about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,149 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas and the second variable is Google searches for 'how to hide a body'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the soybeans grew larger and larger due to genetic modification, it became easier to disguise a body amid the towering GM soybean plants. The increased foliage provided ample coverage, leading to a surge in searches as individuals realized the potential for using soybean fields as makeshift hideaways.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image inspired by a magazine cover depicting a person standing within a sprawling Arkansas soybean field surrounded by genetically modified plants. The person is frantically typing on a phone, hidden amid the towering plants that have grown larger and thicker due to genetic modification. The scene captures the contrast between the person's urgent actions and the tranquil, lush setting of the field. The plants should be depicted as towering and imposing, creating a sense of confinement and obscurity in the midst of the abundance. 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: GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. 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: A Discovery magazine cover image Glitch art a meme Cyber folk An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie
ChatGPT: A Discovery magazine cover image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body', in the following situation: As the soybeans grew larger and larger due to genetic modification, it became easier to disguise a body amid the towering GM soybean plants. The increased foliage provided ample coverage, leading to a surge in searches as individuals realized the potential for using soybean fields as makeshift hideaways.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: Tall GMO soybean plants in a vast Arkansas field, stretching as far as the eye can see. Amid the dense foliage, a person is frantically typing "how to hide a body" into a phone, shrouded by the towering plants that have grown larger and thicker due to genetic modification.

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 Discovery magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: Tall GMO soybean plants in a vast Arkansas field, stretching as far as the eye can see. Amid the dense foliage, a person is frantically typing "how to hide a body" into a phone, shrouded by the towering plants that have grown larger and thicker due to genetic modification. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image inspired by a magazine cover depicting a person standing within a sprawling Arkansas soybean field surrounded by genetically modified plants. The person is frantically typing on a phone, hidden amid the towering plants that have grown larger and thicker due to genetic modification. The scene captures the contrast between the person's urgent actions and the tranquil, lush setting of the field. The plants should be depicted as towering and imposing, creating a sense of confinement and obscurity in the midst of the abundance.

*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 GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas caused how to hide a body (Google searches for 'how to hide a body') to increase. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Genetically Modified Grains and Google Searches: Grisly Evidence of a Sinister Synergy

The Journal of Unintended Consequences in Agriculture and Technology

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from USDA and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2022.

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]]
Genetically Modified Grains and Google Searches: Grisly Evidence of a Sinister Synergy

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious confluence of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for the query "how to hide a body." By delving into USDA data on GMO soybean usage and utilizing Google Trends to analyze the search patterns, we reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and statistical significance with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2022. These findings shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, macabre intersection of agricultural practices and, shall we say, less savory intentions. Our research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking exploration of the possible, albeit improbable, link between biotechnology in farming and, well, criminal curiosity. The implications of this study extend not only to the agricultural and forensic fields but also to the public's appetite for peculiar juxtapositions and, dare I say, conspiratorial contemplations.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Genetically Modified Grains and Google Searches: Grisly Evidence of a Sinister Synergy

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious confluence of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for the query "how to hide a body." By delving into USDA data on GMO soybean usage and utilizing Google Trends to analyze the search patterns, we reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and statistical significance with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2022. These findings shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, macabre intersection of agricultural practices and, shall we say, less savory intentions. Our research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking exploration of the possible, albeit improbable, link between biotechnology in farming and, well, criminal curiosity. The implications of this study extend not only to the agricultural and forensic fields but also to the public's appetite for peculiar juxtapositions and, dare I say, conspiratorial contemplations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

As the age-old saying goes, "behind every bushel of soybeans lies a heap of unexpected intrigue." Okay, that may not be a traditional proverb, but it certainly captures the essence of the startling correlation we are about to unravel in this study. The coalescence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and, shall we say, less garden-variety internet searches has piqued our interest, to say the least. When one thinks of GMO soybeans, images of scientific innovation and heightened yields come to mind – burying the proverbial hatchet with conventional agriculture, so to speak. Conversely, pondering the query "how to hide a body" conjures a significantly darker tableau of, dare I say, clandestine activities.

This enigmatic juxtaposition has led us down a curious rabbit hole of data analysis, where statistics and suspicion dance an unsuspecting pas de deux. Our aim? To unlock the cryptic connection between these seemingly disparate domains and witness the synergistic ballet unfold before our very eyes.

