Spurious correlation #5,810 · 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 the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. The chart goes from 1979 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky and the second variable is Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. The chart goes from 1979 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

The excitement from the election results raised everyone's heart rates, leading to an increased demand for delicious hotdogs!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Visual prompt: An image that humorously depicts the scene of a bustling outdoor arena in Kentucky. The focal point is the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, joyously adorned in a crown, standing triumphantly at a hotdog-eating stand while holding up a plate with 50 consumed hotdogs. The crowd is shown excitedly devouring delicious hotdogs and eagerly awaiting the election results in the background. The atmosphere should capture the excitement of both events, with vibrant colors and expressive facial reactions. 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 the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. 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: High-tech Voxel art Cyber folk a funny image macro Concept art
ChatGPT: a funny image macro

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 the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, in the following situation: The excitement from the election results raised everyone's heart rates, leading to an increased demand for delicious hotdogs!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling outdoor arena in Kentucky, people line up to cast their votes for the Republican Presidential candidate. The excitement from the election results fills the air, raising everyone's heart rates. Nearby, the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, adorned in a crown, stands at a hotdog-eating stand. The champion triumphantly holds up a plate with 50 hotdogs consumed, as the crowd cheers and devours delicious hotdogs as they await the election outcomes.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ a funny image macro ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling outdoor arena in Kentucky, people line up to cast their votes for the Republican Presidential candidate. The excitement from the election results fills the air, raising everyone's heart rates. Nearby, the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, adorned in a crown, stands at a hotdog-eating stand. The champion triumphantly holds up a plate with 50 hotdogs consumed, as the crowd cheers and devours delicious hotdogs as they await the election outcomes. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Visual prompt: An image that humorously depicts the scene of a bustling outdoor arena in Kentucky. The focal point is the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion, joyously adorned in a crown, standing triumphantly at a hotdog-eating stand while holding up a plate with 50 consumed hotdogs. The crowd is shown excitedly devouring delicious hotdogs and eagerly awaiting the election results in the background. The atmosphere should capture the excitement of both events, with vibrant colors and expressive facial reactions.

*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.
^{Show prompt for explanation} 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 Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky caused Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

Correlating Consumed Hotdogs and Conservative Votes: A Cacophony of Culinary and Political Connections

The Journal of Gastronomical Politics

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!

^{Show prompt used to generate this paper} 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 goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Correlating Consumed Hotdogs and Conservative Votes: A Cacophony of Culinary and Political Connections

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this unconventional study, we delve deep into the tantalizing world of competitive hot dog eating and the thrilling realm of political elections. We aim to answer the perplexing question: is there a link between the number of hotdogs eaten by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion and the votes cast for the Republican presidential candidate in Kentucky? By harnessing the power of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we bravely embarked on this quirky quest for knowledge.

Our findings reveal a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9209971 between the two seemingly disparate variables, spanning from 1979 to 2020. Moreover, with p < 0.01, our results suggest a statistically significant relationship between these whimsical metrics. This exploration of culinary and political phenomena sheds light on the interconnectedness of the human experience, adding a dash of humor and intrigue to the often solemn world of academic research. Join us in this delightful adventure through the land of hot dogs and ballots, where the unexpected connections emerge from the most unlikely places.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
As the adage goes, "You are what you eat," but can what you eat also influence how you vote? In this unorthodox investigation, we turn our attention to the curious confluence of consumed hotdogs and conservative votes. Yes, you read that correctly – we are exploring the potential link between the number of hotdogs devoured by the illustrious Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion and the votes cast for the Republican presidential candidate in Kentucky. This quirky inquiry promises to unravel the tantalizing enigma of whether competitive eating prowess might wield influence over political preferences.
Now, before you dismiss this as a mere flight of fancy or as a case of being "wiener-y," allow us to assure you that this study is rooted in rigorous data analysis and statistical scrutiny. Our approach may be unconventional, but it is underpinned by a genuine quest to uncover the unexpected correlations that lurk beneath the surface of seemingly unrelated domains.
Whilst the concept of correlating hotdog consumption and conservative votes may initially elicit a chuckle, our findings point to a surprising relationship that transcends mere gastronomic delight and political partisanship. As we immerse ourselves in this delightful escapade through the realms of competitive eating and electoral allegiances, we invite you to set aside the traditional academic solemnity and relish in the unexpected connections that emerge from this unusual juxtaposition of culinary and political phenomena.
So, grab a hotdog (or several) and prepare to be amused, bemused, and, dare we say, "bun-derwhelmed" by the unexpected revelations that await. This is not your typical research endeavor and, we daresay, the correlations we uncover may just "relish" your attention.
In the words of the great Oscar Mayer, "Oh, I'd love to be an Oscar Mayer wiener, that is what I'd truly like to be, 'cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener, every correlation would be clear to me!" Join us in deciphering this enigmatic synergy between hotdogs and votes – it's sure to be a "frankly" fascinating adventure!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
**LITERATURE REVIEW**

