about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,365 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Popularity of the first name Lila and the second variable is GMO use in corn grown in Ohio.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the number of Lilas rose, so did the corn's appeal-a-maize. It seems that Lila's growing popularity somehow cultivated a heightened demand for genetically modified corn in Ohio. Perhaps it's because Lila sounds like a hybrid of Lilac and Maize, and as her name flourished, so did the expectation for corn to be as popular and in-demand as she is. It's a-maize-ing how Lila's name could have kernel of influence on agricultural practices!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: "Generate an image of a bustling Ohio farmers' market, captured in the style of Art Nouveau. Within this scene, brightly smiling children enthusiastically gather around a booth selling sweet corn with a sign that proudly announces "GMO-Free Lila's Corn". Nearby, a beaming young girl named Lila joyfully assists her family in distributing free samples to a growing crowd of inquisitive shoppers. Showcase the excitement and popularity surrounding both Lila and the non-GMO corn, as people eagerly line up to taste the delicious and responsibly grown produce. Ensure the visual is simplistic and free from any textual elements or speech bubbles." The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Popularity of the first name Lila and GMO use in corn grown in Ohio. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Cutsy graphics Parallax art A scene from Skyrim A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s Art nouveau
ChatGPT: Art nouveau

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Popularity of the first name Lila and GMO use in corn grown in Ohio together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a bustling Ohio farmers' market, a group of smiling children eagerly gather around a booth selling sweet corn. The sign proudly proclaims "GMO-Free Lila's Corn". Nearby, a young girl named Lila beams as she helps her family hand out free samples to the growing crowd of curious shoppers. A sense of excitement and popularity surrounds both Lila and the non-GMO corn, as people eagerly line up to taste the delicious and responsibly grown produce.

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: [ Art nouveau ] and depicting this scene: In a bustling Ohio farmers' market, a group of smiling children eagerly gather around a booth selling sweet corn. The sign proudly proclaims "GMO-Free Lila's Corn". Nearby, a young girl named Lila beams as she helps her family hand out free samples to the growing crowd of curious shoppers. A sense of excitement and popularity surrounds both Lila and the non-GMO corn, as people eagerly line up to taste the delicious and responsibly grown produce. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: "Generate an image of a bustling Ohio farmers' market, captured in the style of Art Nouveau. Within this scene, brightly smiling children enthusiastically gather around a booth selling sweet corn with a sign that proudly announces "GMO-Free Lila's Corn". Nearby, a beaming young girl named Lila joyfully assists her family in distributing free samples to a growing crowd of inquisitive shoppers. Showcase the excitement and popularity surrounding both Lila and the non-GMO corn, as people eagerly line up to taste the delicious and responsibly grown produce. Ensure the visual is simplistic and free from any textual elements or speech bubbles."

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

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Popularity of the first name Lila caused GMO use in corn grown in Ohio to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Corny Connection: Lila's Popularity and GMO Propensity in Ohio

The Journal of Agri-Humor Studies

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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Lila and GMO use in corn grown in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from US Social Security Administration and USDA to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9186638 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2022.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
The Corny Connection: Lila's Popularity and GMO Propensity in Ohio

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between the prevalence of the moniker "Lila" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in the state of Ohio. Merging data derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, our research team embarked on a quest to ascertain whether there exists a substantive correlation between the two ostensibly unrelated phenomena. Employing robust statistical analysis, we uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9186638 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the temporal span from 2000 to 2022.

The findings present an intriguing puzzle, prompting us to ponder whether there might be an invisible thread connecting the popularity of the name "Lila" and the adoption of GMO technology in Ohio's cornfields. As we traverse the delightful and labyrinthine terrain of statistical correlations, let us not dismiss the possibility of a whimsical, yet meaningful, connection between the ebb and flow of baby name trends and agricultural practices. Our research infuses a spirit of mirth and surprise into the oftentimes somber domain of empirical inquiry, beckoning scholars to relish the whimsical elements that entwine themselves into the fabric of scientific investigation. Let the corny antics begin!


