about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,703 · 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 South Carolina and the second variable is Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year.  The chart goes from 1995 to 2013, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The political drama in South Carolina was so captivating that it rivaled the top movie of the year, leading to a decrease in ticket sales. It seems like the voters were more interested in watching the senatorial showdown than the blockbuster on the big screen. Perhaps they were hoping for a plot twist that would make even Hollywood screenwriters envious. This election season, it was all about the reel issues!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that combines the vibrant style of pop art with a scene depicting a movie theater marquee displaying the title of the top movie of the year. The screen shows a significant drop in ticket sales, while in the background, large banners for Democratic Senators in South Carolina dominate the space. This creates an intense and captivating visual representation of a political showdown overshadowing the entertainment industry. 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 South Carolina and Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year. 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: Pop art Cutsy art illustration Photorealism Art nouveau High-tech
ChatGPT: Pop art

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 South Carolina and Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year, in the following situation: The political drama in South Carolina was so captivating that it rivaled the top movie of the year, leading to a decrease in ticket sales. It seems like the voters were more interested in watching the senatorial showdown than the blockbuster on the big screen. Perhaps they were hoping for a plot twist that would make even Hollywood screenwriters envious. This election season, it was all about the reel issues!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: The movie theater's marquee displays the title of the top movie of the year, with the screen showing a significant drop in ticket sales. In the background, large banners for Democratic Senators in South Carolina dominate the space, drawing attention away from the blockbuster and hinting at the intense political showdown captivating the audience.

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: [ Pop art ] and depicting this scene: The movie theater's marquee displays the title of the top movie of the year, with the screen showing a significant drop in ticket sales. In the background, large banners for Democratic Senators in South Carolina dominate the space, drawing attention away from the blockbuster and hinting at the intense political showdown captivating the audience. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that combines the vibrant style of pop art with a scene depicting a movie theater marquee displaying the title of the top movie of the year. The screen shows a significant drop in ticket sales, while in the background, large banners for Democratic Senators in South Carolina dominate the space. This creates an intense and captivating visual representation of a political showdown overshadowing the entertainment industry.

*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 South Carolina caused Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year to decrease. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Palmetto Polls: Showbiz Senate Shindigs

Journal of Political Entertainment Studies

Jan 2024

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




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 South Carolina and Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title a clever pun.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and The Numbers to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 and p < 0.01 for 1995 to 2013.

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 Palmetto Polls: Showbiz Senate Shindigs

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious relationship between the votes received by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year. The data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers allowed us to meticulously examine this relationship spanning from 1995 to 2013. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 with a p-value less than 0.01, implying a robust and significant connection between these seemingly unrelated entities. Our research sheds light on the previously overlooked influence of cinephile constituents on senatorial voting patterns. We present a thorough analysis of this correlation, offering valuable insights into the quirks of democracy and the unexpected interplay between politics and entertainment.


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 South Carolina and Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Palmetto Polls: Showbiz Senate Shindigs

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious relationship between the votes received by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year. The data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers allowed us to meticulously examine this relationship spanning from 1995 to 2013. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 with a p-value less than 0.01, implying a robust and significant connection between these seemingly unrelated entities. Our research sheds light on the previously overlooked influence of cinephile constituents on senatorial voting patterns. We present a thorough analysis of this correlation, offering valuable insights into the quirks of democracy and the unexpected interplay between politics and entertainment.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Political scientists have long been captivated by the intricacies of voter behavior and the myriad of factors that influence electoral outcomes. While extensive research has examined the impact of campaign strategies, incumbency, and economic conditions on election results, little attention has been devoted to the potential influence of cinematic preferences on political support. In this regard, our study ventures into uncharted territory, seeking to elucidate the connection between the votes garnered by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the ticket sales of the year's top movie. We embark on this escapade armed with an arsenal of statistical tools and an insatiable curiosity to uncover the quixotic dynamics at play.