In the pursuit of understanding the bewildering correlation between hotdog consumption and conservative votes, our compendium of research traverses the annals of academia, swerving between serious scholarship and unabashed frivolity. Here, we embark on a joyous jaunt through a buffet of studies, plummeting into the literary landscape to reap insights that may sizzle, tantalize, and possibly leave a mustard stain or two.

To initiate this robust delve into the nexus of comestible feats and political allegiance, we encounter the seminal works of Smith (2015), Doe (2018), and Jones (2020), who expound upon the statistical interplay of dietary habits and voting behavior. Their analyses, although devoid of whimsy, lay the groundwork for our rollicking odyssey across the terrain of hotdog lore and electoral caprice.

Adding flavor to our inquiry, we turn our attention to "Hot Dogs and Political Hogwash: A Political Gastronomy Analysis" by Lorem and Ipsum (2017). This delectable tome enthralls readers with its exploration of the metaphorical implications of hotdogs and their influence on the ideological palate of voters. While the scholarly disposition of the authors is evident, the levity with which they approach culinary-political parallels infuses a tang of merriment into an otherwise staid discourse.

In the pursuit of a more eclectic intake, we cast our palates upon the non-fiction works "Hot Dogs, Hot Politics" by Lorem (2019) and "Weenies and Winners" by Ipsum (2021). These volumes delve into the curious juncture of gastronomic predilections and political affinities, serving up a vibrant tapestry of gastronomic analysis intertwined with civic proclivities. The authors' verve for blending the savory and the serious bids readers to savor the incongruous connection between hotdogs and conservative votes, highlighting that truth, as always, may be stranger than fiction.

Speaking of fiction, we find ourselves meandering into the realm of literary interplay, where even the most imaginative tomes veer toward the precincts of our peculiar query. "Democracy on a Bun" by Lorem (2020) and "The Franks of Fate" by Ipsum (2018) present unbearably entertaining yet tangentially relevant accounts of culinary escapades and political intrigue. While their fictional nature may seem incongruous with academic rigor, these works offer a palate-cleansing break from the otherwise weighty literature on our thematic concurrence, proving that even the most fantastical narratives harbor kernels of unthinkable veracity.

Extending our reach into the omniscient realm of televised sagas, we succumb to the allure of "Frankfurter Faction" and "Ballots and Buns," two seemingly disparate shows that curiously intersect at the crossroads of competitive eating and conservative inclinations. The authors, through precise endeavors, harvested a bushel of insights from the fields of televised amusement venues, enriching our understanding of the multi-dimensional symbiosis between gustatory exploits and political allegiance.

As we pivot back to the rigors of research, let us traverse the precipice of jest and scholarship with unbridled glee and an insuppressible yearning to unravel the idiosyncratic harmony between consumed hotdogs and conservative votes. This concludes our overview of the scholarly literature, a delightful melange of wit and wisdom that gingerly primes us for the carnivalesque odyssey that awaits.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
Correlating Consumed Hotdogs and Conservative Votes: A Cacophony of Culinary and Political Connections

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this unconventional study, we delve deep into the tantalizing world of competitive hot dog eating and the thrilling realm of political elections. We aim to answer the perplexing question: is there a link between the number of hotdogs eaten by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion and the votes cast for the Republican presidential candidate in Kentucky? By harnessing the power of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we bravely embarked on this quirky quest for knowledge.

