about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,854 · 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 Missouri and the second variable is Asthma attacks in American children.  The chart goes from 2005 to 2019, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The decrease in GMO cotton meant fewer cotton plants were sneaking up behind unsuspecting children, thereby reducing the number of surprise tickle attacks on their lungs.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image in the style of pop art featuring a vibrant cotton field in Missouri. Focus on a farmer tending to rows of genetically modified cotton plants with exaggerated colors and bold outlines. In the background, depict a group of children playing joyfully. At the heart of the scene, capture the dramatic moment as one of the children clutches their chest in a sudden asthma attack. Emphasize the contrast between the idyllic setting and the medical emergency with iconic pop art visual elements such as bold lines, vivid colors, and dynamic compositions. 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 Missouri and Asthma attacks in American children. 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: Voxel art Minimalism Pop art Cute cartoon Art nouveau
ChatGPT: Pop art

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both GMO use in cotton in Missouri and Asthma attacks in American children together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a cotton field in Missouri, a farmer tends to rows of genetically modified cotton plants while in the background, a group of children are playing. Suddenly, one of the children grasps their chest in a sudden asthma attack.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Pop art ] and depicting this scene: In a cotton field in Missouri, a farmer tends to rows of genetically modified cotton plants while in the background, a group of children are playing. Suddenly, one of the children grasps their chest in a sudden asthma attack. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image in the style of pop art featuring a vibrant cotton field in Missouri. Focus on a farmer tending to rows of genetically modified cotton plants with exaggerated colors and bold outlines. In the background, depict a group of children playing joyfully. At the heart of the scene, capture the dramatic moment as one of the children clutches their chest in a sudden asthma attack. Emphasize the contrast between the idyllic setting and the medical emergency with iconic pop art visual elements such as bold lines, vivid colors, and dynamic compositions.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in GMO use in cotton in Missouri caused Asthma attacks in American children to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
GMO Cotton in Missouri: A Breathy Dairy or Just Hot Air?

The Journal of Agronomic Absurdities

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 Missouri and Asthma attacks in American children. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from USDA and National Center for Health Statistics to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and p < 0.01 for 2005 to 2019.

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]]
GMO Cotton in Missouri: A Breathy Dairy or Just Hot Air?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The use of GMO cotton in Missouri has been a topic of intense debate in recent years, with concerns raised about its potential impact on the respiratory health of American children. In this study, we delved into the data from USDA and the National Center for Health Statistics to explore the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks in children. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and p < 0.01 for the years 2005 to 2019, suggesting a strong association between the two variables. This research sheds light on the "bales" of evidence pointing to a potential connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues, but further investigation is needed to determine causality and unravel the "twisted strands" of this complex relationship.


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 Missouri and Asthma attacks in American children. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
GMO Cotton in Missouri: A Breathy Dairy or Just Hot Air?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The use of GMO cotton in Missouri has been a topic of intense debate in recent years, with concerns raised about its potential impact on the respiratory health of American children. In this study, we delved into the data from USDA and the National Center for Health Statistics to explore the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks in children. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and p < 0.01 for the years 2005 to 2019, suggesting a strong association between the two variables. This research sheds light on the "bales" of evidence pointing to a potential connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues, but further investigation is needed to determine causality and unravel the "twisted strands" of this complex relationship.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has sparked heated discussions, with passionate advocates and vocal skeptics clashing like kernels in a popcorn maker. Among the various GMO crops cultivated, cotton stands out as a prominent player in the agricultural landscape, particularly in the state of Missouri. Despite the tangible benefits of GMO cotton, including enhanced pest resistance and increased yields, concerns have emerged regarding its potential impact on respiratory health, particularly among American children.

The interplay between GMO cotton and respiratory health resembles a complicated dance, with steps that are not easily discernible to the untrained eye. Akin to the perplexing intricacies of a Rubik's Cube, unraveling the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks demands meticulous inquiry. Thus, this study sought to navigate the labyrinthine realm of data to shed light on this enigmatic association.

As researchers, we sought to weed out the truth from the fertile soil of speculations surrounding GMO cotton and asthma attacks. By peering through the fog of statistical ambiguity, we endeavor to offer clarity on this pressing issue. Our investigation pored over a significant period, stretching from 2005 to 2019, akin to planting a seed and patiently awaiting the blooming of results.

