about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,452 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is US household spending on vehicle purchaes and the second variable is GMO use in cotton in Arkansas.  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 US household spending on vehicle purchases decreased, families could no longer afford road trips. Without road trips, there were fewer opportunities for cotton clothing to accidentally fly out of car windows. This led to a decrease in demand for cotton in Arkansas, prompting a corresponding decrease in GMO use in cotton. In other words, it's like the old saying goes: no road trips, no cotton slips, no need for GMO flips!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: The setting is at a car dealership where a family is standing beside a shiny new car with a "for sale" sign on it. The family appears to be observing the car with interest, indicating a potential purchase. As they walk away from the dealership, the family members are seen dressed in casual cotton clothing. In the background, a line chart representing "household spending on vehicle purchases" is displayed with a noticeable downward trend. Additionally, a farmer in Arkansas is depicted tending to his cotton fields using non-GMO methods, highlighting a shift away from GMO usage in cotton production. The imagery captures the interplay between consumer behavior, agricultural practices, and economic trends. 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: US household spending on vehicle purchaes and GMO use in cotton in Arkansas. 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: Realistic High-tech A photo-realistic image Hyper-realistic Art nouveau
ChatGPT: Realistic

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 US household spending on vehicle purchaes and GMO use in cotton in Arkansas, in the following situation: As US household spending on vehicle purchases decreased, families could no longer afford road trips. Without road trips, there were fewer opportunities for cotton clothing to accidentally fly out of car windows. This led to a decrease in demand for cotton in Arkansas, prompting a corresponding decrease in GMO use in cotton. In other words, it's like the old saying goes: no road trips, no cotton slips, no need for GMO flips!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In the scene, a family is standing next to a car dealership, looking at a shiny new car with a "for sale" sign on it. The "household spending on vehicle purchases" chart is displayed near the dealership, showing a downward trend. As they walk away from the dealership, the family members are dressed in cotton clothing, but there are no cotton clothing items flying out of the car windows due to the absence of road trips. In the background, a farmer in Arkansas is seen using non-GMO methods to tend to his cotton fields, indicating a decrease in GMO use in cotton.

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: [ Realistic ] and depicting this scene: In the scene, a family is standing next to a car dealership, looking at a shiny new car with a "for sale" sign on it. The "household spending on vehicle purchases" chart is displayed near the dealership, showing a downward trend. As they walk away from the dealership, the family members are dressed in cotton clothing, but there are no cotton clothing items flying out of the car windows due to the absence of road trips. In the background, a farmer in Arkansas is seen using non-GMO methods to tend to his cotton fields, indicating a decrease in GMO use in cotton. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: The setting is at a car dealership where a family is standing beside a shiny new car with a "for sale" sign on it. The family appears to be observing the car with interest, indicating a potential purchase. As they walk away from the dealership, the family members are seen dressed in casual cotton clothing. In the background, a line chart representing "household spending on vehicle purchases" is displayed with a noticeable downward trend. Additionally, a farmer in Arkansas is depicted tending to his cotton fields using non-GMO methods, highlighting a shift away from GMO usage in cotton production. The imagery captures the interplay between consumer behavior, agricultural practices, and economic trends.

*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 US household spending on vehicle purchaes caused GMO use in cotton in Arkansas to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
GMOtoring Economics: Unpicking the Cotton Thread in US Vehicle Spending Patterns

The Journal of Bioeconomic Transportation 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 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 US household spending on vehicle purchaes and GMO use in cotton in Arkansas. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 Bureau of Labor Statistics and USDA to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 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]]
GMOtoring Economics: Unpicking the Cotton Thread in US Vehicle Spending Patterns

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research dives into the unsuspecting correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. With a comprehensive analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we delved into a question that has re(GMO)tively puzzled economists and agriculture enthusiasts for far too long.

The study uncovers a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 and a significance level (p) below 0.01, spanning from the year 2000 through 2022. Our findings unveil a conspicuous relationship between the two seemingly disparate variables, shedding light on the unexpected interplay between consumer behavior and agricultural practices.

It appears that US households' affinity for shiny new wheels and the adoption of GMO cotton in Arkansas are more entangled than previously thought, raising intriguing questions and aMAIZEing insights. Our study offers a unique perspective on the intricate web of economic and agricultural dynamics, showcasing the way GMO utilization in cotton cultivation can be woven into the fabric of consumer spending habits.

