about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,337 · 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 corn grown in South Dakota and the second variable is Google searches for 'shook'.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2023, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The GM corn was allergic to outdated dance moves. As the GMO use decreased, the corn felt less inclined to do the electric slide and the macarena, leading to an overall decrease in shook-ness. A-maize-ing, isn't it? Corny, but true!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [A scene from A Disney Movie] A farmer tends to rows of tall, healthy corn plants in a vast South Dakota cornfield. The vibrant green leaves of the plants sway gently in the breeze. Small signs among the rows indicate that the crop is genetically modified. Nearby, in a farmhouse, a person sits at a wooden table with a laptop open. The screen displays a Google search for the word 'shook', with the familiar Google logo at the top of the page. The person types in the search bar, surrounded by the quiet hum of the rural setting outside. 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: "South Dakota's Decrease in GMO Corn Use Linked to Drop in Internet 'Shook' Searches: Farmers' Union Credits Magical Corn Pixies for Calming Online Population.". 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: Vaporwave Voxel art Sci-fi fantacy An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie A scene from Skyrim
ChatGPT: A scene from A Disney Movie

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 prominently depicts both GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota and Google searches for 'shook' Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a vast cornfield in South Dakota, a farmer is tending to rows of tall, healthy corn plants. The stalks sway gently in the breeze, their leaves a vibrant shade of green. Among the rows, there are small signs indicating that this crop is genetically modified. Meanwhile, in a nearby farmhouse, a person is seated at a wooden table with a laptop open. The screen prominently displays a Google search for the word 'shook', with the familiar Google logo at the top of the page. The person is typing in the search bar, surrounded by the quiet hum of the rural setting outside.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A scene from A Disney Movie ] and depicting this scene: In a vast cornfield in South Dakota, a farmer is tending to rows of tall, healthy corn plants. The stalks sway gently in the breeze, their leaves a vibrant shade of green. Among the rows, there are small signs indicating that this crop is genetically modified. Meanwhile, in a nearby farmhouse, a person is seated at a wooden table with a laptop open. The screen prominently displays a Google search for the word 'shook', with the familiar Google logo at the top of the page. The person is typing in the search bar, surrounded by the quiet hum of the rural setting outside. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [A scene from A Disney Movie] A farmer tends to rows of tall, healthy corn plants in a vast South Dakota cornfield. The vibrant green leaves of the plants sway gently in the breeze. Small signs among the rows indicate that the crop is genetically modified. Nearby, in a farmhouse, a person sits at a wooden table with a laptop open. The screen displays a Google search for the word 'shook', with the familiar Google logo at the top of the page. The person types in the search bar, surrounded by the quiet hum of the rural setting outside.

*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 corn grown in South Dakota caused shook (Google searches for 'shook') to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
GMO Growth in South Dakota: Gauging Googled 'Shook' Searches

Journal of Agricultural Internet Trends

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 corn grown in South Dakota and Google searches for 'shook'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title an alliteration.

Your research team used data from USDA and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9222313 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2023.

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 Growth in South Dakota: Gauging Googled 'Shook' Searches

[[ABSTRACT]]
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been a hot potato in agricultural discussions, and their potential impact on public sentiment cannot be corn-pletely dismissed. In this study, we delve into the connection between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the Google searches for 'shook'. To measure this, we utilized data from the USDA and Google Trends, capturing the period from 2004 to 2023.

Our results produced a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9222313 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a statistically significant association between the increased use of GMO corn and the surge in 'shook' searches on Google. It seems that the trend has definitely sprouted some raised eyebrows.

Moreover, our findings provide food for thought on the influence of agricultural practices on popular culture and language trends. This research sheds light on the corn-nection between GMO proliferation and the public's emotional responses, plowing through the correlation with a hearty 'corn-gratulations'.

Remember, folks, when it comes to GMOs and Google searches, sometimes the results can leave you feeling a-maize-d.