The stage was set for a rigorous analysis, akin to unravelling a knotted ball of yarn. Harnessing the data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Center for Health Statistics, we embarked on an academic expedition more invigorating than a caffeinated cup of joe. Our findings emerged like a rare orchid in full bloom, revealing a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and a p-value less than 0.01, pointing to a robust association between GMO cotton use in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children.

The discovery of such a strong correlation did not merely knock on the door of conventional wisdom; it brazenly kicked it down. The evidence accumulated, akin to the cotton bales in a warehouse, points to a compelling connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues. However, we must tread cautiously through this cotton field of data, for correlation does not imply causation. Like separating the gossamer threads of a spider's web, untangling the causal relationship demands meticulous exploration and rigorous investigation.

This study is not the final note in the symphony of research on GMO cotton and respiratory health; rather, it is a prelude to further inquiries. As we peer through the microscope at this intricate tapestry of data, let us traverse this scholarly avenue with an inquisitive spirit, for the "breathy dairy" of GMO cotton and asthma attacks beckons us to unravel its mysteries.


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 Missouri and Asthma attacks in American children. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
GMO Cotton in Missouri: A Breathy Dairy or Just Hot Air?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The use of GMO cotton in Missouri has been a topic of intense debate in recent years, with concerns raised about its potential impact on the respiratory health of American children. In this study, we delved into the data from USDA and the National Center for Health Statistics to explore the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks in children. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and p < 0.01 for the years 2005 to 2019, suggesting a strong association between the two variables. This research sheds light on the "bales" of evidence pointing to a potential connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues, but further investigation is needed to determine causality and unravel the "twisted strands" of this complex relationship.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has sparked heated discussions, with passionate advocates and vocal skeptics clashing like kernels in a popcorn maker. Among the various GMO crops cultivated, cotton stands out as a prominent player in the agricultural landscape, particularly in the state of Missouri. Despite the tangible benefits of GMO cotton, including enhanced pest resistance and increased yields, concerns have emerged regarding its potential impact on respiratory health, particularly among American children.
The interplay between GMO cotton and respiratory health resembles a complicated dance, with steps that are not easily discernible to the untrained eye. Akin to the perplexing intricacies of a Rubik's Cube, unraveling the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks demands meticulous inquiry. Thus, this study sought to navigate the labyrinthine realm of data to shed light on this enigmatic association.
As researchers, we sought to weed out the truth from the fertile soil of speculations surrounding GMO cotton and asthma attacks. By peering through the fog of statistical ambiguity, we endeavor to offer clarity on this pressing issue. Our investigation pored over a significant period, stretching from 2005 to 2019, akin to planting a seed and patiently awaiting the blooming of results.
The stage was set for a rigorous analysis, akin to unravelling a knotted ball of yarn. Harnessing the data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Center for Health Statistics, we embarked on an academic expedition more invigorating than a caffeinated cup of joe. Our findings emerged like a rare orchid in full bloom, revealing a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and a p-value less than 0.01, pointing to a robust association between GMO cotton use in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children.
The discovery of such a strong correlation did not merely knock on the door of conventional wisdom; it brazenly kicked it down. The evidence accumulated, akin to the cotton bales in a warehouse, points to a compelling connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues. However, we must tread cautiously through this cotton field of data, for correlation does not imply causation. Like separating the gossamer threads of a spider's web, untangling the causal relationship demands meticulous exploration and rigorous investigation.
This study is not the final note in the symphony of research on GMO cotton and respiratory health; rather, it is a prelude to further inquiries. As we peer through the microscope at this intricate tapestry of data, let us traverse this scholarly avenue with an inquisitive spirit, for the "breathy dairy" of GMO cotton and asthma attacks beckons us to unravel its mysteries.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The connection between genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and their potential impact on human health has been a subject of significant scholarly inquiry. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies investigating the effects of GMO crops on respiratory health. Their findings suggested a nuanced relationship, akin to a delicate dance between a pollen-laden bee and a fragrant blossom. However, as the research landscape has continued to evolve, newer studies have emerged to shed further light on this intricate association.

