about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #1,831 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is GMO use in corn grown in Ohio and the second variable is Number of Lawyers in the United States.  The chart goes from 2004 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The GMO corn in Ohio is developing a strong resistance to pests, much like how lawyers are resistant to legal 'pests' looking for trouble. Looks like these lawyers are corn-fused about their career choices!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a vast cornfield in Ohio under a clear blue sky. The rows of tall, healthy corn plants sway gently in the breeze. Among the green stalks, a group of lawyers in suits and ties walk through the field, engaged in discussions. Some lawyers are examining the corn closely, while others take notes on their clipboards. The scene conveys the intersection of GMO use in Ohio's corn fields and the presence of numerous lawyers in the United States. The details should be realistic and visually compelling. 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 Ohio 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: Sci-fi fantacy Symbolism Charcoal Realistic Hyper-realistic
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 GMO use in corn grown in Ohio and Number of Lawyers in the United States together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a vast cornfield in Ohio, rows and rows of tall, healthy corn plants sway gently in the breeze. Among the green stalks, a group of lawyers in suits and ties walk through the field, discussing legal matters. Some of the lawyers examine the corn closely, while others take notes on their clipboards. The scene portrays the intersection of GMO use in Ohio's corn fields and the presence of numerous lawyers in the United States.

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 a vast cornfield in Ohio, rows and rows of tall, healthy corn plants sway gently in the breeze. Among the green stalks, a group of lawyers in suits and ties walk through the field, discussing legal matters. Some of the lawyers examine the corn closely, while others take notes on their clipboards. The scene portrays the intersection of GMO use in Ohio's corn fields and the presence of numerous lawyers in the United States. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a vast cornfield in Ohio under a clear blue sky. The rows of tall, healthy corn plants sway gently in the breeze. Among the green stalks, a group of lawyers in suits and ties walk through the field, engaged in discussions. Some lawyers are examining the corn closely, while others take notes on their clipboards. The scene conveys the intersection of GMO use in Ohio's corn fields and the presence of numerous lawyers in the United States. The details should be realistic and visually compelling.

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

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

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

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Corn-y Lawyers: Exploring the Correlation Between GMO Corn in Ohio and the Number of Lawyers in the United States

The Journal of Agricultural Anecdotes

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 goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Ohio and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Your research team used data from USDA and ABA to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 and p < 0.01 for 2004 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]]
Corn-y Lawyers: Exploring the Correlation Between GMO Corn in Ohio and the Number of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the rather unconventional relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in the state of Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. Drawing upon data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we analyzed the trends spanning from 2004 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between these seemingly disparate variables. We discuss possible mechanisms underlying this unexpected relationship, from the impact of GMO regulations on legal disputes to the potential influence of corn-related litigation on the legal profession. Our research sheds light on this curious correlation, inviting further investigation and perhaps a corny joke or two along the way.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Ohio and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Corn-y Lawyers: Exploring the Correlation Between GMO Corn in Ohio and the Number of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the rather unconventional relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in the state of Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. Drawing upon data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we analyzed the trends spanning from 2004 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between these seemingly disparate variables. We discuss possible mechanisms underlying this unexpected relationship, from the impact of GMO regulations on legal disputes to the potential influence of corn-related litigation on the legal profession. Our research sheds light on this curious correlation, inviting further investigation and perhaps a corny joke or two along the way.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Corn may be a staple of the American diet, but its influence apparently extends beyond the dinner table and into the legal arena. In recent years, the proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in Ohio has prompted us to investigate an unexpected phenomenon – a correlation with the number of lawyers in the United States. While one may initially dismiss this connection as coincidental, our research indicates otherwise, revealing a statistically robust relationship that seems to defy conventional wisdom.

The phrase "stalk and law" takes on a whole new meaning as we embark on this investigation. The idea that GMO corn and lawyers could be linked may sound as far-fetched as a cornfield in the middle of a bustling metropolis, but our analysis of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) suggests otherwise. As we peel back the layers of this peculiar correlation, we invite you to join us on a journey through the fields of agricultural science and legal practice, and perhaps share a chuckle or two along the way.

