States. As peculiar as it may sound, this research aims to unearth any potential correlation between these two seemingly unrelated entities. It's like trying to find common ground in a field of, well, less-than-desirable soil amendments.
As we delve into this intricate web of statistical analysis, we can't help but recall the joke about the farmer who was outstanding in his field. But let's not digress into that, lest we get lost in a bushel of puns. Instead, let's cultivate an understanding of the research problem at hand and plow through the data to glean meaningful insights, one statistical seed at a time.
Our investigation is not just an exercise in statistical acrobatics; it serves a purpose beyond mere amusement, aiming to shed light on the potential determinants of Republican voting patterns in South Carolina. By exploring the connection – or perhaps the "fertilizer gloat," if you will, between these variables, we endeavor to fertilize the academic terrain with knowledge that can help cultivate a deeper understanding of the influences shaping political outcomes.
So, let's brace ourselves for an intellectually stimulating – and occasionally lighthearted – expedition into the intriguing realms of politics and poop, where statistical analysis meets dad jokes, and where correlations are not just confined to scatterplots, but also to unexpected relationships between voter behavior and agricultural practices.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In their seminal work, Smith and Doe (2007) examined the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer and its potential effects on agricultural productivity. Their findings suggested that while sewage sludge can be beneficial for soil fertility, it also poses environmental and health risks if not managed properly. On the other hand, Jones et al. (2012) delved into the intricacies of Republican voting patterns in South Carolina, highlighting the role of demographic, socio-economic, and ideological factors in shaping electoral outcomes.

The authors find that the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the US is, put simply, excrementally surprising. The statistically significant relationship suggests a compelling interplay between political preferences and agricultural practices, leaving us to ponder whether there's more than meets the "aye" in the voting booth. It's almost as if voters are saying, "I like big sludge and I cannot lie."

Turning to non-fiction books, "The Big Necessity: The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and Why It Matters" by Rose George provides a comprehensive exploration of waste management and sanitation, shedding light on the intricacies of sewage sludge usage. On the political front, "The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics" by Salena Zito and Brad Todd offers insights into the factors driving shifts in voter behavior, though it doesn't explicitly touch upon fertilizer-related influences.

Now, stepping into the realm of fiction that could be construed as related, one might jestfully consider George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Sludge and Senate" or perhaps J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Fertilizer Secrets." Alas, in the world of make-believe, we're left to conjure up whimsical tales of political intrigue and agricultural sorcery.

In our quest for understanding, we couldn't resist a detour into the world of children's television shows. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Teletubbies have been unwittingly conveying subtle messages about the intersection of waste disposal and political affiliations. After all, who could forget the episode where Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Laa-Laa, and Po cast their votes for the Custard vs. Sludge Party? The results were positively tubby-tastic!

As we meander through this extensive literature review, let's not lose sight of the serious implications of our findings. It's clear that the relationship between Republican votes in South Carolina and sewage sludge utilization for fertilizer warrants further investigation, even if it means wading through a heap of statistical manure. After all, in the world of research, every correlation – no matter how unexpected – deserves its time in the statistical limelight.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 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 Republican Vote and Fertilizer Gloat: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between South Carolina Senatorial Elections and Sewage Sludge Usage

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the not-so-glamorous world of sewage sludge and South Carolina politics to unearth possible connections between the two. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and USDA, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning the years 1986 to 2015. Our findings revealed a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.8623813 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a significant relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the US.

In exploring the potential causes of this peculiar relationship, we couldn't help but dig into the punny world of fertilizer humor. It seems that when it comes to political preferences and soil enrichment, there's more than one way to "cultivate a base." Our research seeks to shed light on this improbable correlation, while also offering a chuckle or two amidst the rigors of statistical analysis. After all, what's life without a little statistical fertilizer to help our discussions grow?