The notion of a correlation between political allegiances and box office hits may initially elicit a raised eyebrow or a skeptical chuckle. However, as we venture forth armed with our data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers, we aim to dispel any notions of absurdity and reveal the surprising coherence underlying these seemingly disparate domains. Our earnest pursuit of truth lies not in the caprice of whimsy, but in the noble pursuit of understanding the multifaceted tapestry of human behavior, where democracy and entertainment intertwine in a dance as intricate as a complex algorithm.

As we delve into this enigmatic relationship, we do not discount the medley of confounding variables that may sway our results. The kaleidoscope of societal trends, cultural phenomena, and even celestial alignments can cast a substantial shadow over our statistical inferences. Yet, armed with our trusty regression analyses and the formidable duo of Pearson's correlation coefficient and the all-mighty p-value, we tread forth undeterred in our quest for revelation.

Our journey thus far has unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9237017, standing tall and assertive with a p-value less than 0.01. This robust statistical evidence not only piques our intellectual curiosity but beckons us to unravel the mystique veiled within the realm of South Carolinian politics and Hollywood spectacles.

In unfolding the enigma before us, we do not shy away from the uproarious quirks and idiosyncrasies that pervade our exploration. Through the lens of empirical analysis, we aim for a panoramic portrayal of the capricious interplay between the ballot box and the box office, where the silver screen and the voter's booth converge in a grand symphony of unexpected correlations and merry statistical revelry. As we proceed, we invite you to join us in this intellectual romp, where each data point and regression line serves as a lighthearted jest in the grand comedy of research and discovery.


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 South Carolina and Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Palmetto Polls: Showbiz Senate Shindigs

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious relationship between the votes received by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year. The data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers allowed us to meticulously examine this relationship spanning from 1995 to 2013. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 with a p-value less than 0.01, implying a robust and significant connection between these seemingly unrelated entities. Our research sheds light on the previously overlooked influence of cinephile constituents on senatorial voting patterns. We present a thorough analysis of this correlation, offering valuable insights into the quirks of democracy and the unexpected interplay between politics and entertainment.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Political scientists have long been captivated by the intricacies of voter behavior and the myriad of factors that influence electoral outcomes. While extensive research has examined the impact of campaign strategies, incumbency, and economic conditions on election results, little attention has been devoted to the potential influence of cinematic preferences on political support. In this regard, our study ventures into uncharted territory, seeking to elucidate the connection between the votes garnered by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the ticket sales of the year's top movie. We embark on this escapade armed with an arsenal of statistical tools and an insatiable curiosity to uncover the quixotic dynamics at play.
The notion of a correlation between political allegiances and box office hits may initially elicit a raised eyebrow or a skeptical chuckle. However, as we venture forth armed with our data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers, we aim to dispel any notions of absurdity and reveal the surprising coherence underlying these seemingly disparate domains. Our earnest pursuit of truth lies not in the caprice of whimsy, but in the noble pursuit of understanding the multifaceted tapestry of human behavior, where democracy and entertainment intertwine in a dance as intricate as a complex algorithm.
As we delve into this enigmatic relationship, we do not discount the medley of confounding variables that may sway our results. The kaleidoscope of societal trends, cultural phenomena, and even celestial alignments can cast a substantial shadow over our statistical inferences. Yet, armed with our trusty regression analyses and the formidable duo of Pearson's correlation coefficient and the all-mighty p-value, we tread forth undeterred in our quest for revelation.
Our journey thus far has unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9237017, standing tall and assertive with a p-value less than 0.01. This robust statistical evidence not only piques our intellectual curiosity but beckons us to unravel the mystique veiled within the realm of South Carolinian politics and Hollywood spectacles.
In unfolding the enigma before us, we do not shy away from the uproarious quirks and idiosyncrasies that pervade our exploration. Through the lens of empirical analysis, we aim for a panoramic portrayal of the capricious interplay between the ballot box and the box office, where the silver screen and the voter's booth converge in a grand symphony of unexpected correlations and merry statistical revelry. As we proceed, we invite you to join us in this intellectual romp, where each data point and regression line serves as a lighthearted jest in the grand comedy of research and discovery.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The compendium of scholarly research on voter behavior and political dynamics offers a rich tapestry of investigations into the multifarious factors that shape electoral outcomes. Smith, in "Political Crossroads," probed into the influence of regional cinema preferences on political affiliation, while Doe, in "Election Extravaganza," investigated the captivating correlation between constituent movie tastes and senatorial voting patterns. These seminal works laid the groundwork for our foray into the curious nexus of politics and popular entertainment.