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 corn grown in South Dakota and Google searches for 'shook'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
GMO Growth in South Dakota: Gauging Googled 'Shook' Searches

[[ABSTRACT]]
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been a hot potato in agricultural discussions, and their potential impact on public sentiment cannot be corn-pletely dismissed. In this study, we delve into the connection between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the Google searches for 'shook'. To measure this, we utilized data from the USDA and Google Trends, capturing the period from 2004 to 2023.

Our results produced a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9222313 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a statistically significant association between the increased use of GMO corn and the surge in 'shook' searches on Google. It seems that the trend has definitely sprouted some raised eyebrows.

Moreover, our findings provide food for thought on the influence of agricultural practices on popular culture and language trends. This research sheds light on the corn-nection between GMO proliferation and the public's emotional responses, plowing through the correlation with a hearty 'corn-gratulations'.

Remember, folks, when it comes to GMOs and Google searches, sometimes the results can leave you feeling a-maize-d.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The agricultural landscape has seen a kernel of controversy over the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly in the cultivation of corn. This debate has not only stirred the farming community but has also seeped into the popular lexicon, with discussions often resulting in some 'corny' humor. However, amidst the chuckles and puns, there exists a serious exploration of the potential impact of GMO use on public sentiment and language trends. In this paper, we plow through the association between the cultivation of GMO corn in South Dakota and the intriguing surge in Google searches for 'shook', aiming to separate the husk from the corn in this curious correlation.

Indeed, dissecting the connection between genetically modified corn and Google searches for 'shook' might seem like a maize-ingly unusual pursuit, but humor us for a moment as we delve into this unintentionally cultivated linguistic phenomenon. After all, it's important to understand the ear-resistible links between agricultural practices and cultural expressions. As we sow the seeds of inquiry, our aim is to harvest a greater understanding of how GMOs may be entwined with the rhythms of public discourse and curiosity.

But before we jump into the field of results and discussion, let's not shuck away from acknowledging the comedic element in this investigation. A wise farmer once said, "I'm outstanding in my field," and while we're not ones to 'cob'ble together too many puns, we hope to plant a smile on your face as we navigate through the serious business of statistical analysis and linguistic intrigue. So, buckle up and prepare to be a-maize-d by the findings that sprout forth from this unconventional association.


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 corn grown in South Dakota and Google searches for 'shook'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
GMO Growth in South Dakota: Gauging Googled 'Shook' Searches

[[ABSTRACT]]
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been a hot potato in agricultural discussions, and their potential impact on public sentiment cannot be corn-pletely dismissed. In this study, we delve into the connection between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the Google searches for 'shook'. To measure this, we utilized data from the USDA and Google Trends, capturing the period from 2004 to 2023.

Our results produced a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9222313 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a statistically significant association between the increased use of GMO corn and the surge in 'shook' searches on Google. It seems that the trend has definitely sprouted some raised eyebrows.

Moreover, our findings provide food for thought on the influence of agricultural practices on popular culture and language trends. This research sheds light on the corn-nection between GMO proliferation and the public's emotional responses, plowing through the correlation with a hearty 'corn-gratulations'.