Doe and Jones (2018) delved into the specific case of GMO cotton in Missouri and its potential ramifications on respiratory health, culminating in a thought-provoking analysis. Their exploration uncovered a potential correlation, akin to the subtle interplay between the warp and weft of a textile, but stopped short of establishing a causal link. This highlights the need for continued investigations to tease apart the convoluted threads of this complex relationship.

In "The Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology: Bt Cotton and the Case of India" by Qaim and Zilberman (2003), the authors examine the broader implications of GMO cotton cultivation, offering insights that reverberate beyond geographical boundaries. While their focus is not explicitly on respiratory health, the broader context they provide is essential for contextualizing the potential consequences of GMO cotton cultivation.

Turning to the fictional realm, the novels "Breathless" by Dean Koontz and "The Wheeze of Time" by Robert Jordan may not directly address the correlation between GMO cotton and asthma attacks, but their titles alone serve as a whimsical reminder of the respiratory focus of this study. Combining levity with literary gravitas, these titles illustrate the unexpected ways in which respiratory health permeates popular culture.

Moreover, the internet meme "All Your Bales Are Belong to Us," a humorous nod to the gaming community's vernacular, may not contribute directly to scholarly discourse but serves as a reminder of the myriad ways in which popular media intertwines with our understanding of agricultural phenomena. While not a scholarly source per se, its playful juxtaposition of cotton bales and internet subculture encapsulates the diversity of influences that shape public perception of agricultural issues.

In summary, the intersection of GMO cotton in Missouri and its potential impact on respiratory health presents a complex landscape, requiring multidisciplinary inquiries and a keen eye for unexpected correlations. As this literature review demonstrates, the scholarly exploration of this relationship navigates through a rich tapestry of research and cultural references, offering a panoramic view of the breathy dairy or just hot air?


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 Missouri and Asthma attacks in American children. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and National Center for Health Statistics . You used data from 2005 to 2019

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]]
GMO Cotton in Missouri: A Breathy Dairy or Just Hot Air?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The use of GMO cotton in Missouri has been a topic of intense debate in recent years, with concerns raised about its potential impact on the respiratory health of American children. In this study, we delved into the data from USDA and the National Center for Health Statistics to explore the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks in children. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and p < 0.01 for the years 2005 to 2019, suggesting a strong association between the two variables. This research sheds light on the "bales" of evidence pointing to a potential connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues, but further investigation is needed to determine causality and unravel the "twisted strands" of this complex relationship.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has sparked heated discussions, with passionate advocates and vocal skeptics clashing like kernels in a popcorn maker. Among the various GMO crops cultivated, cotton stands out as a prominent player in the agricultural landscape, particularly in the state of Missouri. Despite the tangible benefits of GMO cotton, including enhanced pest resistance and increased yields, concerns have emerged regarding its potential impact on respiratory health, particularly among American children.
The interplay between GMO cotton and respiratory health resembles a complicated dance, with steps that are not easily discernible to the untrained eye. Akin to the perplexing intricacies of a Rubik's Cube, unraveling the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks demands meticulous inquiry. Thus, this study sought to navigate the labyrinthine realm of data to shed light on this enigmatic association.
As researchers, we sought to weed out the truth from the fertile soil of speculations surrounding GMO cotton and asthma attacks. By peering through the fog of statistical ambiguity, we endeavor to offer clarity on this pressing issue. Our investigation pored over a significant period, stretching from 2005 to 2019, akin to planting a seed and patiently awaiting the blooming of results.
The stage was set for a rigorous analysis, akin to unravelling a knotted ball of yarn. Harnessing the data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Center for Health Statistics, we embarked on an academic expedition more invigorating than a caffeinated cup of joe. Our findings emerged like a rare orchid in full bloom, revealing a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and a p-value less than 0.01, pointing to a robust association between GMO cotton use in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children.
The discovery of such a strong correlation did not merely knock on the door of conventional wisdom; it brazenly kicked it down. The evidence accumulated, akin to the cotton bales in a warehouse, points to a compelling connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues. However, we must tread cautiously through this cotton field of data, for correlation does not imply causation. Like separating the gossamer threads of a spider's web, untangling the causal relationship demands meticulous exploration and rigorous investigation.
This study is not the final note in the symphony of research on GMO cotton and respiratory health; rather, it is a prelude to further inquiries. As we peer through the microscope at this intricate tapestry of data, let us traverse this scholarly avenue with an inquisitive spirit, for the "breathy dairy" of GMO cotton and asthma attacks beckons us to unravel its mysteries.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Data Collection:

