about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,368 · 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 Minnesota and the second variable is US birth rates of triplets or more.  The chart goes from 2002 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As GMO use in Minnesota corn decreased, it led to a shortage of super-sized corn kernels. Without these oversized kernels, expecting mothers across the US were less likely to accidentally ingest magical corn that increased their odds of having triplets or more. This caused a noticeable drop in the overall birth rates of multiples, as the corn shortage created a "corn-undrum" for fertility and a-maize-ing decrease in multi-births. It seems the days of "corn-fed" pregnancies producing litters of babies are now just a kernel of the past!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ Symbolism ] A peaceful scene set in a vast Minnesota cornfield, where rows of tall, green stalks stretch into the distance. Among the fields, a farmhouse stands in the distance, nestled in the warmth of the late afternoon sun. Inside the farmhouse, a family of triplets, two boys and a girl, joyfully play together. The golden sunlight pours through the windows, casting a warm glow over the blissful scene. The children's laughter intertwines with the gentle rustling of the cornstalks, filling the air with pure, unbridled joy. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and US birth rates of triplets or more. 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: Cyber folk Data cyber art Symbolism Charcoal Brutalism
ChatGPT: Symbolism

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and US birth rates of triplets or more together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a vast Minnesota cornfield, rows of tall, green stalks stretch into the distance. Among the fields, a farmhouse stands in the distance. Inside the farmhouse, a family of triplets, two boys and a girl, joyfully play together in the sunshine pouring through the windows. Their happy laughter fills the air.

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: [ Symbolism ] and depicting this scene: In a vast Minnesota cornfield, rows of tall, green stalks stretch into the distance. Among the fields, a farmhouse stands in the distance. Inside the farmhouse, a family of triplets, two boys and a girl, joyfully play together in the sunshine pouring through the windows. Their happy laughter fills the air. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ Symbolism ] A peaceful scene set in a vast Minnesota cornfield, where rows of tall, green stalks stretch into the distance. Among the fields, a farmhouse stands in the distance, nestled in the warmth of the late afternoon sun. Inside the farmhouse, a family of triplets, two boys and a girl, joyfully play together. The golden sunlight pours through the windows, casting a warm glow over the blissful scene. The children's laughter intertwines with the gentle rustling of the cornstalks, filling the air with pure, unbridled joy.

*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 Minnesota caused US birth rates of triplets or more to decrease. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
GMO Corn in Minnesota: A MAIZIng Link to US Birth Rates of Triplets or More

The Journal of Agricultural Oddities

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 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 GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and US birth rates of triplets or more. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, just make it sound clever.

Your research team used data from USDA and CDC to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9416025 and p < 0.01 for 2002 to 2021.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"GMO Corn in Minnesota: A MAIZIng Link to US Birth Rates of Triplets or More"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on human health has been a subject of intense scrutiny in recent years. In this study, we sought to investigate the association between the use of GMO in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States. By leveraging data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the period spanning 2002 to 2021, we conducted a comprehensive analysis to unravel the interplay between GMO corn usage and the occurrence of multiple births. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9416025 and a p-value < 0.01, suggesting a robust statistical connection. This study not only sheds light on the potential implications of GMO usage but also highlights the importance of 'ear'ly intervention and further examination into the husk of the matter.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and US birth rates of triplets or more. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"GMO Corn in Minnesota: A MAIZIng Link to US Birth Rates of Triplets or More"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on human health has been a subject of intense scrutiny in recent years. In this study, we sought to investigate the association between the use of GMO in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States. By leveraging data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the period spanning 2002 to 2021, we conducted a comprehensive analysis to unravel the interplay between GMO corn usage and the occurrence of multiple births. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9416025 and a p-value < 0.01, suggesting a robust statistical connection. This study not only sheds light on the potential implications of GMO usage but also highlights the importance of 'ear'ly intervention and further examination into the husk of the matter.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

As the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMO) continues to ferment in the public sphere, a cornucopia of questions has emerged regarding the effects of GMO on human health and well-being. Of particular interest is the potential correlation between the use of GMO in corn cultivation and the occurrence of multiple births exceeding the traditional duo. The present study seeks to peel back the layers of this enigma and uncover whether there is a kernel of truth in the notion that GMOs may be associated with an uptick in the birth rates of triplets or larger bundles of joy.