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Lila and GMO use in corn grown in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Corny Connection: Lila's Popularity and GMO Propensity in Ohio

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between the prevalence of the moniker "Lila" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in the state of Ohio. Merging data derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, our research team embarked on a quest to ascertain whether there exists a substantive correlation between the two ostensibly unrelated phenomena. Employing robust statistical analysis, we uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9186638 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the temporal span from 2000 to 2022.

The findings present an intriguing puzzle, prompting us to ponder whether there might be an invisible thread connecting the popularity of the name "Lila" and the adoption of GMO technology in Ohio's cornfields. As we traverse the delightful and labyrinthine terrain of statistical correlations, let us not dismiss the possibility of a whimsical, yet meaningful, connection between the ebb and flow of baby name trends and agricultural practices. Our research infuses a spirit of mirth and surprise into the oftentimes somber domain of empirical inquiry, beckoning scholars to relish the whimsical elements that entwine themselves into the fabric of scientific investigation. Let the corny antics begin!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Ah, the enigmatic web of correlations and connections that we encounter in the realm of research never ceases to amuse and bemuse. Who would have thought that the popularity of a name could hold any sway over the cultivation of corn, especially in the heartland of Ohio? Yet, here we are, diving headfirst into the whimsical world of statistical oddities and agricultural antics, armed with data and a healthy dose of skepticism.

You see, dear reader, while some may dismiss the linkage between the prevalence of the name "Lila" and the prevalence of GMOs in Ohio's cornfields as a mere coincidence or the product of an overactive imagination, we are here to shed light on the peculiar synchronicities that tease and tantalize the discerning researcher's mind. Is there truly a kernel of truth to be found in this seemingly corny connection?

Sure, we could have settled for more conventional topics, but where's the fun in that? After all, who wouldn't want to uncover the ear-resistible relationship between a name and genetically modified corn? So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a whimsical journey through the crossroads of baby-naming trends and agricultural innovations. It's time to peel back the husk of this captivating mystery and unearth the corny connection that has eluded us for far too long. Let's dive into the land of GMOs, cornfields, and Lila's rise to fame. Shall we?


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Lila and GMO use in corn grown in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Corny Connection: Lila's Popularity and GMO Propensity in Ohio

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between the prevalence of the moniker "Lila" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in the state of Ohio. Merging data derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, our research team embarked on a quest to ascertain whether there exists a substantive correlation between the two ostensibly unrelated phenomena. Employing robust statistical analysis, we uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9186638 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the temporal span from 2000 to 2022.

The findings present an intriguing puzzle, prompting us to ponder whether there might be an invisible thread connecting the popularity of the name "Lila" and the adoption of GMO technology in Ohio's cornfields. As we traverse the delightful and labyrinthine terrain of statistical correlations, let us not dismiss the possibility of a whimsical, yet meaningful, connection between the ebb and flow of baby name trends and agricultural practices. Our research infuses a spirit of mirth and surprise into the oftentimes somber domain of empirical inquiry, beckoning scholars to relish the whimsical elements that entwine themselves into the fabric of scientific investigation. Let the corny antics begin!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the enigmatic web of correlations and connections that we encounter in the realm of research never ceases to amuse and bemuse. Who would have thought that the popularity of a name could hold any sway over the cultivation of corn, especially in the heartland of Ohio? Yet, here we are, diving headfirst into the whimsical world of statistical oddities and agricultural antics, armed with data and a healthy dose of skepticism.
You see, dear reader, while some may dismiss the linkage between the prevalence of the name "Lila" and the prevalence of GMOs in Ohio's cornfields as a mere coincidence or the product of an overactive imagination, we are here to shed light on the peculiar synchronicities that tease and tantalize the discerning researcher's mind. Is there truly a kernel of truth to be found in this seemingly corny connection?
Sure, we could have settled for more conventional topics, but where's the fun in that? After all, who wouldn't want to uncover the ear-resistible relationship between a name and genetically modified corn? So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a whimsical journey through the crossroads of baby-naming trends and agricultural innovations. It's time to peel back the husk of this captivating mystery and unearth the corny connection that has eluded us for far too long. Let's dive into the land of GMOs, cornfields, and Lila's rise to fame. Shall we?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "Smith and Doe," the authors find an intriguing correlation between the popularity of the name "Lila" and the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Ohio's cornfields. As we delve further into this uncommon entanglement, it becomes evident that the interplay between nomenclature trends and agricultural propensities is a conundrum worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself. The statistical analyses conducted by Jones et al. also bolster this unexpected association, raising eyebrows and prompting playful whispers among the research community.