The data for this study was collected from various sources, with a primary focus on information obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Center for Health Statistics. The period of analysis spanned from 2005 to 2019, encompassing a wide swath of time similar to the weaving of a cotton fabric. To ensure the robustness of the findings, data on GMO cotton usage in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children were systematically gleaned from reputable datasets, with a level of scrutiny akin to separating the cotton seeds from the lint.

Statistical Analysis:

Once the data was gathered, a rigorous statistical analysis was conducted to examine the potential relationship between GMO cotton usage in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children. A correlation analysis was performed to determine the strength and direction of the association between these variables. The statistical analysis was conducted with the precision of a tailor measuring cloth for a bespoke suit and the thoroughness of a lint roller removing debris from a fine wool sweater.

Control Variables:

In order to mitigate the influence of extraneous factors, several control variables were considered in the analysis. These factors included but were not limited to air pollution levels, socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and other environmental exposures. By including these control variables, we sought to elucidate the specific impact of GMO cotton usage on asthma attacks in American children while accounting for potential confounding factors, much like navigating through a maze with numerous twists and turns.

Ethical Considerations:

Throughout the research process, ethical guidelines were diligently adhered to in accordance with the principles of academic integrity and scientific rigor. The confidentiality and privacy of the individuals represented in the data were safeguarded, and all analyses were conducted with a commitment to the responsible use of information. Furthermore, the interpretation of the findings was approached with intellectual honesty and a prudent acknowledgment of the limitations inherent in observational studies, as acknowledging these limits is as crucial as a tailor recognizing the imperfections in a finely crafted suit.

Sensitivity Analysis:

To evaluate the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the impact of potential outliers or fluctuations in the data. This process involved recalculating the correlation coefficient and associated statistical significance after making small alterations to the dataset, akin to adjusting the tension on a loom to ensure the consistency of the woven fabric.

Limitations:

Despite the meticulous approach taken in this study, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The observational nature of the data precludes causal inference, and the potential for residual confounding cannot be entirely discounted. Furthermore, the generalizability of the findings may be constrained by the specificities of the study period and geographical scope. Additionally, the inherent assumptions and constraints of correlational analyses underscore the need for cautious interpretation of the results, as accepting them uncritically is as unwise as donning a fabric without first checking for flaws.

In summation, the methodology adopted in this study aimed to navigate the complexities of data analysis with the precision and diligence required in disentangling the potential link between GMO cotton usage in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children. The approach was deliberate, thorough, and aimed to untangle the "twisted strands" of this complex relationship while avoiding entanglement in the proverbial web of misinterpretation.


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 Missouri and Asthma attacks in American children. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and National Center for Health Statistics .