The reputedly "MAIZIng" potential link between GMO corn in Minnesota and the birthing tendencies of the entire United States has spurred our curiosity and prompted an in-depth investigation. As we delve into this labyrinth of data, we aim to separate the wheat from the chaff and discern whether there is indeed a fertile field of evidence supporting such an association. By sowing the seeds of statistical analysis and reaping the insights they yield, we endeavor to contribute to the growing body of knowledge surrounding GMO crops and their potential impact on human health.

While the findings of this study should be chewed over with cautious consideration, they may offer food for thought to policymakers, agriculturalists, and health professionals alike. Thus, let us embark on this journey of discovery, embracing the stalk contrasts of excitement and skepticism, and endeavor to husk the mystery of GMO corn and the birth of triplets or more in the United States.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and US birth rates of triplets or more. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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 you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"GMO Corn in Minnesota: A MAIZIng Link to US Birth Rates of Triplets or More"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on human health has been a subject of intense scrutiny in recent years. In this study, we sought to investigate the association between the use of GMO in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States. By leveraging data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the period spanning 2002 to 2021, we conducted a comprehensive analysis to unravel the interplay between GMO corn usage and the occurrence of multiple births. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9416025 and a p-value < 0.01, suggesting a robust statistical connection. This study not only sheds light on the potential implications of GMO usage but also highlights the importance of 'ear'ly intervention and further examination into the husk of the matter.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMO) continues to ferment in the public sphere, a cornucopia of questions has emerged regarding the effects of GMO on human health and well-being. Of particular interest is the potential correlation between the use of GMO in corn cultivation and the occurrence of multiple births exceeding the traditional duo. The present study seeks to peel back the layers of this enigma and uncover whether there is a kernel of truth in the notion that GMOs may be associated with an uptick in the birth rates of triplets or larger bundles of joy.
The reputedly "MAIZIng" potential link between GMO corn in Minnesota and the birthing tendencies of the entire United States has spurred our curiosity and prompted an in-depth investigation. As we delve into this labyrinth of data, we aim to separate the wheat from the chaff and discern whether there is indeed a fertile field of evidence supporting such an association. By sowing the seeds of statistical analysis and reaping the insights they yield, we endeavor to contribute to the growing body of knowledge surrounding GMO crops and their potential impact on human health.
While the findings of this study should be chewed over with cautious consideration, they may offer food for thought to policymakers, agriculturalists, and health professionals alike. Thus, let us embark on this journey of discovery, embracing the stalk contrasts of excitement and skepticism, and endeavor to husk the mystery of GMO corn and the birth of triplets or more in the United States.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Prior to conducting our own analysis, we surveyed existing literature on the intersecting subjects of genetically modified organisms (GMO), corn cultivation, and birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births. The extant research presents a mixed bag of findings and theories, much like a box of assorted cornflakes.

Smith et al. (2015) examine the potential health consequences of GMO consumption in their study "Corn and Health: A Kernel of Truth or a Heap of Husks?" Their exploration of the impact of GMO on human health suggests a need for enhanced regulatory oversight to prevent any potential 'stalk' disparities in health outcomes.

Additionally, Doe and Jones (2018) offer insights into the effects of corn cultivation practices on agricultural sustainability in "Maize Matters: A Comprehensive Guide to Corn Cultivation." While their focus is not directly on GMO usage, their work provides valuable context for understanding the broader implications of corn cultivation, which are essential to establish a comprehensive framework for analysis.

Moving beyond scholarly research, we turn to non-fiction publications that touch on the intertwined topics of agriculture, genetics, and health. "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan ventures into the world of modern industrial agriculture, including the prevalence of GMOs in corn production. It is a must-read for anyone with a KERNal of curiosity about the origins of their food.

In a somewhat unconventional turn, the fictional realm offers its own insights into the enigmatic relationship between corn and its potential influences. "Children of the Corn" by Stephen King, while a work of horror fiction, provides a fascinating departure point for speculative discussions on the consequences of tampering with nature's bounty.

Furthermore, the Looney Tunes classic "Corn on the Cop" offers a whimsical portrayal of the perils and pitfalls of corn-related escapades, serving as a reminder that the subject matter of our investigation may have implications that transcend the realm of scientific journals.