As we unravel this tangled yarn of interconnected data, one thing is clear: the road to understanding consumer choices and agricultural methods is paved with un(G)MOingly entertaining surprises. In conclusion, our research not only highlights the remarkable correlation between vehicle spending and GMO cotton use but also humorously reminds us that, in the world of academic research, there’s always room for a good dad joke - like a trusty old sedan, they never go out of style!


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 US household spending on vehicle purchaes and GMO use in cotton in Arkansas. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
GMOtoring Economics: Unpicking the Cotton Thread in US Vehicle Spending Patterns

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research dives into the unsuspecting correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. With a comprehensive analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we delved into a question that has re(GMO)tively puzzled economists and agriculture enthusiasts for far too long.

The study uncovers a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 and a significance level (p) below 0.01, spanning from the year 2000 through 2022. Our findings unveil a conspicuous relationship between the two seemingly disparate variables, shedding light on the unexpected interplay between consumer behavior and agricultural practices.

It appears that US households' affinity for shiny new wheels and the adoption of GMO cotton in Arkansas are more entangled than previously thought, raising intriguing questions and aMAIZEing insights. Our study offers a unique perspective on the intricate web of economic and agricultural dynamics, showcasing the way GMO utilization in cotton cultivation can be woven into the fabric of consumer spending habits.

As we unravel this tangled yarn of interconnected data, one thing is clear: the road to understanding consumer choices and agricultural methods is paved with un(G)MOingly entertaining surprises. In conclusion, our research not only highlights the remarkable correlation between vehicle spending and GMO cotton use but also humorously reminds us that, in the world of academic research, there’s always room for a good dad joke - like a trusty old sedan, they never go out of style!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Gather 'round, fellow scholars, as we embark on a journey that will surely drive home the unexpected correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. This study aims to peel back the layers of this unusual connection, much like peeling the layers of an onion - but fret not, no tears will be shed in this research, except perhaps tears of joy from uncovering such a wheel-y fascinating correlation.

Have you ever wondered why economists are terrible at DIY? Because when presented with data on household vehicle spending and GMO cotton use, they can't help but oil up their statistical tools and get to work. Despite the initial head-scratching and tireless analysis, our research has revealed a correlation coefficient so high, even a mathematician would exclaim, "That's revolting!"

As we zip through this exploration, it becomes clear that the link between consumer choices and agricultural practices is not just a mere coincidence – it's as distinct as a GPS navigation system guiding us through statistical terrain. It's a bit like the relationship between a cotton farmer and their tractor – inseparable, yet often overlooked by those outside the plaid-shirted circles of agricultural analysis.

Lest we forget, behind every data point and every graph lies a story waiting to be told. But be warned, this isn't just any story - it’s a tale of GMOtoring economics, where the numbers are as intriguing as a roadside attraction, and the findings are as eye-opening as realizing you've been driving on the wrong side of the road. So buckle up and join us as we unravel this perplexing mystery, because as we like to say in the academic world, "We're all about that base (data), 'bout that base, no treble!"


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 US household spending on vehicle purchaes and GMO use in cotton in Arkansas. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Perhaps you also got inspiration from some board games that are vaugely related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
GMOtoring Economics: Unpicking the Cotton Thread in US Vehicle Spending Patterns

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research dives into the unsuspecting correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. With a comprehensive analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we delved into a question that has re(GMO)tively puzzled economists and agriculture enthusiasts for far too long.

The study uncovers a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 and a significance level (p) below 0.01, spanning from the year 2000 through 2022. Our findings unveil a conspicuous relationship between the two seemingly disparate variables, shedding light on the unexpected interplay between consumer behavior and agricultural practices.

It appears that US households' affinity for shiny new wheels and the adoption of GMO cotton in Arkansas are more entangled than previously thought, raising intriguing questions and aMAIZEing insights. Our study offers a unique perspective on the intricate web of economic and agricultural dynamics, showcasing the way GMO utilization in cotton cultivation can be woven into the fabric of consumer spending habits.