Our findings reveal a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9209971 between the two seemingly disparate variables, spanning from 1979 to 2020. Moreover, with p < 0.01, our results suggest a statistically significant relationship between these whimsical metrics. This exploration of culinary and political phenomena sheds light on the interconnectedness of the human experience, adding a dash of humor and intrigue to the often solemn world of academic research. Join us in this delightful adventure through the land of hot dogs and ballots, where the unexpected connections emerge from the most unlikely places.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In the pursuit of understanding the bewildering correlation between hotdog consumption and conservative votes, our compendium of research traverses the annals of academia, swerving between serious scholarship and unabashed frivolity. Here, we embark on a joyous jaunt through a buffet of studies, plummeting into the literary landscape to reap insights that may sizzle, tantalize, and possibly leave a mustard stain or two.
To initiate this robust delve into the nexus of comestible feats and political allegiance, we encounter the seminal works of Smith (2015), Doe (2018), and Jones (2020), who expound upon the statistical interplay of dietary habits and voting behavior. Their analyses, although devoid of whimsy, lay the groundwork for our rollicking odyssey across the terrain of hotdog lore and electoral caprice.
Adding flavor to our inquiry, we turn our attention to "Hot Dogs and Political Hogwash: A Political Gastronomy Analysis" by Lorem and Ipsum (2017). This delectable tome enthralls readers with its exploration of the metaphorical implications of hotdogs and their influence on the ideological palate of voters. While the scholarly disposition of the authors is evident, the levity with which they approach culinary-political parallels infuses a tang of merriment into an otherwise staid discourse.
In the pursuit of a more eclectic intake, we cast our palates upon the non-fiction works "Hot Dogs, Hot Politics" by Lorem (2019) and "Weenies and Winners" by Ipsum (2021). These volumes delve into the curious juncture of gastronomic predilections and political affinities, serving up a vibrant tapestry of gastronomic analysis intertwined with civic proclivities. The authors' verve for blending the savory and the serious bids readers to savor the incongruous connection between hotdogs and conservative votes, highlighting that truth, as always, may be stranger than fiction.
Speaking of fiction, we find ourselves meandering into the realm of literary interplay, where even the most imaginative tomes veer toward the precincts of our peculiar query. "Democracy on a Bun" by Lorem (2020) and "The Franks of Fate" by Ipsum (2018) present unbearably entertaining yet tangentially relevant accounts of culinary escapades and political intrigue. While their fictional nature may seem incongruous with academic rigor, these works offer a palate-cleansing break from the otherwise weighty literature on our thematic concurrence, proving that even the most fantastical narratives harbor kernels of unthinkable veracity.
Extending our reach into the omniscient realm of televised sagas, we succumb to the allure of "Frankfurter Faction" and "Ballots and Buns," two seemingly disparate shows that curiously intersect at the crossroads of competitive eating and conservative inclinations. The authors, through precise endeavors, harvested a bushel of insights from the fields of televised amusement venues, enriching our understanding of the multi-dimensional symbiosis between gustatory exploits and political allegiance.
As we pivot back to the rigors of research, let us traverse the precipice of jest and scholarship with unbridled glee and an insuppressible yearning to unravel the idiosyncratic harmony between consumed hotdogs and conservative votes. This concludes our overview of the scholarly literature, a delightful melange of wit and wisdom that gingerly primes us for the carnivalesque odyssey that awaits.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our zany inquiry into the unexpected correlation between consumed hotdogs and conservative votes have left us both befuddled and giddy with delight. The data analysis revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9209971, indicating a strong positive relationship between the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion and the votes cast for the Republican presidential candidate in Kentucky. It appears that the old saying "you are what you eat" may have peculiar political implications!
Furthermore, our findings demonstrated an impressive r-squared value of 0.8482356, suggesting that a substantial proportion of the variation in conservative votes in Kentucky can be explained by the amount of hotdogs devoured at the iconic eating competition. This connection is quite the sausage surprise!
With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results provided compelling evidence of a statistically significant relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. It seems that the impact of competitive hotdog consumption may extend beyond the confines of the culinary realm and infiltrate the political landscape in ways that boggle the mind and tickle the taste buds.
To visually encapsulate this captivating correlation, we have included a scatterplot (Fig. 1) that illustrates the strong positive association between hotdog consumption and conservative votes. Brace yourself for a display of data that will have you nodding your head in bemusement and perhaps reaching for a hotdog in contemplative intrigue.
In essence, our findings unfurl a whimsical tale of culinary and political entanglement that defies conventional wisdom and invites a hearty chuckle or two. The peculiar interplay between competitive hotdog eating and political inclinations raises countless thought-provoking questions and tickles the intellectual palate with a flavor of mirth. Join us in savoring this delightful revelation – it's a scholarly journey that transcends the ordinary and beckons us to embrace the unexpected harmonies that emerge from the most curious of pairings.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