Venturing beyond the confines of academic treatises, we examined the insights offered by acclaimed non-fiction works that dissect the cultural landscape and political zeitgeist. Bloom's "Silver Screens and Red Carpets" provides an intriguing exploration of the symbiotic relationship between Hollywood and public sentiment, shedding light on the crossover between box office success and societal attitudes. Similarly, Lee's "Democracy in Technicolor" delves into the subtle yet pervasive impact of cinematic trends on political discourse, unveiling the intricate interplay between entertainment and governance.

Transitioning into the realm of fiction, we encounter tantalizing narratives that blur the boundaries between political intrigue and silver screen enchantment. From Orwell's "1984" to Huxley's "Brave New World," dystopian fables offer cautionary tales of power, propaganda, and the seductive allure of mass media, prompting introspection on the subtle ways in which entertainment can shape public sentiment and political allegiances.

In the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding, we cast our net wider to explore unconventional sources of insight. As we waded through an eclectic array of literature, including the backs of shampoo bottles and the comical musings of fortune cookies, we encountered a whimsical array of propositions and proverbs. While these unconventional reservoirs of wisdom may not align with the rigors of scholarly discourse, they serve as a lighthearted reminder of the eclectic sources from which knowledge can be gleaned, and the playful nuances that imbue the discovery of unexpected connections.

As our odyssey through the annals of research and imagination draws to a close, we emerge with a heightened appreciation for the whimsy and wonder that infuse the pursuit of knowledge. Our literature review, like a mischievous protagonist in a farcical comedy, has waltzed across the stage of academic inquiry, infusing rigorous analysis with an irrepressible spirit of levity and curiosity.


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 South Carolina and Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and The Numbers . You used data from 1995 to 2013

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 Palmetto Polls: Showbiz Senate Shindigs

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious relationship between the votes received by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year. The data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers allowed us to meticulously examine this relationship spanning from 1995 to 2013. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 with a p-value less than 0.01, implying a robust and significant connection between these seemingly unrelated entities. Our research sheds light on the previously overlooked influence of cinephile constituents on senatorial voting patterns. We present a thorough analysis of this correlation, offering valuable insights into the quirks of democracy and the unexpected interplay between politics and entertainment.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Political scientists have long been captivated by the intricacies of voter behavior and the myriad of factors that influence electoral outcomes. While extensive research has examined the impact of campaign strategies, incumbency, and economic conditions on election results, little attention has been devoted to the potential influence of cinematic preferences on political support. In this regard, our study ventures into uncharted territory, seeking to elucidate the connection between the votes garnered by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the ticket sales of the year's top movie. We embark on this escapade armed with an arsenal of statistical tools and an insatiable curiosity to uncover the quixotic dynamics at play.
The notion of a correlation between political allegiances and box office hits may initially elicit a raised eyebrow or a skeptical chuckle. However, as we venture forth armed with our data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers, we aim to dispel any notions of absurdity and reveal the surprising coherence underlying these seemingly disparate domains. Our earnest pursuit of truth lies not in the caprice of whimsy, but in the noble pursuit of understanding the multifaceted tapestry of human behavior, where democracy and entertainment intertwine in a dance as intricate as a complex algorithm.
As we delve into this enigmatic relationship, we do not discount the medley of confounding variables that may sway our results. The kaleidoscope of societal trends, cultural phenomena, and even celestial alignments can cast a substantial shadow over our statistical inferences. Yet, armed with our trusty regression analyses and the formidable duo of Pearson's correlation coefficient and the all-mighty p-value, we tread forth undeterred in our quest for revelation.
Our journey thus far has unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9237017, standing tall and assertive with a p-value less than 0.01. This robust statistical evidence not only piques our intellectual curiosity but beckons us to unravel the mystique veiled within the realm of South Carolinian politics and Hollywood spectacles.
In unfolding the enigma before us, we do not shy away from the uproarious quirks and idiosyncrasies that pervade our exploration. Through the lens of empirical analysis, we aim for a panoramic portrayal of the capricious interplay between the ballot box and the box office, where the silver screen and the voter's booth converge in a grand symphony of unexpected correlations and merry statistical revelry. As we proceed, we invite you to join us in this intellectual romp, where each data point and regression line serves as a lighthearted jest in the grand comedy of research and discovery.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the enigmatic connection between Democrat votes for Senators in South Carolina and the tickets sold for the top movie of the year, we embarked on a methodological odyssey akin to navigating a labyrinth of statistical eccentricities. Our data, akin to a treasure map, were procured from the hallowed archives of MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers. These vaunted repositories provided us with a trove of electoral results and box office statistics spanning the years from 1995 to 2013, allowing us to traverse the annals of time with the vigor of intrepid explorers in search of elusive correlations.

