Download png, svg
AI explanation
As GMO corn in Illinois grew larger and more robust, it inadvertently led to a kernel of legal controversy. The unruly cornstalks began to trespass onto neighboring fields, sparking a-maize-ing property disputes. Farmers couldn't shuck off their legal responsibilities, so they lawyered up, turning the fields into a battleground. The cases kept popping up like... well, corn! The legal cob-dundrum resulted in a corn-ucopia of work for lawyers across the country, giving a whole new meaning to the term "agricultural law." It was a-maize-ing how a little genetic modification could lead to so much litig-corn!Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a black-and-white newspaper illustration featuring a vast cornfield in Illinois. The genetically modified cornstalks stand tall and appear vibrant in contrast to the dark, dramatic sky. In the background, a group of lawyers gather in a courtroom, engaging in intense discussions and legal deliberation. The illustration should capture the contrast between the natural beauty of the cornfield and the serious atmosphere of the courtroom. 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 Illinois and Number of Lawyers in the United States. 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: Surrealism A black-and-white newspaper illustration Cubism Charcoal Cutsy graphics
ChatGPT: A black-and-white newspaper illustration
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 Illinois and Number of Lawyers in the United States together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a vast cornfield in Illinois, bright green stalks of genetically modified corn stand tall. In the background, a group of lawyers gather in a courtroom, discussing legal matters.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A black-and-white newspaper illustration ] and depicting this scene: In a vast cornfield in Illinois, bright green stalks of genetically modified corn stand tall. In the background, a group of lawyers gather in a courtroom, discussing legal matters. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a black-and-white newspaper illustration featuring a vast cornfield in Illinois. The genetically modified cornstalks stand tall and appear vibrant in contrast to the dark, dramatic sky. In the background, a group of lawyers gather in a courtroom, engaging in intense discussions and legal deliberation. The illustration should capture the contrast between the natural beauty of the cornfield and the serious atmosphere of the courtroom.
*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.
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in GMO use in corn grown in Illinois caused Number of Lawyers in the United States to increase. Include one good pun.
AI academic paper
GMO Corn in IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth? The Journal of Agricultural Paradoxes Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Illinois and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Rhyme words in the title.
Your research team used data from USDA and ABA to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 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]]
GMO Corn in IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth?
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the tantalizing and slightly corny connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in corn grown in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States. While some may dismiss it as cornspiracy theory, our research suggests that there may be a kernel of truth to this seemingly a-maize-ing correlation. Using data from the USDA and the American Bar Association, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2000 to 2022. Our findings revealed a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 and a p-value less than 0.01, providing compelling evidence of a relationship. However, before we put all our kernels in one basket, it's important to weed out any potential confounding factors and distinguish between causation and corn-incidence. Our research adds a pop of curiosity to the scholarly discussions while provoking some unbearably corny jokes along the way.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Illinois and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
GMO Corn in IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth?
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the tantalizing and slightly corny connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in corn grown in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States. While some may dismiss it as cornspiracy theory, our research suggests that there may be a kernel of truth to this seemingly a-maize-ing correlation. Using data from the USDA and the American Bar Association, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2000 to 2022. Our findings revealed a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 and a p-value less than 0.01, providing compelling evidence of a relationship. However, before we put all our kernels in one basket, it's important to weed out any potential confounding factors and distinguish between causation and corn-incidence. Our research adds a pop of curiosity to the scholarly discussions while provoking some unbearably corny jokes along the way.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), corn, and the legal profession may seem as far-fetched as a popcorn-flavored milkshake, but it is a topic that has tantalized the academic community and the more kernel-minded individuals for some time. Historically, studies on GMOs have tended to focus on their potential impact on human health, the environment, or even the economy, but some have ventured into the uncharted territory of examining their connection to unexpected variables. Enter the steadily growing presence of lawyers in the United States.
The impetus for this study was the prevailing curiosity regarding an alleged correlation between the use of GMOs in corn cultivation in Illinois and the number of lawyers practicing across the United States. It is no secret that the legal field is often ripe with controversy and litigation, yet few could have forecasted a connection with the humble corn crop. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding" - or, in this case, perhaps "the proof is in the popcorn."
Of course, one cannot simply pop to conclusions without robust evidence and thorough analysis, which is precisely the endeavor of this research. We aim to delve into this curiously corny correlation and investigate whether there is, indeed, a kernel of truth to the alleged relationship. This study seeks to add a new dimension to the discourse surrounding GMOs, legal professionals, and the tangled web they potentially weave. While we proceed with a due sense of levity, recognizing the inherent absurdity of the hypothesis, we also approach the task with the solemnity of any scholarly inquiry, acknowledging the need to scrutinize the evidence and separate the wheat from the chaff, or rather, the corn from the crackling lawsuit.
It is our hope that this study will not only illuminate the often-overlooked interplay between agricultural practices and the legal landscape, but also infuse a bit of humor and light-heartedness into the rather serious arena of academic research. With this in mind, we invite our readers to join us on this a-maize-ing exploration, as we peel back the husks of this cornundrum and examine what lies beneath. After all, in the words of American humorist Garrison Keillor, "Nothing gets the taste of humiliation out of your mouth quite like seeing your enemies run over by a tractor."
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Illinois and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.
Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.
Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name some movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
GMO Corn in IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth?
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the tantalizing and slightly corny connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in corn grown in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States. While some may dismiss it as cornspiracy theory, our research suggests that there may be a kernel of truth to this seemingly a-maize-ing correlation. Using data from the USDA and the American Bar Association, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2000 to 2022. Our findings revealed a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 and a p-value less than 0.01, providing compelling evidence of a relationship. However, before we put all our kernels in one basket, it's important to weed out any potential confounding factors and distinguish between causation and corn-incidence. Our research adds a pop of curiosity to the scholarly discussions while provoking some unbearably corny jokes along the way.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), corn, and the legal profession may seem as far-fetched as a popcorn-flavored milkshake, but it is a topic that has tantalized the academic community and the more kernel-minded individuals for some time. Historically, studies on GMOs have tended to focus on their potential impact on human health, the environment, or even the economy, but some have ventured into the uncharted territory of examining their connection to unexpected variables. Enter the steadily growing presence of lawyers in the United States.
The impetus for this study was the prevailing curiosity regarding an alleged correlation between the use of GMOs in corn cultivation in Illinois and the number of lawyers practicing across the United States. It is no secret that the legal field is often ripe with controversy and litigation, yet few could have forecasted a connection with the humble corn crop. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding" - or, in this case, perhaps "the proof is in the popcorn."
Of course, one cannot simply pop to conclusions without robust evidence and thorough analysis, which is precisely the endeavor of this research. We aim to delve into this curiously corny correlation and investigate whether there is, indeed, a kernel of truth to the alleged relationship. This study seeks to add a new dimension to the discourse surrounding GMOs, legal professionals, and the tangled web they potentially weave. While we proceed with a due sense of levity, recognizing the inherent absurdity of the hypothesis, we also approach the task with the solemnity of any scholarly inquiry, acknowledging the need to scrutinize the evidence and separate the wheat from the chaff, or rather, the corn from the crackling lawsuit.
It is our hope that this study will not only illuminate the often-overlooked interplay between agricultural practices and the legal landscape, but also infuse a bit of humor and light-heartedness into the rather serious arena of academic research. With this in mind, we invite our readers to join us on this a-maize-ing exploration, as we peel back the husks of this cornundrum and examine what lies beneath. After all, in the words of American humorist Garrison Keillor, "Nothing gets the taste of humiliation out of your mouth quite like seeing your enemies run over by a tractor."
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The quest to uncover the enigmatic link between genetically modified corn in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States has attracted the interest of researchers from a variety of disciplines. Smith et al. (2015) delve into the potential impact of GMOs on agricultural practices and the environment in their comprehensive study, while Doe (2018) examines the evolving landscape of legal professions in the U.S. Jones (2020) contributes to the literature by exploring the societal implications of GMO usage, albeit in a broader context. These serious scholarly works lay the groundwork for our exploration, but we must now take a detour to consider some unexpected sources that have also lent their perspectives to this peculiar intersection.
In "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, the author's investigation into the complexities of the modern food system and its effects on society offers a tangential glimpse into the potential influence of GMOs on legal dynamics. Furthermore, "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser serves as a reminder of the interconnectedness of agricultural practices and legal frameworks, albeit with a focus on a different aspect of the food industry.
On a lighter note, the fictional world of literature also provides some intriguing parallels. In John Grisham's legal thriller "The Pelican Brief," the protagonist's investigation into a high-stakes conspiracy draws unexpected connections akin to our own corny pursuit. Similarly, the dystopian landscape of "The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Collins offers a cautionary tale of societal control and power dynamics, which may indirectly resonate with the potential implications of GMOs on legal systems. Though the connection may be as tenuous as a single strand of corn silk, it is worth acknowledging the broader cultural echoes that permeate our understanding of this correlation.
Turning to the realm of film, "Food, Inc." provides a thought-provoking exposé on the food industry, shedding light on the agricultural practices that underpin our everyday sustenance. While not directly addressing the legal implications, the film underscores the profound impact of agricultural decisions on society at large.
With this whimsical detour through various literary and cinematic avenues, we are reminded of the diverse perspectives that inform our understanding of this intriguing correlation. As we navigate this scholarly labyrinth, teeming with corny puns and unexpected twists, let us not lose sight of the ultimate goal: to discern whether there truly exists a kernel of truth in the peculiar relationship between GMO corn and the legal profession.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Illinois and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and ABA . 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]]
GMO Corn in IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth?
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the tantalizing and slightly corny connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in corn grown in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States. While some may dismiss it as cornspiracy theory, our research suggests that there may be a kernel of truth to this seemingly a-maize-ing correlation. Using data from the USDA and the American Bar Association, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2000 to 2022. Our findings revealed a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 and a p-value less than 0.01, providing compelling evidence of a relationship. However, before we put all our kernels in one basket, it's important to weed out any potential confounding factors and distinguish between causation and corn-incidence. Our research adds a pop of curiosity to the scholarly discussions while provoking some unbearably corny jokes along the way.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), corn, and the legal profession may seem as far-fetched as a popcorn-flavored milkshake, but it is a topic that has tantalized the academic community and the more kernel-minded individuals for some time. Historically, studies on GMOs have tended to focus on their potential impact on human health, the environment, or even the economy, but some have ventured into the uncharted territory of examining their connection to unexpected variables. Enter the steadily growing presence of lawyers in the United States.
The impetus for this study was the prevailing curiosity regarding an alleged correlation between the use of GMOs in corn cultivation in Illinois and the number of lawyers practicing across the United States. It is no secret that the legal field is often ripe with controversy and litigation, yet few could have forecasted a connection with the humble corn crop. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding" - or, in this case, perhaps "the proof is in the popcorn."
Of course, one cannot simply pop to conclusions without robust evidence and thorough analysis, which is precisely the endeavor of this research. We aim to delve into this curiously corny correlation and investigate whether there is, indeed, a kernel of truth to the alleged relationship. This study seeks to add a new dimension to the discourse surrounding GMOs, legal professionals, and the tangled web they potentially weave. While we proceed with a due sense of levity, recognizing the inherent absurdity of the hypothesis, we also approach the task with the solemnity of any scholarly inquiry, acknowledging the need to scrutinize the evidence and separate the wheat from the chaff, or rather, the corn from the crackling lawsuit.
It is our hope that this study will not only illuminate the often-overlooked interplay between agricultural practices and the legal landscape, but also infuse a bit of humor and light-heartedness into the rather serious arena of academic research. With this in mind, we invite our readers to join us on this a-maize-ing exploration, as we peel back the husks of this cornundrum and examine what lies beneath. After all, in the words of American humorist Garrison Keillor, "Nothing gets the taste of humiliation out of your mouth quite like seeing your enemies run over by a tractor."
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To investigate the alleged connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in corn grown in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States, our research employed a combination of rigorous data collection, statistical analysis, and a dash of good old-fashioned pun-ishment for anyone caught using dull language.
First and foremost, we scoured the vast expanse of the internet for data, utilizing sources such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). We diligently collected information spanning from the year 2000 to 2022, ensuring that our analysis encompassed a significant period to capture potential long-term trends and fluctuations.
Our methodology included a "cornucopia" of statistical techniques, including but not limited to regression analysis, time series modeling, and perhaps even a sprinkle of witchcraft to keep things interesting - just kidding, the hair-raising statistical techniques we employed were all strictly grounded in sound methodology and data science principles.
To establish a robust and serious foundation for our analysis, we utilized rigorous statistical software and programming languages to wrangle the data into submission, ensuring that it revealed its kernels of truth with absolute transparency. We then calculated correlation coefficients, p-values, and various other statistical measures with the precision of a chef perfecting a corn soufflé, or at least that's what we tell ourselves to make data crunching more palatable.
Although we approach this research with a sense of humor, we take the analytical aspects of our methodology very seriously. Every model, parameter, and assumption was scrutinized with all the intensity of a corn farmer inspecting their yield, aiming to ensure that our findings were as reliable and robust as possible. After all, we didn't want any statistical anomalies to pop up like unpopped kernels in a bag of microwaved popcorn.
In addition to our quantitative analysis, we also conducted qualitative investigations into the cultural and historical significance of corn and its potential influence on legal practices. This involved delving into folklore, literature, and perhaps a few old corny jokes to foster a deeper understanding of the interplay between agricultural practices and the legal landscape.
Furthermore, given the nature of our study and the sheer peculiarity of its premise, we incorporated a generous serving of skepticism, constantly challenging our assumptions and methodologies to ensure that we weren't getting too corny or jumping to conclusions like a kernel escaping the confines of a pan.
Through this multidimensional approach, we aimed to peel back the layers of this seemingly a-maize-ing correlation, all the while remaining mindful of the balance between academic rigor and the inherently whimsical nature of the topic at hand.
Ultimately, our methodology sought to uphold the most important principle of all - that serious research doesn't have to be entirely serious. With that in mind, we embarked on our investigation with a sense of scholarly curiosity and a commitment to unearthing the corn-nection between GMO corn in Illinois and the legal profession with all the earnestness of a farmer tending to their crops or a lawyer preparing for a "corny" case.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Illinois and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and ABA .
For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9743082, r-squared of 0.9492765, 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 IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth?
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the tantalizing and slightly corny connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in corn grown in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States. While some may dismiss it as cornspiracy theory, our research suggests that there may be a kernel of truth to this seemingly a-maize-ing correlation. Using data from the USDA and the American Bar Association, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2000 to 2022. Our findings revealed a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 and a p-value less than 0.01, providing compelling evidence of a relationship. However, before we put all our kernels in one basket, it's important to weed out any potential confounding factors and distinguish between causation and corn-incidence. Our research adds a pop of curiosity to the scholarly discussions while provoking some unbearably corny jokes along the way.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), corn, and the legal profession may seem as far-fetched as a popcorn-flavored milkshake, but it is a topic that has tantalized the academic community and the more kernel-minded individuals for some time. Historically, studies on GMOs have tended to focus on their potential impact on human health, the environment, or even the economy, but some have ventured into the uncharted territory of examining their connection to unexpected variables. Enter the steadily growing presence of lawyers in the United States.
The impetus for this study was the prevailing curiosity regarding an alleged correlation between the use of GMOs in corn cultivation in Illinois and the number of lawyers practicing across the United States. It is no secret that the legal field is often ripe with controversy and litigation, yet few could have forecasted a connection with the humble corn crop. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding" - or, in this case, perhaps "the proof is in the popcorn."
Of course, one cannot simply pop to conclusions without robust evidence and thorough analysis, which is precisely the endeavor of this research. We aim to delve into this curiously corny correlation and investigate whether there is, indeed, a kernel of truth to the alleged relationship. This study seeks to add a new dimension to the discourse surrounding GMOs, legal professionals, and the tangled web they potentially weave. While we proceed with a due sense of levity, recognizing the inherent absurdity of the hypothesis, we also approach the task with the solemnity of any scholarly inquiry, acknowledging the need to scrutinize the evidence and separate the wheat from the chaff, or rather, the corn from the crackling lawsuit.
It is our hope that this study will not only illuminate the often-overlooked interplay between agricultural practices and the legal landscape, but also infuse a bit of humor and light-heartedness into the rather serious arena of academic research. With this in mind, we invite our readers to join us on this a-maize-ing exploration, as we peel back the husks of this cornundrum and examine what lies beneath. After all, in the words of American humorist Garrison Keillor, "Nothing gets the taste of humiliation out of your mouth quite like seeing your enemies run over by a tractor."
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 and an r-squared value of 0.9492765, with a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong and statistically significant relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivated in Illinois and the number of lawyers practicing in the United States. Fig. 1 illustrates the strikingly robust correlation between these two variables, manifesting our findings in a visually a-peeling manner.
This begs the question: is there a kernel of truth to the notion that the cultivation of GMO corn in Illinois is somehow linked to the proliferation of legal practitioners across the nation? Our research suggests the possibility of such a connection, but we must tread carefully through this proverbial maize field of association.
While the correlation we uncovered may appear as clear as day, it's essential to exercise caution before jumping to sensationalist conclusions. As any diligent researcher knows, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. We must consider the potential influences of other variables, such as economic, social, and legal factors, that could be contributing to this intriguing correlation. After all, we wouldn't want to force-fit all our data into a corn-themed narrative without carefully shucking away the extraneous kernels of information.
Nevertheless, the strength of the correlation is undeniably compelling. One might say that our findings have stalked the boundaries of scientific convention in a quest for the cob-clusive evidence that we present here. This a-maize-ing revelation certainly adds a pop of intrigue to the often-staid world of statistical research. We are reminded by this unexpected link that the academic landscape, much like a cornfield, is filled with kernels of knowledge waiting to be harvested.
In conclusion, our results lead us to consider the previously unexplored potential interplay between agricultural practices and the legal profession. While our findings may seem as outlandish as a corn on the cob vending machine, we are encouraged by the implications of our research, pointing to the need for further investigation and a-maize-ing discussions in the scholarly community. Perhaps it's time we embrace both the serious and the corny in our academic pursuits, recognizing that even the most unexpected correlations can shed light on unseen patterns and relationships.
But before we get too carried away with these findings, let's not lose sight of the corn-ventional wisdom that more research is needed to fully husk out the underlying mechanisms behind this correlation. After all, as the saying goes, "Don't count your ears before they're husked."
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Illinois and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
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 IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth?
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the tantalizing and slightly corny connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in corn grown in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States. While some may dismiss it as cornspiracy theory, our research suggests that there may be a kernel of truth to this seemingly a-maize-ing correlation. Using data from the USDA and the American Bar Association, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2000 to 2022. Our findings revealed a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 and a p-value less than 0.01, providing compelling evidence of a relationship. However, before we put all our kernels in one basket, it's important to weed out any potential confounding factors and distinguish between causation and corn-incidence. Our research adds a pop of curiosity to the scholarly discussions while provoking some unbearably corny jokes along the way.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The quest to uncover the enigmatic link between genetically modified corn in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States has attracted the interest of researchers from a variety of disciplines. Smith et al. (2015) delve into the potential impact of GMOs on agricultural practices and the environment in their comprehensive study, while Doe (2018) examines the evolving landscape of legal professions in the U.S. Jones (2020) contributes to the literature by exploring the societal implications of GMO usage, albeit in a broader context. These serious scholarly works lay the groundwork for our exploration, but we must now take a detour to consider some unexpected sources that have also lent their perspectives to this peculiar intersection.
In "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, the author's investigation into the complexities of the modern food system and its effects on society offers a tangential glimpse into the potential influence of GMOs on legal dynamics. Furthermore, "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser serves as a reminder of the interconnectedness of agricultural practices and legal frameworks, albeit with a focus on a different aspect of the food industry.
On a lighter note, the fictional world of literature also provides some intriguing parallels. In John Grisham's legal thriller "The Pelican Brief," the protagonist's investigation into a high-stakes conspiracy draws unexpected connections akin to our own corny pursuit. Similarly, the dystopian landscape of "The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Collins offers a cautionary tale of societal control and power dynamics, which may indirectly resonate with the potential implications of GMOs on legal systems. Though the connection may be as tenuous as a single strand of corn silk, it is worth acknowledging the broader cultural echoes that permeate our understanding of this correlation.
Turning to the realm of film, "Food, Inc." provides a thought-provoking exposé on the food industry, shedding light on the agricultural practices that underpin our everyday sustenance. While not directly addressing the legal implications, the film underscores the profound impact of agricultural decisions on society at large.
With this whimsical detour through various literary and cinematic avenues, we are reminded of the diverse perspectives that inform our understanding of this intriguing correlation. As we navigate this scholarly labyrinth, teeming with corny puns and unexpected twists, let us not lose sight of the ultimate goal: to discern whether there truly exists a kernel of truth in the peculiar relationship between GMO corn and the legal profession.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 and an r-squared value of 0.9492765, with a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong and statistically significant relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivated in Illinois and the number of lawyers practicing in the United States. Fig. 1 illustrates the strikingly robust correlation between these two variables, manifesting our findings in a visually a-peeling manner.
This begs the question: is there a kernel of truth to the notion that the cultivation of GMO corn in Illinois is somehow linked to the proliferation of legal practitioners across the nation? Our research suggests the possibility of such a connection, but we must tread carefully through this proverbial maize field of association.
While the correlation we uncovered may appear as clear as day, it's essential to exercise caution before jumping to sensationalist conclusions. As any diligent researcher knows, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. We must consider the potential influences of other variables, such as economic, social, and legal factors, that could be contributing to this intriguing correlation. After all, we wouldn't want to force-fit all our data into a corn-themed narrative without carefully shucking away the extraneous kernels of information.
Nevertheless, the strength of the correlation is undeniably compelling. One might say that our findings have stalked the boundaries of scientific convention in a quest for the cob-clusive evidence that we present here. This a-maize-ing revelation certainly adds a pop of intrigue to the often-staid world of statistical research. We are reminded by this unexpected link that the academic landscape, much like a cornfield, is filled with kernels of knowledge waiting to be harvested.
In conclusion, our results lead us to consider the previously unexplored potential interplay between agricultural practices and the legal profession. While our findings may seem as outlandish as a corn on the cob vending machine, we are encouraged by the implications of our research, pointing to the need for further investigation and a-maize-ing discussions in the scholarly community. Perhaps it's time we embrace both the serious and the corny in our academic pursuits, recognizing that even the most unexpected correlations can shed light on unseen patterns and relationships.
But before we get too carried away with these findings, let's not lose sight of the corn-ventional wisdom that more research is needed to fully husk out the underlying mechanisms behind this correlation. After all, as the saying goes, "Don't count your ears before they're husked."
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
Our study has unearthed a remarkably robust correlation between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States, a connection that might at first blush seem as improbable as a corn maze in a legal library. However, our findings support and build upon the prior research in this field, albeit with a whimsical twist. As we traverse this academic landscape, replete with serious scholarly works and whimsical detours alike, we find ourselves pondering the not-so-corny possibility of a genuine kernel of truth behind this seemingly a-maize-ing correlation.
Returning to the literature review, we recall the unexpected sources that lent their perspectives to this peculiar intersection. What may have initially seemed like tangential musings in "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "Fast Food Nation" now take on a weightier significance, as their insights echo the tangible link between agricultural practices and legal dynamics that our research has brought to light. The fictional parallels in "The Pelican Brief" and "The Hunger Games" have, in their own right, unwittingly foreshadowed our surprising findings. Quite the twist, as unexpected as finding a farmer's hat in a courtroom.
Our a-peeling results provide compelling evidence that cannot be corntradicted. It's not just a bunch of kernel poppycock; the strikingly robust correlation coefficient and r-squared value speak volumes about the potential relationship between GMO corn cultivation and the legal profession. Our findings have startled the scholarly community much like a jolt from an electric corn stripper.
We must, however, tread carefully through this proverbial maize field of association, as any diligent researcher knows that correlation does not imply causation. The implications of our research should be husked with care, like a precious cob of sweet corn. We cannot rush to judgment and force-fit our data into a corn-themed narrative without carefully shucking away the extraneous kernels of information.
In light of our findings, it seems there's a-maize-ing potential for further investigation into the complex interplay between agricultural practices and the legal profession. Perhaps it's time to embrace the serious and the corny, recognizing that even the most unexpected correlations can shed light on unseen patterns and relationships. After all, as the saying goes, "A-maize-ing findings in research are like corn on the cob – they deserve to be shared and savored!"
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Illinois and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.
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 IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth?
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we investigate the tantalizing and slightly corny connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in corn grown in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States. While some may dismiss it as cornspiracy theory, our research suggests that there may be a kernel of truth to this seemingly a-maize-ing correlation. Using data from the USDA and the American Bar Association, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2000 to 2022. Our findings revealed a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 and a p-value less than 0.01, providing compelling evidence of a relationship. However, before we put all our kernels in one basket, it's important to weed out any potential confounding factors and distinguish between causation and corn-incidence. Our research adds a pop of curiosity to the scholarly discussions while provoking some unbearably corny jokes along the way.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), corn, and the legal profession may seem as far-fetched as a popcorn-flavored milkshake, but it is a topic that has tantalized the academic community and the more kernel-minded individuals for some time. Historically, studies on GMOs have tended to focus on their potential impact on human health, the environment, or even the economy, but some have ventured into the uncharted territory of examining their connection to unexpected variables. Enter the steadily growing presence of lawyers in the United States.
The impetus for this study was the prevailing curiosity regarding an alleged correlation between the use of GMOs in corn cultivation in Illinois and the number of lawyers practicing across the United States. It is no secret that the legal field is often ripe with controversy and litigation, yet few could have forecasted a connection with the humble corn crop. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding" - or, in this case, perhaps "the proof is in the popcorn."
Of course, one cannot simply pop to conclusions without robust evidence and thorough analysis, which is precisely the endeavor of this research. We aim to delve into this curiously corny correlation and investigate whether there is, indeed, a kernel of truth to the alleged relationship. This study seeks to add a new dimension to the discourse surrounding GMOs, legal professionals, and the tangled web they potentially weave. While we proceed with a due sense of levity, recognizing the inherent absurdity of the hypothesis, we also approach the task with the solemnity of any scholarly inquiry, acknowledging the need to scrutinize the evidence and separate the wheat from the chaff, or rather, the corn from the crackling lawsuit.
It is our hope that this study will not only illuminate the often-overlooked interplay between agricultural practices and the legal landscape, but also infuse a bit of humor and light-heartedness into the rather serious arena of academic research. With this in mind, we invite our readers to join us on this a-maize-ing exploration, as we peel back the husks of this cornundrum and examine what lies beneath. After all, in the words of American humorist Garrison Keillor, "Nothing gets the taste of humiliation out of your mouth quite like seeing your enemies run over by a tractor."
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our investigation yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 and an r-squared value of 0.9492765, with a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong and statistically significant relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivated in Illinois and the number of lawyers practicing in the United States. Fig. 1 illustrates the strikingly robust correlation between these two variables, manifesting our findings in a visually a-peeling manner.
This begs the question: is there a kernel of truth to the notion that the cultivation of GMO corn in Illinois is somehow linked to the proliferation of legal practitioners across the nation? Our research suggests the possibility of such a connection, but we must tread carefully through this proverbial maize field of association.
While the correlation we uncovered may appear as clear as day, it's essential to exercise caution before jumping to sensationalist conclusions. As any diligent researcher knows, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. We must consider the potential influences of other variables, such as economic, social, and legal factors, that could be contributing to this intriguing correlation. After all, we wouldn't want to force-fit all our data into a corn-themed narrative without carefully shucking away the extraneous kernels of information.
Nevertheless, the strength of the correlation is undeniably compelling. One might say that our findings have stalked the boundaries of scientific convention in a quest for the cob-clusive evidence that we present here. This a-maize-ing revelation certainly adds a pop of intrigue to the often-staid world of statistical research. We are reminded by this unexpected link that the academic landscape, much like a cornfield, is filled with kernels of knowledge waiting to be harvested.
In conclusion, our results lead us to consider the previously unexplored potential interplay between agricultural practices and the legal profession. While our findings may seem as outlandish as a corn on the cob vending machine, we are encouraged by the implications of our research, pointing to the need for further investigation and a-maize-ing discussions in the scholarly community. Perhaps it's time we embrace both the serious and the corny in our academic pursuits, recognizing that even the most unexpected correlations can shed light on unseen patterns and relationships.
But before we get too carried away with these findings, let's not lose sight of the corn-ventional wisdom that more research is needed to fully husk out the underlying mechanisms behind this correlation. After all, as the saying goes, "Don't count your ears before they're husked."
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
While we may be feeling a bit like kernels of researchers stuck in the cob-web of this a-maize-ing correlation, it's time to wrap it up and pop some conclusions like a kettle of corn in the microwave. Our results tantalize the taste buds of curiosity, hinting at a strong connection between GMO corn in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the U.S., but we're not ready to butter our conclusion just yet.
Before we conjure up visions of corn-shaped law firms sprouting across the heartland, we must tread carefully through the maize maze of causation and correlation. As tempting as it is to put all our kernels in one basket, we mustn't lose sight of the bigger picture. After all, correlation does not imply a corncrete cause, and there may be other factors at play - we don't want to just go with the popcorn flow.
In the corn-text of academic research, our findings add a pop of intrigue and a sprinkle of humor, showing that even the most a-maize-ing correlations can sprout from the unlikeliest of soil. But as we wind down this research, it's clearer than freshly polished kernels that there's no need for more research in this area. Let's shuck away any lingering doubt - this study has certainly husked the corn.
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 IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth?. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Agricultural Paradoxes
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 IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth?. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Research Consortium for Agricultural Biotechnology and Legal Ethics
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 IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth? with an abstract of In this study, we investigate the tantalizing and slightly corny connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in corn grown in Illinois and the number of lawyers in the United States. While some may dismiss it as cornspiracy theory, our research suggests that there may be a kernel of truth to this seemingly a-maize-ing correlation. Using data from the USDA and the American Bar Association, we conducted a thorough analysis spanning from 2000 to 2022. Our findings revealed a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9743082 and a p-value less than 0.01, providing compelling evidence of a relationship. However, before we put all our kernels in one basket, it's important to weed out any potential confounding factors and distinguish between causation and corn-incidence. Our research adds a pop of curiosity to the scholarly discussions while provoking some unbearably corny jokes along the way.
ChatGPT:
"GMO corn Illinois lawyers correlation", "Genetically modified organisms correlation with lawyer population", "GMO corn impact on lawyer numbers US", "US lawyer statistics 2000-2022", "USDA data GMO corn Illinois", "Correlation coefficient GMO corn lawyer population", "Corny connection between GMO corn and lawyers", "Causation versus coincidence GMO corn lawyer relationship"
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
GMO use in corn grown in IllinoisDetailed data title: Percent of all corn planted in Illinois genetically modified with both Bt and HT
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in corn grown in Illinois
Number of Lawyers in the United States
Detailed data title: The Count of ABA Lawyers in the United States
Source: ABA
See what else correlates with Number of Lawyers in the United States
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 = 0.9492765 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 94.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Number of Lawyers in the United States) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in corn grown in Illinois) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 4.5E-15. 0.0000000000000044736632110847
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 0.97 in 4.5E-13% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 223,530,461,015,088 random variables You don't actually need 223 trillion 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.
[ 0.94, 0.99 ] 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.
2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
GMO use in corn grown in Illinois (GMO corn %) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 19 | 40 | 52 | 59 | 52 | 55 | 53 | 78 | 83 | 88 | 87 | 85 | 89 | 88 | 88 | 86 | 87 |
Number of Lawyers in the United States (Lawyers) | 1022460 | 1048900 | 1049750 | 1058660 | 1084500 | 1104770 | 1116970 | 1143360 | 1162120 | 1180390 | 1203100 | 1225450 | 1245200 | 1268010 | 1281430 | 1300700 | 1312870 | 1335960 | 1342380 | 1352080 | 1328740 | 1327910 | 1327010 |
Why this works
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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([1,1,1,1,2,5,19,40,52,59,52,55,53,78,83,88,87,85,89,88,88,86,87,])
array_2 = np.array([1022460,1048900,1049750,1058660,1084500,1104770,1116970,1143360,1162120,1180390,1203100,1225450,1245200,1268010,1281430,1300700,1312870,1335960,1342380,1352080,1328740,1327910,1327010,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in corn grown in Illinois"
array_2_name = "Number of Lawyers in the United States"
# 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:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only GMO use in corn grown in Illinois
- Line chart for only Number of Lawyers in the United States
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: GMO Corn in IL: A Juxtaposition with Lawyers in the US - Is There a Kernel of Truth?
Your rating is much appreciated!
Correlation ID: 1499 · Black Variable ID: 739 · Red Variable ID: 542