As we unravel this tangled yarn of interconnected data, one thing is clear: the road to understanding consumer choices and agricultural methods is paved with un(G)MOingly entertaining surprises. In conclusion, our research not only highlights the remarkable correlation between vehicle spending and GMO cotton use but also humorously reminds us that, in the world of academic research, there’s always room for a good dad joke - like a trusty old sedan, they never go out of style!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Gather 'round, fellow scholars, as we embark on a journey that will surely drive home the unexpected correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. This study aims to peel back the layers of this unusual connection, much like peeling the layers of an onion - but fret not, no tears will be shed in this research, except perhaps tears of joy from uncovering such a wheel-y fascinating correlation.
Have you ever wondered why economists are terrible at DIY? Because when presented with data on household vehicle spending and GMO cotton use, they can't help but oil up their statistical tools and get to work. Despite the initial head-scratching and tireless analysis, our research has revealed a correlation coefficient so high, even a mathematician would exclaim, "That's revolting!"
As we zip through this exploration, it becomes clear that the link between consumer choices and agricultural practices is not just a mere coincidence – it's as distinct as a GPS navigation system guiding us through statistical terrain. It's a bit like the relationship between a cotton farmer and their tractor – inseparable, yet often overlooked by those outside the plaid-shirted circles of agricultural analysis.
Lest we forget, behind every data point and every graph lies a story waiting to be told. But be warned, this isn't just any story - it’s a tale of GMOtoring economics, where the numbers are as intriguing as a roadside attraction, and the findings are as eye-opening as realizing you've been driving on the wrong side of the road. So buckle up and join us as we unravel this perplexing mystery, because as we like to say in the academic world, "We're all about that base (data), 'bout that base, no treble!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "Smith and Doe's Study on Consumer Spending Habits," the authors find a significant positive association between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. This surprising correlation warrants further investigation and analysis, prompting researchers to delve deeper into this unexplored territory.

Now, let's shift gears and take a lighter look at some literature and sources that might unveil some unexpected insights into this unusual connection, like a surprise gift card hidden in the glove compartment of economic research.

"Genetically Modified Economies: Cultivating the Seeds of Growth" by Dr. Penelope Green Thumb may not directly touch on our topic, but it sure does plant some thought-provoking ideas about the impact of GMO use on agricultural economies. Just like a seed that grows into a tall tale, the connection between GMO cotton and consumer spending has flourished into a narrative ripe with potential.

And who could forget the classic novel "Cotton Fields to Highway Drives: The Interwoven Stories of Agriculture and Transportation" by Mark Twain's distant cousin, Hank Twain? This fictional tale may be more roads and rows than statistics and regression analysis, but it nonetheless provides an entertaining backdrop to our study, weaving a fabric of intrigue that captures the essence of our unconventional research pursuit.

For a dose of whimsy and a sprinkle of randomness, let's consider the influence of real estate mogul Uncle Pennybags from the popular board game Monopoly. After all, much like the interconnected properties on a Monopoly board, our research suggests an unexpected link between vehicle spending and cotton cultivation, leaving us all to wonder if perhaps Mr. Pennybags himself traded in his top hat for a Stetson and ventured into the world of agricultural economics.

But before we delve too deep into the rabbit hole of literary references and board game analogies, let's steer our focus back to the empirical evidence and scholarly discussions that underpin our investigation. Because, after all, when it comes to uncovering the interconnectedness of consumer behavior and agricultural practices, it's important to stay grounded in the data – even if our puns tend to take off on a tangent faster than a race car at the Indianapolis 500.


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 US household spending on vehicle purchaes and GMO use in cotton in Arkansas. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics 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]]
GMOtoring Economics: Unpicking the Cotton Thread in US Vehicle Spending Patterns

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research dives into the unsuspecting correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. With a comprehensive analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we delved into a question that has re(GMO)tively puzzled economists and agriculture enthusiasts for far too long.

The study uncovers a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 and a significance level (p) below 0.01, spanning from the year 2000 through 2022. Our findings unveil a conspicuous relationship between the two seemingly disparate variables, shedding light on the unexpected interplay between consumer behavior and agricultural practices.

It appears that US households' affinity for shiny new wheels and the adoption of GMO cotton in Arkansas are more entangled than previously thought, raising intriguing questions and aMAIZEing insights. Our study offers a unique perspective on the intricate web of economic and agricultural dynamics, showcasing the way GMO utilization in cotton cultivation can be woven into the fabric of consumer spending habits.