As we navigate this cornucopia of literature, it is imperative to maintain a balanced perspective and remain open to kernels of wisdom from unexpected sources. The road to enlightenment is often paved with curves, or should we say, kernels, and our exploration of GMO corn and its potential implications for multiple births promises to be an adventure worth shucking for.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and US birth rates of triplets or more. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and CDC . You used data from 2002 to 2021

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"GMO Corn in Minnesota: A MAIZIng Link to US Birth Rates of Triplets or More"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on human health has been a subject of intense scrutiny in recent years. In this study, we sought to investigate the association between the use of GMO in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States. By leveraging data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the period spanning 2002 to 2021, we conducted a comprehensive analysis to unravel the interplay between GMO corn usage and the occurrence of multiple births. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9416025 and a p-value < 0.01, suggesting a robust statistical connection. This study not only sheds light on the potential implications of GMO usage but also highlights the importance of 'ear'ly intervention and further examination into the husk of the matter.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMO) continues to ferment in the public sphere, a cornucopia of questions has emerged regarding the effects of GMO on human health and well-being. Of particular interest is the potential correlation between the use of GMO in corn cultivation and the occurrence of multiple births exceeding the traditional duo. The present study seeks to peel back the layers of this enigma and uncover whether there is a kernel of truth in the notion that GMOs may be associated with an uptick in the birth rates of triplets or larger bundles of joy.
The reputedly "MAIZIng" potential link between GMO corn in Minnesota and the birthing tendencies of the entire United States has spurred our curiosity and prompted an in-depth investigation. As we delve into this labyrinth of data, we aim to separate the wheat from the chaff and discern whether there is indeed a fertile field of evidence supporting such an association. By sowing the seeds of statistical analysis and reaping the insights they yield, we endeavor to contribute to the growing body of knowledge surrounding GMO crops and their potential impact on human health.
While the findings of this study should be chewed over with cautious consideration, they may offer food for thought to policymakers, agriculturalists, and health professionals alike. Thus, let us embark on this journey of discovery, embracing the stalk contrasts of excitement and skepticism, and endeavor to husk the mystery of GMO corn and the birth of triplets or more in the United States.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To uncover the potential connection between GMO corn in Minnesota and US birth rates of triplets or more, we employed a comprehensive and kernel-centric methodology that would make any corn farmer proud. Our approach involved tapping into a bountiful harvest of data spanning nearly two decades, harvested from the richest fields of information - primarily sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), with an occasional sprinkle of data from various reputable agricultural and epidemiological repositories.

To begin the husking process, we meticulously collected and cleaned data pertaining to the usage of GMO corn in Minnesota over the period of 2002 to 2021. We utilized a combination of statistical metrics and machine learning algorithms to shell out the relevant data and separate the GMO corn kernels from the conventional ones, ensuring an a-maize-ing level of accuracy in our analysis.

Simultaneously, we extracted data on the occurrence of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States during the same time frame. We carefully husked through the CDC birth records, examining the husk-tory of multiple births with due diligence, and making sure to weed out any anomalies or corn-founding factors that could skew our findings.

Having harvested our datasets, we conducted a rigorous statistical analysis that would have made any farmer green with envy. We employed a variety of multivariate regression models, vine-restricted spline techniques, and other bloomin' complex statistical methodologies to corrugate the data and thresh out the potential associations between GMO corn usage and multiple birth rates. Our analysis took full kernel of all the relevant variables, ensuring that no seed of doubt was left unplanted.

Furthermore, in acknowledgment of the stochastic nature of both agricultural and human fertility trends, we engaged in a particularly corny dance with sensitivity analyses and conducted robustness checks to ensure that our findings weren't just a case of statistical cornflation.

All in all, our approach was a-maize-ingly rigorous and thorough, allowing us to not only plant the seeds of inquiry but also to cultivate a nuanced understanding of the potential relationship between GMO corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or more in the United States. This methodology, though as complex as a corn maze, has yielded results that we hope kernel surely shed more light on this perplexing correlation.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and US birth rates of triplets or more. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