In the wake of our riveting expedition into the realm of consumed hotdogs and conservative votes, we are left to ponder the tantalizing revelations that have emerged from our scholarly escapade. Our findings, which astutely align with prior research that we, despite the temptation to jest, took ever so seriously, have unearthed a culinary-political connectivity that transcends the mundane and ventures into the realms of absurdity – or perhaps, sausage surprise!

The robust correlation coefficient of 0.9209971, as well as the eye-catching r-squared value of 0.8482356, stand as resounding endorsements of the unlikely relationship between competitive hotdog consumption and political allegiances. These results bolster the work of Smith, Doe, and Jones, who laboriously toiled to forge the statistical groundwork upon which we now gallivant with glee. Furthermore, the significance of our p-value, dipping beneath the fabled 0.01 threshold, fortifies the validity of an association that might just leave both political pundits and culinary enthusiasts with furrowed brows and grinning lips.

As we envisaged from our savored literature review, the interplay between hotdog consumption and conservative votes is not a mere frolic through the whimsical whims of academia, but a serious attempt to unravel the tangled web of dietary habits and political predilections. The mercurial journey from Lorem and Ipsum's metaphorical musings to the televised wonderland of "Frankfurter Faction" and "Ballots and Buns" now culminates in the resounding chime of empirical evidence that lends credence to the definable correlation between these curious companions.

Our scatterplot (Fig. 1) stands as a salient exhibit of the captivating synergy between consumed hotdogs and conservative votes, inviting observers to marvel at the whimsy that lies within the empirically substantiated nexus of gastronomic feats and electoral choices. It tantalizingly depicts the boisterous journey from the competitive eating stage to the polling booth, a journey that now, with a glint of scholarly certainty, evinces the marquee of a curious yet compelling kinship.

In essence, our results align with and extend the scholarly merriment that has preceded them. They stir quizzical notions, tickle the intellectual palate, and beckon us to revel in the intriguing confluence of hotdogs and ballots with a spoonful of academic prowess and a sprinkling of jest. As we invite the scholarly community to partake in this savory dance of culinary and political entanglement, we brace ourselves for the voracious debate and, dare we say, relish the inevitable discussions that will ensue.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky and Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Correlating Consumed Hotdogs and Conservative Votes: A Cacophony of Culinary and Political Connections

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this unconventional study, we delve deep into the tantalizing world of competitive hot dog eating and the thrilling realm of political elections. We aim to answer the perplexing question: is there a link between the number of hotdogs eaten by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion and the votes cast for the Republican presidential candidate in Kentucky? By harnessing the power of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we bravely embarked on this quirky quest for knowledge.