In this paper, we seek to unearth the roots of this relationship, examining how the cultivation and regulation of GMO corn in Ohio could plausibly intersect with the legal landscape of the entire country. Our findings promise to shed light on this unexpected connection, providing fodder for thought and, dare we say, a-maize-ing insights. So, grab your ear of corn and a law book as we venture into the world of "corn-y lawyers," where the kernels of truth may just pop out when you least expect them.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Ohio and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Corn-y Lawyers: Exploring the Correlation Between GMO Corn in Ohio and the Number of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the rather unconventional relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in the state of Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. Drawing upon data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we analyzed the trends spanning from 2004 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between these seemingly disparate variables. We discuss possible mechanisms underlying this unexpected relationship, from the impact of GMO regulations on legal disputes to the potential influence of corn-related litigation on the legal profession. Our research sheds light on this curious correlation, inviting further investigation and perhaps a corny joke or two along the way.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Corn may be a staple of the American diet, but its influence apparently extends beyond the dinner table and into the legal arena. In recent years, the proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in Ohio has prompted us to investigate an unexpected phenomenon – a correlation with the number of lawyers in the United States. While one may initially dismiss this connection as coincidental, our research indicates otherwise, revealing a statistically robust relationship that seems to defy conventional wisdom.
The phrase "stalk and law" takes on a whole new meaning as we embark on this investigation. The idea that GMO corn and lawyers could be linked may sound as far-fetched as a cornfield in the middle of a bustling metropolis, but our analysis of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) suggests otherwise. As we peel back the layers of this peculiar correlation, we invite you to join us on a journey through the fields of agricultural science and legal practice, and perhaps share a chuckle or two along the way.
In this paper, we seek to unearth the roots of this relationship, examining how the cultivation and regulation of GMO corn in Ohio could plausibly intersect with the legal landscape of the entire country. Our findings promise to shed light on this unexpected connection, providing fodder for thought and, dare we say, a-maize-ing insights. So, grab your ear of corn and a law book as we venture into the world of "corn-y lawyers," where the kernels of truth may just pop out when you least expect them.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The relationship between genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production and the number of lawyers in the legal profession has sparked much interest and perplexity in the academic community. While this association may at first glance appear as peculiar as a corn maze on Wall Street, our investigation delves into a myriad of sources to shed light on this unconventional correlation.

Smith et al. (2018) conducted a comprehensive study on the impact of GMO corn cultivation on agricultural practices and regulatory frameworks. Their findings underscore the complex interplay between genetic modification, crop yields, and the legal landscape, hinting at potential implications for the abundance of legal professionals. Meanwhile, Doe (2016) explored the sociopolitical dimensions of GMO controversies, offering insights into the diverse legal battles that have arisen in response to the introduction of genetically modified corn varieties.

Jones (2020) delved into the economic ramifications of GMO corn production, delving into the intricate connections between agricultural policy, trade disputes, and legal disputes. The implications of their work suggest a potential ripple effect into the legal industry, as disputes stemming from GMO corn could potentially drive the demand for legal services.

Venturing beyond the realm of academic research, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond offer thought-provoking perspectives on the intertwined nature of agriculture, societal development, and legal frameworks, laying the groundwork for our exploration of the corn-lawyer nexus.

Turning to the realm of fiction, John Grisham's legal thrillers, such as "The Pelican Brief" and "The Firm," provide an intriguing parallel to our investigation. While these novels may not directly address GMO corn, they offer a tantalizing glimpse into the captivating world of legal drama, providing a literary backdrop for our own examination of the legal implications of corn cultivation.

Additionally, the board game "Agricola," known for its simulation of farm management and decision-making, serves as a whimsical source of inspiration for our research. As we navigate the peculiar terrain of GMO corn and legal practitioners, the game's strategic elements humorously parallel our endeavor to uncover the nuanced dynamics at play.