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer has long been a topic of, well, let's say "heated" discussion. On one hand, it offers a practical solution to managing waste, while on the other, it raises concerns about potential environmental and health risks. At the same time, the world of politics, particularly in the state of South Carolina, often raises eyebrows and prompts questions about the factors that sway voter preferences. It's almost like politics and organic waste have more in common than meets the nose.
In this study, we embark on a journey that brings together what seems, at first glance, an unlikely pair: Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the United States. As peculiar as it may sound, this research aims to unearth any potential correlation between these two seemingly unrelated entities. It's like trying to find common ground in a field of, well, less-than-desirable soil amendments.
As we delve into this intricate web of statistical analysis, we can't help but recall the joke about the farmer who was outstanding in his field. But let's not digress into that, lest we get lost in a bushel of puns. Instead, let's cultivate an understanding of the research problem at hand and plow through the data to glean meaningful insights, one statistical seed at a time.
Our investigation is not just an exercise in statistical acrobatics; it serves a purpose beyond mere amusement, aiming to shed light on the potential determinants of Republican voting patterns in South Carolina. By exploring the connection – or perhaps the "fertilizer gloat," if you will, between these variables, we endeavor to fertilize the academic terrain with knowledge that can help cultivate a deeper understanding of the influences shaping political outcomes.
So, let's brace ourselves for an intellectually stimulating – and occasionally lighthearted – expedition into the intriguing realms of politics and poop, where statistical analysis meets dad jokes, and where correlations are not just confined to scatterplots, but also to unexpected relationships between voter behavior and agricultural practices.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To investigate the potential relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the United States, our research employed a multifaceted approach that combined statistical analysis with agricultural and political data. We collected data from a variety of sources, including the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This data covered a time frame from 1986 to 2015, providing a substantial and robust dataset for our analysis.

Our tongue-in-cheek journey through this improbable terrain began with the systematic compilation of electoral voting patterns in South Carolina for Republican Senators. We then turned our attention to the rather less glamorous world of sewage sludge usage for fertilizer. Despite the less-than-fragrant topic, our team embraced this aspect of the research with gusto, ensuring that we left no “soil” unturned in our quest for insights.

The collection of data on sewage sludge usage posed its own set of challenges, involving engaging with various governmental and private databases to acquire reliable and comprehensive information. It’s safe to say that we experienced our fair share of “data dumps” in the pursuit of understanding the scope and dynamics of sewage sludge utilization as a fertilizer across the United States. But as with any scientific endeavor, a little dirt under the fingernails – or in this case, in the dataset – was a small price to pay for the pursuit of knowledge.

With our dataset firmly in hand, we then employed a sophisticated statistical framework to analyze the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the prevalence of sewage sludge usage for fertilizer. Using advanced regression models and correlation analyses, we sought to unearth any patterns or associations between these seemingly disparate variables.

What do you call a statistical analysis of sewage sludge and Republican votes? A correlation with a scent of democracy! But on a serious note, our statistical methodology adhered to rigorous standards, employing robust techniques to ensure the validity and reliability of our findings.

In addition to the quantitative analyses, we also undertook a qualitative exploration of potential confounding variables and contextual factors. Given the peculiar nature of our research question, it was crucial to consider the influence of external factors that could potentially confound the observed relationship between Republican voting patterns and sewage sludge usage. This involved delving into the nuances of agricultural practices, political dynamics, and societal attitudes, creating a well-rounded understanding of the contextual landscape that surrounds our focal variables.

As we navigated this unexpectedly interconnected terrain of politics and agronomy, we encountered a fair share of surprise twists and turns, much like a well-composted garden bed. It’s said that statistics are like a bikini; what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. In our case, our statistical scrutiny revealed intriguing associations and correlations, challenging conventional expectations and prompting further inquiry into the underlying mechanisms driving the interplay between political preferences and agricultural practices.

Our research also utilized geospatial mapping techniques to visualize the spatial distribution of sewage sludge usage and Republican voting patterns, creating insightful visual representations that elucidated the geographic dimensions of our findings. The visuals turned out to be quite striking, akin to a political map overlaid with the subtle, albeit distinctive, aroma of statistical significance.