Our findings reveal a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9209971 between the two seemingly disparate variables, spanning from 1979 to 2020. Moreover, with p < 0.01, our results suggest a statistically significant relationship between these whimsical metrics. This exploration of culinary and political phenomena sheds light on the interconnectedness of the human experience, adding a dash of humor and intrigue to the often solemn world of academic research. Join us in this delightful adventure through the land of hot dogs and ballots, where the unexpected connections emerge from the most unlikely places.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Introduction
As the adage goes, "You are what you eat," but can what you eat also influence how you vote? In this unorthodox investigation, we turn our attention to the curious confluence of consumed hotdogs and conservative votes. Yes, you read that correctly – we are exploring the potential link between the number of hotdogs devoured by the illustrious Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion and the votes cast for the Republican presidential candidate in Kentucky. This quirky inquiry promises to unravel the tantalizing enigma of whether competitive eating prowess might wield influence over political preferences.
Now, before you dismiss this as a mere flight of fancy or as a case of being "wiener-y," allow us to assure you that this study is rooted in rigorous data analysis and statistical scrutiny. Our approach may be unconventional, but it is underpinned by a genuine quest to uncover the unexpected correlations that lurk beneath the surface of seemingly unrelated domains.
Whilst the concept of correlating hotdog consumption and conservative votes may initially elicit a chuckle, our findings point to a surprising relationship that transcends mere gastronomic delight and political partisanship. As we immerse ourselves in this delightful escapade through the realms of competitive eating and electoral allegiances, we invite you to set aside the traditional academic solemnity and relish in the unexpected connections that emerge from this unusual juxtaposition of culinary and political phenomena.
So, grab a hotdog (or several) and prepare to be amused, bemused, and, dare we say, "bun-derwhelmed" by the unexpected revelations that await. This is not your typical research endeavor and, we daresay, the correlations we uncover may just "relish" your attention.
In the words of the great Oscar Mayer, "Oh, I'd love to be an Oscar Mayer wiener, that is what I'd truly like to be, 'cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener, every correlation would be clear to me!" Join us in deciphering this enigmatic synergy between hotdogs and votes – it's sure to be a "frankly" fascinating adventure!

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our zany inquiry into the unexpected correlation between consumed hotdogs and conservative votes have left us both befuddled and giddy with delight. The data analysis revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9209971, indicating a strong positive relationship between the number of hotdogs consumed by the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion and the votes cast for the Republican presidential candidate in Kentucky. It appears that the old saying "you are what you eat" may have peculiar political implications!
Furthermore, our findings demonstrated an impressive r-squared value of 0.8482356, suggesting that a substantial proportion of the variation in conservative votes in Kentucky can be explained by the amount of hotdogs devoured at the iconic eating competition. This connection is quite the sausage surprise!
With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results provided compelling evidence of a statistically significant relationship between these seemingly disparate variables. It seems that the impact of competitive hotdog consumption may extend beyond the confines of the culinary realm and infiltrate the political landscape in ways that boggle the mind and tickle the taste buds.
To visually encapsulate this captivating correlation, we have included a scatterplot (Fig. 1) that illustrates the strong positive association between hotdog consumption and conservative votes. Brace yourself for a display of data that will have you nodding your head in bemusement and perhaps reaching for a hotdog in contemplative intrigue.
In essence, our findings unfurl a whimsical tale of culinary and political entanglement that defies conventional wisdom and invites a hearty chuckle or two. The peculiar interplay between competitive hotdog eating and political inclinations raises countless thought-provoking questions and tickles the intellectual palate with a flavor of mirth. Join us in savoring this delightful revelation – it's a scholarly journey that transcends the ordinary and beckons us to embrace the unexpected harmonies that emerge from the most curious of pairings.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

Conclusion

In conclusion, our investigation of the curious correlation between devoured hotdogs and conservative votes in Kentucky has left us with a profound sense of "relished" amusement. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.9209971 has proven to be as surprising as finding a vegetarian at a hot dog eating competition – utterly unexpected! It seems that in the world of competitive eating, the ties that "bind" extend far beyond the digestive system and into the political realm.

With a p-value of less than 0.01, our results indicate that this connection is as statistically significant as the quality of a well-grilled hot dog – no mere "wiener-y" coincidence here! The r-squared value of 0.8482356 suggests that the amount of hotdogs gobbled up by the champion can predict the conservative votes in Kentucky almost as accurately as predicting a hot dog lover's dietary preferences.

Our findings, presented in the scatterplot (Fig. 1), make it clear that the relationship between consumed hotdogs and conservative votes is as tangible as the bun encasing a frankfurter. This study highlights the unexpected, illustrating that when it comes to the peculiar intersections of gastronomy and governance, one should always expect the "bun-expected."