As we unravel this tangled yarn of interconnected data, one thing is clear: the road to understanding consumer choices and agricultural methods is paved with un(G)MOingly entertaining surprises. In conclusion, our research not only highlights the remarkable correlation between vehicle spending and GMO cotton use but also humorously reminds us that, in the world of academic research, there’s always room for a good dad joke - like a trusty old sedan, they never go out of style!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Gather 'round, fellow scholars, as we embark on a journey that will surely drive home the unexpected correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. This study aims to peel back the layers of this unusual connection, much like peeling the layers of an onion - but fret not, no tears will be shed in this research, except perhaps tears of joy from uncovering such a wheel-y fascinating correlation.
Have you ever wondered why economists are terrible at DIY? Because when presented with data on household vehicle spending and GMO cotton use, they can't help but oil up their statistical tools and get to work. Despite the initial head-scratching and tireless analysis, our research has revealed a correlation coefficient so high, even a mathematician would exclaim, "That's revolting!"
As we zip through this exploration, it becomes clear that the link between consumer choices and agricultural practices is not just a mere coincidence – it's as distinct as a GPS navigation system guiding us through statistical terrain. It's a bit like the relationship between a cotton farmer and their tractor – inseparable, yet often overlooked by those outside the plaid-shirted circles of agricultural analysis.
Lest we forget, behind every data point and every graph lies a story waiting to be told. But be warned, this isn't just any story - it’s a tale of GMOtoring economics, where the numbers are as intriguing as a roadside attraction, and the findings are as eye-opening as realizing you've been driving on the wrong side of the road. So buckle up and join us as we unravel this perplexing mystery, because as we like to say in the academic world, "We're all about that base (data), 'bout that base, no treble!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the intertwined threads of vehicle spending and GMO cotton use, our research team employed a multifaceted approach that can be best described as a hybrid blend of statistical wizardry and agricultural detective work. We started by sowing the seeds of investigation, much like a diligent farmer sows GMO cotton seeds in the fertile soil of Arkansas. Why did the car's odometer break up with the speedometer? Because it wanted some space! Just like how we needed space to conduct our methodology in this research *wink*

We gathered relevant data from various sources, focusing primarily on the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, sifting through the abundance of information like meticulous archaeologists carefully uncovering ancient artifacts. While we can't divulge all the secrets of our data collection process (we wouldn't want to cotton to any imitators!), let's just say it involved some ingenious strategies inspired by a mix of Sherlock Holmes and MacGyver – a true synthesis of deductive reasoning and resourcefulness.

Once we amassed the expansive dataset, we meticulously curated and cleaned it, ensuring that our analysis would be free from any stray bolls of data lint. This involved utilizing advanced data cleansing algorithms and techniques, as well as some good old-fashioned human scrutiny. Just like separating high-quality GMO cotton from its non-GMO counterparts, our data cleaning process was a labor of love.

Next, we delved into the statistical analysis, employing sophisticated econometric models and regression analyses to unravel the quantitative relationship between household spending on vehicle purchases and the adoption of GMO cotton in the cotton fields of Arkansas. It's worth noting that our statistical analyses were conducted with the same precision and attention to detail that a driver uses when parallel parking their car - a skill that requires finesse and careful maneuvering.

In addition to the econometric approach, we also conducted qualitative interviews with industry experts and stakeholders in both the automotive and agricultural sectors. These interviews provided valuable insights and perspectives, allowing us to weave a rich tapestry of understanding that extends beyond the numerical realm. Think of it as adding a splash of color to an otherwise black-and-white canvas, creating a more vibrant and nuanced portrayal of the correlations at play.

Lastly, in the spirit of transparency and scientific rigor, we meticulously documented our methodological journey, creating a comprehensive roadmap that details every twist and turn we encountered during our research expedition. We believe that sharing the behind-the-scenes process is akin to popping the hood of a car and revealing the intricate machinery beneath – it offers a glimpse into the inner workings that drive our scholarly pursuits.

In conclusion, our methodology represents a harmonious fusion of quantitative analysis, qualitative insights, and a dash of ingenuity, all solidifying our commitment to peeling back the layers of this intriguing correlation like a skilled mechanic tinkering with the inner workings of a complex engine. So, as we steer towards the horizon of analysis and interpretation, remember that the journey is just as important as the destination, and sometimes, a little humor can fuel the engine of discovery. Why do cars in Arkansas make for great study subjects? Because they always have a-little-rock under their wheels!


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 US household spending on vehicle purchaes and GMO use in cotton in Arkansas. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and USDA .

For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.8660580, r-squared of 0.7500564, 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]]
GMOtoring Economics: Unpicking the Cotton Thread in US Vehicle Spending Patterns

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research dives into the unsuspecting correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. With a comprehensive analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we delved into a question that has re(GMO)tively puzzled economists and agriculture enthusiasts for far too long.

The study uncovers a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 and a significance level (p) below 0.01, spanning from the year 2000 through 2022. Our findings unveil a conspicuous relationship between the two seemingly disparate variables, shedding light on the unexpected interplay between consumer behavior and agricultural practices.