This eclectic array of sources sets the stage for our exploration of the enigmatic correlation between GMO corn in Ohio and the proliferation of lawyers in the United States, beckoning us to unravel the kernels of truth hidden within this unexpected liaison.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Ohio and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and ABA . You used data from 2004 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]]
Corn-y Lawyers: Exploring the Correlation Between GMO Corn in Ohio and the Number of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the rather unconventional relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in the state of Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. Drawing upon data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we analyzed the trends spanning from 2004 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between these seemingly disparate variables. We discuss possible mechanisms underlying this unexpected relationship, from the impact of GMO regulations on legal disputes to the potential influence of corn-related litigation on the legal profession. Our research sheds light on this curious correlation, inviting further investigation and perhaps a corny joke or two along the way.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Corn may be a staple of the American diet, but its influence apparently extends beyond the dinner table and into the legal arena. In recent years, the proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in Ohio has prompted us to investigate an unexpected phenomenon – a correlation with the number of lawyers in the United States. While one may initially dismiss this connection as coincidental, our research indicates otherwise, revealing a statistically robust relationship that seems to defy conventional wisdom.
The phrase "stalk and law" takes on a whole new meaning as we embark on this investigation. The idea that GMO corn and lawyers could be linked may sound as far-fetched as a cornfield in the middle of a bustling metropolis, but our analysis of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) suggests otherwise. As we peel back the layers of this peculiar correlation, we invite you to join us on a journey through the fields of agricultural science and legal practice, and perhaps share a chuckle or two along the way.
In this paper, we seek to unearth the roots of this relationship, examining how the cultivation and regulation of GMO corn in Ohio could plausibly intersect with the legal landscape of the entire country. Our findings promise to shed light on this unexpected connection, providing fodder for thought and, dare we say, a-maize-ing insights. So, grab your ear of corn and a law book as we venture into the world of "corn-y lawyers," where the kernels of truth may just pop out when you least expect them.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To uncover the kernels of truth behind the peculiar correlation between GMO corn in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States, our research team employed a multifaceted approach that involved a combination of statistical analysis, data mining, and a healthy dose of good old-fashioned skepticism. Harnessing the power of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we embarked on a quest to navigate through fields of corn and legal documents, armed with spreadsheets, Python code, and a suspiciously large supply of popcorn.

Firstly, we gathered historical data spanning from 2004 to 2022, capturing the ebbs and flows of GMO corn utilization in the heart of the Buckeye State and the corresponding fluctuations in the number of lawyers across the entire United States. Our mission: to scrutinize every data point with the careful attention one would give to separating a stubborn corn kernel from its cob.

With the assistance of advanced statistical software and a fervent hope that we wouldn't have to shuck any more data than necessary, we calculated correlation coefficients, scatter plots, and performed regressions to reveal the intricate dance between corn genetics and the legal profession. Like a farmer grooming a field for maximum harvest, we meticulously examined the statistical significance of our findings, ensuring that our results were as robust and reliable as a well-developed root system.

Additionally, we engaged in extensive literature reviews, tapping into obscure academic journals and legal encyclopedias in search of insights that could shed light on this enigmatic relationship. In the spirit of true academic inquiry, we sowed the seeds of curiosity and skepticism, exploring every nook and cranny for evidence that could support or debunk our findings.

As we navigated through the digital haystack of agricultural reports and legal case studies, we exercised caution to avoid any statistical weeds that could compromise the integrity of our analysis. It quickly became apparent that this journey was not just about crunching numbers, but about peeling back the layers of the corn and legal industries to reveal the unexpected connections that lie beneath the surface.

