about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,736 · 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 Indiana and the second variable is The number of dentists in Indiana.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2018, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As Republican votes for Senators in Indiana have risen, so have the calls for conservative values. And what's more conservative than preserving those pearly whites? It seems the political shift has sparked a 'filling'-ness in the air, leading to a 'brush' of enthusiasm for dental careers. Perhaps this is all just a 'root canal' effect of the political climate, where every vote counts in shaping not just the legislation, but also the 'tooth' of the matter. It's a 'plaque' I haven't seen before, but it's definitely causing a 'floss' in the number of dentists in Indiana. This correlation is 'extraction'-ly what happens when you mix politics and dental hygiene – a winning smile for the Republicans and a 'drilling' for success in the dental field!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a realistic bustling town square in Indiana featuring a large rally for Republican senators. The scene should include a sea of red hats and flags waving as the crowd cheers. A dental clinic across the street should be visible, with its waiting room filled with people eager to see the newly hired dentists. The image should reflect the undeniable correlation between the political rally and the increased number of dentists in Indiana. The visual should capture the fervent support for conservative values and the thriving activity in the dental clinic, portraying the bustling energy of the town square and the excitement stimulated by the political shift. 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 Indiana and The number of dentists in Indiana. 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: Scalar art Realistic inspired by bauhaus Surrealism Sci-fi fantacy
ChatGPT: Realistic

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 Indiana and The number of dentists in Indiana, in the following situation: As Republican votes for Senators in Indiana have risen, so have the calls for conservative values. And what's more conservative than preserving those pearly whites? It seems the political shift has sparked a 'filling'-ness in the air, leading to a 'brush' of enthusiasm for dental careers. Perhaps this is all just a 'root canal' effect of the political climate, where every vote counts in shaping not just the legislation, but also the 'tooth' of the matter. It's a 'plaque' I haven't seen before, but it's definitely causing a 'floss' in the number of dentists in Indiana. This correlation is 'extraction'-ly what happens when you mix politics and dental hygiene – a winning smile for the Republicans and a 'drilling' for success in the dental field!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling town square in Indiana, a large rally for Republican senators is in full swing. A sea of red hats and flags waves as the crowd cheers. In the midst of the fervor, a dental clinic across the street is abuzz with activity. The waiting room is filled with people eager to see the newly-hired dentists. The correlation is undeniable as the political shift fuels both fervent support for conservative values and a noticeable increase in the number of dentists in Indiana.

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: [ Realistic ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling town square in Indiana, a large rally for Republican senators is in full swing. A sea of red hats and flags waves as the crowd cheers. In the midst of the fervor, a dental clinic across the street is abuzz with activity. The waiting room is filled with people eager to see the newly-hired dentists. The correlation is undeniable as the political shift fuels both fervent support for conservative values and a noticeable increase in the number of dentists in Indiana. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a realistic bustling town square in Indiana featuring a large rally for Republican senators. The scene should include a sea of red hats and flags waving as the crowd cheers. A dental clinic across the street should be visible, with its waiting room filled with people eager to see the newly hired dentists. The image should reflect the undeniable correlation between the political rally and the increased number of dentists in Indiana. The visual should capture the fervent support for conservative values and the thriving activity in the dental clinic, portraying the bustling energy of the town square and the excitement stimulated by the political shift.

*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 Indiana caused The number of dentists in Indiana to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Grinning and Voting: An Analysis of the Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes and the Density of Dentists in Indiana

The Journal of Dental and Political Science

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 silly 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 Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of dentists in Indiana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Bureau of Larbor Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9217215 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2018.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Grinning and Voting: An Analysis of the Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes and the Density of Dentists in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of dentists in the state over the period 2004 to 2018. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we employ advanced statistical analysis to explore this unexpected and, dare we say, toothy association. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9217215 with p < 0.01, indicating a significant connection between political inclinations and dental professionals. Our results raise thought-provoking questions about whether the political landscape impacts oral health, or if perhaps Hoosiers simply prefer leaders with winning smiles. Furthermore, this study provides a not-so-ordinary glimpse into the intersection of politics and dental care, bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "campaign trail."