The stage is set with the advent of GMO soybeans creeping across the agricultural landscape, casting shadows both literal and figurative. Meanwhile, the rise of the internet as a repository of knowledge, inquiries, and, yes, the occasional suspicious searches, has intertwined with the fabric of modern society. Leveraging the treasure trove of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the adoption of GMO soybeans and the patterns of human curiosity encapsulated by Google Trends, our relentless pursuit of knowledge has culminated in the unearthing – no pun intended – of a correlation coefficient that demands acknowledgement.

This paper treads the line between whimsical wonder and serious scrutiny, presenting our findings with both scientific rigor and a touch of mischievous amusement. Our intent is not to sow seeds of irrational fear, for that would, in all likelihood, be unpalatable. Instead, we wish to shed light on the extraordinary confluence of agricultural innovation and, shall we say, more sinister thoughts that have permeated the marrow of modern society. And who knows, perhaps in the process, we will stumble upon the grain of truth that eludes us.

So, with our feet firmly planted in the fertile soil of research and our eyes peeled for any signs of trouble, we invite you to join us on this thought-provoking journey through the labyrinthine crossroads of genetically modified grains and digital esoterica. Sit back, relax, and prepare to witness the improbable fruits of our labor – or perhaps, more fittingly, the unexpected yields of our data.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. 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 a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Genetically Modified Grains and Google Searches: Grisly Evidence of a Sinister Synergy

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious confluence of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for the query "how to hide a body." By delving into USDA data on GMO soybean usage and utilizing Google Trends to analyze the search patterns, we reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and statistical significance with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2022. These findings shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, macabre intersection of agricultural practices and, shall we say, less savory intentions. Our research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking exploration of the possible, albeit improbable, link between biotechnology in farming and, well, criminal curiosity. The implications of this study extend not only to the agricultural and forensic fields but also to the public's appetite for peculiar juxtapositions and, dare I say, conspiratorial contemplations.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the age-old saying goes, "behind every bushel of soybeans lies a heap of unexpected intrigue." Okay, that may not be a traditional proverb, but it certainly captures the essence of the startling correlation we are about to unravel in this study. The coalescence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and, shall we say, less garden-variety internet searches has piqued our interest, to say the least. When one thinks of GMO soybeans, images of scientific innovation and heightened yields come to mind – burying the proverbial hatchet with conventional agriculture, so to speak. Conversely, pondering the query "how to hide a body" conjures a significantly darker tableau of, dare I say, clandestine activities.
This enigmatic juxtaposition has led us down a curious rabbit hole of data analysis, where statistics and suspicion dance an unsuspecting pas de deux. Our aim? To unlock the cryptic connection between these seemingly disparate domains and witness the synergistic ballet unfold before our very eyes.
The stage is set with the advent of GMO soybeans creeping across the agricultural landscape, casting shadows both literal and figurative. Meanwhile, the rise of the internet as a repository of knowledge, inquiries, and, yes, the occasional suspicious searches, has intertwined with the fabric of modern society. Leveraging the treasure trove of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the adoption of GMO soybeans and the patterns of human curiosity encapsulated by Google Trends, our relentless pursuit of knowledge has culminated in the unearthing – no pun intended – of a correlation coefficient that demands acknowledgement.
This paper treads the line between whimsical wonder and serious scrutiny, presenting our findings with both scientific rigor and a touch of mischievous amusement. Our intent is not to sow seeds of irrational fear, for that would, in all likelihood, be unpalatable. Instead, we wish to shed light on the extraordinary confluence of agricultural innovation and, shall we say, more sinister thoughts that have permeated the marrow of modern society. And who knows, perhaps in the process, we will stumble upon the grain of truth that eludes us.
So, with our feet firmly planted in the fertile soil of research and our eyes peeled for any signs of trouble, we invite you to join us on this thought-provoking journey through the labyrinthine crossroads of genetically modified grains and digital esoterica. Sit back, relax, and prepare to witness the improbable fruits of our labor – or perhaps, more fittingly, the unexpected yields of our data.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

To delve into the curious correlation between genetically modified soybeans and Google searches for "how to hide a body," we turn to the existing literature on GMO adoption and its societal implications. Smith and colleagues (2015) note the steady increase in GMO soybean cultivation, highlighting the agricultural and economic benefits. In "The Economics of GMOs," Doe (2018) aptly examines the impacts of biotechnology on agricultural productivity and profitability, offering a comprehensive understanding of the subject. Building upon this foundation, Jones (2020) delves deeper into the environmental repercussions of GMO soybeans in "Sustainable Agriculture: A Comprehensive Analysis," shedding light on the ecological implications of genetic modification.