Remember, folks, when it comes to GMOs and Google searches, sometimes the results can leave you feeling a-maize-d.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The agricultural landscape has seen a kernel of controversy over the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly in the cultivation of corn. This debate has not only stirred the farming community but has also seeped into the popular lexicon, with discussions often resulting in some 'corny' humor. However, amidst the chuckles and puns, there exists a serious exploration of the potential impact of GMO use on public sentiment and language trends. In this paper, we plow through the association between the cultivation of GMO corn in South Dakota and the intriguing surge in Google searches for 'shook', aiming to separate the husk from the corn in this curious correlation.
Indeed, dissecting the connection between genetically modified corn and Google searches for 'shook' might seem like a maize-ingly unusual pursuit, but humor us for a moment as we delve into this unintentionally cultivated linguistic phenomenon. After all, it's important to understand the ear-resistible links between agricultural practices and cultural expressions. As we sow the seeds of inquiry, our aim is to harvest a greater understanding of how GMOs may be entwined with the rhythms of public discourse and curiosity.
But before we jump into the field of results and discussion, let's not shuck away from acknowledging the comedic element in this investigation. A wise farmer once said, "I'm outstanding in my field," and while we're not ones to 'cob'ble together too many puns, we hope to plant a smile on your face as we navigate through the serious business of statistical analysis and linguistic intrigue. So, buckle up and prepare to be a-maize-d by the findings that sprout forth from this unconventional association.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The literature examining the relationship between agricultural practices and linguistic trends offers valuable insights into the ways in which societal phenomena intersect with language usage. Smith, in "Agricultural Influences on Linguistic Trends," explores the intricate connections between farming practices and the evolution of popular expressions. Doe, in "The Cultivation of Language: A Harvest of Words," delves into the impact of agricultural developments on the lexicon, uncovering surprising correlations between farming techniques and linguistic shifts. Jones, in "GMOs and the Semantics of Agriculture," provides a comprehensive analysis of the influence of genetically modified organisms on language usage, shedding light on the emergence of agricultural terms in everyday speech.

In a related vein, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond offer valuable perspectives on the intricate interplay between food production and societal dynamics, setting the stage for our investigation into the connection between GMO corn cultivation and linguistic curiosity.

Transitioning into the realm of fiction, "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck and "The Lord of the Rings" by J.R.R. Tolkien, while not directly addressing agricultural practices, provide compelling narratives that highlight the profound impact of environmental factors on human behavior and cultural expressions.

Moving away from conventional academic sources, the authors turned to unconventional avenues for inspiration, including the back covers of shampoo bottles and fortune cookie messages. While these unconventional sources may elicit some raised eyebrows, they yielded valuable insights into the diverse ways in which linguistic trends can be influenced by unexpected factors.

Indeed, while the quest for knowledge may lead us down unexpected paths, it's essential to approach research with both rigor and a sense of humor, recognizing the inherent whimsy in unraveling the mysteries of human language and behavior.


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 corn grown in South Dakota and Google searches for 'shook'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2023

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 Growth in South Dakota: Gauging Googled 'Shook' Searches

[[ABSTRACT]]
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been a hot potato in agricultural discussions, and their potential impact on public sentiment cannot be corn-pletely dismissed. In this study, we delve into the connection between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the Google searches for 'shook'. To measure this, we utilized data from the USDA and Google Trends, capturing the period from 2004 to 2023.

Our results produced a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9222313 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a statistically significant association between the increased use of GMO corn and the surge in 'shook' searches on Google. It seems that the trend has definitely sprouted some raised eyebrows.

Moreover, our findings provide food for thought on the influence of agricultural practices on popular culture and language trends. This research sheds light on the corn-nection between GMO proliferation and the public's emotional responses, plowing through the correlation with a hearty 'corn-gratulations'.

Remember, folks, when it comes to GMOs and Google searches, sometimes the results can leave you feeling a-maize-d.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The agricultural landscape has seen a kernel of controversy over the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly in the cultivation of corn. This debate has not only stirred the farming community but has also seeped into the popular lexicon, with discussions often resulting in some 'corny' humor. However, amidst the chuckles and puns, there exists a serious exploration of the potential impact of GMO use on public sentiment and language trends. In this paper, we plow through the association between the cultivation of GMO corn in South Dakota and the intriguing surge in Google searches for 'shook', aiming to separate the husk from the corn in this curious correlation.
Indeed, dissecting the connection between genetically modified corn and Google searches for 'shook' might seem like a maize-ingly unusual pursuit, but humor us for a moment as we delve into this unintentionally cultivated linguistic phenomenon. After all, it's important to understand the ear-resistible links between agricultural practices and cultural expressions. As we sow the seeds of inquiry, our aim is to harvest a greater understanding of how GMOs may be entwined with the rhythms of public discourse and curiosity.
But before we jump into the field of results and discussion, let's not shuck away from acknowledging the comedic element in this investigation. A wise farmer once said, "I'm outstanding in my field," and while we're not ones to 'cob'ble together too many puns, we hope to plant a smile on your face as we navigate through the serious business of statistical analysis and linguistic intrigue. So, buckle up and prepare to be a-maize-d by the findings that sprout forth from this unconventional association.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Gathering data for this study was no small popcorn task. Our intrepid research team scoured the vast fields of the internet, trekking through agricultural databases like the USDA and conducting some serious detective work on Google Trends. Our data collection spanned the years between 2004 and 2023, capturing the evolution of both GMO adoption and 'shook' searches.