It appears that US households' affinity for shiny new wheels and the adoption of GMO cotton in Arkansas are more entangled than previously thought, raising intriguing questions and aMAIZEing insights. Our study offers a unique perspective on the intricate web of economic and agricultural dynamics, showcasing the way GMO utilization in cotton cultivation can be woven into the fabric of consumer spending habits.

As we unravel this tangled yarn of interconnected data, one thing is clear: the road to understanding consumer choices and agricultural methods is paved with un(G)MOingly entertaining surprises. In conclusion, our research not only highlights the remarkable correlation between vehicle spending and GMO cotton use but also humorously reminds us that, in the world of academic research, there’s always room for a good dad joke - like a trusty old sedan, they never go out of style!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Gather 'round, fellow scholars, as we embark on a journey that will surely drive home the unexpected correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. This study aims to peel back the layers of this unusual connection, much like peeling the layers of an onion - but fret not, no tears will be shed in this research, except perhaps tears of joy from uncovering such a wheel-y fascinating correlation.
Have you ever wondered why economists are terrible at DIY? Because when presented with data on household vehicle spending and GMO cotton use, they can't help but oil up their statistical tools and get to work. Despite the initial head-scratching and tireless analysis, our research has revealed a correlation coefficient so high, even a mathematician would exclaim, "That's revolting!"
As we zip through this exploration, it becomes clear that the link between consumer choices and agricultural practices is not just a mere coincidence – it's as distinct as a GPS navigation system guiding us through statistical terrain. It's a bit like the relationship between a cotton farmer and their tractor – inseparable, yet often overlooked by those outside the plaid-shirted circles of agricultural analysis.
Lest we forget, behind every data point and every graph lies a story waiting to be told. But be warned, this isn't just any story - it’s a tale of GMOtoring economics, where the numbers are as intriguing as a roadside attraction, and the findings are as eye-opening as realizing you've been driving on the wrong side of the road. So buckle up and join us as we unravel this perplexing mystery, because as we like to say in the academic world, "We're all about that base (data), 'bout that base, no treble!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The data analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 and an r-squared value of 0.7500564, the relationship between these two variables is as clear as the view through a squeaky clean car windscreen. This result indicates that approximately 75% of the variation in vehicle spending can be explained by the use of GMO cotton in Arkansas, leaving only a quarter of the variation to be attributed to other factors. It's like finding a parking spot on a busy street – statistically significant and oh-so satisfying.

Fig. 1 illustrates the strong correlation depicted in a scatterplot, which leaves little room for doubt – much like a parallel-parked car leaving little room for maneuvering. The data points form a neatly fitting pattern, akin to a well-organized parking lot, serving as a visual testament to the robust relationship uncovered in this study.

It seems as if US households' penchant for shiny new wheels and the adoption of GMO cotton in Arkansas are intertwined in ways that, much like dad jokes, are both surprising and undeniable. After all, who would've guessed that cotton and cars have secretly been in cahoots this whole time? It's a revolutionary finding that leaves us all in stitches – just like a punctured tire, but in a good way.

This groundbreaking correlation not only sheds light on the intricate interactions between consumer behavior and agricultural practices but also serves as a reminder that in the world of academic research, there's always room for a good dad joke - much like how there's always room for dessert after a hearty meal.


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 US household spending on vehicle purchaes and GMO use in cotton in Arkansas. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
GMOtoring Economics: Unpicking the Cotton Thread in US Vehicle Spending Patterns

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research dives into the unsuspecting correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. With a comprehensive analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we delved into a question that has re(GMO)tively puzzled economists and agriculture enthusiasts for far too long.

The study uncovers a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 and a significance level (p) below 0.01, spanning from the year 2000 through 2022. Our findings unveil a conspicuous relationship between the two seemingly disparate variables, shedding light on the unexpected interplay between consumer behavior and agricultural practices.

It appears that US households' affinity for shiny new wheels and the adoption of GMO cotton in Arkansas are more entangled than previously thought, raising intriguing questions and aMAIZEing insights. Our study offers a unique perspective on the intricate web of economic and agricultural dynamics, showcasing the way GMO utilization in cotton cultivation can be woven into the fabric of consumer spending habits.