However, moving beyond the serious academia, let us take a turn into the realm of popular non-fiction literature. In "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, a different kind of dilemma arises as we ponder the corny connection between Lila and GMO use in Ohio. As Pollan delves into the intricate web of food production and consumption, one cannot help but wonder if the whims of baby-naming trends also influence the agricultural landscape in unexpected ways. But wait, there's more! "Food, Inc." by Eric Schlosser and "The Botany of Desire" by Michael Pollan further pique our curiosity, shedding light on the corn-centric world and prompting us to question the subtle influences that may be at play, even beyond the realm of conscious human decision-making.

Lest we forget the captivating world of fiction, let us turn our attention to works like "Children of the Corn" by Stephen King and "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood. While these literary gems may not directly address the dearth of "Lila" in their narratives, the corny theme running through them beckons us to ponder the deeper mysteries of agricultural peculiarities and their unexpected intersections with human culture.

Furthermore, a playful nod to childhood recollections leads us to beloved cartoons and children's shows that have subtly intertwined with our understanding of agriculture. From "VeggieTales" to "The Magic School Bus," these joyful representations of farming and food production plant seeds of curiosity in the fertile soil of young minds, preparing them to embrace the whimsical world of statistical oddities and agricultural enigmas.

As we tiptoe through an eclectic garden of literary and visual delights, it becomes abundantly clear that the corny connection between Lila's popularity and GMO use in Ohio's cornfields is not just an academic curiosity; it is a nexus of mirth and surprise, beckoning us to revel in the delightfully unexpected alliances that permeate the fabric of empirical inquiry. So, let us embrace the giggles and guffaws as we traverse this off-kilter landscape, for the corny antics have only just begun!

Now, onwards to our own contribution to this amusing saga of Lila and corn – the corny connection awaits!


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Lila and GMO use in corn grown in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from US Social Security Administration and USDA . You used data from 2000 to 2022

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Corny Connection: Lila's Popularity and GMO Propensity in Ohio

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between the prevalence of the moniker "Lila" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in the state of Ohio. Merging data derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, our research team embarked on a quest to ascertain whether there exists a substantive correlation between the two ostensibly unrelated phenomena. Employing robust statistical analysis, we uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9186638 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the temporal span from 2000 to 2022.

The findings present an intriguing puzzle, prompting us to ponder whether there might be an invisible thread connecting the popularity of the name "Lila" and the adoption of GMO technology in Ohio's cornfields. As we traverse the delightful and labyrinthine terrain of statistical correlations, let us not dismiss the possibility of a whimsical, yet meaningful, connection between the ebb and flow of baby name trends and agricultural practices. Our research infuses a spirit of mirth and surprise into the oftentimes somber domain of empirical inquiry, beckoning scholars to relish the whimsical elements that entwine themselves into the fabric of scientific investigation. Let the corny antics begin!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Ah, the enigmatic web of correlations and connections that we encounter in the realm of research never ceases to amuse and bemuse. Who would have thought that the popularity of a name could hold any sway over the cultivation of corn, especially in the heartland of Ohio? Yet, here we are, diving headfirst into the whimsical world of statistical oddities and agricultural antics, armed with data and a healthy dose of skepticism.
You see, dear reader, while some may dismiss the linkage between the prevalence of the name "Lila" and the prevalence of GMOs in Ohio's cornfields as a mere coincidence or the product of an overactive imagination, we are here to shed light on the peculiar synchronicities that tease and tantalize the discerning researcher's mind. Is there truly a kernel of truth to be found in this seemingly corny connection?
Sure, we could have settled for more conventional topics, but where's the fun in that? After all, who wouldn't want to uncover the ear-resistible relationship between a name and genetically modified corn? So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a whimsical journey through the crossroads of baby-naming trends and agricultural innovations. It's time to peel back the husk of this captivating mystery and unearth the corny connection that has eluded us for far too long. Let's dive into the land of GMOs, cornfields, and Lila's rise to fame. Shall we?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To untangle the cobweb of correlation between the endearingly sweet name "Lila" and the genetically modified corn landscape of Ohio, our research team engaged in a meticulously orchestrated amalgamation of data collection, manipulation, and analysis.