To kick things off, our first step was to husk through the USDA's treasure trove of agricultural data like a farmer peeling back the layers of corn husks. We obtained information on the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and its growth over the years, meticulously sifting through statistics like a keen-eyed corn farmer searching for the plumpest ear of knowledge. Our team also navigated through Google Trends to harvest the frequency and intensity of 'shook' searches.

Dad joke break: Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field!

Next, we needed to churn through the collected data to tease out any potential associations between GMO corn adoption and 'shook' searches. We enlisted the help of statistical software, treating the data like kernels of truth waiting to be popped into significance. Utilizing the Pearson correlation coefficient, we sought to crack open the cob and separate the genetically modified wheat from the chaff.

Like a diligent farmer, we plowed through the statistical analyses, carefully tilling the soil of data to unearth any telltale signs of a correlation. Our quest for statistical significance was as thorough as a farmer checking every row of a cornfield for the perfect ear.

Dad joke break: What do you call a group of musical farmers? A crop circle!

After conducting our analysis, we arrived at a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9222313, indicating a strong positive association between the increased use of GMO corn and the surge in Google searches for 'shook'. Our calculated p-value was less than 0.01, reinforcing the statistically significant connection between the two variables. It appears that the GMO trend has indeed planted some seeds of surprise in the field of public interest and linguistic curiosity.

In addition to the quantitative analyses, we also conducted qualitative assessments to glean insights into the potential cultural impact of GMO adoption on the popular lexicon. We dug deep, akin to a farmer harvesting root vegetables, to understand how GMO proliferation might have inadvertently cultivated a linguistic phenomenon.

Dad joke break: What do you get when you cross a snowman and a vampire? Frostbite!

Our final step involved plowing through the association between GMO proliferation and the sudden interest in 'shook' searches, acknowledging the potential implications for public sentiment and language trends.

Stay tuned for the fruitful harvest of our results in the following section!


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 corn grown in South Dakota and Google searches for 'shook'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

For the time period 2004 to 2023, you found a correlation 0.9222313, r-squared of 0.8505106, 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 Growth in South Dakota: Gauging Googled 'Shook' Searches

[[ABSTRACT]]
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been a hot potato in agricultural discussions, and their potential impact on public sentiment cannot be corn-pletely dismissed. In this study, we delve into the connection between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the Google searches for 'shook'. To measure this, we utilized data from the USDA and Google Trends, capturing the period from 2004 to 2023.

Our results produced a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9222313 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a statistically significant association between the increased use of GMO corn and the surge in 'shook' searches on Google. It seems that the trend has definitely sprouted some raised eyebrows.

Moreover, our findings provide food for thought on the influence of agricultural practices on popular culture and language trends. This research sheds light on the corn-nection between GMO proliferation and the public's emotional responses, plowing through the correlation with a hearty 'corn-gratulations'.

Remember, folks, when it comes to GMOs and Google searches, sometimes the results can leave you feeling a-maize-d.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The agricultural landscape has seen a kernel of controversy over the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly in the cultivation of corn. This debate has not only stirred the farming community but has also seeped into the popular lexicon, with discussions often resulting in some 'corny' humor. However, amidst the chuckles and puns, there exists a serious exploration of the potential impact of GMO use on public sentiment and language trends. In this paper, we plow through the association between the cultivation of GMO corn in South Dakota and the intriguing surge in Google searches for 'shook', aiming to separate the husk from the corn in this curious correlation.
Indeed, dissecting the connection between genetically modified corn and Google searches for 'shook' might seem like a maize-ingly unusual pursuit, but humor us for a moment as we delve into this unintentionally cultivated linguistic phenomenon. After all, it's important to understand the ear-resistible links between agricultural practices and cultural expressions. As we sow the seeds of inquiry, our aim is to harvest a greater understanding of how GMOs may be entwined with the rhythms of public discourse and curiosity.
But before we jump into the field of results and discussion, let's not shuck away from acknowledging the comedic element in this investigation. A wise farmer once said, "I'm outstanding in my field," and while we're not ones to 'cob'ble together too many puns, we hope to plant a smile on your face as we navigate through the serious business of statistical analysis and linguistic intrigue. So, buckle up and prepare to be a-maize-d by the findings that sprout forth from this unconventional association.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The data analysis revealed a strong positive correlation of 0.9222313 between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'shook' from 2004 to 2023. This correlation indicates a robust relationship between the two variables, suggesting that as the use of GMO corn increased, so did the occurrence of 'shook' searches on Google. It's clear that this correlation is not just a-maize-ing coincidence!

Fig. 1 depicts the scatterplot illustrating this significant correlation, with the data points forming a beautiful pattern that's more than just a-maize-ing to behold. It's a-maize-ing how data visualization can really ear-k a reaction from viewers, isn't it?

The r-squared value of 0.8505106 further substantiates the strength of the relationship between GMO corn use and 'shook' searches. This value indicates that a whopping 85.05% of the variation in 'shook' searches can be explained by the variation in GMO corn adoption. As they say, the husk doesn't fall far from the corn plant!

Additionally, the p-value of less than 0.01 emphasizes the statistical significance of this association. This means that the likelihood of observing such a strong relationship between GMO corn use and 'shook' searches by random chance is as rare as finding a kernel of truth in corny jokes – in other words, it's as rare as hen's teeth!

In conclusion, our findings highlight the unexpected connection between GMO corn cultivation and the popularization of 'shook' in the digital sphere. It's clear that the influence of agricultural practices extends beyond the fields and into the realm of internet culture. As we further digest these results, it's clear that the influence of GMOs on language trends is not to be corn-veniently overlooked.



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 corn grown in South Dakota and Google searches for 'shook'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
GMO Growth in South Dakota: Gauging Googled 'Shook' Searches

[[ABSTRACT]]
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been a hot potato in agricultural discussions, and their potential impact on public sentiment cannot be corn-pletely dismissed. In this study, we delve into the connection between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the Google searches for 'shook'. To measure this, we utilized data from the USDA and Google Trends, capturing the period from 2004 to 2023.

Our results produced a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9222313 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a statistically significant association between the increased use of GMO corn and the surge in 'shook' searches on Google. It seems that the trend has definitely sprouted some raised eyebrows.

Moreover, our findings provide food for thought on the influence of agricultural practices on popular culture and language trends. This research sheds light on the corn-nection between GMO proliferation and the public's emotional responses, plowing through the correlation with a hearty 'corn-gratulations'.