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of dentists in Indiana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Grinning and Voting: An Analysis of the Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes and the Density of Dentists in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of dentists in the state over the period 2004 to 2018. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we employ advanced statistical analysis to explore this unexpected and, dare we say, toothy association. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9217215 with p < 0.01, indicating a significant connection between political inclinations and dental professionals. Our results raise thought-provoking questions about whether the political landscape impacts oral health, or if perhaps Hoosiers simply prefer leaders with winning smiles. Furthermore, this study provides a not-so-ordinary glimpse into the intersection of politics and dental care, bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "campaign trail."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
Introduction

The state of Indiana is known for its rolling farmlands, basketball fanaticism, and of course, the occasional dental chair sighting (pardon the pun). In the midst of its rich history and colorful traditions, emerged an unexpected link between the political landscape and the dental profession – the correlation between Republican senatorial votes and the density of dentists. As researchers, we couldn't resist sinking our teeth into this toothsome statistical puzzle.

Now, before we dive into the nitty-gritty data, it's only fitting to acknowledge the curious nature of this correlation. On the surface, one might be forgiven for thinking that dental health and political leanings have about as much in common as floss and filibusters. Yet, our preliminary analysis has uncovered an intriguing relationship that leaves us both scratching our heads and grinning from ear to ear.

In this paper, we take a closer look at the peculiar connection between Republican senatorial votes and the number of dentists in Indiana. We recognize that at first glance, this correlation may seem as out of place as a toothbrush at a polling station, but rest assured that our approach is anything but tongue-in-cheek. We've scrutinized the data with all the rigor and precision of a dental check-up, aiming to extract as much meaning as possible from what seemed to be an obscure and improbable association.

By delving into this curious association, we aim to shed light on the underlying factors that drive this unexpected correlation, as well as to provoke some sober reflection on the intersection of politics and healthcare. So, strap in, dear reader, as we embark on a journey to uncover the enigmatic link between Republican votes and the dental profession in the state of Indiana.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of dentists in Indiana. 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 name some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Grinning and Voting: An Analysis of the Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes and the Density of Dentists in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of dentists in the state over the period 2004 to 2018. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we employ advanced statistical analysis to explore this unexpected and, dare we say, toothy association. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9217215 with p < 0.01, indicating a significant connection between political inclinations and dental professionals. Our results raise thought-provoking questions about whether the political landscape impacts oral health, or if perhaps Hoosiers simply prefer leaders with winning smiles. Furthermore, this study provides a not-so-ordinary glimpse into the intersection of politics and dental care, bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "campaign trail."

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
The state of Indiana is known for its rolling farmlands, basketball fanaticism, and of course, the occasional dental chair sighting (pardon the pun). In the midst of its rich history and colorful traditions, emerged an unexpected link between the political landscape and the dental profession – the correlation between Republican senatorial votes and the density of dentists. As researchers, we couldn't resist sinking our teeth into this toothsome statistical puzzle.
Now, before we dive into the nitty-gritty data, it's only fitting to acknowledge the curious nature of this correlation. On the surface, one might be forgiven for thinking that dental health and political leanings have about as much in common as floss and filibusters. Yet, our preliminary analysis has uncovered an intriguing relationship that leaves us both scratching our heads and grinning from ear to ear.
In this paper, we take a closer look at the peculiar connection between Republican senatorial votes and the number of dentists in Indiana. We recognize that at first glance, this correlation may seem as out of place as a toothbrush at a polling station, but rest assured that our approach is anything but tongue-in-cheek. We've scrutinized the data with all the rigor and precision of a dental check-up, aiming to extract as much meaning as possible from what seemed to be an obscure and improbable association.
By delving into this curious association, we aim to shed light on the underlying factors that drive this unexpected correlation, as well as to provoke some sober reflection on the intersection of politics and healthcare. So, strap in, dear reader, as we embark on a journey to uncover the enigmatic link between Republican votes and the dental profession in the state of Indiana.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In Smith's seminal work "Political Preferences and Professional Proportions: A Study of Indiana's Electoral Dynamics," the authors find a curious and seemingly paradoxical relationship between the prevalence of dentists and Republican votes for Senators in Indiana. This was an early exploration into the unprecedented correlation that has sparked both fascination and bewilderment among researchers.

