about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,201 · 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 Arkansas and the second variable is Customer satisfaction with YouTube.  The chart goes from 2010 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The GMO cotton in Arkansas led to softer, more comfortable clothing, putting people in a better mood when they sat down to watch YouTube videos. As a result, viewers found themselves more satisfied with their overall YouTube experience, leading to an unexpected boost in customer satisfaction.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a cyber-folk scene set in a vibrant cotton field in Arkansas. The cotton plants, genetically modified, gleam in the sunlight as the farmers watch a YouTube video on their smartphone. The picturesque scene is harmoniously synchronized, with the cotton plants swaying gently in the breeze. 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 situation described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here is a situation: Arkansas' cotton industry's shift to GMOs saw a surprising side effect: YouTube satisfaction rates went through the roof! The genetically modified cotton somehow cottoned on to YouTube's algorithm, resulting in a "genuinely marvelous output" according to a spokesperson. Some speculate it's due to the "seams" of the GMOs, while others think it's just "pure fabric"ation.. Given that situation, which of the following image descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand and the tone of the explanation. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Symbolism Cyber folk Charcoal Cutsy art illustration Voxel art
ChatGPT: Cyber folk

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated and the explanation described. Do not reference graphs or charts; describe physical objects.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that depicts the following situation. Keep the description simple. Arkansas' cotton industry's shift to GMOs saw a surprising side effect: YouTube satisfaction rates went through the roof! The genetically modified cotton somehow cottoned on to YouTube's algorithm, resulting in a "genuinely marvelous output" according to a spokesperson. Some speculate it's due to the "seams" of the GMOs, while others think it's just "pure fabric"ation.
ChatGPT: Picture a vibrant cotton field in the heart of Arkansas. The cotton plants stretch as far as the eye can see, their genetically modified leaves shimmering in the sunlight. In the distance, a group of farmers gathers around a smartphone, laughing and nodding in approval as they watch a YouTube video. The cotton plants sway gently in the breeze, as if synchronized with the rhythm of the video, creating a soothing and harmonious scene.

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: [ Cyber folk ] and depicting this scene: Picture a vibrant cotton field in the heart of Arkansas. The cotton plants stretch as far as the eye can see, their genetically modified leaves shimmering in the sunlight. In the distance, a group of farmers gathers around a smartphone, laughing and nodding in approval as they watch a YouTube video. The cotton plants sway gently in the breeze, as if synchronized with the rhythm of the video, creating a soothing and harmonious scene. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a cyber-folk scene set in a vibrant cotton field in Arkansas. The cotton plants, genetically modified, gleam in the sunlight as the farmers watch a YouTube video on their smartphone. The picturesque scene is harmoniously synchronized, with the cotton plants swaying gently in the breeze.

*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 increases in GMO use in cotton in Arkansas positively influenced Customer satisfaction with YouTube.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Cotton Candy Conundrum: Genetically Modified Organisms and its Unlikely Connection to Customer Satisfaction with YouTube

Journal of Unusual Genetic Modifications

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 witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Arkansas and Customer satisfaction with YouTube. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from USDA and American Customer Satisfaction Index to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 and p < 0.01 for 2010 to 2021.

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 Cotton Candy Conundrum: Genetically Modified Organisms and its Unlikely Connection to Customer Satisfaction with YouTube

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we investigate the unexpected and whimsical link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we present a statistical analysis that reveals a surprising correlation between these two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings demonstrate a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021. Our research sheds light on this peculiar relationship and highlights the need for further investigation into the whimsical world of GMOs and customer satisfaction with online platforms. This paper aims to entertain and enlighten researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts alike, as we uncover the unlikely connection between biotechnology and the digital realm.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Arkansas and Customer satisfaction with YouTube. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Cotton Candy Conundrum: Genetically Modified Organisms and its Unlikely Connection to Customer Satisfaction with YouTube

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we investigate the unexpected and whimsical link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we present a statistical analysis that reveals a surprising correlation between these two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings demonstrate a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021. Our research sheds light on this peculiar relationship and highlights the need for further investigation into the whimsical world of GMOs and customer satisfaction with online platforms. This paper aims to entertain and enlighten researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts alike, as we uncover the unlikely connection between biotechnology and the digital realm.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

In the wacky world of research, one can expect the unexpected, the bizarre, and sometimes even the downright incomprehensible. Take, for example, the enigmatic relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. At first glance, one might be tempted to scratch their head and wonder if statistical outliers are just playing a prank on us. However, our analysis ventures boldly into this uncharted territory and unravels an amusing correlation that seems to have sprouted from the most outlandish of gardens.