In sum, our methodology blended the precision of statistical analysis with the inquisitiveness of an intrepid explorer, culminating in a research endeavor that sought to extract the sweet nectar of truth from the metaphorical cornfield of data. So, with ears of corn and legal statutes in hand, we set forth on this unconventional yet undeniably intriguing pursuit, fueled by a thirst for knowledge and perhaps a slight kernel of madness.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Ohio and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

For the time period 2004 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9715021, r-squared of 0.9438163, 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]]
Corn-y Lawyers: Exploring the Correlation Between GMO Corn in Ohio and the Number of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the rather unconventional relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in the state of Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. Drawing upon data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we analyzed the trends spanning from 2004 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between these seemingly disparate variables. We discuss possible mechanisms underlying this unexpected relationship, from the impact of GMO regulations on legal disputes to the potential influence of corn-related litigation on the legal profession. Our research sheds light on this curious correlation, inviting further investigation and perhaps a corny joke or two along the way.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Corn may be a staple of the American diet, but its influence apparently extends beyond the dinner table and into the legal arena. In recent years, the proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in Ohio has prompted us to investigate an unexpected phenomenon – a correlation with the number of lawyers in the United States. While one may initially dismiss this connection as coincidental, our research indicates otherwise, revealing a statistically robust relationship that seems to defy conventional wisdom.
The phrase "stalk and law" takes on a whole new meaning as we embark on this investigation. The idea that GMO corn and lawyers could be linked may sound as far-fetched as a cornfield in the middle of a bustling metropolis, but our analysis of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) suggests otherwise. As we peel back the layers of this peculiar correlation, we invite you to join us on a journey through the fields of agricultural science and legal practice, and perhaps share a chuckle or two along the way.
In this paper, we seek to unearth the roots of this relationship, examining how the cultivation and regulation of GMO corn in Ohio could plausibly intersect with the legal landscape of the entire country. Our findings promise to shed light on this unexpected connection, providing fodder for thought and, dare we say, a-maize-ing insights. So, grab your ear of corn and a law book as we venture into the world of "corn-y lawyers," where the kernels of truth may just pop out when you least expect them.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the data spanning from 2004 to 2022 revealed a surprisingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. This strong correlation was further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9438163, indicating that over 94% of the variance in the number of lawyers can be explained by the variation in GMO corn use. The p-value of less than 0.01 demonstrated the statistical significance of this relationship, leaving us to ponder the cornundrum of how these seemingly unrelated variables are connected.

Fig. 1 illustrates the scatterplot depicting the robust positive correlation between GMO corn use in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States, with each data point feeling a-maize-ingly snug along the trend line. It's as if the cornfield and the courtroom have become unlikely dance partners in this statistical tango.

The strength of this correlation raises eyebrows almost as high as a towering cornstalk, prompting us to consider the potential implications of GMO corn cultivation on the legal profession. Could it be that the legal eagles are following the scent of maize, not money? Or perhaps the contentious debates surrounding GMO regulations are spilling over into legal battles, leaving lawyers to uncover the kernels of truth in genetically modified disputes. These are just a few cornjectures that we entertain in light of our findings.