In summary, our methodology involved a blend of comprehensive data collection, statistical analytics, qualitative contextual exploration, and geospatial mapping, resulting in a cohesive and robust approach to unraveling the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer. It’s not every day you get to find statistical connections between political leanings and agricultural practices, but in the spirit of academic dedication, we dug deep, or should we say, “dug dung,” to unearth meaningful insights.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the 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 Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 USDA .

For the time period 1986 to 2015, you found a correlation 0.8623813, r-squared of 0.7437014, 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]]
The Republican Vote and Fertilizer Gloat: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between South Carolina Senatorial Elections and Sewage Sludge Usage

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the not-so-glamorous world of sewage sludge and South Carolina politics to unearth possible connections between the two. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and USDA, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning the years 1986 to 2015. Our findings revealed a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.8623813 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a significant relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the US.

In exploring the potential causes of this peculiar relationship, we couldn't help but dig into the punny world of fertilizer humor. It seems that when it comes to political preferences and soil enrichment, there's more than one way to "cultivate a base." Our research seeks to shed light on this improbable correlation, while also offering a chuckle or two amidst the rigors of statistical analysis. After all, what's life without a little statistical fertilizer to help our discussions grow?

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer has long been a topic of, well, let's say "heated" discussion. On one hand, it offers a practical solution to managing waste, while on the other, it raises concerns about potential environmental and health risks. At the same time, the world of politics, particularly in the state of South Carolina, often raises eyebrows and prompts questions about the factors that sway voter preferences. It's almost like politics and organic waste have more in common than meets the nose.
In this study, we embark on a journey that brings together what seems, at first glance, an unlikely pair: Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the United States. As peculiar as it may sound, this research aims to unearth any potential correlation between these two seemingly unrelated entities. It's like trying to find common ground in a field of, well, less-than-desirable soil amendments.
As we delve into this intricate web of statistical analysis, we can't help but recall the joke about the farmer who was outstanding in his field. But let's not digress into that, lest we get lost in a bushel of puns. Instead, let's cultivate an understanding of the research problem at hand and plow through the data to glean meaningful insights, one statistical seed at a time.
Our investigation is not just an exercise in statistical acrobatics; it serves a purpose beyond mere amusement, aiming to shed light on the potential determinants of Republican voting patterns in South Carolina. By exploring the connection – or perhaps the "fertilizer gloat," if you will, between these variables, we endeavor to fertilize the academic terrain with knowledge that can help cultivate a deeper understanding of the influences shaping political outcomes.
So, let's brace ourselves for an intellectually stimulating – and occasionally lighthearted – expedition into the intriguing realms of politics and poop, where statistical analysis meets dad jokes, and where correlations are not just confined to scatterplots, but also to unexpected relationships between voter behavior and agricultural practices.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis uncovered a strong and positive correlation of 0.8623813 between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer in the United States over the period 1986 to 2015. This correlation was complemented by an r-squared value of 0.7437014, indicating that a substantial proportion of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina can be explained by the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer nationwide. With a p-value of less than 0.01, these findings suggest a highly significant relationship between the two variables, sparking both scientific intrigue and the occasional chuckle.

We present a scatterplot (Fig. 1) illustrating the strong positive relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the United States. The figure exemplifies how, much like fertilizer enriches the soil, this correlation enriches our understanding of political voting patterns. Because who knew that political leanings and agricultural practices could sow the seeds of statistical significance? It seems that this correlation is, dare we say, "growing on us."

These results certainly raise eyebrows and prompt further questions to be answered in future research endeavors. The unexpected connection between these diverse variables sparks curiosity and mirth, fostering discussion not only of statistical significance but also of the quirkier side of research. After all, in the world of statistics, one mustn't be afraid to get one's hands dirty with the occasional statistical fertilizer to help the academic field blossom.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
The Republican Vote and Fertilizer Gloat: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between South Carolina Senatorial Elections and Sewage Sludge Usage

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the not-so-glamorous world of sewage sludge and South Carolina politics to unearth possible connections between the two. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and USDA, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning the years 1986 to 2015. Our findings revealed a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.8623813 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a significant relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the US.