For the time period 2005 to 2019, you found a correlation 0.8275804, r-squared of 0.6848894, 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]]
GMO Cotton in Missouri: A Breathy Dairy or Just Hot Air?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The use of GMO cotton in Missouri has been a topic of intense debate in recent years, with concerns raised about its potential impact on the respiratory health of American children. In this study, we delved into the data from USDA and the National Center for Health Statistics to explore the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks in children. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and p < 0.01 for the years 2005 to 2019, suggesting a strong association between the two variables. This research sheds light on the "bales" of evidence pointing to a potential connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues, but further investigation is needed to determine causality and unravel the "twisted strands" of this complex relationship.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has sparked heated discussions, with passionate advocates and vocal skeptics clashing like kernels in a popcorn maker. Among the various GMO crops cultivated, cotton stands out as a prominent player in the agricultural landscape, particularly in the state of Missouri. Despite the tangible benefits of GMO cotton, including enhanced pest resistance and increased yields, concerns have emerged regarding its potential impact on respiratory health, particularly among American children.
The interplay between GMO cotton and respiratory health resembles a complicated dance, with steps that are not easily discernible to the untrained eye. Akin to the perplexing intricacies of a Rubik's Cube, unraveling the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks demands meticulous inquiry. Thus, this study sought to navigate the labyrinthine realm of data to shed light on this enigmatic association.
As researchers, we sought to weed out the truth from the fertile soil of speculations surrounding GMO cotton and asthma attacks. By peering through the fog of statistical ambiguity, we endeavor to offer clarity on this pressing issue. Our investigation pored over a significant period, stretching from 2005 to 2019, akin to planting a seed and patiently awaiting the blooming of results.
The stage was set for a rigorous analysis, akin to unravelling a knotted ball of yarn. Harnessing the data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Center for Health Statistics, we embarked on an academic expedition more invigorating than a caffeinated cup of joe. Our findings emerged like a rare orchid in full bloom, revealing a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and a p-value less than 0.01, pointing to a robust association between GMO cotton use in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children.
The discovery of such a strong correlation did not merely knock on the door of conventional wisdom; it brazenly kicked it down. The evidence accumulated, akin to the cotton bales in a warehouse, points to a compelling connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues. However, we must tread cautiously through this cotton field of data, for correlation does not imply causation. Like separating the gossamer threads of a spider's web, untangling the causal relationship demands meticulous exploration and rigorous investigation.
This study is not the final note in the symphony of research on GMO cotton and respiratory health; rather, it is a prelude to further inquiries. As we peer through the microscope at this intricate tapestry of data, let us traverse this scholarly avenue with an inquisitive spirit, for the "breathy dairy" of GMO cotton and asthma attacks beckons us to unravel its mysteries.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The correlation analysis between the use of GMO cotton in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children yielded intriguing results. The correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 indicated a strong positive association between the two variables. The substantial r-squared value of 0.6848894 suggested that approximately 68.5% of the variation in asthma attacks can be explained by the variation in GMO cotton use. Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 provided compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis and support the presence of a significant relationship between the variables.

In essence, the statistical analysis uncovered a striking connection, akin to stumbling upon a hidden treasure in a vast field of data. This compelling correlation raises eyebrows and elicits a metaphorical "ah-choo" of surprise, as the link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks emerges from the statistical haze like a beacon of intrigue.

The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually illustrates this robust association, resembling a constellation of points that align as harmoniously as the stars in the night sky. The figure showcases the tight clustering of data points, as if the cotton bolls themselves had conspired to form a pattern that encapsulates the essence of their relationship with respiratory health.

The implications of these findings are as weighty as a bale of GMO cotton. They reveal a potential avenue for further investigation, akin to finding a new path in a labyrinth. While the correlation observed in this study is compelling, it remains imperative to exercise caution in interpreting these results. Correlation, as they say, does not imply causation – a truism as timeless as the enduring appeal of puns in scholarly writing. Therefore, this study merely provides a springboard for deeper inquiry into the complex interplay between GMO cotton and respiratory health, inviting future researchers to unravel the "twisted strands" of this enigmatic relationship.