First, we scoured through the extensive archives of the US Social Security Administration to harvest a bounty of data pertaining to the frequency and popularity of the name "Lila" from 2000 to 2022. Our team embraced the challenge of navigating through seas of names to pluck out the ripe statistics on "Lila" and its evolution over time. The surge and ebb of this name's popularity unfolded before our very eyes, akin to the growth pattern of cornstalks dancing in the summer breeze.

Simultaneously, we traversed the digital cornfields of the United States Department of Agriculture to glean copious amounts of data on GMO usage in the corn cultivation of Ohio across the same temporal span. We hustled and bustled through virtual rows of statistical kernels, sifting through the growing abundance of GMO-related metrics, much like diligent farmers tending to their crops.

With the harvest of data in hand, we brewed a cornucopia of statistical concoctions to distill out the essence of correlation between the prevalence of "Lila" and the adoption of GMO technology in Ohio's cornfields. Utilizing rigorous statistical analyses, including Pearson correlation coefficients, regression models, and time series analyses, we sought to peel back the layers of obscurity and sow the seeds of clarity in understanding this seemingly peculiar interconnection.

Furthermore, we employed advanced visualization techniques to craft compelling graphs and figures that would not only elucidate the statistical relationships but also inject a hint of visual whimsy into our scientific endeavor. After all, what's a corny connection without a visual feast of graphs that make your corn-tinue reading?

In sum, our methodology encapsulates the intertwining dance of data collection, analysis, and visualization, culminating in a bountiful harvest of statistical insights that promises to shed light on the tantalizing correlation between the rise of "Lila" and the cultivation of genetically modified corn in the heartland of Ohio. So, embrace your sense of whimsy and embark on this journey with us, as we delve into the cornucopia of statistical correlation and whimsical wonderland of agricultural nomenclature. Let the corny connection reveal itself!


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Lila and GMO use in corn grown in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from US Social Security Administration and USDA .

For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9186638, r-squared of 0.8439431, 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 Corny Connection: Lila's Popularity and GMO Propensity in Ohio

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between the prevalence of the moniker "Lila" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in the state of Ohio. Merging data derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, our research team embarked on a quest to ascertain whether there exists a substantive correlation between the two ostensibly unrelated phenomena. Employing robust statistical analysis, we uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9186638 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the temporal span from 2000 to 2022.

The findings present an intriguing puzzle, prompting us to ponder whether there might be an invisible thread connecting the popularity of the name "Lila" and the adoption of GMO technology in Ohio's cornfields. As we traverse the delightful and labyrinthine terrain of statistical correlations, let us not dismiss the possibility of a whimsical, yet meaningful, connection between the ebb and flow of baby name trends and agricultural practices. Our research infuses a spirit of mirth and surprise into the oftentimes somber domain of empirical inquiry, beckoning scholars to relish the whimsical elements that entwine themselves into the fabric of scientific investigation. Let the corny antics begin!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Ah, the enigmatic web of correlations and connections that we encounter in the realm of research never ceases to amuse and bemuse. Who would have thought that the popularity of a name could hold any sway over the cultivation of corn, especially in the heartland of Ohio? Yet, here we are, diving headfirst into the whimsical world of statistical oddities and agricultural antics, armed with data and a healthy dose of skepticism.
You see, dear reader, while some may dismiss the linkage between the prevalence of the name "Lila" and the prevalence of GMOs in Ohio's cornfields as a mere coincidence or the product of an overactive imagination, we are here to shed light on the peculiar synchronicities that tease and tantalize the discerning researcher's mind. Is there truly a kernel of truth to be found in this seemingly corny connection?
Sure, we could have settled for more conventional topics, but where's the fun in that? After all, who wouldn't want to uncover the ear-resistible relationship between a name and genetically modified corn? So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a whimsical journey through the crossroads of baby-naming trends and agricultural innovations. It's time to peel back the husk of this captivating mystery and unearth the corny connection that has eluded us for far too long. Let's dive into the land of GMOs, cornfields, and Lila's rise to fame. Shall we?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The findings of our research unveil a statistically significant and curiously strong correlation between the frequency of the first name "Lila" and the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the production of corn in Ohio. For the timeframe spanning from 2000 to 2022, our analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9186638, an r-squared of 0.8439431, and a p-value of less than 0.01. In other words, there appears to be a corn-nection between the two variables that cannot be easily brushed off as mere coincidence.

Amidst the stalks of statistical data, our research team stumbled upon a rather cob-foundingly high correlation, challenging conventional notions of causality and leaving us to ponder the puzzling connection between a name and the cultivation of genetically modified corn. Fig. 1 provides a visual depiction of the compelling relationship between the popularity of the name "Lila" and the use of GMOs in Ohio's cornfields, showcasing the remarkably tight clustering of data points that dance along the scatterplot like kernels on an ear of corn.

So, what does this all mean? Could it be that the name "Lila" possesses an inexplicably magnetic appeal, drawing forth the affinity for GMO technology in the heartland of Ohio? Or perhaps it's just a whimsical statistical quirk that tickles the fancy of researchers and defies the conventional boundaries of empirical analysis. One thing's for sure; this corny connection has left us a-maize-d and scratching our heads in contemplation.

As we navigate through the amusing symphony of statistical analysis, it's important to remember that correlations, no matter how perplexing, do not always imply causation. Nonetheless, our findings beckon the academic community to embrace the delightful eccentricities that punctuate the landscape of research, urging us to revel in the quirky and unexpected turns that infuse a dash of whimsy into the often staid realm of empirical inquiry. Just when you thought the world of research couldn't get any cornier, here we are, peeling back the layers of this enigmatic connection and savoring the flavorful surprise that it brings to the table.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Lila and GMO use in corn grown in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 Corny Connection: Lila's Popularity and GMO Propensity in Ohio

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between the prevalence of the moniker "Lila" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in the state of Ohio. Merging data derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, our research team embarked on a quest to ascertain whether there exists a substantive correlation between the two ostensibly unrelated phenomena. Employing robust statistical analysis, we uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9186638 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the temporal span from 2000 to 2022.

The findings present an intriguing puzzle, prompting us to ponder whether there might be an invisible thread connecting the popularity of the name "Lila" and the adoption of GMO technology in Ohio's cornfields. As we traverse the delightful and labyrinthine terrain of statistical correlations, let us not dismiss the possibility of a whimsical, yet meaningful, connection between the ebb and flow of baby name trends and agricultural practices. Our research infuses a spirit of mirth and surprise into the oftentimes somber domain of empirical inquiry, beckoning scholars to relish the whimsical elements that entwine themselves into the fabric of scientific investigation. Let the corny antics begin!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Smith and Doe," the authors find an intriguing correlation between the popularity of the name "Lila" and the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Ohio's cornfields. As we delve further into this uncommon entanglement, it becomes evident that the interplay between nomenclature trends and agricultural propensities is a conundrum worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself. The statistical analyses conducted by Jones et al. also bolster this unexpected association, raising eyebrows and prompting playful whispers among the research community.
However, moving beyond the serious academia, let us take a turn into the realm of popular non-fiction literature. In "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, a different kind of dilemma arises as we ponder the corny connection between Lila and GMO use in Ohio. As Pollan delves into the intricate web of food production and consumption, one cannot help but wonder if the whims of baby-naming trends also influence the agricultural landscape in unexpected ways. But wait, there's more! "Food, Inc." by Eric Schlosser and "The Botany of Desire" by Michael Pollan further pique our curiosity, shedding light on the corn-centric world and prompting us to question the subtle influences that may be at play, even beyond the realm of conscious human decision-making.
Lest we forget the captivating world of fiction, let us turn our attention to works like "Children of the Corn" by Stephen King and "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood. While these literary gems may not directly address the dearth of "Lila" in their narratives, the corny theme running through them beckons us to ponder the deeper mysteries of agricultural peculiarities and their unexpected intersections with human culture.
Furthermore, a playful nod to childhood recollections leads us to beloved cartoons and children's shows that have subtly intertwined with our understanding of agriculture. From "VeggieTales" to "The Magic School Bus," these joyful representations of farming and food production plant seeds of curiosity in the fertile soil of young minds, preparing them to embrace the whimsical world of statistical oddities and agricultural enigmas.
As we tiptoe through an eclectic garden of literary and visual delights, it becomes abundantly clear that the corny connection between Lila's popularity and GMO use in Ohio's cornfields is not just an academic curiosity; it is a nexus of mirth and surprise, beckoning us to revel in the delightfully unexpected alliances that permeate the fabric of empirical inquiry. So, let us embrace the giggles and guffaws as we traverse this off-kilter landscape, for the corny antics have only just begun!
Now, onwards to our own contribution to this amusing saga of Lila and corn – the corny connection awaits!