The nature of this expedition required a methodological approach as robust and resilient as a scientific hypothesis in the face of scrutiny. To this end, we employed a multifaceted methodology that resembled an intricate tapestry woven with the threads of regression analysis, correlation coefficients, and the venerable p-value – our trusty companions on this scholarly soiree.

Initially, we conjured a bountiful mosaic of data points representing the votes secured by Democratic Senators in South Carolina during the aforementioned period. Concurrently, we meticulously collected and distilled the yields of cinematic sensation by compiling the tickets sold for the top movie of the year, culled from The Numbers. Our fastidious approach to data collection could be likened to an artisan gathering the most vibrant pigments for a masterpiece – each data point glinting with the promise of illuminating the tableau of correlation before us.

Having amassed this wealth of data, we engaged in the exuberant dance of statistical analysis, performing regression analyses to delineate any discernible relationship and calculating Pearson's correlation coefficient to quantify the degree of association between these seemingly disparate entities. Furthermore, armed with the formidable p-value, we delved into the labyrinth of statistical significance, navigating the twists and turns of probability with the dexterity of cartographers charting uncharted terrain.

The accompanying software enkindled our analyses, elevating our endeavors from the mundanity of numbers to the realm of revelry in statistical inquiry. The complex interplay between variables conjured an aura of mystery, akin to unraveling a cryptic enigma; each statistical test an ode to the tantalizing nuances of scientific exploration.

In sum, our methodology embodied a spirited embrace of scientific curiosity and methodological rigor, navigating the capricious waters of correlation with a captain's astuteness and a jester's mirth. Our choice of methodological avenues served as a testament to our unwavering dedication to unraveling the perplexities that underpin the curious and unexpected bond between political proclivities and cinematic fervor.


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 South Carolina and Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

For the time period 1995 to 2013, you found a correlation 0.9237017, r-squared of 0.8532249, 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 Palmetto Polls: Showbiz Senate Shindigs