Remember, folks, when it comes to GMOs and Google searches, sometimes the results can leave you feeling a-maize-d.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The literature examining the relationship between agricultural practices and linguistic trends offers valuable insights into the ways in which societal phenomena intersect with language usage. Smith, in "Agricultural Influences on Linguistic Trends," explores the intricate connections between farming practices and the evolution of popular expressions. Doe, in "The Cultivation of Language: A Harvest of Words," delves into the impact of agricultural developments on the lexicon, uncovering surprising correlations between farming techniques and linguistic shifts. Jones, in "GMOs and the Semantics of Agriculture," provides a comprehensive analysis of the influence of genetically modified organisms on language usage, shedding light on the emergence of agricultural terms in everyday speech.
In a related vein, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond offer valuable perspectives on the intricate interplay between food production and societal dynamics, setting the stage for our investigation into the connection between GMO corn cultivation and linguistic curiosity.
Transitioning into the realm of fiction, "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck and "The Lord of the Rings" by J.R.R. Tolkien, while not directly addressing agricultural practices, provide compelling narratives that highlight the profound impact of environmental factors on human behavior and cultural expressions.
Moving away from conventional academic sources, the authors turned to unconventional avenues for inspiration, including the back covers of shampoo bottles and fortune cookie messages. While these unconventional sources may elicit some raised eyebrows, they yielded valuable insights into the diverse ways in which linguistic trends can be influenced by unexpected factors.
Indeed, while the quest for knowledge may lead us down unexpected paths, it's essential to approach research with both rigor and a sense of humor, recognizing the inherent whimsy in unraveling the mysteries of human language and behavior.

[[RESULTS]]
The data analysis revealed a strong positive correlation of 0.9222313 between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'shook' from 2004 to 2023. This correlation indicates a robust relationship between the two variables, suggesting that as the use of GMO corn increased, so did the occurrence of 'shook' searches on Google. It's clear that this correlation is not just a-maize-ing coincidence!
Fig. 1 depicts the scatterplot illustrating this significant correlation, with the data points forming a beautiful pattern that's more than just a-maize-ing to behold. It's a-maize-ing how data visualization can really ear-k a reaction from viewers, isn't it?
The r-squared value of 0.8505106 further substantiates the strength of the relationship between GMO corn use and 'shook' searches. This value indicates that a whopping 85.05% of the variation in 'shook' searches can be explained by the variation in GMO corn adoption. As they say, the husk doesn't fall far from the corn plant!
Additionally, the p-value of less than 0.01 emphasizes the statistical significance of this association. This means that the likelihood of observing such a strong relationship between GMO corn use and 'shook' searches by random chance is as rare as finding a kernel of truth in corny jokes – in other words, it's as rare as hen's teeth!
In conclusion, our findings highlight the unexpected connection between GMO corn cultivation and the popularization of 'shook' in the digital sphere. It's clear that the influence of agricultural practices extends beyond the fields and into the realm of internet culture. As we further digest these results, it's clear that the influence of GMOs on language trends is not to be corn-veniently overlooked.


-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study suggest a strong and statistically significant correlation between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the surge in Google searches for 'shook'. This finding aligns with the prior research on the influence of agricultural practices on language usage, as illuminated by Smith, Doe, and Jones. It appears that our study has corn-firmed their insights and brought new kernels of understanding to light.

As we contemplated the substantial relationship uncovered in our analysis, we couldn't help but recall the unusual sources of inspiration we discussed in the literature review. In particular, the unorthodox sources such as the back covers of shampoo bottles and fortune cookie messages, initially met with skepticism, have proven to offer remarkable parallels to our findings. Much like the unexpected wisdom found in a fortune cookie, our results have served up a surprising revelation about the impact of GMO corn on linguistic trends.

The robust correlation coefficient of 0.9222313 not only corroborates the hypotheses put forth in the literature review but also solidifies the notion that the influence of agricultural innovations extends beyond the production line. It's as if GMO corn has sown the seeds of linguistic curiosity, causing the public to be 'shook' by its pervasive presence. It just goes to show that when it comes to GMOs, the impact reaches far beyond the ear of corn.

Furthermore, the high explanatory power of the r-squared value of 0.8505106 underscores the extent to which the increase in 'shook' searches can be attributed to the adoption of GMO corn. This finding is nothing short of groundbreaking, and one might say it's as surprising as finding a corny joke in a kids' lunchbox – a-maize-ing and unexpected. It appears that the influence of GMOs is not just confined to crop yields but extends into the linguistic landscape, harvesting a new dimension of public engagement.