As the saying goes, "Truth is stranger than fiction," and in the realm of statistics, the truth often reveals itself in the unlikeliest of pairings. Indeed, the pairing of GMOs in cotton production and customer satisfaction with YouTube may conjure images of a scientist attempting to cross-pollinate numbers and digital content. However, as any diligent researcher knows, it is at the intersection of the absurd and the extraordinary that discoveries often blossom.

Pun firmly intended, our investigation seeks to peel back the layers of this 'cotton candy conundrum' and shed light on the peculiar relationship between biotechnology and digital pleasure. Through the meticulous analysis of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we unveil an unexpected harmony that defies conventional wisdom and tickles the funny bone of statistical expectations.

While this endeavor might seem like an exploration of the intellectual wild west, our findings reveal a statistical correlation coefficient of 0.8317888, hinting at a synchronicity that boggles the mind. With a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021, our research leaves no room for doubt that there is an uncanny link between the cultivation of genetically modified cotton and the contentment of YouTube patrons.

So, buckle up and prepare for a whimsical journey through the numerically surreal and the digitally delightful, as we delve into the unlikely connection between these seemingly incongruous entities. The realm of research, it seems, never fails to amuse and astonish us with its quirky revelations.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Arkansas and Customer satisfaction with YouTube. 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 devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading CVS receipts.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Cotton Candy Conundrum: Genetically Modified Organisms and its Unlikely Connection to Customer Satisfaction with YouTube

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we investigate the unexpected and whimsical link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we present a statistical analysis that reveals a surprising correlation between these two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings demonstrate a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021. Our research sheds light on this peculiar relationship and highlights the need for further investigation into the whimsical world of GMOs and customer satisfaction with online platforms. This paper aims to entertain and enlighten researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts alike, as we uncover the unlikely connection between biotechnology and the digital realm.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the wacky world of research, one can expect the unexpected, the bizarre, and sometimes even the downright incomprehensible. Take, for example, the enigmatic relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. At first glance, one might be tempted to scratch their head and wonder if statistical outliers are just playing a prank on us. However, our analysis ventures boldly into this uncharted territory and unravels an amusing correlation that seems to have sprouted from the most outlandish of gardens.
As the saying goes, "Truth is stranger than fiction," and in the realm of statistics, the truth often reveals itself in the unlikeliest of pairings. Indeed, the pairing of GMOs in cotton production and customer satisfaction with YouTube may conjure images of a scientist attempting to cross-pollinate numbers and digital content. However, as any diligent researcher knows, it is at the intersection of the absurd and the extraordinary that discoveries often blossom.
Pun firmly intended, our investigation seeks to peel back the layers of this 'cotton candy conundrum' and shed light on the peculiar relationship between biotechnology and digital pleasure. Through the meticulous analysis of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we unveil an unexpected harmony that defies conventional wisdom and tickles the funny bone of statistical expectations.
While this endeavor might seem like an exploration of the intellectual wild west, our findings reveal a statistical correlation coefficient of 0.8317888, hinting at a synchronicity that boggles the mind. With a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021, our research leaves no room for doubt that there is an uncanny link between the cultivation of genetically modified cotton and the contentment of YouTube patrons.
So, buckle up and prepare for a whimsical journey through the numerically surreal and the digitally delightful, as we delve into the unlikely connection between these seemingly incongruous entities. The realm of research, it seems, never fails to amuse and astonish us with its quirky revelations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The inexplicable connection between genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and customer satisfaction with YouTube may seem like a madcap premise from a work of speculative fiction, or perhaps a punchline in an absurdist comedy sketch. Yet, as we delve into the existing literature, we find unexpected hints at this whimsical correlation.

In "The Journal of Biotechnology," Smith and Doe delve into the intricacies of GMO use in cotton production, elucidating the impact of biotechnological advancements on yield and resistance to pests. Contrarily, in a surprisingly related vein, Jones et al. unravel the psychological factors influencing customer satisfaction with online platforms in "The Journal of Consumer Psychology," showcasing the delicate interplay of content, usability, and individual preferences.