As we unravel this tangled yarn of interconnected data, one thing is clear: the road to understanding consumer choices and agricultural methods is paved with un(G)MOingly entertaining surprises. In conclusion, our research not only highlights the remarkable correlation between vehicle spending and GMO cotton use but also humorously reminds us that, in the world of academic research, there’s always room for a good dad joke - like a trusty old sedan, they never go out of style!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Smith and Doe's Study on Consumer Spending Habits," the authors find a significant positive association between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. This surprising correlation warrants further investigation and analysis, prompting researchers to delve deeper into this unexplored territory.
Now, let's shift gears and take a lighter look at some literature and sources that might unveil some unexpected insights into this unusual connection, like a surprise gift card hidden in the glove compartment of economic research.
"Genetically Modified Economies: Cultivating the Seeds of Growth" by Dr. Penelope Green Thumb may not directly touch on our topic, but it sure does plant some thought-provoking ideas about the impact of GMO use on agricultural economies. Just like a seed that grows into a tall tale, the connection between GMO cotton and consumer spending has flourished into a narrative ripe with potential.
And who could forget the classic novel "Cotton Fields to Highway Drives: The Interwoven Stories of Agriculture and Transportation" by Mark Twain's distant cousin, Hank Twain? This fictional tale may be more roads and rows than statistics and regression analysis, but it nonetheless provides an entertaining backdrop to our study, weaving a fabric of intrigue that captures the essence of our unconventional research pursuit.
For a dose of whimsy and a sprinkle of randomness, let's consider the influence of real estate mogul Uncle Pennybags from the popular board game Monopoly. After all, much like the interconnected properties on a Monopoly board, our research suggests an unexpected link between vehicle spending and cotton cultivation, leaving us all to wonder if perhaps Mr. Pennybags himself traded in his top hat for a Stetson and ventured into the world of agricultural economics.
But before we delve too deep into the rabbit hole of literary references and board game analogies, let's steer our focus back to the empirical evidence and scholarly discussions that underpin our investigation. Because, after all, when it comes to uncovering the interconnectedness of consumer behavior and agricultural practices, it's important to stay grounded in the data – even if our puns tend to take off on a tangent faster than a race car at the Indianapolis 500.

[[RESULTS]]
The data analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 and an r-squared value of 0.7500564, the relationship between these two variables is as clear as the view through a squeaky clean car windscreen. This result indicates that approximately 75% of the variation in vehicle spending can be explained by the use of GMO cotton in Arkansas, leaving only a quarter of the variation to be attributed to other factors. It's like finding a parking spot on a busy street – statistically significant and oh-so satisfying.
Fig. 1 illustrates the strong correlation depicted in a scatterplot, which leaves little room for doubt – much like a parallel-parked car leaving little room for maneuvering. The data points form a neatly fitting pattern, akin to a well-organized parking lot, serving as a visual testament to the robust relationship uncovered in this study.
It seems as if US households' penchant for shiny new wheels and the adoption of GMO cotton in Arkansas are intertwined in ways that, much like dad jokes, are both surprising and undeniable. After all, who would've guessed that cotton and cars have secretly been in cahoots this whole time? It's a revolutionary finding that leaves us all in stitches – just like a punctured tire, but in a good way.
This groundbreaking correlation not only sheds light on the intricate interactions between consumer behavior and agricultural practices but also serves as a reminder that in the world of academic research, there's always room for a good dad joke - much like how there's always room for dessert after a hearty meal.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Building on the foundations laid out by Smith and Doe's Study on Consumer Spending Habits, our findings not only support but also strengthen the notion of a significant positive association between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. It seems that this unexpected correlation is as un(G)MOingly solid as a vintage car’s engine.

Expanding on the whimsical literature review, it’s remarkable how our findings align with Penelope Green Thumb's work on the impact of GMO use on agricultural economies. The way these strands of research intertwine is as surprising as finding a forgotten pair of sunglasses in the glove compartment – a true spectacle indeed! Similarly, Hank Twain's fictional account of interwoven stories between agriculture and transportation now appears to have more truth to it than fiction.

Our results exemplify a spectacular meshing of consumer behavior and agricultural practices, akin to the seamless integration of a GPS system in a modern vehicle. The relationship we've uncovered is as clear as a well-maintained windshield on a breezy summer day. It's a connection that's as natural as a tire rolling down the road – or a well-delivered dad joke at the dinner table.

The correlation between vehicle spending and GMO cotton use appears to be deeply entrenched, much like how a car’s lug nuts are firmly secured. This unanticipated association between two seemingly unrelated domains has not only surprised us, but also entertained us, leaving us in a state of awe and amusement. It's the kind of revelation that's both significant and chuckle-inducing, like finding a winning lottery ticket tucked under the car's floor mat.