In essence, our findings serve as a testament to the unanticipated interconnectedness between agricultural practices and language evolution. It's almost as if GMOs have planted the seeds of linguistic innovation, sprouting a lexicon that reflects the influence of modern agricultural techniques. As our study has demonstrated, the impact of GMOs reaches far beyond the fields of South Dakota, permeating into the digital realm and cultivating a linguistic landscape that has left many feeling 'shook'. As they say, when it comes to GMOs, the results can corn-firm expectations and churn out some unexpected insights.


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 corn grown in South Dakota and Google searches for 'shook'. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
GMO Growth in South Dakota: Gauging Googled 'Shook' Searches

[[ABSTRACT]]
Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been a hot potato in agricultural discussions, and their potential impact on public sentiment cannot be corn-pletely dismissed. In this study, we delve into the connection between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the Google searches for 'shook'. To measure this, we utilized data from the USDA and Google Trends, capturing the period from 2004 to 2023.

Our results produced a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9222313 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a statistically significant association between the increased use of GMO corn and the surge in 'shook' searches on Google. It seems that the trend has definitely sprouted some raised eyebrows.

Moreover, our findings provide food for thought on the influence of agricultural practices on popular culture and language trends. This research sheds light on the corn-nection between GMO proliferation and the public's emotional responses, plowing through the correlation with a hearty 'corn-gratulations'.

Remember, folks, when it comes to GMOs and Google searches, sometimes the results can leave you feeling a-maize-d.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The agricultural landscape has seen a kernel of controversy over the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly in the cultivation of corn. This debate has not only stirred the farming community but has also seeped into the popular lexicon, with discussions often resulting in some 'corny' humor. However, amidst the chuckles and puns, there exists a serious exploration of the potential impact of GMO use on public sentiment and language trends. In this paper, we plow through the association between the cultivation of GMO corn in South Dakota and the intriguing surge in Google searches for 'shook', aiming to separate the husk from the corn in this curious correlation.
Indeed, dissecting the connection between genetically modified corn and Google searches for 'shook' might seem like a maize-ingly unusual pursuit, but humor us for a moment as we delve into this unintentionally cultivated linguistic phenomenon. After all, it's important to understand the ear-resistible links between agricultural practices and cultural expressions. As we sow the seeds of inquiry, our aim is to harvest a greater understanding of how GMOs may be entwined with the rhythms of public discourse and curiosity.
But before we jump into the field of results and discussion, let's not shuck away from acknowledging the comedic element in this investigation. A wise farmer once said, "I'm outstanding in my field," and while we're not ones to 'cob'ble together too many puns, we hope to plant a smile on your face as we navigate through the serious business of statistical analysis and linguistic intrigue. So, buckle up and prepare to be a-maize-d by the findings that sprout forth from this unconventional association.

[[RESULTS]]
The data analysis revealed a strong positive correlation of 0.9222313 between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the frequency of Google searches for 'shook' from 2004 to 2023. This correlation indicates a robust relationship between the two variables, suggesting that as the use of GMO corn increased, so did the occurrence of 'shook' searches on Google. It's clear that this correlation is not just a-maize-ing coincidence!
Fig. 1 depicts the scatterplot illustrating this significant correlation, with the data points forming a beautiful pattern that's more than just a-maize-ing to behold. It's a-maize-ing how data visualization can really ear-k a reaction from viewers, isn't it?
The r-squared value of 0.8505106 further substantiates the strength of the relationship between GMO corn use and 'shook' searches. This value indicates that a whopping 85.05% of the variation in 'shook' searches can be explained by the variation in GMO corn adoption. As they say, the husk doesn't fall far from the corn plant!
Additionally, the p-value of less than 0.01 emphasizes the statistical significance of this association. This means that the likelihood of observing such a strong relationship between GMO corn use and 'shook' searches by random chance is as rare as finding a kernel of truth in corny jokes – in other words, it's as rare as hen's teeth!
In conclusion, our findings highlight the unexpected connection between GMO corn cultivation and the popularization of 'shook' in the digital sphere. It's clear that the influence of agricultural practices extends beyond the fields and into the realm of internet culture. As we further digest these results, it's clear that the influence of GMOs on language trends is not to be corn-veniently overlooked.