In the grand tradition of scholarly inquiry, we confidently assert that no further investigation into the connection between hotdogs and political preferences is needed – we've grilled this topic from all angles, and it's time to "ketchup" on more pressing matters. As we bid adieu to this quirky quest, we leave you with a firm declaration: "This topic is as closed as a hot dog in a bun – no need for any more bunsen burners in this research kitchen!" Thank you for joining us on this rollicking and relish-filled journey through the land of hot dogs and ballots. Until we meet again, may your days be as delightful as a perfectly grilled bratwurst on a sunny summer afternoon. Cheers to the delightfully unexpected correlations that keep the world of research as tantalizing as a Chicago-style hot dog – and just as "topped" with surprises!

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 Correlating Consumed Hotdogs and Conservative Votes: A Cacophony of Culinary and Political Connections. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Gastronomical Politics

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 Correlating Consumed Hotdogs and Conservative Votes: A Cacophony of Culinary and Political Connections. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The International Institute for Sausage 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 Correlating Consumed Hotdogs and Conservative Votes: A Cacophony of Culinary and Political Connections with an abstract of In this unconventional study, we delve deep into the tantalizing world of competitive hot dog eating and the thrilling realm of political elections. We aim to answer the perplexing question: is there a link between the number of hotdogs eaten by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition champion and the votes cast for the Republican presidential candidate in Kentucky? By harnessing the power of data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Wikipedia, we bravely embarked on this quirky quest for knowledge.
Our findings reveal a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9209971 between the two seemingly disparate variables, spanning from 1979 to 2020. Moreover, with p < 0.01, our results suggest a statistically significant relationship between these whimsical metrics. This exploration of culinary and political phenomena sheds light on the interconnectedness of the human experience, adding a dash of humor and intrigue to the often solemn world of academic research. Join us in this delightful adventure through the land of hot dogs and ballots, where the unexpected connections emerge from the most unlikely places.

ChatGPT:

hotdog consumption, competitive eating, political affiliation, voting patterns, correlation analysis, Kentucky elections, Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition, Republican presidential candidate, MIT Election Data, Harvard Dataverse, Wikipedia data, Culinary and political connections

*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 the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky
Detailed data title: Total votes cast for the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky

Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Detailed data title: Hotdog Consumption by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
Source: Wikipedia
See what else correlates with Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion

Correlation r = 0.9209971 (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 = 0.8482356 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 84.8% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky) over the 11 years from 1979 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 5.7E-5.^Show 0.0000571404420065094900000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note 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 0.0057% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 17,501 random variables^Note Which I absolutely did.
with the same 10 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 10 because we have two variables measured over a period of 11 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.

[ 0.72, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} 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: ^Note 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.

	1980	1984	1988	1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016	2020
Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky (Total votes)	635274	821702	734281	617178	623283	872520	1069440	1048460	1087190	1202970	1326650
Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion (Hotdogs eaten)	9.5	9.5	10	19	22.25	25	53.33	59	68	70	75

Why this works

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.
Lack of causal connection: There is probably^Note 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.
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^Note 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.
Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. ^Note Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.

Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. ^{Show the steps to do this.} 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([635274,821702,734281,617178,623283,872520,1069440,1048460,1087190,1202970,1326650,])
array_2 = np.array([9.5,9.5,10,19,22.25,25,53.33,59,68,70,75,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky"
array_2_name = "Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion"

# 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. ^Note 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:

High resolution line chart ^Note The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.

If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.

Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
Alternative high resolution line chart
Scatterplot
Portable line chart (png)
Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
Line chart for only Votes for the Republican Presidential candidate in Kentucky
Line chart for only Hotdogs consumed by Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Competition Champion
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Correlating Consumed Hotdogs and Conservative Votes: A Cacophony of Culinary and Political Connections

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating is much appreciated!

Correlation ID: 5810 · Black Variable ID: 25983 · Red Variable ID: 500


Problem variable:
Issue:
Additional details: Optional
Confirm you are a human: