about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,040 · 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 cotton in Mississippi and the second variable is Number of Lawyers in the United States.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the cotton plants grew larger and more resilient thanks to genetic modifications, they began encroaching on neighboring properties. This led to a spike in property disputes and land use conflicts, ultimately creating a higher demand for lawyers across the country. Looks like these cotton crops really know how to sow the seeds of legal trouble!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [A photo-realistic image] Create a scene in a Mississippi cotton field where rows of vibrant, towering cotton plants are surrounded by towering stacks of law books. Amidst the lush greenery, lawyers in crisp, professional attire are engaged in intense discussions as they examine the crops. The genetically modified plants exude an aura of progress, highlighting the intersection of technology and agriculture in the state. 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 cotton in Mississippi and Number of Lawyers in the United States. 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: Symbolism Psychedelic A photo-realistic image inspired by bauhaus Parallax art
ChatGPT: A photo-realistic image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Number of Lawyers in the United States together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a Mississippi cotton field, rows of tall, healthy cotton plants are interspersed with large stacks of law books, with lawyers in professional attire inspecting the crops. The lawyers are discussing the legal intricacies of GMO use in cotton, while the thriving genetically modified plants showcase the impact of technology on agriculture in the state.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A photo-realistic image ] and depicting this scene: In a Mississippi cotton field, rows of tall, healthy cotton plants are interspersed with large stacks of law books, with lawyers in professional attire inspecting the crops. The lawyers are discussing the legal intricacies of GMO use in cotton, while the thriving genetically modified plants showcase the impact of technology on agriculture in the state. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [A photo-realistic image] Create a scene in a Mississippi cotton field where rows of vibrant, towering cotton plants are surrounded by towering stacks of law books. Amidst the lush greenery, lawyers in crisp, professional attire are engaged in intense discussions as they examine the crops. The genetically modified plants exude an aura of progress, highlighting the intersection of technology and agriculture in the state.

*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 cotton in Mississippi caused Number of Lawyers in the United States to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The GMO-Lawyer Connection: Sowing the Seeds of Legal Growth

The Journal of Legal Botany

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 dry but witty academic researcher. You speak in the passive voice, and your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Number of Lawyers in the United States. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title a clever pun.

Your research team used data from USDA and ABA to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 and p < 0.01 for 2000 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]]
The "GMO-Lawyer Connection": Sowing the Seeds of Legal Growth

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the potential relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team aimed to unravel the tangled web of connections between agricultural practices and the legal profession.

Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, indicating a strong association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. This correlation prompts the grinning question: is there something in the genetic makeup of GMO cotton that spurs legal activity, or do lawyers simply feel drawn to agricultural disputes like moths to a flame?

To illustrate the unexpectedly bountiful bond between GMOs and lawyers, we present a dad joke for your intellectual amusement: What did the lawyer say to the GMO cotton? "I object! You're looking a little too genetically modified for my liking!"

Further investigations into this relationship are warranted, as understanding the dynamics between GMO use and legal activity may have broader implications for agricultural policy, intellectual property law, and the fabric of legal involvement in agribusiness. This paper sets the stage for an ongoing exploration of the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and invites a ripe harvest of future research in this area.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Number of Lawyers in the United States. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The "GMO-Lawyer Connection": Sowing the Seeds of Legal Growth

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the potential relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team aimed to unravel the tangled web of connections between agricultural practices and the legal profession.

Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, indicating a strong association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. This correlation prompts the grinning question: is there something in the genetic makeup of GMO cotton that spurs legal activity, or do lawyers simply feel drawn to agricultural disputes like moths to a flame?

To illustrate the unexpectedly bountiful bond between GMOs and lawyers, we present a dad joke for your intellectual amusement: What did the lawyer say to the GMO cotton? "I object! You're looking a little too genetically modified for my liking!"

Further investigations into this relationship are warranted, as understanding the dynamics between GMO use and legal activity may have broader implications for agricultural policy, intellectual property law, and the fabric of legal involvement in agribusiness. This paper sets the stage for an ongoing exploration of the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and invites a ripe harvest of future research in this area.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The rapid adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agricultural production has led to significant changes in farming practices, crop yields, and even the legal landscape. As GMO technology becomes deeply rooted in the agricultural sector, it is important to examine its potential impact on areas beyond the fields, such as the legal profession. In considering the complex interplay between GMO use and the number of lawyers, one might humorously ask: What do you call a lawyer who grows genetically modified cotton?

A "sue-per" litigator, of course!

The use of GMOs, particularly in cotton production in Mississippi, has garnered attention due to its potential influence on legal activity. This study aims to plant the seeds of inquiry into the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and shed light on the relationship between agricultural practices and legal involvement. With a statistical lens focused on the data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we embark on a journey to unearth the intertwined roots of GMOs and legal representation.

In the spirit of cultivating a light-hearted perspective, here's another jest to tickle the intellect: How did the GMO cotton introduce itself to the lawyer? "I'm glad we've met; let's get to the root of these legal matters together!"

This research endeavor seeks not only to elucidate the quantitative association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States but also to cultivate a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this connection. By uncovering these findings, we aim to harvest a fertile ground for future exploration and discourse on the intriguing bond between agriculture and the legal profession.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Number of Lawyers in the United States. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The "GMO-Lawyer Connection": Sowing the Seeds of Legal Growth

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the potential relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team aimed to unravel the tangled web of connections between agricultural practices and the legal profession.

Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, indicating a strong association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. This correlation prompts the grinning question: is there something in the genetic makeup of GMO cotton that spurs legal activity, or do lawyers simply feel drawn to agricultural disputes like moths to a flame?

To illustrate the unexpectedly bountiful bond between GMOs and lawyers, we present a dad joke for your intellectual amusement: What did the lawyer say to the GMO cotton? "I object! You're looking a little too genetically modified for my liking!"

Further investigations into this relationship are warranted, as understanding the dynamics between GMO use and legal activity may have broader implications for agricultural policy, intellectual property law, and the fabric of legal involvement in agribusiness. This paper sets the stage for an ongoing exploration of the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and invites a ripe harvest of future research in this area.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The rapid adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agricultural production has led to significant changes in farming practices, crop yields, and even the legal landscape. As GMO technology becomes deeply rooted in the agricultural sector, it is important to examine its potential impact on areas beyond the fields, such as the legal profession. In considering the complex interplay between GMO use and the number of lawyers, one might humorously ask: What do you call a lawyer who grows genetically modified cotton?
A "sue-per" litigator, of course!
The use of GMOs, particularly in cotton production in Mississippi, has garnered attention due to its potential influence on legal activity. This study aims to plant the seeds of inquiry into the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and shed light on the relationship between agricultural practices and legal involvement. With a statistical lens focused on the data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we embark on a journey to unearth the intertwined roots of GMOs and legal representation.
In the spirit of cultivating a light-hearted perspective, here's another jest to tickle the intellect: How did the GMO cotton introduce itself to the lawyer? "I'm glad we've met; let's get to the root of these legal matters together!"
This research endeavor seeks not only to elucidate the quantitative association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States but also to cultivate a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this connection. By uncovering these findings, we aim to harvest a fertile ground for future exploration and discourse on the intriguing bond between agriculture and the legal profession.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The link between genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agricultural production and their potential impact on various facets of human activity has been a subject of growing interest in recent years. Smith et al. (2015) examined the effects of GMO use in cotton production in Mississippi, focusing on its agricultural implications. Meanwhile, Doe's work (2018) delved into the legal dynamics of the farming industry, albeit without directly addressing the GMO-Lawyer Connection. Jones and colleagues (2020) explored the broader societal implications of GMO adoption, hinting at unforeseen consequences beyond conventional agricultural domains.

Turning the page from serious scholarship to a more whimsical discussion, let us consider some relevant non-fiction books that may offer insight into the intertwining realms of agricultural practices and legal matters. "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "The Buffalo Creek Disaster" by Gerald M. Stern offer rich perspectives on agriculture and legal issues, providing readers with valuable narratives for understanding how these domains intersect. As we cultivate a broader view, we cannot overlook the literary enrichments offered by fiction. "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck, although not directly addressing GMOs, reflect the complex relationships between farming, societal norms, and legal frameworks.

Introducing internet memes into our scholarly discourse may elicit both curiosity and amusement. The meme depicting a lawyer exclaiming, "Objection!" - often accompanied by a humorous commentary on the lawyer's tendency to object to seemingly trivial matters - humorously mirrors the potential inclination of legal professionals to engage with GMO-related disputes. Additionally, the "Distracted Boyfriend" meme, portraying a person who is tempted by something new while already committed to another, playfully hints at the allure of legal involvement in the agricultural sphere, echoing the potential pull of GMO-related legal matters for lawyers.

Now, to soil the scholarly tone momentarily, let us embrace a dad joke in light of the serious inquiry at hand: Why did the lawyer choose the GMO cotton field as a meeting spot? It was an appeal-ing location for a case!


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Number of Lawyers in the United States. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and ABA . You used data from 2000 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]]
The "GMO-Lawyer Connection": Sowing the Seeds of Legal Growth

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the potential relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team aimed to unravel the tangled web of connections between agricultural practices and the legal profession.

Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, indicating a strong association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. This correlation prompts the grinning question: is there something in the genetic makeup of GMO cotton that spurs legal activity, or do lawyers simply feel drawn to agricultural disputes like moths to a flame?

To illustrate the unexpectedly bountiful bond between GMOs and lawyers, we present a dad joke for your intellectual amusement: What did the lawyer say to the GMO cotton? "I object! You're looking a little too genetically modified for my liking!"

Further investigations into this relationship are warranted, as understanding the dynamics between GMO use and legal activity may have broader implications for agricultural policy, intellectual property law, and the fabric of legal involvement in agribusiness. This paper sets the stage for an ongoing exploration of the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and invites a ripe harvest of future research in this area.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The rapid adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agricultural production has led to significant changes in farming practices, crop yields, and even the legal landscape. As GMO technology becomes deeply rooted in the agricultural sector, it is important to examine its potential impact on areas beyond the fields, such as the legal profession. In considering the complex interplay between GMO use and the number of lawyers, one might humorously ask: What do you call a lawyer who grows genetically modified cotton?
A "sue-per" litigator, of course!
The use of GMOs, particularly in cotton production in Mississippi, has garnered attention due to its potential influence on legal activity. This study aims to plant the seeds of inquiry into the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and shed light on the relationship between agricultural practices and legal involvement. With a statistical lens focused on the data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we embark on a journey to unearth the intertwined roots of GMOs and legal representation.
In the spirit of cultivating a light-hearted perspective, here's another jest to tickle the intellect: How did the GMO cotton introduce itself to the lawyer? "I'm glad we've met; let's get to the root of these legal matters together!"
This research endeavor seeks not only to elucidate the quantitative association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States but also to cultivate a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this connection. By uncovering these findings, we aim to harvest a fertile ground for future exploration and discourse on the intriguing bond between agriculture and the legal profession.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

The present study employed a mixed methods approach, integrating quantitative analysis and qualitative insights to investigate the "GMO-Lawyer Connection." The primary data sources for cotton production and GMO adoption in Mississippi were obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), while the number of lawyers in the United States was extracted from the American Bar Association (ABA) database. Additional information was accessed from reputable scholarly journals, industry reports, and online repositories to contextualize the findings.

To capture the complexity and nuances of the research question, a novel and somewhat untraditional data collection method was incorporated—a comical survey distributed among legal professionals to gauge their affinity for agricultural disputes and GMO-related litigation. The survey, designed with a touch of humor and irony, aimed to explore the perceptions and preferences of lawyers regarding cases involving genetically modified cotton. As the survey responses poured in, they provided a lighthearted yet valuable addition to the study.

The quantitative analysis was centered on the examination of temporal patterns, employing a time-series regression model to discern the association between GMO adoption in cotton farming in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. Control variables such as economic indicators, legal precedents, and regional agricultural dynamics were carefully factored into the regression framework to mitigate potential confounding influences.

In a rather unconventional twist, a parody puppet show was staged at a legal conference, using GMO cotton and lawyer characters to depict the dynamics of legal involvement in agricultural matters. While this affair may have raised a few eyebrows, it served as an unorthodox but engaging medium to stimulate conversations and solicit anecdotal experiences from legal practitioners in attendance. The insights gleaned from this spectacle contributed an element of unconventional qualitative data to the research.

Supplementary to the quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, a series of expert interviews were conducted with agriculture specialists, legal scholars, and industry professionals. These interviews, facilitated with a hint of jest and jollity, gathered perspectives on the intersections between GMO cotton production, agricultural law, and legal representation. The exchange of witty banter and informative discussions enriched the qualitative fabric of the study, weaving together anecdotes and observations from seasoned professionals.

In the spirit of embracing the unexpected and infusing levity into scholarly pursuits, a lighthearted contest was organized within the legal community, inviting lawyers to submit their most amusing agricultural law puns and anecdotes. The rib-tickling submissions not only provided a jovial atmosphere but also yielded valuable insights into the perception and engagement of legal practitioners with agricultural legal matters, complementing the broader investigation.

The data collected from these unorthodox yet purposeful methods were meticulously synthesized and analyzed, integrating the quantitative results from regression analyses with the qualitative narratives and perspectives distilled from the parody survey, puppet show, expert interviews, and pun-filled contest. This holistic approach aimed to align the findings with the underlying intricate relationship between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the legal activities of lawyers in the United States.

Overall, the integration of unconventional data collection methods can be likened to the blending of cotton fibers to create a unique and resilient fabric. The lighthearted touch infused into the research process not only expanded the scope of inquiry but also enlivened the scholarly pursuit, illustrating the potential for humor and mirth in academic exploration.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Number of Lawyers in the United States. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9539812, r-squared of 0.9100802, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The "GMO-Lawyer Connection": Sowing the Seeds of Legal Growth

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the potential relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team aimed to unravel the tangled web of connections between agricultural practices and the legal profession.

Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, indicating a strong association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. This correlation prompts the grinning question: is there something in the genetic makeup of GMO cotton that spurs legal activity, or do lawyers simply feel drawn to agricultural disputes like moths to a flame?

To illustrate the unexpectedly bountiful bond between GMOs and lawyers, we present a dad joke for your intellectual amusement: What did the lawyer say to the GMO cotton? "I object! You're looking a little too genetically modified for my liking!"

Further investigations into this relationship are warranted, as understanding the dynamics between GMO use and legal activity may have broader implications for agricultural policy, intellectual property law, and the fabric of legal involvement in agribusiness. This paper sets the stage for an ongoing exploration of the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and invites a ripe harvest of future research in this area.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The rapid adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agricultural production has led to significant changes in farming practices, crop yields, and even the legal landscape. As GMO technology becomes deeply rooted in the agricultural sector, it is important to examine its potential impact on areas beyond the fields, such as the legal profession. In considering the complex interplay between GMO use and the number of lawyers, one might humorously ask: What do you call a lawyer who grows genetically modified cotton?
A "sue-per" litigator, of course!
The use of GMOs, particularly in cotton production in Mississippi, has garnered attention due to its potential influence on legal activity. This study aims to plant the seeds of inquiry into the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and shed light on the relationship between agricultural practices and legal involvement. With a statistical lens focused on the data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we embark on a journey to unearth the intertwined roots of GMOs and legal representation.
In the spirit of cultivating a light-hearted perspective, here's another jest to tickle the intellect: How did the GMO cotton introduce itself to the lawyer? "I'm glad we've met; let's get to the root of these legal matters together!"
This research endeavor seeks not only to elucidate the quantitative association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States but also to cultivate a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this connection. By uncovering these findings, we aim to harvest a fertile ground for future exploration and discourse on the intriguing bond between agriculture and the legal profession.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data collected from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) unveiled a striking correlation between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. The correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 indicated a remarkably strong relationship between these variables, prompting one to wonder if GMO cotton fields are secretly the courtroom of the plant world.

The r-squared value of 0.9100802 suggests that approximately 91% of the variation in the number of lawyers in the U.S. can be explained by the use of GMOs in cotton in Mississippi. It appears that the legal profession might have a "litigating" relationship with GMO cotton, pun intended.

The statistical significance of p < 0.01 further emphasizes the robustness of this connection, leaving little room for doubt regarding the existence of a substantial relationship between the two variables. One might jest that the association between GMO cotton and the legal profession is as undeniable as the existence of dad jokes in academic research papers.

The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually represents the strong correlation between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. The figure serves as a visual testament to the powerful bond between these seemingly unrelated domains and provides a chuckle-worthy reminder that even data visualization can have its "punny" moments.

This research paper presents compelling evidence of the intriguing "GMO-Lawyer Connection," raising questions about the underlying mechanisms driving this relationship. It is hoped that future studies will delve deeper into this phenomenon, bringing to light the fertile ground of inquiry that lies within the intersections of agriculture and the legal profession.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Number of Lawyers in the United States. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
The "GMO-Lawyer Connection": Sowing the Seeds of Legal Growth

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the potential relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team aimed to unravel the tangled web of connections between agricultural practices and the legal profession.

Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, indicating a strong association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. This correlation prompts the grinning question: is there something in the genetic makeup of GMO cotton that spurs legal activity, or do lawyers simply feel drawn to agricultural disputes like moths to a flame?

To illustrate the unexpectedly bountiful bond between GMOs and lawyers, we present a dad joke for your intellectual amusement: What did the lawyer say to the GMO cotton? "I object! You're looking a little too genetically modified for my liking!"

Further investigations into this relationship are warranted, as understanding the dynamics between GMO use and legal activity may have broader implications for agricultural policy, intellectual property law, and the fabric of legal involvement in agribusiness. This paper sets the stage for an ongoing exploration of the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and invites a ripe harvest of future research in this area.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The link between genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agricultural production and their potential impact on various facets of human activity has been a subject of growing interest in recent years. Smith et al. (2015) examined the effects of GMO use in cotton production in Mississippi, focusing on its agricultural implications. Meanwhile, Doe's work (2018) delved into the legal dynamics of the farming industry, albeit without directly addressing the GMO-Lawyer Connection. Jones and colleagues (2020) explored the broader societal implications of GMO adoption, hinting at unforeseen consequences beyond conventional agricultural domains.
Turning the page from serious scholarship to a more whimsical discussion, let us consider some relevant non-fiction books that may offer insight into the intertwining realms of agricultural practices and legal matters. "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "The Buffalo Creek Disaster" by Gerald M. Stern offer rich perspectives on agriculture and legal issues, providing readers with valuable narratives for understanding how these domains intersect. As we cultivate a broader view, we cannot overlook the literary enrichments offered by fiction. "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck, although not directly addressing GMOs, reflect the complex relationships between farming, societal norms, and legal frameworks.
Introducing internet memes into our scholarly discourse may elicit both curiosity and amusement. The meme depicting a lawyer exclaiming, "Objection!" - often accompanied by a humorous commentary on the lawyer's tendency to object to seemingly trivial matters - humorously mirrors the potential inclination of legal professionals to engage with GMO-related disputes. Additionally, the "Distracted Boyfriend" meme, portraying a person who is tempted by something new while already committed to another, playfully hints at the allure of legal involvement in the agricultural sphere, echoing the potential pull of GMO-related legal matters for lawyers.
Now, to soil the scholarly tone momentarily, let us embrace a dad joke in light of the serious inquiry at hand: Why did the lawyer choose the GMO cotton field as a meeting spot? It was an appeal-ing location for a case!

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data collected from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) unveiled a striking correlation between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. The correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 indicated a remarkably strong relationship between these variables, prompting one to wonder if GMO cotton fields are secretly the courtroom of the plant world.
The r-squared value of 0.9100802 suggests that approximately 91% of the variation in the number of lawyers in the U.S. can be explained by the use of GMOs in cotton in Mississippi. It appears that the legal profession might have a "litigating" relationship with GMO cotton, pun intended.
The statistical significance of p < 0.01 further emphasizes the robustness of this connection, leaving little room for doubt regarding the existence of a substantial relationship between the two variables. One might jest that the association between GMO cotton and the legal profession is as undeniable as the existence of dad jokes in academic research papers.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually represents the strong correlation between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. The figure serves as a visual testament to the powerful bond between these seemingly unrelated domains and provides a chuckle-worthy reminder that even data visualization can have its "punny" moments.
This research paper presents compelling evidence of the intriguing "GMO-Lawyer Connection," raising questions about the underlying mechanisms driving this relationship. It is hoped that future studies will delve deeper into this phenomenon, bringing to light the fertile ground of inquiry that lies within the intersections of agriculture and the legal profession.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of the present study corroborate and amplify the existing literature, offering empirical evidence to support the notion that GMO use in cotton production in Mississippi is intricately linked to the number of lawyers in the United States. Our results align with the work of Smith et al. (2015), who highlighted the multifaceted implications of GMO adoption in agriculture, and Doe's (2018) investigation into legal dynamics within the farming industry. The striking correlation unearthed in our study underscores the need for a deeper understanding of the interplay between agricultural practices and legal activity.

This robust association prompts a lighthearted musing: could the threads of genetic modification in cotton be weaving a tantalizing legal tapestry, drawing lawyers into the fields like bees to nectar? Our findings suggest a compelling connection that tickles the scholarly imagination and invites quirky reflections on the symbiotic relationship between GMO cotton and the legal profession.

The strength of the correlation coefficient, coupled with the statistically significant p-value, provides solid ground for the acknowledgment of this unexpected nexus. At the risk of sounding too "seedy," one might jocularly envision GMO cotton fields as a clandestine meeting spot for legal eagles, settling disputes among the bolls with courtroom-like solemnity. It appears that the legal profession has "cultivated" a certain affinity for GMO-related intricacies, planting the seeds of ongoing inquiry into this captivating interplay.

Returning to the whimsical incorporation of dad jokes, we cannot resist a playful nod to the undeniable association between GMOs and legal activity. Why do lawyers feel drawn to GMO cotton fields? Because they cannot resist a good "cross-examination" of genetically modified crops!

The visual representation provided by the scatterplot further cements the persuasive nature of our findings, symbolizing the fruitful yield of research endeavors into unexpected domains. As our journey through the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" continues, the light-hearted quirkiness we inject into this scholarly pursuit serves as a reminder that even in the most unlikely pairings, there may be ripe opportunities for discovery.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and Number of Lawyers in the United States. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
The "GMO-Lawyer Connection": Sowing the Seeds of Legal Growth

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper examines the potential relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team aimed to unravel the tangled web of connections between agricultural practices and the legal profession.

Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, indicating a strong association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. This correlation prompts the grinning question: is there something in the genetic makeup of GMO cotton that spurs legal activity, or do lawyers simply feel drawn to agricultural disputes like moths to a flame?

To illustrate the unexpectedly bountiful bond between GMOs and lawyers, we present a dad joke for your intellectual amusement: What did the lawyer say to the GMO cotton? "I object! You're looking a little too genetically modified for my liking!"

Further investigations into this relationship are warranted, as understanding the dynamics between GMO use and legal activity may have broader implications for agricultural policy, intellectual property law, and the fabric of legal involvement in agribusiness. This paper sets the stage for an ongoing exploration of the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and invites a ripe harvest of future research in this area.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The rapid adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agricultural production has led to significant changes in farming practices, crop yields, and even the legal landscape. As GMO technology becomes deeply rooted in the agricultural sector, it is important to examine its potential impact on areas beyond the fields, such as the legal profession. In considering the complex interplay between GMO use and the number of lawyers, one might humorously ask: What do you call a lawyer who grows genetically modified cotton?
A "sue-per" litigator, of course!
The use of GMOs, particularly in cotton production in Mississippi, has garnered attention due to its potential influence on legal activity. This study aims to plant the seeds of inquiry into the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and shed light on the relationship between agricultural practices and legal involvement. With a statistical lens focused on the data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we embark on a journey to unearth the intertwined roots of GMOs and legal representation.
In the spirit of cultivating a light-hearted perspective, here's another jest to tickle the intellect: How did the GMO cotton introduce itself to the lawyer? "I'm glad we've met; let's get to the root of these legal matters together!"
This research endeavor seeks not only to elucidate the quantitative association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States but also to cultivate a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this connection. By uncovering these findings, we aim to harvest a fertile ground for future exploration and discourse on the intriguing bond between agriculture and the legal profession.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data collected from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) unveiled a striking correlation between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. The correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 indicated a remarkably strong relationship between these variables, prompting one to wonder if GMO cotton fields are secretly the courtroom of the plant world.
The r-squared value of 0.9100802 suggests that approximately 91% of the variation in the number of lawyers in the U.S. can be explained by the use of GMOs in cotton in Mississippi. It appears that the legal profession might have a "litigating" relationship with GMO cotton, pun intended.
The statistical significance of p < 0.01 further emphasizes the robustness of this connection, leaving little room for doubt regarding the existence of a substantial relationship between the two variables. One might jest that the association between GMO cotton and the legal profession is as undeniable as the existence of dad jokes in academic research papers.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually represents the strong correlation between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. The figure serves as a visual testament to the powerful bond between these seemingly unrelated domains and provides a chuckle-worthy reminder that even data visualization can have its "punny" moments.
This research paper presents compelling evidence of the intriguing "GMO-Lawyer Connection," raising questions about the underlying mechanisms driving this relationship. It is hoped that future studies will delve deeper into this phenomenon, bringing to light the fertile ground of inquiry that lies within the intersections of agriculture and the legal profession.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation into the connection between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States has unearthed a remarkably strong correlation, prompting one to wonder if there is a secret legal showdown happening in GMO cotton fields. The statistical analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 and an r-squared value of 0.9100802, emphasizing the robustness of this unexpected alliance. It seems that the legal profession might be "cottoning on" to GMO-related legal activity, much like a seed taking root in fertile soil.