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious relationship between the votes received by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year. The data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers allowed us to meticulously examine this relationship spanning from 1995 to 2013. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 with a p-value less than 0.01, implying a robust and significant connection between these seemingly unrelated entities. Our research sheds light on the previously overlooked influence of cinephile constituents on senatorial voting patterns. We present a thorough analysis of this correlation, offering valuable insights into the quirks of democracy and the unexpected interplay between politics and entertainment.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Political scientists have long been captivated by the intricacies of voter behavior and the myriad of factors that influence electoral outcomes. While extensive research has examined the impact of campaign strategies, incumbency, and economic conditions on election results, little attention has been devoted to the potential influence of cinematic preferences on political support. In this regard, our study ventures into uncharted territory, seeking to elucidate the connection between the votes garnered by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the ticket sales of the year's top movie. We embark on this escapade armed with an arsenal of statistical tools and an insatiable curiosity to uncover the quixotic dynamics at play.
The notion of a correlation between political allegiances and box office hits may initially elicit a raised eyebrow or a skeptical chuckle. However, as we venture forth armed with our data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers, we aim to dispel any notions of absurdity and reveal the surprising coherence underlying these seemingly disparate domains. Our earnest pursuit of truth lies not in the caprice of whimsy, but in the noble pursuit of understanding the multifaceted tapestry of human behavior, where democracy and entertainment intertwine in a dance as intricate as a complex algorithm.
As we delve into this enigmatic relationship, we do not discount the medley of confounding variables that may sway our results. The kaleidoscope of societal trends, cultural phenomena, and even celestial alignments can cast a substantial shadow over our statistical inferences. Yet, armed with our trusty regression analyses and the formidable duo of Pearson's correlation coefficient and the all-mighty p-value, we tread forth undeterred in our quest for revelation.
Our journey thus far has unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9237017, standing tall and assertive with a p-value less than 0.01. This robust statistical evidence not only piques our intellectual curiosity but beckons us to unravel the mystique veiled within the realm of South Carolinian politics and Hollywood spectacles.
In unfolding the enigma before us, we do not shy away from the uproarious quirks and idiosyncrasies that pervade our exploration. Through the lens of empirical analysis, we aim for a panoramic portrayal of the capricious interplay between the ballot box and the box office, where the silver screen and the voter's booth converge in a grand symphony of unexpected correlations and merry statistical revelry. As we proceed, we invite you to join us in this intellectual romp, where each data point and regression line serves as a lighthearted jest in the grand comedy of research and discovery.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our quest for understanding the intricate dance between the electorate's political inclinations and their cinematic dalliances has yielded a revelation of significant proportions. Our analysis of the data has unearthed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 between the votes garnered by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year. This robust correlation is further underscored by an r-squared value of 0.8532249, affirming the substantial explanatory power of the relationship at hand. The formidable p-value of less than 0.01 resonates with statistical significance, compelling us to acknowledge the palpable connection between these seemingly incongruent spheres.

Upon gazing at the scatterplot displayed in Figure 1 (not to toot our own horn, but isn't it a sight for sore eyes?), the conspicuous clustering of data points encapsulates the compelling alliance between political allegiances and cinematic fervor. Each data point seems to eloquently convey the resonance between the senatorial ballots cast and the cinematic escapades embarked upon. It's almost as if the scatterplot itself is a silent raconteur of the harmonious waltz between politics and entertainment.

In delving into this realm of correlation, we cannot help but marvel at the enchanting interplay of variables that has precipitated this consequential connection. Like intrepid scientific sleuths navigating a labyrinth of statistical phenomena, we have unearthed a nexus that embodies the confluence of democracy and drama. The resonance of these findings reverberates with a symphony of unexpected correlations and mirthful statistical revelry, illuminating the pulsating heartbeat underlying the South Carolinian political landscape.

As we forge ahead in this academic odyssey, we are reminded that the arcane corridors of research are often adorned with unexpected delights, where the empirical and the whimsical intertwine in a captivating dance. The pursuit of knowledge, it seems, is replete with moments of statistical serendipity, where the seemingly disparate domains of politics and entertainment converge with a dazzling assertiveness, beckoning us to uncover the fascinating narrative woven into the fabric of data and inquiry.


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 South Carolina and Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
The Palmetto Polls: Showbiz Senate Shindigs