As we navigate through this scholarly landscape, it is vital to acknowledge the significance of public perception and, dare I say, peculiar predilections. In "The Psychology of Agricultural Innovation" by Lorem and Ipsum (2017), the authors elucidate the intricate interplay between scientific advancements and societal attitudes, hinting at the potential for unexpected ramifications. Meanwhile, in "Biotechnology and Society: A Modern Nexus" by Ipsum (2019), the ethical dimensions of GMO adoption are brought to the forefront, prompting contemplation on the broader societal implications.

Steering into less conventional territory, the fictional realm presents us with intriguing narratives that, albeit tangential, offer striking parallels to our inexplicable intersection. "The Soybean Conspiracy" by John Doe (2021) may seem like a work of speculative fiction, but its exploration of clandestine agricultural endeavors leaves a tingling sensation akin to our research inquiries. Similarly, in the classic mystery novel "Murder in the Monsanto Manor" by Jane Smith (1985), the entanglement of GMO soybeans and enigmatic disappearances brings an uncanny resonance to our own investigation.

And, of course, we cannot ignore the digital domain, where internet memes playfully taunt our pursuit. The ubiquitous "Soy Boy" meme, while ostensibly unrelated, serves as a tongue-in-cheek reminder of the quirks and idiosyncrasies that permeate the cultural consciousness. Furthermore, the meme "Hide the Pain Harold," with its wry smile concealing an enigma, manages to capture the essence of our endeavor – to uncover the buried truths beneath a facade of lightheartedness.

In the pursuit of knowledge, it is crucial to embrace lightheartedness, even in the face of the macabre. As we weave through the academic literature and whimsical allusions, the stage is set for our own exploration of the improbable and the inconceivable. So, with a tinge of academic earnestness and a dash of whimsy, we embark on this rollicking odyssey through the quirky corridors of GMO soybeans and, shall we say, curious curiosities.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2022

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]]
Genetically Modified Grains and Google Searches: Grisly Evidence of a Sinister Synergy

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious confluence of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for the query "how to hide a body." By delving into USDA data on GMO soybean usage and utilizing Google Trends to analyze the search patterns, we reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and statistical significance with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2022. These findings shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, macabre intersection of agricultural practices and, shall we say, less savory intentions. Our research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking exploration of the possible, albeit improbable, link between biotechnology in farming and, well, criminal curiosity. The implications of this study extend not only to the agricultural and forensic fields but also to the public's appetite for peculiar juxtapositions and, dare I say, conspiratorial contemplations.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the age-old saying goes, "behind every bushel of soybeans lies a heap of unexpected intrigue." Okay, that may not be a traditional proverb, but it certainly captures the essence of the startling correlation we are about to unravel in this study. The coalescence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and, shall we say, less garden-variety internet searches has piqued our interest, to say the least. When one thinks of GMO soybeans, images of scientific innovation and heightened yields come to mind – burying the proverbial hatchet with conventional agriculture, so to speak. Conversely, pondering the query "how to hide a body" conjures a significantly darker tableau of, dare I say, clandestine activities.
This enigmatic juxtaposition has led us down a curious rabbit hole of data analysis, where statistics and suspicion dance an unsuspecting pas de deux. Our aim? To unlock the cryptic connection between these seemingly disparate domains and witness the synergistic ballet unfold before our very eyes.
The stage is set with the advent of GMO soybeans creeping across the agricultural landscape, casting shadows both literal and figurative. Meanwhile, the rise of the internet as a repository of knowledge, inquiries, and, yes, the occasional suspicious searches, has intertwined with the fabric of modern society. Leveraging the treasure trove of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the adoption of GMO soybeans and the patterns of human curiosity encapsulated by Google Trends, our relentless pursuit of knowledge has culminated in the unearthing – no pun intended – of a correlation coefficient that demands acknowledgement.
This paper treads the line between whimsical wonder and serious scrutiny, presenting our findings with both scientific rigor and a touch of mischievous amusement. Our intent is not to sow seeds of irrational fear, for that would, in all likelihood, be unpalatable. Instead, we wish to shed light on the extraordinary confluence of agricultural innovation and, shall we say, more sinister thoughts that have permeated the marrow of modern society. And who knows, perhaps in the process, we will stumble upon the grain of truth that eludes us.
So, with our feet firmly planted in the fertile soil of research and our eyes peeled for any signs of trouble, we invite you to join us on this thought-provoking journey through the labyrinthine crossroads of genetically modified grains and digital esoterica. Sit back, relax, and prepare to witness the improbable fruits of our labor – or perhaps, more fittingly, the unexpected yields of our data.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the perplexing correlation between the cultivation of genetically modified soybeans and the online curiosity about body concealment, our research team embarked on a journey that was as convoluted as it was compelling - much like a complex genetic code. We collected and analyzed data from multiple sources, primarily drawing from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for comprehensive information on the adoption and proliferation of GMO soybeans in Arkansas from 2004 to 2022.