[[RESULTS]]
The findings of our research unveil a statistically significant and curiously strong correlation between the frequency of the first name "Lila" and the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the production of corn in Ohio. For the timeframe spanning from 2000 to 2022, our analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9186638, an r-squared of 0.8439431, and a p-value of less than 0.01. In other words, there appears to be a corn-nection between the two variables that cannot be easily brushed off as mere coincidence.
Amidst the stalks of statistical data, our research team stumbled upon a rather cob-foundingly high correlation, challenging conventional notions of causality and leaving us to ponder the puzzling connection between a name and the cultivation of genetically modified corn. Fig. 1 provides a visual depiction of the compelling relationship between the popularity of the name "Lila" and the use of GMOs in Ohio's cornfields, showcasing the remarkably tight clustering of data points that dance along the scatterplot like kernels on an ear of corn.
So, what does this all mean? Could it be that the name "Lila" possesses an inexplicably magnetic appeal, drawing forth the affinity for GMO technology in the heartland of Ohio? Or perhaps it's just a whimsical statistical quirk that tickles the fancy of researchers and defies the conventional boundaries of empirical analysis. One thing's for sure; this corny connection has left us a-maize-d and scratching our heads in contemplation.
As we navigate through the amusing symphony of statistical analysis, it's important to remember that correlations, no matter how perplexing, do not always imply causation. Nonetheless, our findings beckon the academic community to embrace the delightful eccentricities that punctuate the landscape of research, urging us to revel in the quirky and unexpected turns that infuse a dash of whimsy into the often staid realm of empirical inquiry. Just when you thought the world of research couldn't get any cornier, here we are, peeling back the layers of this enigmatic connection and savoring the flavorful surprise that it brings to the table.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The striking correlation between the popularity of the name "Lila" and the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Ohio's cornfields defies conventional expectations and has left us amused and bemused in equal measure. Our findings not only support prior research by Smith and Doe, Jones et al., and even the lively ponderings of Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, but they also add another layer of whimsy and wonder to the corny saga of Lila and GMOs.

It appears that the statistical antics of our corn-nection have not only upheld the previous findings but have also nudged us further down the rabbit hole of this peculiar phenomena. The tight clustering of data points in our scatterplot stands as a veritable cornucopia of amusement, echoing the kernels on an ear of corn in their playful dance. This comical quilt of data not only beckons us to embrace the unexpected alliances that sway in the statistical breeze but also implores us to revel in the delightful eccentricities that punctuate the landscape of research.

While we resist the temptation to leap to zany conclusions, we cannot help but scratch our heads at the corn-siderable possibility that there may be more to this correlation than meets the eye. Could it be that the delightful moniker "Lila" wields a clandestine influence over Ohio's penchant for GMO technology, drawing forth the agricultural affinities from within the heartland? Or perhaps, as we all corn-ceed, this may just be a statistical anomaly that has bowed forth in a whimsical shuffle of numbers and names. Nevertheless, the unexpected quirks of our findings have caused quite the kernel of excitement among the research community, beckoning us to embrace the sheer delight of the intellectual cornucopia that is empirical inquiry.

As we mirthfully muse over these delightfully corny findings, we are reminded that, beneath the veneer of formal academic discourse, there exists a world of guffaws, giggles, and wags that intertwine themselves into the very fabric of scientific investigation. The corny antics of this research endeavor have not only shone a light on the whimsical side of empirical inquiry but have also encouraged us to savor the flavorful surprise that the realm of research never fails to bring to the table.

So, as we gear up to navigate further down the whimsical labyrinth of statistical oddities, let us not forget to relish the joyous symphony of the unexpected, for this world of research just got a whole lot cornier!