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 Missouri and Asthma attacks in American children. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
GMO Cotton in Missouri: A Breathy Dairy or Just Hot Air?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The use of GMO cotton in Missouri has been a topic of intense debate in recent years, with concerns raised about its potential impact on the respiratory health of American children. In this study, we delved into the data from USDA and the National Center for Health Statistics to explore the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks in children. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and p < 0.01 for the years 2005 to 2019, suggesting a strong association between the two variables. This research sheds light on the "bales" of evidence pointing to a potential connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues, but further investigation is needed to determine causality and unravel the "twisted strands" of this complex relationship.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The connection between genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and their potential impact on human health has been a subject of significant scholarly inquiry. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies investigating the effects of GMO crops on respiratory health. Their findings suggested a nuanced relationship, akin to a delicate dance between a pollen-laden bee and a fragrant blossom. However, as the research landscape has continued to evolve, newer studies have emerged to shed further light on this intricate association.
Doe and Jones (2018) delved into the specific case of GMO cotton in Missouri and its potential ramifications on respiratory health, culminating in a thought-provoking analysis. Their exploration uncovered a potential correlation, akin to the subtle interplay between the warp and weft of a textile, but stopped short of establishing a causal link. This highlights the need for continued investigations to tease apart the convoluted threads of this complex relationship.
In "The Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology: Bt Cotton and the Case of India" by Qaim and Zilberman (2003), the authors examine the broader implications of GMO cotton cultivation, offering insights that reverberate beyond geographical boundaries. While their focus is not explicitly on respiratory health, the broader context they provide is essential for contextualizing the potential consequences of GMO cotton cultivation.
Turning to the fictional realm, the novels "Breathless" by Dean Koontz and "The Wheeze of Time" by Robert Jordan may not directly address the correlation between GMO cotton and asthma attacks, but their titles alone serve as a whimsical reminder of the respiratory focus of this study. Combining levity with literary gravitas, these titles illustrate the unexpected ways in which respiratory health permeates popular culture.
Moreover, the internet meme "All Your Bales Are Belong to Us," a humorous nod to the gaming community's vernacular, may not contribute directly to scholarly discourse but serves as a reminder of the myriad ways in which popular media intertwines with our understanding of agricultural phenomena. While not a scholarly source per se, its playful juxtaposition of cotton bales and internet subculture encapsulates the diversity of influences that shape public perception of agricultural issues.
In summary, the intersection of GMO cotton in Missouri and its potential impact on respiratory health presents a complex landscape, requiring multidisciplinary inquiries and a keen eye for unexpected correlations. As this literature review demonstrates, the scholarly exploration of this relationship navigates through a rich tapestry of research and cultural references, offering a panoramic view of the breathy dairy or just hot air?

[[RESULTS]]
The correlation analysis between the use of GMO cotton in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children yielded intriguing results. The correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 indicated a strong positive association between the two variables. The substantial r-squared value of 0.6848894 suggested that approximately 68.5% of the variation in asthma attacks can be explained by the variation in GMO cotton use. Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 provided compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis and support the presence of a significant relationship between the variables.
In essence, the statistical analysis uncovered a striking connection, akin to stumbling upon a hidden treasure in a vast field of data. This compelling correlation raises eyebrows and elicits a metaphorical "ah-choo" of surprise, as the link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks emerges from the statistical haze like a beacon of intrigue.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually illustrates this robust association, resembling a constellation of points that align as harmoniously as the stars in the night sky. The figure showcases the tight clustering of data points, as if the cotton bolls themselves had conspired to form a pattern that encapsulates the essence of their relationship with respiratory health.
The implications of these findings are as weighty as a bale of GMO cotton. They reveal a potential avenue for further investigation, akin to finding a new path in a labyrinth. While the correlation observed in this study is compelling, it remains imperative to exercise caution in interpreting these results. Correlation, as they say, does not imply causation – a truism as timeless as the enduring appeal of puns in scholarly writing. Therefore, this study merely provides a springboard for deeper inquiry into the complex interplay between GMO cotton and respiratory health, inviting future researchers to unravel the "twisted strands" of this enigmatic relationship.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of this study fortify the existing body of research that suggests a strong correlation between the use of GMO cotton in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children. These findings align with the earlier work of Smith et al. (2015) and Doe and Jones (2018), resembling a robust thread in the intricate tapestry of respiratory health research. It is as if we have indeed caught the fragrance of a fragrant blossom in our pursuit of understanding this subtle dance between GMO cotton and respiratory issues.

The substantial correlation coefficient and r-squared value underscore the potency of the relationship between GMO cotton use and asthma attacks, analogous to the resilience of cotton fibers in the face of tumultuous weather. The statistical significance of our findings, with a p-value of less than 0.01, echoes the emphatic resonance of a perfectly delivered punchline, leaving little room for doubt about the veracity of the observed association.

As we navigate the convoluted pathways of correlation and causation, it becomes evident that further research is essential to illuminate the causal mechanisms underpinning this relationship. While these findings establish a persuasive link, the age-old adage that "correlation does not imply causation" looms large, like a specter of caution in the vast expanse of scholarly inquiry.

The scatterplot, with its tightly clustered data points, serves as a visual testament to the compelling association uncovered in this study. The alignment of data points mirrors the harmonious interplay of musical notes in a grand symphony, underscoring the intricate nature of this symbiotic relationship between GMO cotton and respiratory health.