The first step in our investigation involved the meticulous mapping of the spatial and temporal distribution of GMO soybean cultivation. We employed GIS (Genetically Ingenious Sowing) software to visualize the dispersion of GMO soybean fields, akin to an otherworldly constellation of crops across the canvas of Arkansas. Our research assistants, armed with bags of soybeans and high-resolution satellite imagery, meticulously scoured the farmlands, navigating through the soybean maze in search of the holy grail of genetically modified legumes.

Simultaneously, we delved into the seemingly infinite, yet slightly less verdant, digital domain using the Google Trends platform to track the frequency and intensity of searches related to the concealment of bodies. Our team, resembling cyber-sleuths on the hunt for virtual clues, meticulously combed through keyword data, unraveling the enigmatic pattern of searches to unveil the peaks and troughs of public interest in, shall we say, unconventional topics.

Our methodological odyssey, not unlike the growth of a genetically modified organism, was a fusion of seemingly disparate elements – from crunching numbers to decoding search behavior, and yes, occasionally scratching our heads in bemusement. We employed statistical methods ranging from simple correlations to more sophisticated time series analyses, seeking to apprehend the elusive relationship between GMO soybean adoption and, well, the public’s musings on less-than-savory activities.

Furthermore, we conducted a rigorous temporal analysis to ascertain the co-occurrence of peaks in GMO soybean cultivation and the upward surge in searches related to body concealment. This entailed employing time-series modeling techniques to scrutinize the ebb and flow of both phenomena, akin to unraveling the cryptic cadence of a Metabolic Organic Groove (MOG) - our tongue-in-cheek acronym for the synergy between farming and forensic inclinations.

Lastly, having sifted through mountains of data teeming with soybeans and search queries, we employed robust statistical measures to calculate the correlation coefficient and establish the significance of the association. Our toil culminated in the unveiling of a correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and statistical significance with p < 0.01, confirming the unlikely alliance between GMO soybeans and, dare we say, rather peculiar internet inquiries.

In summary, our methodology involved a harmonious yet intricate dance between agricultural insights and digital voyeurism, uncovering the peculiar marriage of genetically modified grains and, well, search queries that diverge from the mainstream. Our analysis, though suffused with sprinkles of whimsy, was underpinned by the creed of scientific inquiry and meticulous scrutiny, ensuring that the laughter was just as carefully measured as the data.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and Google Trends .

For the time period 2004 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.8633205, r-squared of 0.7453223, 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]]
Genetically Modified Grains and Google Searches: Grisly Evidence of a Sinister Synergy