For the time period 2002 to 2021, you found a correlation 0.9416025, r-squared of 0.8866153, 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 Corn in Minnesota: A MAIZIng Link to US Birth Rates of Triplets or More"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on human health has been a subject of intense scrutiny in recent years. In this study, we sought to investigate the association between the use of GMO in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States. By leveraging data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the period spanning 2002 to 2021, we conducted a comprehensive analysis to unravel the interplay between GMO corn usage and the occurrence of multiple births. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9416025 and a p-value < 0.01, suggesting a robust statistical connection. This study not only sheds light on the potential implications of GMO usage but also highlights the importance of 'ear'ly intervention and further examination into the husk of the matter.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMO) continues to ferment in the public sphere, a cornucopia of questions has emerged regarding the effects of GMO on human health and well-being. Of particular interest is the potential correlation between the use of GMO in corn cultivation and the occurrence of multiple births exceeding the traditional duo. The present study seeks to peel back the layers of this enigma and uncover whether there is a kernel of truth in the notion that GMOs may be associated with an uptick in the birth rates of triplets or larger bundles of joy.
The reputedly "MAIZIng" potential link between GMO corn in Minnesota and the birthing tendencies of the entire United States has spurred our curiosity and prompted an in-depth investigation. As we delve into this labyrinth of data, we aim to separate the wheat from the chaff and discern whether there is indeed a fertile field of evidence supporting such an association. By sowing the seeds of statistical analysis and reaping the insights they yield, we endeavor to contribute to the growing body of knowledge surrounding GMO crops and their potential impact on human health.
While the findings of this study should be chewed over with cautious consideration, they may offer food for thought to policymakers, agriculturalists, and health professionals alike. Thus, let us embark on this journey of discovery, embracing the stalk contrasts of excitement and skepticism, and endeavor to husk the mystery of GMO corn and the birth of triplets or more in the United States.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our investigation into the potential relationship between the use of genetically modified organism (GMO) in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States for the period 2002-2021 unearthed a kernel of insight. We uncovered a strong correlation coefficient of 0.9416025, with an r-squared value of 0.8866153, and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a robust statistical connection.

Fig. 1 depicts the scatterplot of the two variables, revealing a trend that is as clear as a sunny day in the cornfield. The correlation between the use of GMO in corn cultivation and the birth rates of triplets or more is as unmistakable as spotting a bright yellow ear of corn in a field of green.

As we peel back the husk of this data, we see the starchy truth emerge, highlighting the potential impact of GMO usage on the occurrence of multiple births. The findings of this study not only "ear"mark a significant association, but they also urge for further investigation into the "ear"-resistible correlation and its implications.

Our results, undoubtedly, add a kernel to the growing body of knowledge regarding the potential effects of GMO on human health and offer a-maize-ing food for thought to those in the agricultural and healthcare fields.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and US birth rates of triplets or more. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
"GMO Corn in Minnesota: A MAIZIng Link to US Birth Rates of Triplets or More"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on human health has been a subject of intense scrutiny in recent years. In this study, we sought to investigate the association between the use of GMO in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States. By leveraging data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the period spanning 2002 to 2021, we conducted a comprehensive analysis to unravel the interplay between GMO corn usage and the occurrence of multiple births. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9416025 and a p-value < 0.01, suggesting a robust statistical connection. This study not only sheds light on the potential implications of GMO usage but also highlights the importance of 'ear'ly intervention and further examination into the husk of the matter.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Prior to conducting our own analysis, we surveyed existing literature on the intersecting subjects of genetically modified organisms (GMO), corn cultivation, and birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births. The extant research presents a mixed bag of findings and theories, much like a box of assorted cornflakes.
Smith et al. (2015) examine the potential health consequences of GMO consumption in their study "Corn and Health: A Kernel of Truth or a Heap of Husks?" Their exploration of the impact of GMO on human health suggests a need for enhanced regulatory oversight to prevent any potential 'stalk' disparities in health outcomes.
Additionally, Doe and Jones (2018) offer insights into the effects of corn cultivation practices on agricultural sustainability in "Maize Matters: A Comprehensive Guide to Corn Cultivation." While their focus is not directly on GMO usage, their work provides valuable context for understanding the broader implications of corn cultivation, which are essential to establish a comprehensive framework for analysis.
Moving beyond scholarly research, we turn to non-fiction publications that touch on the intertwined topics of agriculture, genetics, and health. "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan ventures into the world of modern industrial agriculture, including the prevalence of GMOs in corn production. It is a must-read for anyone with a KERNal of curiosity about the origins of their food.
In a somewhat unconventional turn, the fictional realm offers its own insights into the enigmatic relationship between corn and its potential influences. "Children of the Corn" by Stephen King, while a work of horror fiction, provides a fascinating departure point for speculative discussions on the consequences of tampering with nature's bounty.
Furthermore, the Looney Tunes classic "Corn on the Cop" offers a whimsical portrayal of the perils and pitfalls of corn-related escapades, serving as a reminder that the subject matter of our investigation may have implications that transcend the realm of scientific journals.
As we navigate this cornucopia of literature, it is imperative to maintain a balanced perspective and remain open to kernels of wisdom from unexpected sources. The road to enlightenment is often paved with curves, or should we say, kernels, and our exploration of GMO corn and its potential implications for multiple births promises to be an adventure worth shucking for.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the potential relationship between the use of genetically modified organism (GMO) in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States for the period 2002-2021 unearthed a kernel of insight. We uncovered a strong correlation coefficient of 0.9416025, with an r-squared value of 0.8866153, and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a robust statistical connection.
Fig. 1 depicts the scatterplot of the two variables, revealing a trend that is as clear as a sunny day in the cornfield. The correlation between the use of GMO in corn cultivation and the birth rates of triplets or more is as unmistakable as spotting a bright yellow ear of corn in a field of green.
As we peel back the husk of this data, we see the starchy truth emerge, highlighting the potential impact of GMO usage on the occurrence of multiple births. The findings of this study not only "ear"mark a significant association, but they also urge for further investigation into the "ear"-resistible correlation and its implications.
Our results, undoubtedly, add a kernel to the growing body of knowledge regarding the potential effects of GMO on human health and offer a-maize-ing food for thought to those in the agricultural and healthcare fields.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of our study provide compelling evidence of a strong association between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States. As we navigate through the maize of literature on GMOs and corn cultivation, our study not only corroborates but also adds an "ear"-resistible twist to the existing knowledge in this field.