The literature review playfully alluded to unexpected connections in popular culture and fictional works, highlighting the diverse influences that shape our understanding of agricultural phenomena. While these references may have initially appeared whimsical, they serve as a poignant reminder of the multifaceted nature of scholarly inquiry, where unexpected intersections and correlations can emerge from the most unassuming avenues.

In essence, this study offers a breath of fresh air in the exploration of the potential impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health. The substantial correlation observed here opens the door to further investigations, beckoning researchers to delve deeper into the tangled threads of this intricate relationship. As we embark on this journey, it is crucial to maintain a keen eye for unexpected correlations, much like uncovering hidden Easter eggs in a video game, and to approach this subject with the gravity it deserves, much like a bale of GMO cotton awaiting further unraveling.


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 Missouri and Asthma attacks in American children. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
GMO Cotton in Missouri: A Breathy Dairy or Just Hot Air?

[[ABSTRACT]]
The use of GMO cotton in Missouri has been a topic of intense debate in recent years, with concerns raised about its potential impact on the respiratory health of American children. In this study, we delved into the data from USDA and the National Center for Health Statistics to explore the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks in children. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and p < 0.01 for the years 2005 to 2019, suggesting a strong association between the two variables. This research sheds light on the "bales" of evidence pointing to a potential connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues, but further investigation is needed to determine causality and unravel the "twisted strands" of this complex relationship.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has sparked heated discussions, with passionate advocates and vocal skeptics clashing like kernels in a popcorn maker. Among the various GMO crops cultivated, cotton stands out as a prominent player in the agricultural landscape, particularly in the state of Missouri. Despite the tangible benefits of GMO cotton, including enhanced pest resistance and increased yields, concerns have emerged regarding its potential impact on respiratory health, particularly among American children.
The interplay between GMO cotton and respiratory health resembles a complicated dance, with steps that are not easily discernible to the untrained eye. Akin to the perplexing intricacies of a Rubik's Cube, unraveling the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks demands meticulous inquiry. Thus, this study sought to navigate the labyrinthine realm of data to shed light on this enigmatic association.
As researchers, we sought to weed out the truth from the fertile soil of speculations surrounding GMO cotton and asthma attacks. By peering through the fog of statistical ambiguity, we endeavor to offer clarity on this pressing issue. Our investigation pored over a significant period, stretching from 2005 to 2019, akin to planting a seed and patiently awaiting the blooming of results.
The stage was set for a rigorous analysis, akin to unravelling a knotted ball of yarn. Harnessing the data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Center for Health Statistics, we embarked on an academic expedition more invigorating than a caffeinated cup of joe. Our findings emerged like a rare orchid in full bloom, revealing a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and a p-value less than 0.01, pointing to a robust association between GMO cotton use in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children.
The discovery of such a strong correlation did not merely knock on the door of conventional wisdom; it brazenly kicked it down. The evidence accumulated, akin to the cotton bales in a warehouse, points to a compelling connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues. However, we must tread cautiously through this cotton field of data, for correlation does not imply causation. Like separating the gossamer threads of a spider's web, untangling the causal relationship demands meticulous exploration and rigorous investigation.
This study is not the final note in the symphony of research on GMO cotton and respiratory health; rather, it is a prelude to further inquiries. As we peer through the microscope at this intricate tapestry of data, let us traverse this scholarly avenue with an inquisitive spirit, for the "breathy dairy" of GMO cotton and asthma attacks beckons us to unravel its mysteries.

[[RESULTS]]
The correlation analysis between the use of GMO cotton in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children yielded intriguing results. The correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 indicated a strong positive association between the two variables. The substantial r-squared value of 0.6848894 suggested that approximately 68.5% of the variation in asthma attacks can be explained by the variation in GMO cotton use. Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 provided compelling evidence to reject the null hypothesis and support the presence of a significant relationship between the variables.
In essence, the statistical analysis uncovered a striking connection, akin to stumbling upon a hidden treasure in a vast field of data. This compelling correlation raises eyebrows and elicits a metaphorical "ah-choo" of surprise, as the link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks emerges from the statistical haze like a beacon of intrigue.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually illustrates this robust association, resembling a constellation of points that align as harmoniously as the stars in the night sky. The figure showcases the tight clustering of data points, as if the cotton bolls themselves had conspired to form a pattern that encapsulates the essence of their relationship with respiratory health.
The implications of these findings are as weighty as a bale of GMO cotton. They reveal a potential avenue for further investigation, akin to finding a new path in a labyrinth. While the correlation observed in this study is compelling, it remains imperative to exercise caution in interpreting these results. Correlation, as they say, does not imply causation – a truism as timeless as the enduring appeal of puns in scholarly writing. Therefore, this study merely provides a springboard for deeper inquiry into the complex interplay between GMO cotton and respiratory health, inviting future researchers to unravel the "twisted strands" of this enigmatic relationship.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation into the potential link between GMO cotton use in Missouri and asthma attacks in American children has unraveled a fascinating correlation, akin to unraveling a spool of genetically modified yarn. The correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and a p-value of less than 0.01 point to a robust association between these variables, akin to finding the missing puzzle piece in a cotton-themed jigsaw puzzle.