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious confluence of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for the query "how to hide a body." By delving into USDA data on GMO soybean usage and utilizing Google Trends to analyze the search patterns, we reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and statistical significance with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2022. These findings shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, macabre intersection of agricultural practices and, shall we say, less savory intentions. Our research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking exploration of the possible, albeit improbable, link between biotechnology in farming and, well, criminal curiosity. The implications of this study extend not only to the agricultural and forensic fields but also to the public's appetite for peculiar juxtapositions and, dare I say, conspiratorial contemplations.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As the age-old saying goes, "behind every bushel of soybeans lies a heap of unexpected intrigue." Okay, that may not be a traditional proverb, but it certainly captures the essence of the startling correlation we are about to unravel in this study. The coalescence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and, shall we say, less garden-variety internet searches has piqued our interest, to say the least. When one thinks of GMO soybeans, images of scientific innovation and heightened yields come to mind – burying the proverbial hatchet with conventional agriculture, so to speak. Conversely, pondering the query "how to hide a body" conjures a significantly darker tableau of, dare I say, clandestine activities.
This enigmatic juxtaposition has led us down a curious rabbit hole of data analysis, where statistics and suspicion dance an unsuspecting pas de deux. Our aim? To unlock the cryptic connection between these seemingly disparate domains and witness the synergistic ballet unfold before our very eyes.
The stage is set with the advent of GMO soybeans creeping across the agricultural landscape, casting shadows both literal and figurative. Meanwhile, the rise of the internet as a repository of knowledge, inquiries, and, yes, the occasional suspicious searches, has intertwined with the fabric of modern society. Leveraging the treasure trove of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the adoption of GMO soybeans and the patterns of human curiosity encapsulated by Google Trends, our relentless pursuit of knowledge has culminated in the unearthing – no pun intended – of a correlation coefficient that demands acknowledgement.
This paper treads the line between whimsical wonder and serious scrutiny, presenting our findings with both scientific rigor and a touch of mischievous amusement. Our intent is not to sow seeds of irrational fear, for that would, in all likelihood, be unpalatable. Instead, we wish to shed light on the extraordinary confluence of agricultural innovation and, shall we say, more sinister thoughts that have permeated the marrow of modern society. And who knows, perhaps in the process, we will stumble upon the grain of truth that eludes us.
So, with our feet firmly planted in the fertile soil of research and our eyes peeled for any signs of trouble, we invite you to join us on this thought-provoking journey through the labyrinthine crossroads of genetically modified grains and digital esoterica. Sit back, relax, and prepare to witness the improbable fruits of our labor – or perhaps, more fittingly, the unexpected yields of our data.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The thorough examination of data gleaned from USDA records and Google Trends has unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.8633205, with an r-squared value of 0.7453223, and a p-value of less than 0.01 between the adoption of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and the frequency of Google searches for "how to hide a body" from 2004 to 2022. This finding elucidates a conspicuous linkage between agricultural practices and a rather peculiar predilection for clandestine inquiries.

Fig. 1 illustrates the striking correlation between the two variables, showcasing the undeniable synergy that exists between the utilization of GMO soybeans and the public's interest in, well, less conventional topics. It's as if the GMO soybeans and the queries about body concealment have formed a mutually beneficial partnership, like... dare I say, a deadly duo in the quest for attention.

These results not only raise eyebrows but also offer a dose of levity to the often staid world of agricultural and internet research. The sinister synergy between biotechnology and, shall we say, more obscure musings presents an intriguing avenue for further exploration, albeit one that may prompt the occasional raised eyebrow or nervous chuckle. It appears that the tendrils of agricultural innovation have unexpectedly intertwined with the darker recesses of online curiosity – a case of, shall we say, genetic variant and query divergent evolution.

In summary, the unexpected correlation between the adoption of GMO soybeans and the incidence of Google searches for "how to hide a body" challenges the conventional boundaries of research, blurring the line between what is expected and what is, well, rather unexpected. These results not only underscore the need for continued investigation but also serve as a friendly reminder that the mysteries of science and curiosity are intertwined in, shall we say, unexpected ways.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
Genetically Modified Grains and Google Searches: Grisly Evidence of a Sinister Synergy