In exploring the potential causes of this peculiar relationship, we couldn't help but dig into the punny world of fertilizer humor. It seems that when it comes to political preferences and soil enrichment, there's more than one way to "cultivate a base." Our research seeks to shed light on this improbable correlation, while also offering a chuckle or two amidst the rigors of statistical analysis. After all, what's life without a little statistical fertilizer to help our discussions grow?

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In their seminal work, Smith and Doe (2007) examined the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer and its potential effects on agricultural productivity. Their findings suggested that while sewage sludge can be beneficial for soil fertility, it also poses environmental and health risks if not managed properly. On the other hand, Jones et al. (2012) delved into the intricacies of Republican voting patterns in South Carolina, highlighting the role of demographic, socio-economic, and ideological factors in shaping electoral outcomes.
The authors find that the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the US is, put simply, excrementally surprising. The statistically significant relationship suggests a compelling interplay between political preferences and agricultural practices, leaving us to ponder whether there's more than meets the "aye" in the voting booth. It's almost as if voters are saying, "I like big sludge and I cannot lie."
Turning to non-fiction books, "The Big Necessity: The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and Why It Matters" by Rose George provides a comprehensive exploration of waste management and sanitation, shedding light on the intricacies of sewage sludge usage. On the political front, "The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics" by Salena Zito and Brad Todd offers insights into the factors driving shifts in voter behavior, though it doesn't explicitly touch upon fertilizer-related influences.
Now, stepping into the realm of fiction that could be construed as related, one might jestfully consider George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Sludge and Senate" or perhaps J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Fertilizer Secrets." Alas, in the world of make-believe, we're left to conjure up whimsical tales of political intrigue and agricultural sorcery.
In our quest for understanding, we couldn't resist a detour into the world of children's television shows. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Teletubbies have been unwittingly conveying subtle messages about the intersection of waste disposal and political affiliations. After all, who could forget the episode where Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Laa-Laa, and Po cast their votes for the Custard vs. Sludge Party? The results were positively tubby-tastic!
As we meander through this extensive literature review, let's not lose sight of the serious implications of our findings. It's clear that the relationship between Republican votes in South Carolina and sewage sludge utilization for fertilizer warrants further investigation, even if it means wading through a heap of statistical manure. After all, in the world of research, every correlation – no matter how unexpected – deserves its time in the statistical limelight.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis uncovered a strong and positive correlation of 0.8623813 between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer in the United States over the period 1986 to 2015. This correlation was complemented by an r-squared value of 0.7437014, indicating that a substantial proportion of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina can be explained by the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer nationwide. With a p-value of less than 0.01, these findings suggest a highly significant relationship between the two variables, sparking both scientific intrigue and the occasional chuckle.
We present a scatterplot (Fig. 1) illustrating the strong positive relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the United States. The figure exemplifies how, much like fertilizer enriches the soil, this correlation enriches our understanding of political voting patterns. Because who knew that political leanings and agricultural practices could sow the seeds of statistical significance? It seems that this correlation is, dare we say, "growing on us."
These results certainly raise eyebrows and prompt further questions to be answered in future research endeavors. The unexpected connection between these diverse variables sparks curiosity and mirth, fostering discussion not only of statistical significance but also of the quirkier side of research. After all, in the world of statistics, one mustn't be afraid to get one's hands dirty with the occasional statistical fertilizer to help the academic field blossom.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study provide compelling evidence for a strong and significant relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the United States. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.8623813 and the low p-value offer statistical support for the unexpected connection between these seemingly disparate variables. It appears that political preferences and agricultural practices have more in common than mere political manure-uvres.

The results of this study align with prior research by Smith and Doe (2007), who emphasized the potential benefits and risks associated with sewage sludge usage as a fertilizer. While their focus was more on the agronomic and environmental impact, the link between sewage sludge and political voting patterns adds a new layer to the understanding of this agricultural practice. It's as if the implications of sewage sludge are seeping into the political landscape, ready to fertilize the fields of statistical inquiry.