Now, onward to the next kernel of inquiry and the next chuckle-inducing caper in the delightful saga of Lila and the cornfields of Ohio!


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Lila and GMO use in corn grown in Ohio. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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 Corny Connection: Lila's Popularity and GMO Propensity in Ohio

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between the prevalence of the moniker "Lila" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in the state of Ohio. Merging data derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, our research team embarked on a quest to ascertain whether there exists a substantive correlation between the two ostensibly unrelated phenomena. Employing robust statistical analysis, we uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9186638 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the temporal span from 2000 to 2022.

The findings present an intriguing puzzle, prompting us to ponder whether there might be an invisible thread connecting the popularity of the name "Lila" and the adoption of GMO technology in Ohio's cornfields. As we traverse the delightful and labyrinthine terrain of statistical correlations, let us not dismiss the possibility of a whimsical, yet meaningful, connection between the ebb and flow of baby name trends and agricultural practices. Our research infuses a spirit of mirth and surprise into the oftentimes somber domain of empirical inquiry, beckoning scholars to relish the whimsical elements that entwine themselves into the fabric of scientific investigation. Let the corny antics begin!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Ah, the enigmatic web of correlations and connections that we encounter in the realm of research never ceases to amuse and bemuse. Who would have thought that the popularity of a name could hold any sway over the cultivation of corn, especially in the heartland of Ohio? Yet, here we are, diving headfirst into the whimsical world of statistical oddities and agricultural antics, armed with data and a healthy dose of skepticism.
You see, dear reader, while some may dismiss the linkage between the prevalence of the name "Lila" and the prevalence of GMOs in Ohio's cornfields as a mere coincidence or the product of an overactive imagination, we are here to shed light on the peculiar synchronicities that tease and tantalize the discerning researcher's mind. Is there truly a kernel of truth to be found in this seemingly corny connection?
Sure, we could have settled for more conventional topics, but where's the fun in that? After all, who wouldn't want to uncover the ear-resistible relationship between a name and genetically modified corn? So, buckle up and prepare to embark on a whimsical journey through the crossroads of baby-naming trends and agricultural innovations. It's time to peel back the husk of this captivating mystery and unearth the corny connection that has eluded us for far too long. Let's dive into the land of GMOs, cornfields, and Lila's rise to fame. Shall we?

[[RESULTS]]
The findings of our research unveil a statistically significant and curiously strong correlation between the frequency of the first name "Lila" and the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the production of corn in Ohio. For the timeframe spanning from 2000 to 2022, our analysis revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9186638, an r-squared of 0.8439431, and a p-value of less than 0.01. In other words, there appears to be a corn-nection between the two variables that cannot be easily brushed off as mere coincidence.
Amidst the stalks of statistical data, our research team stumbled upon a rather cob-foundingly high correlation, challenging conventional notions of causality and leaving us to ponder the puzzling connection between a name and the cultivation of genetically modified corn. Fig. 1 provides a visual depiction of the compelling relationship between the popularity of the name "Lila" and the use of GMOs in Ohio's cornfields, showcasing the remarkably tight clustering of data points that dance along the scatterplot like kernels on an ear of corn.
So, what does this all mean? Could it be that the name "Lila" possesses an inexplicably magnetic appeal, drawing forth the affinity for GMO technology in the heartland of Ohio? Or perhaps it's just a whimsical statistical quirk that tickles the fancy of researchers and defies the conventional boundaries of empirical analysis. One thing's for sure; this corny connection has left us a-maize-d and scratching our heads in contemplation.
As we navigate through the amusing symphony of statistical analysis, it's important to remember that correlations, no matter how perplexing, do not always imply causation. Nonetheless, our findings beckon the academic community to embrace the delightful eccentricities that punctuate the landscape of research, urging us to revel in the quirky and unexpected turns that infuse a dash of whimsy into the often staid realm of empirical inquiry. Just when you thought the world of research couldn't get any cornier, here we are, peeling back the layers of this enigmatic connection and savoring the flavorful surprise that it brings to the table.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has shucked the cob to reveal a kernel of truth: there exists a compelling correlation between the popularity of the name "Lila" and the prevalence of GMOs in Ohio's cornfields. As we delved into this seemingly corny connection, we couldn't help but marvel at the ear-resistible statistical symphony that unfolded before us. The data painted a picture so clear, it was as if the cornstalks themselves were whispering sweet statistical melodies into our ears.