Building upon Smith's groundbreaking inquiry, Doe and Jones further examined this unorthodox connection in their study "Molar Majorities: Exploring the Political Dentistry Nexus." Their findings confirmed the robustness of the association, leading to widespread intrigue within the academic community.

Turning to the realm of non-fiction literature relevant to this peculiar correlation, "Teeth: The Story of Beauty, Inequality, and the Struggle for Oral Health in America" by Mary Otto offers valuable insights into the societal implications of dental care disparities. Additionally, "Republican Politics: A Comprehensive Analysis of Policy and Ideologies" by John C. Green provides a comprehensive discussion of the political landscape that sets the stage for our investigation.

In the fictional realm, "Tooth and Consequences: A Political Thriller" by J.K. Rowling (writing under a pseudonym) delves into the perilous world of political intrigue, with a surprising dental twist. Furthermore, "The Gingivitis Gambit: A Tale of Political Power and Oral Health" by George R.R. Martin (though not officially affiliated with the author) presents a gripping narrative that mirrors our own academic exploration, albeit in a decidedly more fantastical context.

On a lighter note, the animated series "The Adventures of Captain Caveman" and the children's show "Peppa Pig" provide delightful, albeit tangentially related, portrayals of dental hygiene and oral care, serving as a lighthearted reminder of the importance of maintaining healthy teeth amidst our scholarly pursuits.

As we traverse the literary landscape surrounding our research topic, it becomes evident that the correlation between Republican senatorial votes and the density of dentists in Indiana has transcended the confines of traditional data analysis, permeating and inspiring diverse forms of creative expression. This interplay between actual research findings and whimsical literary representations adds a layer of complexity and amusement to our exploration of this enigmatic phenomenon.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of dentists in Indiana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Grinning and Voting: An Analysis of the Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes and the Density of Dentists in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of dentists in the state over the period 2004 to 2018. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we employ advanced statistical analysis to explore this unexpected and, dare we say, toothy association. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9217215 with p < 0.01, indicating a significant connection between political inclinations and dental professionals. Our results raise thought-provoking questions about whether the political landscape impacts oral health, or if perhaps Hoosiers simply prefer leaders with winning smiles. Furthermore, this study provides a not-so-ordinary glimpse into the intersection of politics and dental care, bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "campaign trail."

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
The state of Indiana is known for its rolling farmlands, basketball fanaticism, and of course, the occasional dental chair sighting (pardon the pun). In the midst of its rich history and colorful traditions, emerged an unexpected link between the political landscape and the dental profession – the correlation between Republican senatorial votes and the density of dentists. As researchers, we couldn't resist sinking our teeth into this toothsome statistical puzzle.
Now, before we dive into the nitty-gritty data, it's only fitting to acknowledge the curious nature of this correlation. On the surface, one might be forgiven for thinking that dental health and political leanings have about as much in common as floss and filibusters. Yet, our preliminary analysis has uncovered an intriguing relationship that leaves us both scratching our heads and grinning from ear to ear.
In this paper, we take a closer look at the peculiar connection between Republican senatorial votes and the number of dentists in Indiana. We recognize that at first glance, this correlation may seem as out of place as a toothbrush at a polling station, but rest assured that our approach is anything but tongue-in-cheek. We've scrutinized the data with all the rigor and precision of a dental check-up, aiming to extract as much meaning as possible from what seemed to be an obscure and improbable association.
By delving into this curious association, we aim to shed light on the underlying factors that drive this unexpected correlation, as well as to provoke some sober reflection on the intersection of politics and healthcare. So, strap in, dear reader, as we embark on a journey to uncover the enigmatic link between Republican votes and the dental profession in the state of Indiana.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Data Collection
Our research team embarked on a quest through the labyrinthine corridors of the internet, with the single-minded determination of Odysseus in pursuit of the Golden Fleece. We scoured the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, mining data from the years 2004 to 2018 like intrepid prospectors sifting through digital streams. Our treasure trove included records of Republican senatorial votes in Indiana and the number of licensed dentists practicing across the state. We spared no effort in procuring the most robust and comprehensive datasets, ensuring our findings would be as solid as a well-crafted dental crown.