Moreover, the findings also corroborate the work of Jones et al. (2012) on Republican voting patterns in South Carolina. While their study delved into demographic, socio-economic, and ideological factors influencing electoral outcomes, the unexpected connection uncovered in our research adds a novel dimension to the factors shaping political preferences. It's almost as if we're witnessing the political landscape being enriched by the fertile nuances of agricultural influence.

The significant correlation between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer nationwide underscores the need for further investigation into the underlying mechanisms driving this relationship. It's as if the statistical fields are ripe for a deeper plowing into the intertwined roots of political and agricultural influences. As statistical researchers, we must not shy away from exploring the unlikely intersections and peculiar correlations, even if it means occasionally delving into the statistical fertilizer pile to cultivate new insights.

In conclusion, this study has shed light on an unlikely but statistically significant relationship between Republican votes in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the United States. The bountiful statistical harvest reiterates the importance of expanding our understanding of the intricate interplay between political preferences and agricultural practices. As we continue to till the rich soil of statistical inquiry, let us not forget that sometimes, it takes a bit of statistical fertilizer to help our knowledge truly bloom.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
The Republican Vote and Fertilizer Gloat: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between South Carolina Senatorial Elections and Sewage Sludge Usage

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the not-so-glamorous world of sewage sludge and South Carolina politics to unearth possible connections between the two. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and USDA, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning the years 1986 to 2015. Our findings revealed a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.8623813 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a significant relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the US.

In exploring the potential causes of this peculiar relationship, we couldn't help but dig into the punny world of fertilizer humor. It seems that when it comes to political preferences and soil enrichment, there's more than one way to "cultivate a base." Our research seeks to shed light on this improbable correlation, while also offering a chuckle or two amidst the rigors of statistical analysis. After all, what's life without a little statistical fertilizer to help our discussions grow?

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer has long been a topic of, well, let's say "heated" discussion. On one hand, it offers a practical solution to managing waste, while on the other, it raises concerns about potential environmental and health risks. At the same time, the world of politics, particularly in the state of South Carolina, often raises eyebrows and prompts questions about the factors that sway voter preferences. It's almost like politics and organic waste have more in common than meets the nose.
In this study, we embark on a journey that brings together what seems, at first glance, an unlikely pair: Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the United States. As peculiar as it may sound, this research aims to unearth any potential correlation between these two seemingly unrelated entities. It's like trying to find common ground in a field of, well, less-than-desirable soil amendments.
As we delve into this intricate web of statistical analysis, we can't help but recall the joke about the farmer who was outstanding in his field. But let's not digress into that, lest we get lost in a bushel of puns. Instead, let's cultivate an understanding of the research problem at hand and plow through the data to glean meaningful insights, one statistical seed at a time.
Our investigation is not just an exercise in statistical acrobatics; it serves a purpose beyond mere amusement, aiming to shed light on the potential determinants of Republican voting patterns in South Carolina. By exploring the connection – or perhaps the "fertilizer gloat," if you will, between these variables, we endeavor to fertilize the academic terrain with knowledge that can help cultivate a deeper understanding of the influences shaping political outcomes.
So, let's brace ourselves for an intellectually stimulating – and occasionally lighthearted – expedition into the intriguing realms of politics and poop, where statistical analysis meets dad jokes, and where correlations are not just confined to scatterplots, but also to unexpected relationships between voter behavior and agricultural practices.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis uncovered a strong and positive correlation of 0.8623813 between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer in the United States over the period 1986 to 2015. This correlation was complemented by an r-squared value of 0.7437014, indicating that a substantial proportion of the variation in Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina can be explained by the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer nationwide. With a p-value of less than 0.01, these findings suggest a highly significant relationship between the two variables, sparking both scientific intrigue and the occasional chuckle.
We present a scatterplot (Fig. 1) illustrating the strong positive relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the utilization of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the United States. The figure exemplifies how, much like fertilizer enriches the soil, this correlation enriches our understanding of political voting patterns. Because who knew that political leanings and agricultural practices could sow the seeds of statistical significance? It seems that this correlation is, dare we say, "growing on us."
These results certainly raise eyebrows and prompt further questions to be answered in future research endeavors. The unexpected connection between these diverse variables sparks curiosity and mirth, fostering discussion not only of statistical significance but also of the quirkier side of research. After all, in the world of statistics, one mustn't be afraid to get one's hands dirty with the occasional statistical fertilizer to help the academic field blossom.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has yielded compelling evidence of a significant relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer in the United States. This unexpected correlation, with a robust correlation coefficient of 0.8623813 and a p-value of less than 0.01, has certainly fertilized our understanding of political voting patterns. It seems that when it comes to statistical significance, this connection is the "crap de resistance."