Our results align with the work of Smith et al. (2015), demonstrating the potential health implications of GMO consumption, giving a whole new meaning to the phrase "ear to the ground" when it comes to monitoring health outcomes. Additionally, our findings resonate with Doe and Jones (2018), emphasizing the crucial role of corn cultivation practices in understanding the broader impacts on agricultural sustainability, just as our study indicates a robust statistical connection, emphasizing that there is something "corn-y" about this relationship.

Moreover, as we break new ground in this interdisciplinary investigation, we must acknowledge the diverse sources that inspire us to think "corn-ceptually." Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" has certainly left an indelible "kernel" of curiosity about the origins of our food, while Stephen King's "Children of the Corn" takes on a different kind of "husk-terical" significance in this context. We mustn't forget the light-hearted yet insightful portrayal of the perils of corn in the Looney Tunes classic "Corn on the Cop," which reminds us that uncovering the kernel of truth may lead us to unexpected places.

As we engage in serious research on such a "kern-elicate" subject, we also appreciate the need to remain open to unconventional perspectives. In essence, the intertwining of art and science in our literature review has enriched our understanding of the potential consequences of GMO corn cultivation on human health, bringing a bushel of "ear"-thwhile insights.

In conclusion, our study not only contributes to the growing body of knowledge regarding the potential effects of GMO on human health, it also serves as a reminder of the "ear"-resistible allure of scientific inquiry, compelling us to keep shucking for answers. The "stalk"-ing question remains: How will our findings "ear-maize" practitioners and policymakers in the fields of agriculture and healthcare?


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and US birth rates of triplets or more. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, 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]]
"GMO Corn in Minnesota: A MAIZIng Link to US Birth Rates of Triplets or More"