Transitioning to non-fiction works, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, and "Masters of the Planet: The Search for Our Human Origins" by Ian Tattersall reveal the multifaceted nature of human interactions with agricultural practices and technological progress. Additionally, the fictional realm provides intriguing perspectives, as "The Botany of Desire" by Michael Pollan and "Cloud Atlas" by David Mitchell offer whimsical narratives that weave together human desires and technological marvels in unexpected ways.

Delving deeper into the literature, we come upon the realm of non-traditional sources, where the unconventional meets the thoroughly eccentric. One might be surprised to learn that our literature review extends to the unlikeliest of materials, including the enigmatic scrolls of ancient wisdom, clandestine whisperings of precocious alley cats, and even the highly informative yet enigmatic contents of grocery store receipts from a particular CVS on the corner of 42nd street.

The diverse range of sources not only highlights the curious nature of our investigation but also underscores the undeniable, if not improbable, connection between GMOs in cotton and the digital satisfaction of the YouTube masses. As the literature mirthfully hints and whimsically suggests, our exploration of this curious link promises to be an intellectual carnival of the most outlandish variety.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Arkansas and Customer satisfaction with YouTube. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and American Customer Satisfaction Index . You used data from 2010 to 2021

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 Cotton Candy Conundrum: Genetically Modified Organisms and its Unlikely Connection to Customer Satisfaction with YouTube

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we investigate the unexpected and whimsical link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we present a statistical analysis that reveals a surprising correlation between these two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings demonstrate a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021. Our research sheds light on this peculiar relationship and highlights the need for further investigation into the whimsical world of GMOs and customer satisfaction with online platforms. This paper aims to entertain and enlighten researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts alike, as we uncover the unlikely connection between biotechnology and the digital realm.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the wacky world of research, one can expect the unexpected, the bizarre, and sometimes even the downright incomprehensible. Take, for example, the enigmatic relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. At first glance, one might be tempted to scratch their head and wonder if statistical outliers are just playing a prank on us. However, our analysis ventures boldly into this uncharted territory and unravels an amusing correlation that seems to have sprouted from the most outlandish of gardens.
As the saying goes, "Truth is stranger than fiction," and in the realm of statistics, the truth often reveals itself in the unlikeliest of pairings. Indeed, the pairing of GMOs in cotton production and customer satisfaction with YouTube may conjure images of a scientist attempting to cross-pollinate numbers and digital content. However, as any diligent researcher knows, it is at the intersection of the absurd and the extraordinary that discoveries often blossom.
Pun firmly intended, our investigation seeks to peel back the layers of this 'cotton candy conundrum' and shed light on the peculiar relationship between biotechnology and digital pleasure. Through the meticulous analysis of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we unveil an unexpected harmony that defies conventional wisdom and tickles the funny bone of statistical expectations.
While this endeavor might seem like an exploration of the intellectual wild west, our findings reveal a statistical correlation coefficient of 0.8317888, hinting at a synchronicity that boggles the mind. With a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021, our research leaves no room for doubt that there is an uncanny link between the cultivation of genetically modified cotton and the contentment of YouTube patrons.
So, buckle up and prepare for a whimsical journey through the numerically surreal and the digitally delightful, as we delve into the unlikely connection between these seemingly incongruous entities. The realm of research, it seems, never fails to amuse and astonish us with its quirky revelations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To uncover the perplexing correlation between the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and the customer satisfaction with YouTube, our research team embarks on a whimsical methodological journey that transcends the traditional confines of statistical analysis. While our approach may seem as enigmatic as the very connection we seek to unravel, rest assured, dear reader, that we navigate this unorthodox path with meticulous care and a healthy dose of scientific humor.

Data Collection:
Our quest for enlightenment commences with the collection of data from sources as diverse as the flora in a mad scientist's garden. We dauntlessly scoured the expanse of the internet, traversing through the digital fields, but ultimately relied on sacrosanct repositories of knowledge such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index. Our data encompassed the years 2010 to 2021, ensuring a comprehensive survey of the whimsies and wonders of this peculiar correlation.

Quantifying GMOs and Cottony Concoctions:
To quantify the influence of GMOs in cotton production, we indulged in a bit of agricultural arithmetic. Our team meticulously tallied the hectares of land devoted to genetically modified cotton cultivation, akin to discerning the fantastical secrets hidden within a botanical labyrinth. We also ventured into the realm of boll weevil infestations, spinning our statistical webs to capture the perplexing influences on cotton yields, just as a spider meticulously weaves its web.