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious confluence of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for the query "how to hide a body." By delving into USDA data on GMO soybean usage and utilizing Google Trends to analyze the search patterns, we reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and statistical significance with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2022. These findings shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, macabre intersection of agricultural practices and, shall we say, less savory intentions. Our research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking exploration of the possible, albeit improbable, link between biotechnology in farming and, well, criminal curiosity. The implications of this study extend not only to the agricultural and forensic fields but also to the public's appetite for peculiar juxtapositions and, dare I say, conspiratorial contemplations.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
To delve into the curious correlation between genetically modified soybeans and Google searches for "how to hide a body," we turn to the existing literature on GMO adoption and its societal implications. Smith and colleagues (2015) note the steady increase in GMO soybean cultivation, highlighting the agricultural and economic benefits. In "The Economics of GMOs," Doe (2018) aptly examines the impacts of biotechnology on agricultural productivity and profitability, offering a comprehensive understanding of the subject. Building upon this foundation, Jones (2020) delves deeper into the environmental repercussions of GMO soybeans in "Sustainable Agriculture: A Comprehensive Analysis," shedding light on the ecological implications of genetic modification.
As we navigate through this scholarly landscape, it is vital to acknowledge the significance of public perception and, dare I say, peculiar predilections. In "The Psychology of Agricultural Innovation" by Lorem and Ipsum (2017), the authors elucidate the intricate interplay between scientific advancements and societal attitudes, hinting at the potential for unexpected ramifications. Meanwhile, in "Biotechnology and Society: A Modern Nexus" by Ipsum (2019), the ethical dimensions of GMO adoption are brought to the forefront, prompting contemplation on the broader societal implications.
Steering into less conventional territory, the fictional realm presents us with intriguing narratives that, albeit tangential, offer striking parallels to our inexplicable intersection. "The Soybean Conspiracy" by John Doe (2021) may seem like a work of speculative fiction, but its exploration of clandestine agricultural endeavors leaves a tingling sensation akin to our research inquiries. Similarly, in the classic mystery novel "Murder in the Monsanto Manor" by Jane Smith (1985), the entanglement of GMO soybeans and enigmatic disappearances brings an uncanny resonance to our own investigation.
And, of course, we cannot ignore the digital domain, where internet memes playfully taunt our pursuit. The ubiquitous "Soy Boy" meme, while ostensibly unrelated, serves as a tongue-in-cheek reminder of the quirks and idiosyncrasies that permeate the cultural consciousness. Furthermore, the meme "Hide the Pain Harold," with its wry smile concealing an enigma, manages to capture the essence of our endeavor – to uncover the buried truths beneath a facade of lightheartedness.
In the pursuit of knowledge, it is crucial to embrace lightheartedness, even in the face of the macabre. As we weave through the academic literature and whimsical allusions, the stage is set for our own exploration of the improbable and the inconceivable. So, with a tinge of academic earnestness and a dash of whimsy, we embark on this rollicking odyssey through the quirky corridors of GMO soybeans and, shall we say, curious curiosities.

[[RESULTS]]
The thorough examination of data gleaned from USDA records and Google Trends has unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.8633205, with an r-squared value of 0.7453223, and a p-value of less than 0.01 between the adoption of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and the frequency of Google searches for "how to hide a body" from 2004 to 2022. This finding elucidates a conspicuous linkage between agricultural practices and a rather peculiar predilection for clandestine inquiries.
Fig. 1 illustrates the striking correlation between the two variables, showcasing the undeniable synergy that exists between the utilization of GMO soybeans and the public's interest in, well, less conventional topics. It's as if the GMO soybeans and the queries about body concealment have formed a mutually beneficial partnership, like... dare I say, a deadly duo in the quest for attention.
These results not only raise eyebrows but also offer a dose of levity to the often staid world of agricultural and internet research. The sinister synergy between biotechnology and, shall we say, more obscure musings presents an intriguing avenue for further exploration, albeit one that may prompt the occasional raised eyebrow or nervous chuckle. It appears that the tendrils of agricultural innovation have unexpectedly intertwined with the darker recesses of online curiosity – a case of, shall we say, genetic variant and query divergent evolution.
In summary, the unexpected correlation between the adoption of GMO soybeans and the incidence of Google searches for "how to hide a body" challenges the conventional boundaries of research, blurring the line between what is expected and what is, well, rather unexpected. These results not only underscore the need for continued investigation but also serve as a friendly reminder that the mysteries of science and curiosity are intertwined in, shall we say, unexpected ways.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

The results of our study have unearthed a connection that is, dare I say, more intriguing than a suspense novel - a correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and a p-value of less than 0.01 between the adoption of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and the frequency of Google searches for "how to hide a body" from 2004 to 2022. We have tentatively named this correlation the "GMO gory" effect, as it sheds light on a rather unexpected synergy between agricultural practices and, well, less conventional online inquiries. This finding amplifies the chorus of peculiar predilections we stumbled upon in our literature review. Smith and colleagues (2015) may have initially extolled the agricultural benefits of GMO soybeans, but little did they know that their research would unknowingly plant the seeds of a, shall we say, curious investigation. It appears that reality has indeed surpassed the fictional works of John Doe (2021) and Jane Smith (1985), bringing forth a striking parallel between their narratives and our own inexplicable intersection.

The statistical significance of our findings serves as a lighthearted yet thought-provoking validation of the unconventional correlations hinted at in the digital domain, from the "Soy Boy" meme to the enigmatic "Hide the Pain Harold." Indeed, as we navigate this scholarly landscape and whimsical allusions, it seems we have stumbled upon the buried truths beneath a veritable facade of lightheartedness. The unexpected correlation between the adoption of GMO soybeans and the incidence of Google searches for "how to hide a body" challenges the conventional boundaries of research, blurring the line between what is expected and what is, well, rather unexpected. These results not only underscore the need for continued investigation but also serve as a friendly reminder that the mysteries of science and curiosity are intertwined in, shall we say, unexpected ways.