This study has provided a lighthearted and "punny" perspective on the potential relationship between agricultural practices and legal involvement. It is clear that there is more to this "GMO-Lawyer Connection" than meets the eye, and future research may unravel the tangled roots of this captivating association.

As the curtains close on this chapter of inquiry, let us leave you with one final dad joke to ponder: Why did the lawyer visit the GMO cotton field? To "litigate" the night away, of course!

It is asserted that no further investigation is needed in this area, just as one does not need to search for a missing person at a hide-and-seek competition.


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

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Legal Botany


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

ChatGPT:

The Center for Agricultural Legal Studies and Innovation


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The GMO-Lawyer Connection: Sowing the Seeds of Legal Growth with an abstract of This paper examines the potential relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team aimed to unravel the tangled web of connections between agricultural practices and the legal profession.
Our findings revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9539812 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2022, indicating a strong association between GMO use in cotton in Mississippi and the number of lawyers in the United States. This correlation prompts the grinning question: is there something in the genetic makeup of GMO cotton that spurs legal activity, or do lawyers simply feel drawn to agricultural disputes like moths to a flame?
To illustrate the unexpectedly bountiful bond between GMOs and lawyers, we present a dad joke for your intellectual amusement: What did the lawyer say to the GMO cotton? "I object! You're looking a little too genetically modified for my liking!"
Further investigations into this relationship are warranted, as understanding the dynamics between GMO use and legal activity may have broader implications for agricultural policy, intellectual property law, and the fabric of legal involvement in agribusiness. This paper sets the stage for an ongoing exploration of the "GMO-Lawyer Connection" and invites a ripe harvest of future research in this area.

ChatGPT:

genetically modified organisms, GMO cotton production, Mississippi agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture, American Bar Association, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, agricultural disputes, legal activity, genetic makeup of GMO cotton, agricultural policy, intellectual property law, legal involvement in agribusiness

*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 cotton in Mississippi
Detailed data title: Percent of cotton planted in Mississippi genetically modified with both Bt and HT
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in cotton in Mississippi

Number of Lawyers in the United States
Detailed data title: The Count of ABA Lawyers in the United States
Source: ABA
See what else correlates with Number of Lawyers in the United States

Correlation r = 0.9539812 (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 = 0.9100802 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 91% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Number of Lawyers in the United States) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in cotton in Mississippi) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.9E-12. 0.0000000000018610482266930960
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 0.95 in 1.9E-10% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 537,331,588,541 random variables You don't actually need 537 billion 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 22 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 22 because we have two variables measured over a period of 23 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.

[ 0.89, 0.98 ] 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.
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
GMO use in cotton in Mississippi (GMO cotton %)3661476158596962666368768285868794889194949589
Number of Lawyers in the United States (Lawyers)10224601048900104975010586601084500110477011169701143360116212011803901203100122545012452001268010128143013007001312870133596013423801352080132874013279101327010




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([36,61,47,61,58,59,69,62,66,63,68,76,82,85,86,87,94,88,91,94,94,95,89,])
array_2 = np.array([1022460,1048900,1049750,1058660,1084500,1104770,1116970,1143360,1162120,1180390,1203100,1225450,1245200,1268010,1281430,1300700,1312870,1335960,1342380,1352080,1328740,1327910,1327010,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in cotton in Mississippi"
array_2_name = "Number of Lawyers in the United States"

# 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 is stellar!


Correlation ID: 2040 · Black Variable ID: 795 · Red Variable ID: 542
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0