In essence, our study reinforces the unexpected yet steadfast connection between vehicle spending and cotton cultivation, offering a genuine reminder that in the world of academic research, unexpected correlations and dad jokes are always welcome – much like finding a complimentary air freshener in a brand-new car.


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 US household spending on vehicle purchaes and GMO use in cotton in Arkansas. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
GMOtoring Economics: Unpicking the Cotton Thread in US Vehicle Spending Patterns

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research dives into the unsuspecting correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. With a comprehensive analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we delved into a question that has re(GMO)tively puzzled economists and agriculture enthusiasts for far too long.

The study uncovers a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 and a significance level (p) below 0.01, spanning from the year 2000 through 2022. Our findings unveil a conspicuous relationship between the two seemingly disparate variables, shedding light on the unexpected interplay between consumer behavior and agricultural practices.

It appears that US households' affinity for shiny new wheels and the adoption of GMO cotton in Arkansas are more entangled than previously thought, raising intriguing questions and aMAIZEing insights. Our study offers a unique perspective on the intricate web of economic and agricultural dynamics, showcasing the way GMO utilization in cotton cultivation can be woven into the fabric of consumer spending habits.

As we unravel this tangled yarn of interconnected data, one thing is clear: the road to understanding consumer choices and agricultural methods is paved with un(G)MOingly entertaining surprises. In conclusion, our research not only highlights the remarkable correlation between vehicle spending and GMO cotton use but also humorously reminds us that, in the world of academic research, there’s always room for a good dad joke - like a trusty old sedan, they never go out of style!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Gather 'round, fellow scholars, as we embark on a journey that will surely drive home the unexpected correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. This study aims to peel back the layers of this unusual connection, much like peeling the layers of an onion - but fret not, no tears will be shed in this research, except perhaps tears of joy from uncovering such a wheel-y fascinating correlation.
Have you ever wondered why economists are terrible at DIY? Because when presented with data on household vehicle spending and GMO cotton use, they can't help but oil up their statistical tools and get to work. Despite the initial head-scratching and tireless analysis, our research has revealed a correlation coefficient so high, even a mathematician would exclaim, "That's revolting!"
As we zip through this exploration, it becomes clear that the link between consumer choices and agricultural practices is not just a mere coincidence – it's as distinct as a GPS navigation system guiding us through statistical terrain. It's a bit like the relationship between a cotton farmer and their tractor – inseparable, yet often overlooked by those outside the plaid-shirted circles of agricultural analysis.
Lest we forget, behind every data point and every graph lies a story waiting to be told. But be warned, this isn't just any story - it’s a tale of GMOtoring economics, where the numbers are as intriguing as a roadside attraction, and the findings are as eye-opening as realizing you've been driving on the wrong side of the road. So buckle up and join us as we unravel this perplexing mystery, because as we like to say in the academic world, "We're all about that base (data), 'bout that base, no treble!"

[[RESULTS]]
The data analysis revealed a remarkably strong correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 and an r-squared value of 0.7500564, the relationship between these two variables is as clear as the view through a squeaky clean car windscreen. This result indicates that approximately 75% of the variation in vehicle spending can be explained by the use of GMO cotton in Arkansas, leaving only a quarter of the variation to be attributed to other factors. It's like finding a parking spot on a busy street – statistically significant and oh-so satisfying.
Fig. 1 illustrates the strong correlation depicted in a scatterplot, which leaves little room for doubt – much like a parallel-parked car leaving little room for maneuvering. The data points form a neatly fitting pattern, akin to a well-organized parking lot, serving as a visual testament to the robust relationship uncovered in this study.
It seems as if US households' penchant for shiny new wheels and the adoption of GMO cotton in Arkansas are intertwined in ways that, much like dad jokes, are both surprising and undeniable. After all, who would've guessed that cotton and cars have secretly been in cahoots this whole time? It's a revolutionary finding that leaves us all in stitches – just like a punctured tire, but in a good way.
This groundbreaking correlation not only sheds light on the intricate interactions between consumer behavior and agricultural practices but also serves as a reminder that in the world of academic research, there's always room for a good dad joke - much like how there's always room for dessert after a hearty meal.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has peeled back the layers of the unexpected correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. The results have left us feeling as amazed as a mechanic realizing their wrench is also a bottle opener – astonished yet somehow delighted.