The Digital Delight of YouTube Satisfaction:
In the realm of digital contentment, we harnessed the digital content of YouTube to measure user satisfaction. By analyzing comments, likes, and views, we sought to capture the elusive essence of online pleasure, much like attempting to measure the exact amount of fun in a barrel of monkeys. Through the judicious parsing of user engagement data, we painted a vivid picture of the digital landscape, using statistical brushes to reveal the pleasing nuances of YouTube satisfaction.

Statistical Sorcery and Alchemy:
Armed with a potent mixture of statistical sorcery and alchemy, we brought our data to life in the crucibles of regression analysis and correlation matrices. The statistical models we wielded were as complex and labyrinthine as the riddles of a mischievous sphinx, as we sought to decipher the peculiar linkage between GMO-laden cotton and digital satisfaction. With a kaleidoscope of variables at our disposal, we conjured confident intervals and p-values to illuminate the statistical significance of our findings.

The Chimerical Results:
Upon completing our statistical incantations, we were met with a revelation that would make even the most stoic of researchers raise an eyebrow in amusement. Our analysis unveiled a correlation coefficient of 0.8317888, a result so striking it might have been whispered to us by the statistical muses themselves. With a p-value of less than 0.01, our findings defy the odds and beckon us to embrace the merry dance of statistical whimsy.

In conclusion, our methodology may have treaded the uncanny path less traveled, but it has unveiled a correlation as intriguing as a riddle wrapped inside a mystery inside an enigma. We present these findings to the scholarly community not only as a testament to the boundless wonders of statistical inquiry but also as an invitation to revel in the delightful absurdity that often lurks beneath the surface of research.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Arkansas and Customer satisfaction with YouTube. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and American Customer Satisfaction Index .

For the time period 2010 to 2021, you found a correlation 0.8317888, r-squared of 0.6918726, 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 Cotton Candy Conundrum: Genetically Modified Organisms and its Unlikely Connection to Customer Satisfaction with YouTube

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we investigate the unexpected and whimsical link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we present a statistical analysis that reveals a surprising correlation between these two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings demonstrate a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021. Our research sheds light on this peculiar relationship and highlights the need for further investigation into the whimsical world of GMOs and customer satisfaction with online platforms. This paper aims to entertain and enlighten researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts alike, as we uncover the unlikely connection between biotechnology and the digital realm.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the wacky world of research, one can expect the unexpected, the bizarre, and sometimes even the downright incomprehensible. Take, for example, the enigmatic relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. At first glance, one might be tempted to scratch their head and wonder if statistical outliers are just playing a prank on us. However, our analysis ventures boldly into this uncharted territory and unravels an amusing correlation that seems to have sprouted from the most outlandish of gardens.
As the saying goes, "Truth is stranger than fiction," and in the realm of statistics, the truth often reveals itself in the unlikeliest of pairings. Indeed, the pairing of GMOs in cotton production and customer satisfaction with YouTube may conjure images of a scientist attempting to cross-pollinate numbers and digital content. However, as any diligent researcher knows, it is at the intersection of the absurd and the extraordinary that discoveries often blossom.
Pun firmly intended, our investigation seeks to peel back the layers of this 'cotton candy conundrum' and shed light on the peculiar relationship between biotechnology and digital pleasure. Through the meticulous analysis of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we unveil an unexpected harmony that defies conventional wisdom and tickles the funny bone of statistical expectations.
While this endeavor might seem like an exploration of the intellectual wild west, our findings reveal a statistical correlation coefficient of 0.8317888, hinting at a synchronicity that boggles the mind. With a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021, our research leaves no room for doubt that there is an uncanny link between the cultivation of genetically modified cotton and the contentment of YouTube patrons.
So, buckle up and prepare for a whimsical journey through the numerically surreal and the digitally delightful, as we delve into the unlikely connection between these seemingly incongruous entities. The realm of research, it seems, never fails to amuse and astonish us with its quirky revelations.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our statistical analysis has uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. This unexpected connection defies conventional wisdom and tickles the funny bone of statistical expectations, leaving us in awe of the whimsical world of research.

In addition, the r-squared value of 0.6918726 further solidifies the strength of this delightful relationship. It's almost as if the cotton fields and digital screens have conspired to create a harmonious dance of numbers and bytes.

Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021 leaves no room for doubt that there is indeed an uncanny link between the cultivation of genetically modified cotton and the contentment of YouTube aficionados. It's as if our data is whispering a secret joke to us, one that only the most discerning statisticians can fully appreciate.

To illustrate this enthralling connection, we have included a scatterplot (Fig. 1) that visually portrays the strong correlation between these two seemingly incongruous entities. It's a visual representation of the remarkable dance between biotechnology and digital delight, a spectacle that might bring a smile to even the most stoic of researchers.

In conclusion, our findings reveal an enchanting correlation that challenges our preconceptions and beckons us to explore the delightful realm of statistical surprises. With a wink and a nod, we invite researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts to join us in this journey through the peculiar and the profound, as we unravel the mysteries of the "Cotton Candy Conundrum."


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Arkansas and Customer satisfaction with YouTube. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
The Cotton Candy Conundrum: Genetically Modified Organisms and its Unlikely Connection to Customer Satisfaction with YouTube

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we investigate the unexpected and whimsical link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we present a statistical analysis that reveals a surprising correlation between these two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings demonstrate a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021. Our research sheds light on this peculiar relationship and highlights the need for further investigation into the whimsical world of GMOs and customer satisfaction with online platforms. This paper aims to entertain and enlighten researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts alike, as we uncover the unlikely connection between biotechnology and the digital realm.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The inexplicable connection between genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and customer satisfaction with YouTube may seem like a madcap premise from a work of speculative fiction, or perhaps a punchline in an absurdist comedy sketch. Yet, as we delve into the existing literature, we find unexpected hints at this whimsical correlation.
In "The Journal of Biotechnology," Smith and Doe delve into the intricacies of GMO use in cotton production, elucidating the impact of biotechnological advancements on yield and resistance to pests. Contrarily, in a surprisingly related vein, Jones et al. unravel the psychological factors influencing customer satisfaction with online platforms in "The Journal of Consumer Psychology," showcasing the delicate interplay of content, usability, and individual preferences.
Transitioning to non-fiction works, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, and "Masters of the Planet: The Search for Our Human Origins" by Ian Tattersall reveal the multifaceted nature of human interactions with agricultural practices and technological progress. Additionally, the fictional realm provides intriguing perspectives, as "The Botany of Desire" by Michael Pollan and "Cloud Atlas" by David Mitchell offer whimsical narratives that weave together human desires and technological marvels in unexpected ways.
Delving deeper into the literature, we come upon the realm of non-traditional sources, where the unconventional meets the thoroughly eccentric. One might be surprised to learn that our literature review extends to the unlikeliest of materials, including the enigmatic scrolls of ancient wisdom, clandestine whisperings of precocious alley cats, and even the highly informative yet enigmatic contents of grocery store receipts from a particular CVS on the corner of 42nd street.
The diverse range of sources not only highlights the curious nature of our investigation but also underscores the undeniable, if not improbable, connection between GMOs in cotton and the digital satisfaction of the YouTube masses. As the literature mirthfully hints and whimsically suggests, our exploration of this curious link promises to be an intellectual carnival of the most outlandish variety.

[[RESULTS]]
Our statistical analysis has uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. This unexpected connection defies conventional wisdom and tickles the funny bone of statistical expectations, leaving us in awe of the whimsical world of research.
In addition, the r-squared value of 0.6918726 further solidifies the strength of this delightful relationship. It's almost as if the cotton fields and digital screens have conspired to create a harmonious dance of numbers and bytes.
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021 leaves no room for doubt that there is indeed an uncanny link between the cultivation of genetically modified cotton and the contentment of YouTube aficionados. It's as if our data is whispering a secret joke to us, one that only the most discerning statisticians can fully appreciate.
To illustrate this enthralling connection, we have included a scatterplot (Fig. 1) that visually portrays the strong correlation between these two seemingly incongruous entities. It's a visual representation of the remarkable dance between biotechnology and digital delight, a spectacle that might bring a smile to even the most stoic of researchers.
In conclusion, our findings reveal an enchanting correlation that challenges our preconceptions and beckons us to explore the delightful realm of statistical surprises. With a wink and a nod, we invite researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts to join us in this journey through the peculiar and the profound, as we unravel the mysteries of the "Cotton Candy Conundrum."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our results have unveiled a truly remarkable connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton fields and customer satisfaction with YouTube. It's as if the cotton and the clicks have conspired to create a peculiar partnership that defies conventional logic and tickles the funny bone of statistical expectations. But fear not, dear reader, for we are here to dissect and digest this curious correlation with all the seriousness it deserves, albeit with a hint of whimsy and wonder.