In conclusion, the results of our analysis firmly establish an unanticipated relationship between the use of GMOs in corn grown in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. This research opens up a cornucopia of questions, ripe for further exploration and discussion. As we glean insights from this unexpected connection, we invite readers to join us in sowing the seeds of curiosity and reaping the kernel-y rewards of interdisciplinary inquiry.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Ohio and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
Corn-y Lawyers: Exploring the Correlation Between GMO Corn in Ohio and the Number of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the rather unconventional relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in the state of Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. Drawing upon data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we analyzed the trends spanning from 2004 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between these seemingly disparate variables. We discuss possible mechanisms underlying this unexpected relationship, from the impact of GMO regulations on legal disputes to the potential influence of corn-related litigation on the legal profession. Our research sheds light on this curious correlation, inviting further investigation and perhaps a corny joke or two along the way.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The relationship between genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production and the number of lawyers in the legal profession has sparked much interest and perplexity in the academic community. While this association may at first glance appear as peculiar as a corn maze on Wall Street, our investigation delves into a myriad of sources to shed light on this unconventional correlation.
Smith et al. (2018) conducted a comprehensive study on the impact of GMO corn cultivation on agricultural practices and regulatory frameworks. Their findings underscore the complex interplay between genetic modification, crop yields, and the legal landscape, hinting at potential implications for the abundance of legal professionals. Meanwhile, Doe (2016) explored the sociopolitical dimensions of GMO controversies, offering insights into the diverse legal battles that have arisen in response to the introduction of genetically modified corn varieties.
Jones (2020) delved into the economic ramifications of GMO corn production, delving into the intricate connections between agricultural policy, trade disputes, and legal disputes. The implications of their work suggest a potential ripple effect into the legal industry, as disputes stemming from GMO corn could potentially drive the demand for legal services.
Venturing beyond the realm of academic research, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond offer thought-provoking perspectives on the intertwined nature of agriculture, societal development, and legal frameworks, laying the groundwork for our exploration of the corn-lawyer nexus.
Turning to the realm of fiction, John Grisham's legal thrillers, such as "The Pelican Brief" and "The Firm," provide an intriguing parallel to our investigation. While these novels may not directly address GMO corn, they offer a tantalizing glimpse into the captivating world of legal drama, providing a literary backdrop for our own examination of the legal implications of corn cultivation.
Additionally, the board game "Agricola," known for its simulation of farm management and decision-making, serves as a whimsical source of inspiration for our research. As we navigate the peculiar terrain of GMO corn and legal practitioners, the game's strategic elements humorously parallel our endeavor to uncover the nuanced dynamics at play.
This eclectic array of sources sets the stage for our exploration of the enigmatic correlation between GMO corn in Ohio and the proliferation of lawyers in the United States, beckoning us to unravel the kernels of truth hidden within this unexpected liaison.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data spanning from 2004 to 2022 revealed a surprisingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. This strong correlation was further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9438163, indicating that over 94% of the variance in the number of lawyers can be explained by the variation in GMO corn use. The p-value of less than 0.01 demonstrated the statistical significance of this relationship, leaving us to ponder the cornundrum of how these seemingly unrelated variables are connected.
Fig. 1 illustrates the scatterplot depicting the robust positive correlation between GMO corn use in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States, with each data point feeling a-maize-ingly snug along the trend line. It's as if the cornfield and the courtroom have become unlikely dance partners in this statistical tango.
The strength of this correlation raises eyebrows almost as high as a towering cornstalk, prompting us to consider the potential implications of GMO corn cultivation on the legal profession. Could it be that the legal eagles are following the scent of maize, not money? Or perhaps the contentious debates surrounding GMO regulations are spilling over into legal battles, leaving lawyers to uncover the kernels of truth in genetically modified disputes. These are just a few cornjectures that we entertain in light of our findings.
In conclusion, the results of our analysis firmly establish an unanticipated relationship between the use of GMOs in corn grown in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. This research opens up a cornucopia of questions, ripe for further exploration and discussion. As we glean insights from this unexpected connection, we invite readers to join us in sowing the seeds of curiosity and reaping the kernel-y rewards of interdisciplinary inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The robust correlation between GMO corn in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States unravels a tangled web of possibilities. Our results align with prior research by Smith et al. (2018), whose study hinted at the legal landscape being entwined with GMO regulations. The high correlation coefficient presented here not only corroborates the link posited by Smith et al., but it also adds a kernel of truth to the notion that legal eagles may indeed be following the scent of maize.

Moreover, our findings echo the insights of Doe (2016) who delved into the sociopolitical dimensions of GMO controversies, highlighting the legal battles arising from genetically modified corn varieties. This hints at the courtroom becoming an unexpected venue for seed disputes, with lawyers donning their legal ears of corn to sift through the cornplexities of GMO litigation.

Jones (2020) also foresaw the potential ripple effect of GMO disputes into the legal industry, and our results lend weight to this cornjecture. The data suggests that the demand for legal services could be sprouting from the fertile ground of GMO-related legal quagmires, as lawyers navigate the maize of regulations and litigations, all the while corn-templating their place in this unexpected legal landscape.

The statistically significant relationship unearthed in our study prompts us to consider the potential implications of GMO corn cultivation on the legal profession. Perhaps the legal ecosystem is not just a jungle, but also a corn maze, where laws and regulations intertwine with the maize of genetically modified corn. As we peel back the layers of this curious correlation, a-maize-ing possibilities emerge, beckoning researchers to plow through this uncharted terrain.

In the context of our results, the literature review offers not only a springboard, but also a cornucopia of diverse sources that have laid the groundwork for understanding this unusual connection. While the relationship between GMO corn and lawyers may seem as incongruous as a stalk of corn in a courtroom, our study underscores the significance of interdisciplinary inquiry in sowing the seeds of understanding in this intriguing nexus.

As we digest the cornucopia of findings and corncepts unveiled by this investigation, it becomes evident that the corn-field of inquiry into GMO corn and its impact on the legal profession is far from corn-ventional. This burgeoning area of research not only serves to enrich our understanding of the interplay between agriculture and the legal landscape, but also invites us to ponder the untrodden paths in the cornundrums that await. With kernels of curiosity planted firmly in our minds, we eagerly anticipate the future bounty of insights that will flourish from the fertile ground of this intriguing correlation.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Ohio and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Corn-y Lawyers: Exploring the Correlation Between GMO Corn in Ohio and the Number of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the rather unconventional relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in the state of Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. Drawing upon data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we analyzed the trends spanning from 2004 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between these seemingly disparate variables. We discuss possible mechanisms underlying this unexpected relationship, from the impact of GMO regulations on legal disputes to the potential influence of corn-related litigation on the legal profession. Our research sheds light on this curious correlation, inviting further investigation and perhaps a corny joke or two along the way.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Corn may be a staple of the American diet, but its influence apparently extends beyond the dinner table and into the legal arena. In recent years, the proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in Ohio has prompted us to investigate an unexpected phenomenon – a correlation with the number of lawyers in the United States. While one may initially dismiss this connection as coincidental, our research indicates otherwise, revealing a statistically robust relationship that seems to defy conventional wisdom.
The phrase "stalk and law" takes on a whole new meaning as we embark on this investigation. The idea that GMO corn and lawyers could be linked may sound as far-fetched as a cornfield in the middle of a bustling metropolis, but our analysis of data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) suggests otherwise. As we peel back the layers of this peculiar correlation, we invite you to join us on a journey through the fields of agricultural science and legal practice, and perhaps share a chuckle or two along the way.
In this paper, we seek to unearth the roots of this relationship, examining how the cultivation and regulation of GMO corn in Ohio could plausibly intersect with the legal landscape of the entire country. Our findings promise to shed light on this unexpected connection, providing fodder for thought and, dare we say, a-maize-ing insights. So, grab your ear of corn and a law book as we venture into the world of "corn-y lawyers," where the kernels of truth may just pop out when you least expect them.

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the data spanning from 2004 to 2022 revealed a surprisingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. This strong correlation was further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9438163, indicating that over 94% of the variance in the number of lawyers can be explained by the variation in GMO corn use. The p-value of less than 0.01 demonstrated the statistical significance of this relationship, leaving us to ponder the cornundrum of how these seemingly unrelated variables are connected.
Fig. 1 illustrates the scatterplot depicting the robust positive correlation between GMO corn use in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States, with each data point feeling a-maize-ingly snug along the trend line. It's as if the cornfield and the courtroom have become unlikely dance partners in this statistical tango.
The strength of this correlation raises eyebrows almost as high as a towering cornstalk, prompting us to consider the potential implications of GMO corn cultivation on the legal profession. Could it be that the legal eagles are following the scent of maize, not money? Or perhaps the contentious debates surrounding GMO regulations are spilling over into legal battles, leaving lawyers to uncover the kernels of truth in genetically modified disputes. These are just a few cornjectures that we entertain in light of our findings.
In conclusion, the results of our analysis firmly establish an unanticipated relationship between the use of GMOs in corn grown in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. This research opens up a cornucopia of questions, ripe for further exploration and discussion. As we glean insights from this unexpected connection, we invite readers to join us in sowing the seeds of curiosity and reaping the kernel-y rewards of interdisciplinary inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has unearthed a rather intriguing correlation between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. The robust statistical association between these seemingly unrelated variables has not only raised eyebrows but also conjured up images of courtroom dramas set in the heart of a sprawling cornfield.

The findings of this study suggest that there is more to GMOs than meets the eye – they seem to have a far-reaching influence that extends beyond the agricultural domain and reaches into the legal sphere. Perhaps farmers and lawyers have more in common than we previously thought – they both thrive on arguments, till the soil (or legal briefs), and have an affinity for cultivating their respective fields.

As we ponder the implications of this unexpected relationship, we must acknowledge that our understanding of the complex interplay between GMO use in corn and the legal profession is still in its infancy. While some may view this correlation as corny or grainy, our analysis has certainly shucked the conventional wisdom that these two realms are wholly independent.

In the spirit of interdisciplinary inquiry, we urge future researchers to continue peeling back the layers of this cornucopia of questions. By doing so, we may harvest a greater understanding of the nuanced connections between agricultural practices and legal dynamics.

In summary, while this research has certainly provided some food for thought, it's time to put a lid on the cornucopia – we can confidently assert that no more research is needed in this area. Let's leave this kernel of knowledge to pop and settle like butter on a hot cob, while we turn our attention to other, less corny, but equally significant pursuits.


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 Corn-y Lawyers: Exploring the Correlation Between GMO Corn in Ohio and the Number of Lawyers in the United States. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Agricultural Anecdotes


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 Corn-y Lawyers: Exploring the Correlation Between GMO Corn in Ohio and the Number of Lawyers in the United States. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

Society for Agricultural Advancements and Legal 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 Corn-y Lawyers: Exploring the Correlation Between GMO Corn in Ohio and the Number of Lawyers in the United States with an abstract of In this paper, we delve into the rather unconventional relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in the state of Ohio and the number of lawyers in the United States. Drawing upon data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), we analyzed the trends spanning from 2004 to 2022. Our findings reveal a surprisingly high correlation coefficient of 0.9715021 and a significant p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between these seemingly disparate variables. We discuss possible mechanisms underlying this unexpected relationship, from the impact of GMO regulations on legal disputes to the potential influence of corn-related litigation on the legal profession. Our research sheds light on this curious correlation, inviting further investigation and perhaps a corny joke or two along the way.

ChatGPT:

GMO corn, Ohio, United States, lawyers, correlation, genetically modified organisms, corn cultivation, USDA data, American Bar Association data, trends, statistical association, GMO regulations, legal disputes, corn-related litigation, mechanisms, relationship, investigation

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

GMO use in corn grown in Ohio
Detailed data title: Percent of all corn planted in Ohio genetically modified with both Bt and HT
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in corn grown in Ohio

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 r = 0.9715021 (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 = 0.9438163 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 94.4% 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 Ohio) over the 19 years from 2004 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 4.6E-12. 0.0000000000046049540102679510
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 4.6E-10% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 217,157,434,748 random variables You don't actually need 217 billion variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 18 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 18 because we have two variables measured over a period of 19 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.

[ 0.93, 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.
2004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
GMO use in corn grown in Ohio (GMO corn %)12520373536374363696866667076717080
Number of Lawyers in the United States (Lawyers)1084500110477011169701143360116212011803901203100122545012452001268010128143013007001312870133596013423801352080132874013279101327010




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([1,2,5,20,37,35,36,37,43,63,69,68,66,66,70,76,71,70,80,])
array_2 = np.array([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 Ohio"
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:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Thanks for shining a light on this correlation!


Correlation ID: 1831 · Black Variable ID: 748 · Red Variable ID: 542
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0