The remarkably strong correlation coefficient and significance level below 0.01 have led us to the undeniable conclusion that these two seemingly distinct variables are, in fact, interconnected. It's like discovering that a car's air freshener and upholstery colors were intentionally coordinated all along – a surprising but delightful realization.

By providing a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between consumer behavior and agricultural practices, our findings offer an insight as refreshing as a pit stop during a long road trip. The correlations uncovered are as consistent as the speed of a cruise control system, leaving little room for doubt and as expected as a truck being loaded with hay.

Therefore, in light of our GMOtoring findings, we assert that no more research is needed in this area. After all, this study has driven home the point that in the world of agricultural economics, sometimes the most unexpected correlations can yield the most intriguing insights. And speaking of unexpected correlations, have you heard the one about the farmer who turned into a car dealer? Turns out he wanted to sell "tractors" instead of "tracks"! Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, don't forget to tip your waitstaff.


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 GMOtoring Economics: Unpicking the Cotton Thread in US Vehicle Spending Patterns. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Bioeconomic Transportation 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 GMOtoring Economics: Unpicking the Cotton Thread in US Vehicle Spending Patterns. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Sustainable Agriculture and Economic Analysis


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 GMOtoring Economics: Unpicking the Cotton Thread in US Vehicle Spending Patterns with an abstract of This groundbreaking research dives into the unsuspecting correlation between US household spending on vehicle purchases and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton farming in Arkansas. With a comprehensive analysis of data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we delved into a question that has re(GMO)tively puzzled economists and agriculture enthusiasts for far too long.
The study uncovers a remarkably strong correlation coefficient of 0.8660580 and a significance level (p) below 0.01, spanning from the year 2000 through 2022. Our findings unveil a conspicuous relationship between the two seemingly disparate variables, shedding light on the unexpected interplay between consumer behavior and agricultural practices.
It appears that US households' affinity for shiny new wheels and the adoption of GMO cotton in Arkansas are more entangled than previously thought, raising intriguing questions and aMAIZEing insights. Our study offers a unique perspective on the intricate web of economic and agricultural dynamics, showcasing the way GMO utilization in cotton cultivation can be woven into the fabric of consumer spending habits.
As we unravel this tangled yarn of interconnected data, one thing is clear: the road to understanding consumer choices and agricultural methods is paved with un(G)MOingly entertaining surprises. In conclusion, our research not only highlights the remarkable correlation between vehicle spending and GMO cotton use but also humorously reminds us that, in the world of academic research, there’s always room for a good dad joke - like a trusty old sedan, they never go out of style!

ChatGPT:

GMO, cotton farming, Arkansas, US household spending, vehicle purchases, correlation coefficient, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, consumer behavior, agricultural practices, correlation, consumer spending, economic dynamics, agricultural dynamics, GMO utilization, cotton cultivation, consumer choices, agricultural methods, research, consumer spending habits.

*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

US household spending on vehicle purchaes
Detailed data title: Annual US household spend on vehicle purchaes, as a percentage of total household spend
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
See what else correlates with US household spending on vehicle purchaes

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

Correlation r = 0.8660580 (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 = 0.7500564 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 75% of the change in the one variable (i.e., GMO use in cotton in Arkansas) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., US household spending on vehicle purchaes) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 9.3E-8. 0.0000000931877453304080000000
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 0.87 in 9.3E-6% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 10,731,025 random variables You don't actually need 10 million variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 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.

[ 0.71, 0.94 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
US household spending on vehicle purchaes (Household spend)8.98419.056639.010019.143257.828097.636457.068186.535325.456965.415045.379455.369686.240046.401176.170677.140316.340846.749926.492556.970627.374387.213726.16169
GMO use in cotton in Arkansas (GMO cotton %)2329372515122116452712131212813141012105




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([8.9841,9.05663,9.01001,9.14325,7.82809,7.63645,7.06818,6.53532,5.45696,5.41504,5.37945,5.36968,6.24004,6.40117,6.17067,7.14031,6.34084,6.74992,6.49255,6.97062,7.37438,7.21372,6.16169,])
array_2 = np.array([23,29,37,25,15,12,21,16,4,5,2,7,12,13,12,12,8,13,14,10,12,10,5,])
array_1_name = "US household spending on vehicle purchaes"
array_2_name = "GMO use in cotton in Arkansas"

# 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 much appreciated!


Correlation ID: 1452 · Black Variable ID: 19985 · Red Variable ID: 780
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0