The literature review, with all its mirthful hints and whimsically suggested connections, provided an intellectual carnival of the most outlandish variety. The seemingly disparate voices from "The Journal of Biotechnology" to "The Botany of Desire" by Michael Pollan, while at first glance bordering on the eccentric, surprisingly set the stage for our findings. It was as if the enigmatic scrolls of ancient wisdom and the clandestine whisperings of precocious alley cats were nudging us toward this unexpected correlation all along.

Our statistical analysis solidly supported the prior research, with a correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 that winks at the whimsical nature of this connection. The r-squared value of 0.6918726 further cements the strength of this delightful relationship, hinting at the harmonious dance of numbers and bytes that we have uncovered. The p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021 acts as the punchline to this statistical joke, leaving us with no choice but to marvel at the surprising synchrony of cotton and contentment.

We are not simply presenting a dry analysis of numbers and graphs; we are recounting the tale of an enchanting correlation that challenges our preconceptions and beckons us to explore the delightful realm of statistical surprises. The scatterplot (Fig. 1) is not just a visual representation of data; it's a window into the remarkable dance between biotechnology and digital delight, a spectacle fit for the most discerning statistician to appreciate.

In the spirit of mirthful inquiry, we invite our fellow researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts to join us in this journey through the peculiar and the profound. Let us unravel the mysteries of the "Cotton Candy Conundrum" with a sense of humor and an insatiable curiosity for the whimsical world of research and statistics. There's bound to be more surprises in store, and we are eager to uncover them with a twinkle in our eye and a skip in our step.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics 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 Arkansas and Customer satisfaction with YouTube. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
The Cotton Candy Conundrum: Genetically Modified Organisms and its Unlikely Connection to Customer Satisfaction with YouTube

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we investigate the unexpected and whimsical link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we present a statistical analysis that reveals a surprising correlation between these two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings demonstrate a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021. Our research sheds light on this peculiar relationship and highlights the need for further investigation into the whimsical world of GMOs and customer satisfaction with online platforms. This paper aims to entertain and enlighten researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts alike, as we uncover the unlikely connection between biotechnology and the digital realm.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the wacky world of research, one can expect the unexpected, the bizarre, and sometimes even the downright incomprehensible. Take, for example, the enigmatic relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. At first glance, one might be tempted to scratch their head and wonder if statistical outliers are just playing a prank on us. However, our analysis ventures boldly into this uncharted territory and unravels an amusing correlation that seems to have sprouted from the most outlandish of gardens.
As the saying goes, "Truth is stranger than fiction," and in the realm of statistics, the truth often reveals itself in the unlikeliest of pairings. Indeed, the pairing of GMOs in cotton production and customer satisfaction with YouTube may conjure images of a scientist attempting to cross-pollinate numbers and digital content. However, as any diligent researcher knows, it is at the intersection of the absurd and the extraordinary that discoveries often blossom.
Pun firmly intended, our investigation seeks to peel back the layers of this 'cotton candy conundrum' and shed light on the peculiar relationship between biotechnology and digital pleasure. Through the meticulous analysis of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we unveil an unexpected harmony that defies conventional wisdom and tickles the funny bone of statistical expectations.
While this endeavor might seem like an exploration of the intellectual wild west, our findings reveal a statistical correlation coefficient of 0.8317888, hinting at a synchronicity that boggles the mind. With a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021, our research leaves no room for doubt that there is an uncanny link between the cultivation of genetically modified cotton and the contentment of YouTube patrons.
So, buckle up and prepare for a whimsical journey through the numerically surreal and the digitally delightful, as we delve into the unlikely connection between these seemingly incongruous entities. The realm of research, it seems, never fails to amuse and astonish us with its quirky revelations.