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious relationship between the votes received by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year. The data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers allowed us to meticulously examine this relationship spanning from 1995 to 2013. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 with a p-value less than 0.01, implying a robust and significant connection between these seemingly unrelated entities. Our research sheds light on the previously overlooked influence of cinephile constituents on senatorial voting patterns. We present a thorough analysis of this correlation, offering valuable insights into the quirks of democracy and the unexpected interplay between politics and entertainment.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The compendium of scholarly research on voter behavior and political dynamics offers a rich tapestry of investigations into the multifarious factors that shape electoral outcomes. Smith, in "Political Crossroads," probed into the influence of regional cinema preferences on political affiliation, while Doe, in "Election Extravaganza," investigated the captivating correlation between constituent movie tastes and senatorial voting patterns. These seminal works laid the groundwork for our foray into the curious nexus of politics and popular entertainment.
Venturing beyond the confines of academic treatises, we examined the insights offered by acclaimed non-fiction works that dissect the cultural landscape and political zeitgeist. Bloom's "Silver Screens and Red Carpets" provides an intriguing exploration of the symbiotic relationship between Hollywood and public sentiment, shedding light on the crossover between box office success and societal attitudes. Similarly, Lee's "Democracy in Technicolor" delves into the subtle yet pervasive impact of cinematic trends on political discourse, unveiling the intricate interplay between entertainment and governance.
Transitioning into the realm of fiction, we encounter tantalizing narratives that blur the boundaries between political intrigue and silver screen enchantment. From Orwell's "1984" to Huxley's "Brave New World," dystopian fables offer cautionary tales of power, propaganda, and the seductive allure of mass media, prompting introspection on the subtle ways in which entertainment can shape public sentiment and political allegiances.
In the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding, we cast our net wider to explore unconventional sources of insight. As we waded through an eclectic array of literature, including the backs of shampoo bottles and the comical musings of fortune cookies, we encountered a whimsical array of propositions and proverbs. While these unconventional reservoirs of wisdom may not align with the rigors of scholarly discourse, they serve as a lighthearted reminder of the eclectic sources from which knowledge can be gleaned, and the playful nuances that imbue the discovery of unexpected connections.
As our odyssey through the annals of research and imagination draws to a close, we emerge with a heightened appreciation for the whimsy and wonder that infuse the pursuit of knowledge. Our literature review, like a mischievous protagonist in a farcical comedy, has waltzed across the stage of academic inquiry, infusing rigorous analysis with an irrepressible spirit of levity and curiosity.

[[RESULTS]]
Our quest for understanding the intricate dance between the electorate's political inclinations and their cinematic dalliances has yielded a revelation of significant proportions. Our analysis of the data has unearthed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 between the votes garnered by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year. This robust correlation is further underscored by an r-squared value of 0.8532249, affirming the substantial explanatory power of the relationship at hand. The formidable p-value of less than 0.01 resonates with statistical significance, compelling us to acknowledge the palpable connection between these seemingly incongruent spheres.
Upon gazing at the scatterplot displayed in Figure 1 (not to toot our own horn, but isn't it a sight for sore eyes?), the conspicuous clustering of data points encapsulates the compelling alliance between political allegiances and cinematic fervor. Each data point seems to eloquently convey the resonance between the senatorial ballots cast and the cinematic escapades embarked upon. It's almost as if the scatterplot itself is a silent raconteur of the harmonious waltz between politics and entertainment.
In delving into this realm of correlation, we cannot help but marvel at the enchanting interplay of variables that has precipitated this consequential connection. Like intrepid scientific sleuths navigating a labyrinth of statistical phenomena, we have unearthed a nexus that embodies the confluence of democracy and drama. The resonance of these findings reverberates with a symphony of unexpected correlations and mirthful statistical revelry, illuminating the pulsating heartbeat underlying the South Carolinian political landscape.
As we forge ahead in this academic odyssey, we are reminded that the arcane corridors of research are often adorned with unexpected delights, where the empirical and the whimsical intertwine in a captivating dance. The pursuit of knowledge, it seems, is replete with moments of statistical serendipity, where the seemingly disparate domains of politics and entertainment converge with a dazzling assertiveness, beckoning us to uncover the fascinating narrative woven into the fabric of data and inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study not only substantiate the noteworthy musings of Smith and Doe but also corroborate the fascinating insights offered by Bloom and Lee. Who would have thought that the cinematic fervor of South Carolinians could hold such sway over senatorial voting patterns, akin to the way a captivating movie captivates its audience. Our findings provide empirical validation to the penchant for the silver screen influencing the silver power, reinforcing the notion that in the political theater, entertainment is not merely a sideshow but an intrinsic part of the performance.

While our journey through the annals of literature may have felt like flipping through the back of a cereal box for wisdom or foraging for insight in a fortune cookie, it did culminate in a kaleidoscopic understanding of the interplay between societal sentiment and political allegiances. As we wade through the ocean of statistics, we find ourselves marveling at the intricate dance of variables that has brought this unexpected connection to light, akin to discovering a hidden subplot in a convoluted drama.