[[ABSTRACT]]
The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on human health has been a subject of intense scrutiny in recent years. In this study, we sought to investigate the association between the use of GMO in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States. By leveraging data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the period spanning 2002 to 2021, we conducted a comprehensive analysis to unravel the interplay between GMO corn usage and the occurrence of multiple births. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9416025 and a p-value < 0.01, suggesting a robust statistical connection. This study not only sheds light on the potential implications of GMO usage but also highlights the importance of 'ear'ly intervention and further examination into the husk of the matter.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
As the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMO) continues to ferment in the public sphere, a cornucopia of questions has emerged regarding the effects of GMO on human health and well-being. Of particular interest is the potential correlation between the use of GMO in corn cultivation and the occurrence of multiple births exceeding the traditional duo. The present study seeks to peel back the layers of this enigma and uncover whether there is a kernel of truth in the notion that GMOs may be associated with an uptick in the birth rates of triplets or larger bundles of joy.
The reputedly "MAIZIng" potential link between GMO corn in Minnesota and the birthing tendencies of the entire United States has spurred our curiosity and prompted an in-depth investigation. As we delve into this labyrinth of data, we aim to separate the wheat from the chaff and discern whether there is indeed a fertile field of evidence supporting such an association. By sowing the seeds of statistical analysis and reaping the insights they yield, we endeavor to contribute to the growing body of knowledge surrounding GMO crops and their potential impact on human health.
While the findings of this study should be chewed over with cautious consideration, they may offer food for thought to policymakers, agriculturalists, and health professionals alike. Thus, let us embark on this journey of discovery, embracing the stalk contrasts of excitement and skepticism, and endeavor to husk the mystery of GMO corn and the birth of triplets or more in the United States.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the potential relationship between the use of genetically modified organism (GMO) in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States for the period 2002-2021 unearthed a kernel of insight. We uncovered a strong correlation coefficient of 0.9416025, with an r-squared value of 0.8866153, and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a robust statistical connection.
Fig. 1 depicts the scatterplot of the two variables, revealing a trend that is as clear as a sunny day in the cornfield. The correlation between the use of GMO in corn cultivation and the birth rates of triplets or more is as unmistakable as spotting a bright yellow ear of corn in a field of green.
As we peel back the husk of this data, we see the starchy truth emerge, highlighting the potential impact of GMO usage on the occurrence of multiple births. The findings of this study not only "ear"mark a significant association, but they also urge for further investigation into the "ear"-resistible correlation and its implications.
Our results, undoubtedly, add a kernel to the growing body of knowledge regarding the potential effects of GMO on human health and offer a-maize-ing food for thought to those in the agricultural and healthcare fields.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has shucked the cornundrum surrounding the potential link between GMO corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or larger bundles of joy in the United States. The robust statistical connection we discovered is as plain as day, and the findings, like a ripe cob, are ready to be plucked and savored. Our research urges deeper probes into the implications of GMO usage, reminding us that when it comes to health and agriculture, we must not turn a blind "ear."
While our findings may raise eyebrows and corn-fusion, it is time to embrace the kernel of truth we have uncovered and acknowledge the "ear"-resistible connection between GMO usage and multiple births. With this, we assert that further research in this area is as unnecessary as an umbrella in a cornfield on a sunny day.


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 Corn in Minnesota: A MAIZIng Link to US Birth Rates of Triplets or More. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Agricultural Oddities


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 Corn in Minnesota: A MAIZIng Link to US Birth Rates of Triplets or More. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Agriculture and Genetics Research (SAGR)


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 Corn in Minnesota: A MAIZIng Link to US Birth Rates of Triplets or More with an abstract of The potential impact of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on human health has been a subject of intense scrutiny in recent years. In this study, we sought to investigate the association between the use of GMO in corn cultivation in Minnesota and the birth rates of triplets or higher-order multiple births in the United States. By leveraging data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the period spanning 2002 to 2021, we conducted a comprehensive analysis to unravel the interplay between GMO corn usage and the occurrence of multiple births. Our findings revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9416025 and a p-value < 0.01, suggesting a robust statistical connection. This study not only sheds light on the potential implications of GMO usage but also highlights the importance of 'ear'ly intervention and further examination into the husk of the matter.

ChatGPT:

GMO corn, Minnesota, birth rates, triplets, higher-order multiple births, genetically modified organisms, GMO cultivation, United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, statistical analysis, health implications, corn usage, multiple births, GMO usage, intervention, examination.

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

US birth rates of triplets or more
Source: CDC
See what else correlates with US birth rates of triplets or more

Correlation r = 0.9416025 (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 = 0.8866153 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 88.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., US birth rates of triplets or more) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota) over the 20 years from 2002 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.06E-10. 0.0000000006062586160910450000
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 0.94 in 6.06E-8% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,649,461,094 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 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.

[ 0.86, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
20022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota (GMO corn %)2931353328261923181619322321242
US birth rates of triplets or more (Birth rate per 100,000)183186180170156151148152138137124.4119.5113.5103.6101.4101.69387.779.680




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([29,31,35,33,28,26,19,23,18,16,19,3,2,2,3,2,1,2,4,2,])
array_2 = np.array([183,186,180,170,156,151,148,152,138,137,124.4,119.5,113.5,103.6,101.4,101.6,93,87.7,79.6,80,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota"
array_2_name = "US birth rates of triplets or more"

# 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?

Cheers to you for rating this correlation!


Correlation ID: 1368 · Black Variable ID: 715 · Red Variable ID: 55
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0