-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In this study, we have harvested some truly a-maize-ing findings regarding the correlation between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the surge in Google searches for 'shook'. Our results undoubtedly have ear-ned attention and offer a kernel of insight into the intertwining of agricultural practices and digital language trends. It seems that when it comes to GMOs and Google searches, the correlation is as clear as day – it's not just cob-nected, it's corn-firmed!

As we reflect on these results, let's not forget the importance of humor in navigating through unconventional research topics. Just like a good corny joke, this correlation has certainly ear-ned a chuckle or two, reminding us that statistical analyses can sometimes lead to ear-resistible conclusions.

In closing, it's safe to say that our study has indeed kernel-ed plenty of intrigue and perhaps a few groans from those who can't resist a dad joke or two. Therefore, with these compelling findings in mind, we assert that no further research on the connection between GMO use in South Dakota and Google searches for 'shook' is needed. The relationship has been corn-firmed, and it's time to let this topic husk away into the annals of agricultural and linguistic lore.


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 Growth in South Dakota: Gauging Googled 'Shook' Searches. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Agricultural Internet Trends


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 Growth in South Dakota: Gauging Googled 'Shook' Searches. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Agricultural Innovation and Sustainable Development (CAISD)


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 Growth in South Dakota: Gauging Googled 'Shook' Searches with an abstract of Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been a hot potato in agricultural discussions, and their potential impact on public sentiment cannot be corn-pletely dismissed. In this study, we delve into the connection between the adoption of GMO corn in South Dakota and the Google searches for 'shook'. To measure this, we utilized data from the USDA and Google Trends, capturing the period from 2004 to 2023.
Our results produced a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9222313 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a statistically significant association between the increased use of GMO corn and the surge in 'shook' searches on Google. It seems that the trend has definitely sprouted some raised eyebrows.
Moreover, our findings provide food for thought on the influence of agricultural practices on popular culture and language trends. This research sheds light on the corn-nection between GMO proliferation and the public's emotional responses, plowing through the correlation with a hearty 'corn-gratulations'.
Remember, folks, when it comes to GMOs and Google searches, sometimes the results can leave you feeling a-maize-d.

ChatGPT:

GMO, genetically modified organisms, corn, South Dakota, adoption, agriculture, Google searches, public sentiment, USDA data, Google Trends, correlation coefficient, statistical significance, popular culture, language trends, agricultural practices, emotional responses, proliferation, influence

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

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

See what else correlates with Google searches for 'shook'

Correlation r = 0.9222313 (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 = 0.8505106 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 85.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'shook') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota) over the 20 years from 2004 through 2023.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 7.4E-9. 0.0000000074333618260925980000
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 0.92 in 7.4E-7% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 134,528,632 random variables You don't actually need 134 million variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 19 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 19 because we have two variables measured over a period of 20 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.

[ 0.81, 0.97 ] 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.
20042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023
GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota (GMO corn %)30313234302529252312141316171512118105
Google searches for 'shook' (Rel. search volume)75.2584.7576.2569.083366.416772.7569.583363.583357.2555.916752.166752.583350.583360.333356.083351.333345.333341.916742.666739.9




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([30,31,32,34,30,25,29,25,23,12,14,13,16,17,15,12,11,8,10,5,])
array_2 = np.array([75.25,84.75,76.25,69.0833,66.4167,72.75,69.5833,63.5833,57.25,55.9167,52.1667,52.5833,50.5833,60.3333,56.0833,51.3333,45.3333,41.9167,42.6667,39.9,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'shook'"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating is stellar!


Correlation ID: 1337 · Black Variable ID: 735 · Red Variable ID: 1372
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0