The palpable connection between Democratic votes for Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year speaks to the enchanting symphony of correlations that underpin the South Carolinian political landscape. The statistics themselves seem to dance a merry jig, painting a vivid tableau of the intertwined worlds of politics and entertainment. It's almost as if the scatterplot is a silent bard, regaling us with the tale of the harmonious coalescence of democracy and drama.

In the ever-rolling saga of empirical inquiry, our findings stand as a testament to the whimsical capriciousness that infuses the pursuit of knowledge. The unforeseen alliance between political dynamics and popular entertainment, which our study has brought to light, serves as a vivacious reminder of the myriad ways in which statistical serendipity can unfold. As we embark on the next leg of our academic odyssey, we are poised to encounter further moments of revelry and surprise, where the rigors of research intersect with the unbridled levity of statistical serendipity.


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 South Carolina and Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
The Palmetto Polls: Showbiz Senate Shindigs

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the curious relationship between the votes received by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year. The data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers allowed us to meticulously examine this relationship spanning from 1995 to 2013. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 with a p-value less than 0.01, implying a robust and significant connection between these seemingly unrelated entities. Our research sheds light on the previously overlooked influence of cinephile constituents on senatorial voting patterns. We present a thorough analysis of this correlation, offering valuable insights into the quirks of democracy and the unexpected interplay between politics and entertainment.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Political scientists have long been captivated by the intricacies of voter behavior and the myriad of factors that influence electoral outcomes. While extensive research has examined the impact of campaign strategies, incumbency, and economic conditions on election results, little attention has been devoted to the potential influence of cinematic preferences on political support. In this regard, our study ventures into uncharted territory, seeking to elucidate the connection between the votes garnered by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the ticket sales of the year's top movie. We embark on this escapade armed with an arsenal of statistical tools and an insatiable curiosity to uncover the quixotic dynamics at play.
The notion of a correlation between political allegiances and box office hits may initially elicit a raised eyebrow or a skeptical chuckle. However, as we venture forth armed with our data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers, we aim to dispel any notions of absurdity and reveal the surprising coherence underlying these seemingly disparate domains. Our earnest pursuit of truth lies not in the caprice of whimsy, but in the noble pursuit of understanding the multifaceted tapestry of human behavior, where democracy and entertainment intertwine in a dance as intricate as a complex algorithm.
As we delve into this enigmatic relationship, we do not discount the medley of confounding variables that may sway our results. The kaleidoscope of societal trends, cultural phenomena, and even celestial alignments can cast a substantial shadow over our statistical inferences. Yet, armed with our trusty regression analyses and the formidable duo of Pearson's correlation coefficient and the all-mighty p-value, we tread forth undeterred in our quest for revelation.
Our journey thus far has unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.9237017, standing tall and assertive with a p-value less than 0.01. This robust statistical evidence not only piques our intellectual curiosity but beckons us to unravel the mystique veiled within the realm of South Carolinian politics and Hollywood spectacles.
In unfolding the enigma before us, we do not shy away from the uproarious quirks and idiosyncrasies that pervade our exploration. Through the lens of empirical analysis, we aim for a panoramic portrayal of the capricious interplay between the ballot box and the box office, where the silver screen and the voter's booth converge in a grand symphony of unexpected correlations and merry statistical revelry. As we proceed, we invite you to join us in this intellectual romp, where each data point and regression line serves as a lighthearted jest in the grand comedy of research and discovery.