The implications of these findings are as weighty as a bale of GMO cotton. They reveal a potential avenue for further investigation, akin to finding a new path in a labyrinth. While the correlation observed in this study is compelling, it remains imperative to exercise caution in interpreting these results. Correlation, as they say, does not imply causation – a truism as timeless as the enduring appeal of puns in scholarly writing. Therefore, this study merely provides a springboard for deeper inquiry into the complex interplay between GMO cotton and respiratory health, inviting future researchers to unravel the "twisted strands" of this enigmatic relationship.

It is clear that more research is needed in this area. Just kidding! The evidence is as clear as the air in a freshly laundered cotton shirt – GMO cotton use in Missouri is correlated with asthma attacks in American children. The ball is now in the court of policymakers and agricultural stakeholders to sift through the implications of these findings and consider the "breathtaking" impact of GMO cotton on respiratory health.


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 GMO Cotton in Missouri: A Breathy Dairy or Just Hot Air?. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Agronomic Absurdities


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 GMO Cotton in Missouri: A Breathy Dairy or Just Hot Air?. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Agricultural Innovation and Sustainability


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 GMO Cotton in Missouri: A Breathy Dairy or Just Hot Air? with an abstract of The use of GMO cotton in Missouri has been a topic of intense debate in recent years, with concerns raised about its potential impact on the respiratory health of American children. In this study, we delved into the data from USDA and the National Center for Health Statistics to explore the potential link between GMO cotton and asthma attacks in children. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.8275804 and p < 0.01 for the years 2005 to 2019, suggesting a strong association between the two variables. This research sheds light on the "bales" of evidence pointing to a potential connection between GMO cotton and respiratory issues, but further investigation is needed to determine causality and unravel the "twisted strands" of this complex relationship.

ChatGPT:

GMO cotton, Missouri, respiratory health, American children, USDA data, National Center for Health Statistics, asthma attacks, correlation coefficient, causality, respiratory issues, GMO cotton impact

*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 Missouri
Detailed data title: Percent of cotton planted in Missouri that is genetically modified to be insect-resistant (Bt), but not herbicide-tolerant (HT)
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in cotton in Missouri

Asthma attacks in American children
Detailed data title: Percent of children in the US 5-9 years old who have had an asthma attack in the past year
Source: National Center for Health Statistics
See what else correlates with Asthma attacks in American children

Correlation r = 0.8275804 (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 = 0.6848894 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 68.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Asthma attacks in American children) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in cotton in Missouri) over the 15 years from 2005 through 2019.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0001401. 0.0001400528885873915100000000
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 0.83 in 0.01401% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 7,140 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 14 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 14 because we have two variables measured over a period of 15 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.

[ 0.55, 0.94 ] 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.
200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019
GMO use in cotton in Missouri (GMO cotton %)2032131218222233621612562
Asthma attacks in American children (Percent of children)6.37.65.96.95.76.95.975.85.85.15.74.54.74.2




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([20,32,13,12,18,22,22,33,6,21,6,12,5,6,2,])
array_2 = np.array([6.3,7.6,5.9,6.9,5.7,6.9,5.9,7,5.8,5.8,5.1,5.7,4.5,4.7,4.2,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in cotton in Missouri"
array_2_name = "Asthma attacks in American children"

# 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?

Kudos for rating!


Correlation ID: 1854 · Black Variable ID: 773 · Red Variable ID: 1144
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0