We have laid the groundwork for a riveting, albeit unexpected, avenue of exploration that not only challenges traditional scientific boundaries but also offers a dash of whimsy to the often staid world of agricultural and internet research. Our findings hint at the possibility of clandestine curiosities lurking beneath the unassuming veneer of agricultural innovation. It's as if the GMO soybeans and the queries about body concealment are engaging in a covert dance, a mutation of interests that transcends the ordinary confines of societal inquiries. As we tread this peculiar path with academic earnestness and a dash of whimsy, we are reminded that science and its profound questions often reveal, shall we say, unexpected truths.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Genetically Modified Grains and Google Searches: Grisly Evidence of a Sinister Synergy

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper investigates the curious confluence of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for the query "how to hide a body." By delving into USDA data on GMO soybean usage and utilizing Google Trends to analyze the search patterns, we reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and statistical significance with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2022. These findings shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, macabre intersection of agricultural practices and, shall we say, less savory intentions. Our research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking exploration of the possible, albeit improbable, link between biotechnology in farming and, well, criminal curiosity. The implications of this study extend not only to the agricultural and forensic fields but also to the public's appetite for peculiar juxtapositions and, dare I say, conspiratorial contemplations.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
As the age-old saying goes, "behind every bushel of soybeans lies a heap of unexpected intrigue." Okay, that may not be a traditional proverb, but it certainly captures the essence of the startling correlation we are about to unravel in this study. The coalescence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and, shall we say, less garden-variety internet searches has piqued our interest, to say the least. When one thinks of GMO soybeans, images of scientific innovation and heightened yields come to mind – burying the proverbial hatchet with conventional agriculture, so to speak. Conversely, pondering the query "how to hide a body" conjures a significantly darker tableau of, dare I say, clandestine activities.
This enigmatic juxtaposition has led us down a curious rabbit hole of data analysis, where statistics and suspicion dance an unsuspecting pas de deux. Our aim? To unlock the cryptic connection between these seemingly disparate domains and witness the synergistic ballet unfold before our very eyes.
The stage is set with the advent of GMO soybeans creeping across the agricultural landscape, casting shadows both literal and figurative. Meanwhile, the rise of the internet as a repository of knowledge, inquiries, and, yes, the occasional suspicious searches, has intertwined with the fabric of modern society. Leveraging the treasure trove of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the adoption of GMO soybeans and the patterns of human curiosity encapsulated by Google Trends, our relentless pursuit of knowledge has culminated in the unearthing – no pun intended – of a correlation coefficient that demands acknowledgement.
This paper treads the line between whimsical wonder and serious scrutiny, presenting our findings with both scientific rigor and a touch of mischievous amusement. Our intent is not to sow seeds of irrational fear, for that would, in all likelihood, be unpalatable. Instead, we wish to shed light on the extraordinary confluence of agricultural innovation and, shall we say, more sinister thoughts that have permeated the marrow of modern society. And who knows, perhaps in the process, we will stumble upon the grain of truth that eludes us.
So, with our feet firmly planted in the fertile soil of research and our eyes peeled for any signs of trouble, we invite you to join us on this thought-provoking journey through the labyrinthine crossroads of genetically modified grains and digital esoterica. Sit back, relax, and prepare to witness the improbable fruits of our labor – or perhaps, more fittingly, the unexpected yields of our data.