Statistical Analysis
With our data firmly in hand, we applied an arsenal of statistical tools that would make even Pythagoras envious. Employing techniques such as correlation analysis, regression modeling, and spatial analysis, we sought to unravel the tangled web of numbers and discern any patterns hidden amidst the statistical brambles. Our aim was nothing short of peeling back the layers of complexity to reveal the underlying association between politically cast ballots and the presence of those who tirelessly labor to keep Hoosier smiles gleaming.

Correlation Coefficient Calculations
In our pursuit of uncovering the elusive link between Republican senatorial votes and the density of dentists, we calculated the correlation coefficient with the precision of a dental hygienist probing for cavities. The resulting coefficient of 0.9217215 astounded even the most seasoned statisticians among us, leaving us pleasantly perplexed and perhaps even a touch wide-eyed (alas, without the aid of anesthesia). The p-value of less than 0.01 further cemented the significance of our findings, reinforcing the notion that this association is not to be treated lightly.

Geospatial Mapping
To add an extra dimension to our analysis, we turned to the realm of geospatial mapping, like cartographic cartographers charting uncharted territories. By visualizing the distribution of Republican senatorial votes and the geographic dispersion of dental professionals across the state, we aimed to provide a veritable roadmap of this unexpected connection. Our maps revealed striking patterns that were as visually striking as a freshly whitened grin, further underscoring the depth and breadth of this intriguing relationship.

Limitations
We acknowledge that like any scientific endeavor, our study had its share of limitations, akin to a dental bridge that may occasionally require tightening. The observational nature of our data prevents us from making causal claims, and nuances in individual voting behavior or dental practice locations may introduce confounding factors that merit careful consideration. Nevertheless, with the utmost scholarly integrity, we present our findings as a robust exploration of a correlation that seems to have emerged from the depths of statistical obscurity.

In summary, our methodological approach aimed to peer deeply into the dental mirror and uncover the reflection of political proclivities in the state of Indiana. Through an amalgamation of data mining, statistical wizardry, and geospatial exploration, we waded into this intriguing netherworld of numbers and emerged with findings that are as surprising as finding a tooth fairy paying off a political campaign debt.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of dentists in Indiana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

For the time period 2004 to 2018, you found a correlation 0.9217215, r-squared of 0.8495706, 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]]
"Grinning and Voting: An Analysis of the Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes and the Density of Dentists in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of dentists in the state over the period 2004 to 2018. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we employ advanced statistical analysis to explore this unexpected and, dare we say, toothy association. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9217215 with p < 0.01, indicating a significant connection between political inclinations and dental professionals. Our results raise thought-provoking questions about whether the political landscape impacts oral health, or if perhaps Hoosiers simply prefer leaders with winning smiles. Furthermore, this study provides a not-so-ordinary glimpse into the intersection of politics and dental care, bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "campaign trail."

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Introduction
The state of Indiana is known for its rolling farmlands, basketball fanaticism, and of course, the occasional dental chair sighting (pardon the pun). In the midst of its rich history and colorful traditions, emerged an unexpected link between the political landscape and the dental profession – the correlation between Republican senatorial votes and the density of dentists. As researchers, we couldn't resist sinking our teeth into this toothsome statistical puzzle.
Now, before we dive into the nitty-gritty data, it's only fitting to acknowledge the curious nature of this correlation. On the surface, one might be forgiven for thinking that dental health and political leanings have about as much in common as floss and filibusters. Yet, our preliminary analysis has uncovered an intriguing relationship that leaves us both scratching our heads and grinning from ear to ear.
In this paper, we take a closer look at the peculiar connection between Republican senatorial votes and the number of dentists in Indiana. We recognize that at first glance, this correlation may seem as out of place as a toothbrush at a polling station, but rest assured that our approach is anything but tongue-in-cheek. We've scrutinized the data with all the rigor and precision of a dental check-up, aiming to extract as much meaning as possible from what seemed to be an obscure and improbable association.
By delving into this curious association, we aim to shed light on the underlying factors that drive this unexpected correlation, as well as to provoke some sober reflection on the intersection of politics and healthcare. So, strap in, dear reader, as we embark on a journey to uncover the enigmatic link between Republican votes and the dental profession in the state of Indiana.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data revealed a remarkably strong correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and the density of dentists in the state. Our statistical analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.9217215, indicating a robust positive relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. The high coefficient is reflective of the close connection between the two variables, suggesting that there may be more at play than meets the eye. As they say, the proof is in the pudding – or perhaps in this case, the toothpaste.

Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.8495706 suggests that approximately 84.96% of the variation in Republican senatorial votes can be explained by the number of dentists in Indiana. This finding emphasizes the substantial influence that the density of dentists has on the political landscape in the state, raising intriguing questions about the underlying mechanisms driving this unexpected link. It's almost as if the political decisions of Hoosiers and the presence of dental professionals are engaged in a tooth-and-nail battle for the limelight.

In addition, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis, indicating that the correlation observed is statistically significant. It seems that this association is no mere fluke – it has emerged from the data with a gleaming smile and a firm handshake.

These results underscore the need to further investigate the factors contributing to this striking correlation, as well as to consider the potential implications for both the political and dental arenas. After all, it's not every day that one encounters such a fascinating alignment of seemingly unrelated phenomena. It's almost as if the political landscape and the dental profession have decided to join forces and make a lasting impression on the state of Indiana.

For a visual representation of this captivating correlation, please see Fig. 1, which displays a scatterplot illustrating the strong relationship between Republican senatorial votes and the density of dentists in Indiana.

In light of these findings, it is clear that the connection between political preferences and the presence of dental professionals in Indiana warrants further exploration. This unexpected correlation provides a compelling framework for future research, inspiring us to delve deeper into the intricacies of this unlikely relationship. The next time you visit the ballot box or the dentist's chair, you may find yourself pondering the curious interplay between these two seemingly unrelated facets of Hoosier life.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of dentists in Indiana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"Grinning and Voting: An Analysis of the Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes and the Density of Dentists in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of dentists in the state over the period 2004 to 2018. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we employ advanced statistical analysis to explore this unexpected and, dare we say, toothy association. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9217215 with p < 0.01, indicating a significant connection between political inclinations and dental professionals. Our results raise thought-provoking questions about whether the political landscape impacts oral health, or if perhaps Hoosiers simply prefer leaders with winning smiles. Furthermore, this study provides a not-so-ordinary glimpse into the intersection of politics and dental care, bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "campaign trail."

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In Smith's seminal work "Political Preferences and Professional Proportions: A Study of Indiana's Electoral Dynamics," the authors find a curious and seemingly paradoxical relationship between the prevalence of dentists and Republican votes for Senators in Indiana. This was an early exploration into the unprecedented correlation that has sparked both fascination and bewilderment among researchers.
Building upon Smith's groundbreaking inquiry, Doe and Jones further examined this unorthodox connection in their study "Molar Majorities: Exploring the Political Dentistry Nexus." Their findings confirmed the robustness of the association, leading to widespread intrigue within the academic community.
Turning to the realm of non-fiction literature relevant to this peculiar correlation, "Teeth: The Story of Beauty, Inequality, and the Struggle for Oral Health in America" by Mary Otto offers valuable insights into the societal implications of dental care disparities. Additionally, "Republican Politics: A Comprehensive Analysis of Policy and Ideologies" by John C. Green provides a comprehensive discussion of the political landscape that sets the stage for our investigation.
In the fictional realm, "Tooth and Consequences: A Political Thriller" by J.K. Rowling (writing under a pseudonym) delves into the perilous world of political intrigue, with a surprising dental twist. Furthermore, "The Gingivitis Gambit: A Tale of Political Power and Oral Health" by George R.R. Martin (though not officially affiliated with the author) presents a gripping narrative that mirrors our own academic exploration, albeit in a decidedly more fantastical context.
On a lighter note, the animated series "The Adventures of Captain Caveman" and the children's show "Peppa Pig" provide delightful, albeit tangentially related, portrayals of dental hygiene and oral care, serving as a lighthearted reminder of the importance of maintaining healthy teeth amidst our scholarly pursuits.
As we traverse the literary landscape surrounding our research topic, it becomes evident that the correlation between Republican senatorial votes and the density of dentists in Indiana has transcended the confines of traditional data analysis, permeating and inspiring diverse forms of creative expression. This interplay between actual research findings and whimsical literary representations adds a layer of complexity and amusement to our exploration of this enigmatic phenomenon.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data revealed a remarkably strong correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and the density of dentists in the state. Our statistical analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.9217215, indicating a robust positive relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. The high coefficient is reflective of the close connection between the two variables, suggesting that there may be more at play than meets the eye. As they say, the proof is in the pudding – or perhaps in this case, the toothpaste.
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.8495706 suggests that approximately 84.96% of the variation in Republican senatorial votes can be explained by the number of dentists in Indiana. This finding emphasizes the substantial influence that the density of dentists has on the political landscape in the state, raising intriguing questions about the underlying mechanisms driving this unexpected link. It's almost as if the political decisions of Hoosiers and the presence of dental professionals are engaged in a tooth-and-nail battle for the limelight.
In addition, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis, indicating that the correlation observed is statistically significant. It seems that this association is no mere fluke – it has emerged from the data with a gleaming smile and a firm handshake.
These results underscore the need to further investigate the factors contributing to this striking correlation, as well as to consider the potential implications for both the political and dental arenas. After all, it's not every day that one encounters such a fascinating alignment of seemingly unrelated phenomena. It's almost as if the political landscape and the dental profession have decided to join forces and make a lasting impression on the state of Indiana.
For a visual representation of this captivating correlation, please see Fig. 1, which displays a scatterplot illustrating the strong relationship between Republican senatorial votes and the density of dentists in Indiana.
In light of these findings, it is clear that the connection between political preferences and the presence of dental professionals in Indiana warrants further exploration. This unexpected correlation provides a compelling framework for future research, inspiring us to delve deeper into the intricacies of this unlikely relationship. The next time you visit the ballot box or the dentist's chair, you may find yourself pondering the curious interplay between these two seemingly unrelated facets of Hoosier life.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this research undoubtedly leave us with some food for thought—or perhaps we should say, food for thought bubble gum to chew on, as we contemplate the unexpected connection between Republican senatorial votes in Indiana and the prevalence of dentists in the state. When we set out on this investigation, we did not anticipate unearthing such a formidable correlation. It seems that in the political arena, as in dental health, appearances can indeed be deceiving.

Returning to the literature review, we recall Smith's intriguing results, which initially confounded scholars by suggesting that political preferences were intertwined with the density of dental professionals. Our study not only corroborates Smith's discovery but also amplifies it, affirming the persuasive nature of this curious association. It appears that Smith was not merely pulling the public's leg; there is undoubtedly more to this relationship than meets the eye, or should we say, meets the tooth.

Moreover, the work of Doe and Jones laid the groundwork for our investigation by solidifying the peculiar correlation, offering a springboard for our own research endeavors. As we traverse the terrain of dental and political intrigue, it becomes increasingly apparent that our results have bolstered their foundational work, shedding new light on the intricate dance between Republican votes and dental care—who would have thought that political leanings could leave such an indelible mark on oral wellness!

Our findings not only fortify the academic landscape but also resonate with the amusing whimsy found within the fictional and non-fiction literary realms. Even as we engage in the rigors of scholarly inquiry, the dental and political worlds converge in ways reminiscent of a whimsical tale by J.K. Rowling or George R.R. Martin. It appears that reality may indeed be stranger than fiction, and just as enthralling.

In conclusion, the striking correlation between Republican votes and the density of dentists in Indiana raises intriguing questions about the nuanced interplay between the political landscape and oral health. We are left to ponder whether it is the charm of a winning smile that sways voters, or whether the dental profession holds sway in the political arena, leaving a lasting impression on the electoral outcomes. As we draw the curtain on this discussion, we are reminded that in the realm of academic exploration, truth may indeed be stranger than fiction. Who knew that the ballot box and the dentist's chair could share such a striking connection?


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly 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 Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and The number of dentists in Indiana. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Grinning and Voting: An Analysis of the Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes and the Density of Dentists in Indiana"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of dentists in the state over the period 2004 to 2018. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we employ advanced statistical analysis to explore this unexpected and, dare we say, toothy association. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9217215 with p < 0.01, indicating a significant connection between political inclinations and dental professionals. Our results raise thought-provoking questions about whether the political landscape impacts oral health, or if perhaps Hoosiers simply prefer leaders with winning smiles. Furthermore, this study provides a not-so-ordinary glimpse into the intersection of politics and dental care, bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "campaign trail."

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Introduction
The state of Indiana is known for its rolling farmlands, basketball fanaticism, and of course, the occasional dental chair sighting (pardon the pun). In the midst of its rich history and colorful traditions, emerged an unexpected link between the political landscape and the dental profession – the correlation between Republican senatorial votes and the density of dentists. As researchers, we couldn't resist sinking our teeth into this toothsome statistical puzzle.
Now, before we dive into the nitty-gritty data, it's only fitting to acknowledge the curious nature of this correlation. On the surface, one might be forgiven for thinking that dental health and political leanings have about as much in common as floss and filibusters. Yet, our preliminary analysis has uncovered an intriguing relationship that leaves us both scratching our heads and grinning from ear to ear.
In this paper, we take a closer look at the peculiar connection between Republican senatorial votes and the number of dentists in Indiana. We recognize that at first glance, this correlation may seem as out of place as a toothbrush at a polling station, but rest assured that our approach is anything but tongue-in-cheek. We've scrutinized the data with all the rigor and precision of a dental check-up, aiming to extract as much meaning as possible from what seemed to be an obscure and improbable association.
By delving into this curious association, we aim to shed light on the underlying factors that drive this unexpected correlation, as well as to provoke some sober reflection on the intersection of politics and healthcare. So, strap in, dear reader, as we embark on a journey to uncover the enigmatic link between Republican votes and the dental profession in the state of Indiana.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data revealed a remarkably strong correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and the density of dentists in the state. Our statistical analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.9217215, indicating a robust positive relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. The high coefficient is reflective of the close connection between the two variables, suggesting that there may be more at play than meets the eye. As they say, the proof is in the pudding – or perhaps in this case, the toothpaste.
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.8495706 suggests that approximately 84.96% of the variation in Republican senatorial votes can be explained by the number of dentists in Indiana. This finding emphasizes the substantial influence that the density of dentists has on the political landscape in the state, raising intriguing questions about the underlying mechanisms driving this unexpected link. It's almost as if the political decisions of Hoosiers and the presence of dental professionals are engaged in a tooth-and-nail battle for the limelight.
In addition, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis, indicating that the correlation observed is statistically significant. It seems that this association is no mere fluke – it has emerged from the data with a gleaming smile and a firm handshake.
These results underscore the need to further investigate the factors contributing to this striking correlation, as well as to consider the potential implications for both the political and dental arenas. After all, it's not every day that one encounters such a fascinating alignment of seemingly unrelated phenomena. It's almost as if the political landscape and the dental profession have decided to join forces and make a lasting impression on the state of Indiana.
For a visual representation of this captivating correlation, please see Fig. 1, which displays a scatterplot illustrating the strong relationship between Republican senatorial votes and the density of dentists in Indiana.
In light of these findings, it is clear that the connection between political preferences and the presence of dental professionals in Indiana warrants further exploration. This unexpected correlation provides a compelling framework for future research, inspiring us to delve deeper into the intricacies of this unlikely relationship. The next time you visit the ballot box or the dentist's chair, you may find yourself pondering the curious interplay between these two seemingly unrelated facets of Hoosier life.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has unveiled a striking correlation between Republican votes for Senators and the number of dentists in Indiana. The robust positive relationship, as indicated by a correlation coefficient of 0.9217215 with a p-value of less than 0.01, has left us grinning from ear to ear (pun intended). It seems that Hoosiers have a lot to chew on when it comes to the intersection of political preferences and dental care, potentially suggesting that strong political inclinations may indeed result in strong, healthy smiles.

Our findings raise thought-provoking questions about the underlying factors contributing to this unexpected correlation - it's almost as if the political landscape and dental profession are engaged in a tooth-and-nail battle for the limelight. One might ponder whether the ability to flash a winning smile might have a hidden influence on voting behavior. Our results also underscore the need for further investigation into the mechanisms driving this connection. After all, it's not every day that one encounters such a fascinating alignment of seemingly unrelated phenomena.

With that said, it appears that no more research is needed in this area. We've unraveled this particular mystery, and it seems that the tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth has been revealed. Should we say "braces" to all involved in this unique study?


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 Grinning and Voting: An Analysis of the Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes and the Density of Dentists in Indiana. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Dental and Political Science


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 Grinning and Voting: An Analysis of the Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes and the Density of Dentists in Indiana. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Analytical Dental and Political Research


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 Grinning and Voting: An Analysis of the Correlation Between Republican Senatorial Votes and the Density of Dentists in Indiana with an abstract of This paper examines the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Indiana and the number of dentists in the state over the period 2004 to 2018. Drawing on data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we employ advanced statistical analysis to explore this unexpected and, dare we say, toothy association. Our findings reveal a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.9217215 with p < 0.01, indicating a significant connection between political inclinations and dental professionals. Our results raise thought-provoking questions about whether the political landscape impacts oral health, or if perhaps Hoosiers simply prefer leaders with winning smiles. Furthermore, this study provides a not-so-ordinary glimpse into the intersection of politics and dental care, bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "campaign trail.

ChatGPT:

Republican votes, dentists, Indiana, correlation, Senatorial votes, dental professionals, political inclinations, oral health, Hoosiers, campaign trail, statistical analysis, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

The number of dentists in Indiana
Detailed data title: BLS estimate of dentists, general in Indiana
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of dentists in Indiana

Correlation r = 0.9217215 (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 = 0.8495706 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 85% of the change in the one variable (i.e., The number of dentists in Indiana) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Indiana) over the 6 years from 2004 through 2018.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.009. 0.0089514547647306240000000000
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 0.9% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 112 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.

[ 0.44, 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.
200420062010201220162018
Votes for Republican Senators in Indiana (Total votes)9039131171550952116113362014239901158000
The number of dentists in Indiana (Dentists, General)142016601500155019701820




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([903913,1171550,952116,1133620,1423990,1158000,])
array_2 = np.array([1420,1660,1500,1550,1970,1820,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Indiana"
array_2_name = "The number of dentists in Indiana"

# 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: 5736 · Black Variable ID: 26236 · Red Variable ID: 17038
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0