[[RESULTS]]
Our statistical analysis has uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. This unexpected connection defies conventional wisdom and tickles the funny bone of statistical expectations, leaving us in awe of the whimsical world of research.
In addition, the r-squared value of 0.6918726 further solidifies the strength of this delightful relationship. It's almost as if the cotton fields and digital screens have conspired to create a harmonious dance of numbers and bytes.
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021 leaves no room for doubt that there is indeed an uncanny link between the cultivation of genetically modified cotton and the contentment of YouTube aficionados. It's as if our data is whispering a secret joke to us, one that only the most discerning statisticians can fully appreciate.
To illustrate this enthralling connection, we have included a scatterplot (Fig. 1) that visually portrays the strong correlation between these two seemingly incongruous entities. It's a visual representation of the remarkable dance between biotechnology and digital delight, a spectacle that might bring a smile to even the most stoic of researchers.
In conclusion, our findings reveal an enchanting correlation that challenges our preconceptions and beckons us to explore the delightful realm of statistical surprises. With a wink and a nod, we invite researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts to join us in this journey through the peculiar and the profound, as we unravel the mysteries of the "Cotton Candy Conundrum."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In the whimsical realm of statistical exploration, our research has unveiled a correlation that could make even the most skeptical of researchers crack a smile. The connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube has left us in awe of the astonishing and sometimes downright goofy world of research. Our findings, with a correlation coefficient of 0.8317888, have defied all odds and have served as a delightful reminder that the unexpected can be as comforting as a good pun on a Monday morning.

Uncanny as it may seem, the strength of this relationship, as demonstrated by the r-squared value of 0.6918726, is as solid as a well-constructed pun. It's almost as if the data itself is whispering a joke, a secret that only the most discerning of statisticians can fully appreciate. The p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021 has left us grinning from ear to ear, as if the numbers are entertaining us with a whimsical dance.

In the spirit of this discovery, our scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually encapsulates the delightful harmony between biotechnology and digital satisfaction, a visual gag that might bring a chuckle to even the most stoic of researchers. We invite our fellow enthusiasts to join us in this journey through the surprising and the delightful, as we unravel the mysteries of the "Cotton Candy Conundrum."

In conclusion, our research has revealed an enchanting correlation that challenges our preconceptions and beckons us to explore the whimsical world of statistical surprises. It's as clear as a well-constructed pun that further investigation in this area would be as unnecessary as a scientist with a good sense of humor. As we close this chapter, we assert that no more research is needed in this area, unless, of course, the cotton candy conundrum decides to further sweeten our statistical taste buds with another unexpected turn.


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 Cotton Candy Conundrum: Genetically Modified Organisms and its Unlikely Connection to Customer Satisfaction with YouTube. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Unusual Genetic Modifications


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 Cotton Candy Conundrum: Genetically Modified Organisms and its Unlikely Connection to Customer Satisfaction with YouTube. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The International Institute for Outlandish Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The Cotton Candy Conundrum: Genetically Modified Organisms and its Unlikely Connection to Customer Satisfaction with YouTube with an abstract of In this paper, we investigate the unexpected and whimsical link between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton production in Arkansas and customer satisfaction with YouTube. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we present a statistical analysis that reveals a surprising correlation between these two seemingly disparate entities. Our findings demonstrate a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8317888 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2010 to 2021. Our research sheds light on this peculiar relationship and highlights the need for further investigation into the whimsical world of GMOs and customer satisfaction with online platforms. This paper aims to entertain and enlighten researchers, industry professionals, and enthusiasts alike, as we uncover the unlikely connection between biotechnology and the digital realm.

ChatGPT:

genetically modified organisms, GMO, cotton production, Arkansas, customer satisfaction, YouTube, United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, American Customer Satisfaction Index, statistical analysis, correlation coefficient, p-value, biotechnology, digital realm

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

Customer satisfaction with YouTube
Source: American Customer Satisfaction Index
See what else correlates with Customer satisfaction with YouTube

Correlation r = 0.8317888 (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 = 0.6918726 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 69.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Customer satisfaction with YouTube) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in cotton in Arkansas) over the 12 years from 2010 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.00079. 0.0007938154332999507000000000
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 0.079% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,260 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 11 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 11 because we have two variables measured over a period of 12 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.

[ 0.49, 0.95 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
GMO use in cotton in Arkansas (GMO cotton %)767377637480847976827578
Customer satisfaction with YouTube (Consumer Satisfaction)737473717376777475787576




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.




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([76,73,77,63,74,80,84,79,76,82,75,78,])
array_2 = np.array([73,74,73,71,73,76,77,74,75,78,75,76,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in cotton in Arkansas"
array_2_name = "Customer satisfaction with YouTube"

# 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?

I'm grateful for your review!


Correlation ID: 1201 · Black Variable ID: 791 · Red Variable ID: 19874
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0