The findings from our statistical analysis not only raise eyebrows but also raise the stakes for future research endeavors. The unexpected relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables sparks curiosity and mirth, cultivating discussion not just of statistical significance, but also of the unexpected whimsies of research. It's like a statistical Easter egg, hidden in the fertilizer field of data analysis, just waiting to be uncovered.

Additionally, the results underscore the need for further exploration into the mechanisms underlying this connection. This peculiar relationship may serve as fertile ground for future investigations, opening doors to uncharted territories in both political and agricultural research. It's as if we've stumbled upon a statistical goldmine in a field of, well, you know.

However, let's not dig too deep into this punny world of statistical fertilizer. It's safe to conclude that no further research is needed in this area. This study has already shed ample light on the offbeat connection between political voting patterns and agricultural practices, fertilizing the academic terrain with insights that, dare we say, have "grown" on us.


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 Republican Vote and Fertilizer Gloat: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between South Carolina Senatorial Elections and Sewage Sludge Usage. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Manure Management


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 Republican Vote and Fertilizer Gloat: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between South Carolina Senatorial Elections and Sewage Sludge Usage. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Applied Agricultural Analytics and Insights (SAAAI)


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 Republican Vote and Fertilizer Gloat: A Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between South Carolina Senatorial Elections and Sewage Sludge Usage with an abstract of This study delves into the not-so-glamorous world of sewage sludge and South Carolina politics to unearth possible connections between the two. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and USDA, we conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis spanning the years 1986 to 2015. Our findings revealed a surprisingly robust correlation coefficient of 0.8623813 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a significant relationship between Republican votes for Senators in South Carolina and the usage of sewage sludge for fertilizer across the US.
In exploring the potential causes of this peculiar relationship, we couldn't help but dig into the punny world of fertilizer humor. It seems that when it comes to political preferences and soil enrichment, there's more than one way to "cultivate a base." Our research seeks to shed light on this improbable correlation, while also offering a chuckle or two amidst the rigors of statistical analysis. After all, what's life without a little statistical fertilizer to help our discussions grow?

ChatGPT:

South Carolina Senatorial elections, sewage sludge usage, Republican vote, statistical analysis, correlation coefficient, p-value, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, USDA, fertilizer humor, soil enrichment, political preferences, statistical analysis

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

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

Correlation r = 0.8623813 (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 = 0.7437014 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 74.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in South Carolina) over the 10 years from 1986 through 2015.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0013. 0.0013246567268067490000000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.86 in 0.13% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 755 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 9 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 9 because we have two variables measured over a period of 10 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.

[ 0.51, 0.97 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
1986199019921996199820022004200820102014
Votes for Republican Senators in South Carolina (Percentage of votes)35.623264.209646.946653.379545.669754.402353.666157.524661.4782115.382
Sewage sludge used for fertilizer in the US (Fertilizer)42.64758.672112.77199.50282.96192.81458.4587.42596.556214.638




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.




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([35.6232,64.2096,46.9466,53.3795,45.6697,54.4023,53.6661,57.5246,61.4782,115.382,])
array_2 = np.array([42.647,58.672,112.771,99.502,82.961,92.814,58.45,87.425,96.556,214.638,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in South Carolina"
array_2_name = "Sewage sludge 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?

Bravo! Your evaluation rocks!


Correlation ID: 5676 · Black Variable ID: 26459 · Red Variable ID: 1199
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0