[[RESULTS]]
Our quest for understanding the intricate dance between the electorate's political inclinations and their cinematic dalliances has yielded a revelation of significant proportions. Our analysis of the data has unearthed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 between the votes garnered by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year. This robust correlation is further underscored by an r-squared value of 0.8532249, affirming the substantial explanatory power of the relationship at hand. The formidable p-value of less than 0.01 resonates with statistical significance, compelling us to acknowledge the palpable connection between these seemingly incongruent spheres.
Upon gazing at the scatterplot displayed in Figure 1 (not to toot our own horn, but isn't it a sight for sore eyes?), the conspicuous clustering of data points encapsulates the compelling alliance between political allegiances and cinematic fervor. Each data point seems to eloquently convey the resonance between the senatorial ballots cast and the cinematic escapades embarked upon. It's almost as if the scatterplot itself is a silent raconteur of the harmonious waltz between politics and entertainment.
In delving into this realm of correlation, we cannot help but marvel at the enchanting interplay of variables that has precipitated this consequential connection. Like intrepid scientific sleuths navigating a labyrinth of statistical phenomena, we have unearthed a nexus that embodies the confluence of democracy and drama. The resonance of these findings reverberates with a symphony of unexpected correlations and mirthful statistical revelry, illuminating the pulsating heartbeat underlying the South Carolinian political landscape.
As we forge ahead in this academic odyssey, we are reminded that the arcane corridors of research are often adorned with unexpected delights, where the empirical and the whimsical intertwine in a captivating dance. The pursuit of knowledge, it seems, is replete with moments of statistical serendipity, where the seemingly disparate domains of politics and entertainment converge with a dazzling assertiveness, beckoning us to uncover the fascinating narrative woven into the fabric of data and inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has unraveled a compelling correlation between Democratic Senators' votes in South Carolina and the sales of the year's top movie, exemplifying the enchanting melange of democracy and drama. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 and a p-value less than 0.01 resound like the triumphant crescendo of a captivating concerto, affirming the harmonious interface between the ballot and the box office. The scatterplot, akin to a virtuoso maestro, orchestrates the synergistic dance of these seemingly incongruent domains, an opulent spectacle for the empirical connoisseur.

While the medley of confounding variables may permeate this duet of political allegiances and cinematic fervor with ethereal nuances, our statistical symphony remains resolute in its revelatory resonance. As we bid adieu to this delightful dalliance, it becomes eminently clear that no further research is needed in this area, for we have confidently unveiled the enigmatic liaison between the ballot and the silver screen. The riddles of this correlation might baffle the ordinary mind, but for the astute discerning eye, it's a jubilant jest in the grand comedy of research and discovery.

No more research is needed in this area.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited The Palmetto Polls: Showbiz Senate Shindigs. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Political Entertainment Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited The Palmetto Polls: Showbiz Senate Shindigs. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Amusing Political 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 The Palmetto Polls: Showbiz Senate Shindigs with an abstract of This study delves into the curious relationship between the votes received by Democratic Senators in South Carolina and the number of tickets sold for the top movie of the year. The data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and The Numbers allowed us to meticulously examine this relationship spanning from 1995 to 2013. Our findings revealed a strikingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9237017 with a p-value less than 0.01, implying a robust and significant connection between these seemingly unrelated entities. Our research sheds light on the previously overlooked influence of cinephile constituents on senatorial voting patterns. We present a thorough analysis of this correlation, offering valuable insights into the quirks of democracy and the unexpected interplay between politics and entertainment.

ChatGPT:

South Carolina Democratic Senators, movie ticket sales, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, The Numbers, correlation coefficient, p-value, cinephile constituents, senatorial voting patterns, politics and entertainment interplay, democracy quirks

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

Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year
Source: The Numbers
See what else correlates with Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year

Correlation r = 0.9237017 (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 = 0.8532249 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 85.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in South Carolina) over the 6 years from 1995 through 2013.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0085. 0.0085100588956859220000000000
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 0.92 in 0.85% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 118 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.

[ 0.45, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
199619982002200420082010
Votes for Democratic Senators in South Carolina (Percentage of votes)44.000852.698244.188444.100642.246927.6463
Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year (Tickets sold)692588009452430069484700702852007395560052598800




Why this works

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




Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([44.0008,52.6982,44.1884,44.1006,42.2469,27.6463,])
array_2 = np.array([69258800,94524300,69484700,70285200,73955600,52598800,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in South Carolina"
array_2_name = "Tickets Sold for the Top Movie of the Year"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the correlation whisperer we needed!


Correlation ID: 5703 · Black Variable ID: 26457 · Red Variable ID: 543
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0