[[RESULTS]]
The thorough examination of data gleaned from USDA records and Google Trends has unearthed a correlation coefficient of 0.8633205, with an r-squared value of 0.7453223, and a p-value of less than 0.01 between the adoption of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and the frequency of Google searches for "how to hide a body" from 2004 to 2022. This finding elucidates a conspicuous linkage between agricultural practices and a rather peculiar predilection for clandestine inquiries.
Fig. 1 illustrates the striking correlation between the two variables, showcasing the undeniable synergy that exists between the utilization of GMO soybeans and the public's interest in, well, less conventional topics. It's as if the GMO soybeans and the queries about body concealment have formed a mutually beneficial partnership, like... dare I say, a deadly duo in the quest for attention.
These results not only raise eyebrows but also offer a dose of levity to the often staid world of agricultural and internet research. The sinister synergy between biotechnology and, shall we say, more obscure musings presents an intriguing avenue for further exploration, albeit one that may prompt the occasional raised eyebrow or nervous chuckle. It appears that the tendrils of agricultural innovation have unexpectedly intertwined with the darker recesses of online curiosity – a case of, shall we say, genetic variant and query divergent evolution.
In summary, the unexpected correlation between the adoption of GMO soybeans and the incidence of Google searches for "how to hide a body" challenges the conventional boundaries of research, blurring the line between what is expected and what is, well, rather unexpected. These results not only underscore the need for continued investigation but also serve as a friendly reminder that the mysteries of science and curiosity are intertwined in, shall we say, unexpected ways.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research delves into the improbable yet captivating association between genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for "how to hide a body." The correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and statistical significance with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2022 reveal a mysterious interplay between agricultural biotechnology and, shall we say, less savory predilections. It's as if the soybeans and the search queries have formed an unexpected alliance, reminiscent of an entangled genetic vine and a rather peculiar internet wormhole.

Our findings not only highlight the potential for unexpected associations but also provide a touch of amusement to the otherwise serious realms of agricultural and internet research. The synergy between agricultural innovation and, dare I say, clandestine curiosity opens a door to, let's admit it, wildly entertaining speculation. It's like stumbling upon a statistical quirk that not only raises eyebrows but also prompts the occasional sly grin.

While the results invite further contemplation, we are compelled to assert that no further research is needed in this area. It seems that, for now, this peculiar correlation will remain cloaked in mystery and amusement, leaving us to ponder the quirky coalescence of science and, shall we say, more unsavory aspects of human inquisitiveness. And on that note, we bid adieu to this intriguing line of investigation, leaving it to the annals of scientific enigma and, dare I say, delightful conjecture.


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 Genetically Modified Grains and Google Searches: Grisly Evidence of a Sinister Synergy. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Unintended Consequences in Agriculture and Technology


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 Genetically Modified Grains and Google Searches: Grisly Evidence of a Sinister Synergy. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Quirky Agricultural Research 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 Genetically Modified Grains and Google Searches: Grisly Evidence of a Sinister Synergy with an abstract of This paper investigates the curious confluence of genetically modified soybeans in Arkansas and Google searches for the query "how to hide a body." By delving into USDA data on GMO soybean usage and utilizing Google Trends to analyze the search patterns, we reveal a startling correlation coefficient of 0.8633205 and statistical significance with p < 0.01 from 2004 to 2022. These findings shed light on the unexpected and, dare I say, macabre intersection of agricultural practices and, shall we say, less savory intentions. Our research offers a lighthearted yet thought-provoking exploration of the possible, albeit improbable, link between biotechnology in farming and, well, criminal curiosity. The implications of this study extend not only to the agricultural and forensic fields but also to the public's appetite for peculiar juxtapositions and, dare I say, conspiratorial contemplations.

ChatGPT:

Genetically modified soybeans, GMO soybean usage, agricultural practices, biotechnology in farming, Google searches, Google Trends, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, USDA data, criminal curiosity, conspiracy theories, forensic fields, agricultural implications, macabre intersection

*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

GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas
Detailed data title: Percent of soybeans planted in Arkansas that are genetically modified
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas

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

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to hide a body'

Correlation r = 0.8633205 (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 = 0.7453223 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 74.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'how to hide a body') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas) over the 19 years from 2004 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.9E-6. 0.0000019389375638531762000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

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

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.86 in 0.00019% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 515,746 random variables You don't actually need 515 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 18 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 18 because we have two variables measured over a period of 19 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.67, 0.95 ] 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.
2004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas (GMO soybeans %)92929292949496959497999796979796969898
Google searches for 'how to hide a body' (Rel. search volume)9.56.333336.583338.2515.7515.583316.2530.166751.416754.08338370.583343.666738.7536.416741.333356.583375.2572.25




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 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. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([92,92,92,92,94,94,96,95,94,97,99,97,96,97,97,96,96,98,98,])
array_2 = np.array([9.5,6.33333,6.58333,8.25,15.75,15.5833,16.25,30.1667,51.4167,54.0833,83,70.5833,43.6667,38.75,36.4167,41.3333,56.5833,75.25,72.25,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in soybeans in Arkansas"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'how to hide a body'"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating skills are legendary!


Correlation ID: 4149 · Black Variable ID: 829 · Red Variable ID: 1513
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0