But before we go jumping to wild theories about magical monikers or cornfield charms, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Our findings, while undeniably intriguing, do not necessarily imply a causal relationship. After all, we wouldn't want to cob-fuse correlation with causation, and risk being the laughingstock of the scientific community!

As we bid adieu to this captivating quest, we must acknowledge that sometimes, mysteries are best left to dance in the whimsical realms of statistical ambiguity. The enigmatic connection between Lila's popularity and GMO usage in Ohio's cornfields is a delightful reminder that the scientific landscape is not devoid of its own quirky and peculiar wonders.

In the spirit of embracing the unexpected, we declare that no more research is needed in this particularly corny domain. Let this be a kernel of wisdom for future researchers: sometimes, it's okay to let the corny connections remain a playful mystery, adding a dash of whimsy to the otherwise serious pursuit of empirical inquiry. After all, in the vast expanse of scientific exploration, it's the unexpected surprises that keep our research endeavors a-maize-ing!


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 Corny Connection: Lila's Popularity and GMO Propensity in Ohio. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Agri-Humor Studies


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 Corny Connection: Lila's Popularity and GMO Propensity in Ohio. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Agricultural Innovation and Social Dynamics


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 Corny Connection: Lila's Popularity and GMO Propensity in Ohio with an abstract of This study delves into the peculiar relationship between the prevalence of the moniker "Lila" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in the state of Ohio. Merging data derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, our research team embarked on a quest to ascertain whether there exists a substantive correlation between the two ostensibly unrelated phenomena. Employing robust statistical analysis, we uncovered a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9186638 and a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 for the temporal span from 2000 to 2022.
The findings present an intriguing puzzle, prompting us to ponder whether there might be an invisible thread connecting the popularity of the name "Lila" and the adoption of GMO technology in Ohio's cornfields. As we traverse the delightful and labyrinthine terrain of statistical correlations, let us not dismiss the possibility of a whimsical, yet meaningful, connection between the ebb and flow of baby name trends and agricultural practices. Our research infuses a spirit of mirth and surprise into the oftentimes somber domain of empirical inquiry, beckoning scholars to relish the whimsical elements that entwine themselves into the fabric of scientific investigation. Let the corny antics begin!

ChatGPT:

"Lila popularity Ohio", "GMO adoption corn Ohio", "correlation Lila GMO Ohio", "name trends agriculture correlation", "USDA corn cultivation Ohio", "Social Security Administration baby name data", "genetically modified organisms adoption Ohio", "statistical analysis name trends agriculture", "empirical inquiry whimsical elements"

*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

Popularity of the first name Lila
Detailed data title: Babies of all sexes born in the US named Lila
Source: US Social Security Administration
See what else correlates with Popularity of the first name Lila

GMO use in corn grown in Ohio
Detailed data title: Percent of all corn planted in Ohio 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 Ohio

Correlation r = 0.9186638 (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 = 0.8439431 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 84.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., GMO use in corn grown in Ohio) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Popularity of the first name Lila) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.3E-10. 0.0000000006288479399745780000
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 6.3E-8% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,590,209,551 random variables You don't actually need 1 billion variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 22 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 22 because we have two variables measured over a period of 23 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.82, 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.
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
Popularity of the first name Lila (Babies born)30739441449159968010061357185119341969192117271702177516581561147314051370129813371346
GMO use in corn grown in Ohio (GMO corn %)3433471312171722132016141418141411131410




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([307,394,414,491,599,680,1006,1357,1851,1934,1969,1921,1727,1702,1775,1658,1561,1473,1405,1370,1298,1337,1346,])
array_2 = np.array([3,4,3,3,4,7,13,12,17,17,22,13,20,16,14,14,18,14,14,11,13,14,10,])
array_1_name = "Popularity of the first name Lila"
array_2_name = "GMO use in corn grown in Ohio"

# 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: 1365 · Black Variable ID: 4221 · Red Variable ID: 734
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0