Download png, svg
AI explanation
As farmers spent less time genetically modifying their corn, they had more time to participate in community policing, leading to a decrease in violent crime rates. After all, it's hard to stalk and rob a house when you're busy debating the ethics of corn genetics.Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ A Discovery magazine cover image ] Generate an image of a field in South Dakota filled with tall, lush corn plants. In the center of the scene, a group of farmers are inspecting rows of genetically modified crops, discussing the quality of the plants. In the background, a police car with flashing lights races down a dirt road towards a distant town, responding to a report of a violent crime. Capture the contrast between the tranquility of the agricultural scene and the urgency of the approaching authority. Keep the visual depiction clean and focus on the juxtaposition of the serene countryside with the imminent arrival of law enforcement. 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 South Dakota and Violent crime rates. 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: A Discovery magazine cover image An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie Art nouveau Celtic art Psychedelic
ChatGPT: A Discovery magazine cover image
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 South Dakota and Violent crime rates together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a field of tall, lush corn plants in South Dakota, a group of farmers are inspecting rows of genetically modified crops. In the distance, a police car with flashing lights speeds towards a town, responding to a report of a violent crime.
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 Discovery magazine cover image ] and depicting this scene: In a field of tall, lush corn plants in South Dakota, a group of farmers are inspecting rows of genetically modified crops. In the distance, a police car with flashing lights speeds towards a town, responding to a report of a violent crime. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ A Discovery magazine cover image ] Generate an image of a field in South Dakota filled with tall, lush corn plants. In the center of the scene, a group of farmers are inspecting rows of genetically modified crops, discussing the quality of the plants. In the background, a police car with flashing lights races down a dirt road towards a distant town, responding to a report of a violent crime. Capture the contrast between the tranquility of the agricultural scene and the urgency of the approaching authority. Keep the visual depiction clean and focus on the juxtaposition of the serene countryside with the imminent arrival of law enforcement.
*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 a decrease in GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota caused Violent crime rates to decrease. Add a funny one-liner at the end.
AI academic paper
Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates The Journal of Agricultural Anomalies Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota and Violent crime rates. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, make it sound serious.
Your research team used data from USDA and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9026981 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]]
"Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the corny correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates. Our research team harvested data from the USDA and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services over the period from 2000 to 2022 to shell out the kernels of truth in this contentious debate. Utilizing statistical analysis, we uncovered a positively husked correlation coefficient of 0.9026981 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, revealing the cob-nectedness between these two seemingly unrelated fields.
Just when you thought GMO debates couldn't get any cornier, our findings suggest that there might be more than meets the husk when it comes to the impact of genetically modified corn on societal behavior. The results of this study also raise the question: Are we truly planting the seeds of destruction with our agricultural practices, or is it all just a kernel of truth in a field of conjecture?
In conclusion, our findings shed light on the potential ear-responsible factors influencing violent crime rates in South Dakota and provide food for thought for further research in the field. Remember, folks, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, the a-maize-ing world of statistical analysis can truly be a-tractory.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota and Violent crime rates. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
"Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the corny correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates. Our research team harvested data from the USDA and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services over the period from 2000 to 2022 to shell out the kernels of truth in this contentious debate. Utilizing statistical analysis, we uncovered a positively husked correlation coefficient of 0.9026981 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, revealing the cob-nectedness between these two seemingly unrelated fields.
Just when you thought GMO debates couldn't get any cornier, our findings suggest that there might be more than meets the husk when it comes to the impact of genetically modified corn on societal behavior. The results of this study also raise the question: Are we truly planting the seeds of destruction with our agricultural practices, or is it all just a kernel of truth in a field of conjecture?
In conclusion, our findings shed light on the potential ear-responsible factors influencing violent crime rates in South Dakota and provide food for thought for further research in the field. Remember, folks, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, the a-maize-ing world of statistical analysis can truly be a-tractory.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The age-old adage that "you reap what you sow" has taken on new meaning in the context of agricultural practices and societal outcomes. The contentious debate surrounding the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crop production has led to a kernel of truth: the potential impact of GMOs on human behavior. In this study, we delve into the stalky subject of the correlation between GMO corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates.
Now, don't shuck off this connection just yet. The findings we present here may sound corny, but they hold significant implications for both the agricultural and criminological communities. As the saying goes, we're not just chasing wild husks – there's a-maize-ing potential here for genuine insights.
In recent years, the use of GMOs in agriculture has become as hotly debated as whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. We often hear the age-old joke: "What did the grape say when it got stepped on? Nothing, it just let out a little whine." Well, in the case of GMO corn, the debate isn't just a little whine – it's a full-blown chorus. But amidst the noise, we aim to separate the wheat from the chaff and discern whether there's any true correlation between GMO corn production and violent crime rates.
With the rise of statistical analysis in interdisciplinary research, we have the tools to peel back the husk and reveal the cobs of truth within seemingly unrelated data sets. As we embark on this journey of discovery, let's remember the golden rule: always look on the bright ear of life – even if it means facing some tough stalks along the way.
As we dig deeper into this a-maize-ing connection, we invite our readers to embrace the spirit of scientific inquiry with an open kernel of mind. After all, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, a little bit of corny humor can help make the findings more a-tractory. So, without further ado, let's plow through the field of data and harvest some insight into the complex relationship between GMO corn in South Dakota and violent crime rates.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota and Violent crime rates. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.
Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.
Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.
Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the corny correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates. Our research team harvested data from the USDA and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services over the period from 2000 to 2022 to shell out the kernels of truth in this contentious debate. Utilizing statistical analysis, we uncovered a positively husked correlation coefficient of 0.9026981 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, revealing the cob-nectedness between these two seemingly unrelated fields.
Just when you thought GMO debates couldn't get any cornier, our findings suggest that there might be more than meets the husk when it comes to the impact of genetically modified corn on societal behavior. The results of this study also raise the question: Are we truly planting the seeds of destruction with our agricultural practices, or is it all just a kernel of truth in a field of conjecture?
In conclusion, our findings shed light on the potential ear-responsible factors influencing violent crime rates in South Dakota and provide food for thought for further research in the field. Remember, folks, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, the a-maize-ing world of statistical analysis can truly be a-tractory.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The age-old adage that "you reap what you sow" has taken on new meaning in the context of agricultural practices and societal outcomes. The contentious debate surrounding the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crop production has led to a kernel of truth: the potential impact of GMOs on human behavior. In this study, we delve into the stalky subject of the correlation between GMO corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates.
Now, don't shuck off this connection just yet. The findings we present here may sound corny, but they hold significant implications for both the agricultural and criminological communities. As the saying goes, we're not just chasing wild husks – there's a-maize-ing potential here for genuine insights.
In recent years, the use of GMOs in agriculture has become as hotly debated as whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. We often hear the age-old joke: "What did the grape say when it got stepped on? Nothing, it just let out a little whine." Well, in the case of GMO corn, the debate isn't just a little whine – it's a full-blown chorus. But amidst the noise, we aim to separate the wheat from the chaff and discern whether there's any true correlation between GMO corn production and violent crime rates.
With the rise of statistical analysis in interdisciplinary research, we have the tools to peel back the husk and reveal the cobs of truth within seemingly unrelated data sets. As we embark on this journey of discovery, let's remember the golden rule: always look on the bright ear of life – even if it means facing some tough stalks along the way.
As we dig deeper into this a-maize-ing connection, we invite our readers to embrace the spirit of scientific inquiry with an open kernel of mind. After all, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, a little bit of corny humor can help make the findings more a-tractory. So, without further ado, let's plow through the field of data and harvest some insight into the complex relationship between GMO corn in South Dakota and violent crime rates.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The investigation into the potential correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates has garnered an a-maize-ing amount of scholarly attention in recent years. Smith et al. (2015) posit a possible link between the introduction of GMOs and changes in societal behavior, providing a foundation for further exploration in this area. However, as we delve into this research, it's important to remember that not all corny connections lead to a-maize-ing revelations. Speaking of which, why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
The study by Doe and Jones (2018) presents an in-depth analysis of GMO adoption patterns in South Dakota and its potential impact on agricultural yields. While their focus is primarily on productivity, the implications for societal well-being cannot be husked aside. It's a-maize-ing how a seemingly harmless cornfield can sow the seeds of controversy in the academic world.
In "The Omnivore's Dilemma," Michael Pollan explores the complexities of modern food production, shedding light on the ethical and environmental considerations surrounding GMOs. The book reminds us that the corny connections we uncover in our research may have far-reaching implications on the very fabric of our food system. Speaking of fabric, why don't we ever tell secrets on a farm? Because the potatoes have eyes and the corn has ears!
On the fiction front, "Children of the Corn" by Stephen King offers a chilling portrayal of the sinister side of cornfields. Though purely speculative, the novel serves as a reminder that the connotations surrounding corn can often sprout unexpected fears. As researchers, it's our duty to separate fact from fiction, even if it means navigating through a-maize-ing twists and turns.
On a more light-hearted note, the TV show "Corn & Order" may not directly address the subject matter at hand, but its title serves as a friendly reminder that sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. As we navigate through the a-maize-ing maze of research, let's not lose sight of the end goal: to glean insights that can kernelate into meaningful change.
As our literature review reaches its humorous climax, let's not forget the serious implications of our findings. While we may lace our writing with dad jokes and puns, the correlations we uncover have the potential to shape future agricultural and criminological practices. So, let's embrace the a-maize-ing potential of this research and continue sowing the seeds of knowledge. After all, when it comes to serious research, a little bit of corny humor can make the findings more a-tractory.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota and Violent crime rates. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 FBI Criminal Justice Information Services . 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]]
"Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the corny correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates. Our research team harvested data from the USDA and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services over the period from 2000 to 2022 to shell out the kernels of truth in this contentious debate. Utilizing statistical analysis, we uncovered a positively husked correlation coefficient of 0.9026981 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, revealing the cob-nectedness between these two seemingly unrelated fields.
Just when you thought GMO debates couldn't get any cornier, our findings suggest that there might be more than meets the husk when it comes to the impact of genetically modified corn on societal behavior. The results of this study also raise the question: Are we truly planting the seeds of destruction with our agricultural practices, or is it all just a kernel of truth in a field of conjecture?
In conclusion, our findings shed light on the potential ear-responsible factors influencing violent crime rates in South Dakota and provide food for thought for further research in the field. Remember, folks, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, the a-maize-ing world of statistical analysis can truly be a-tractory.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The age-old adage that "you reap what you sow" has taken on new meaning in the context of agricultural practices and societal outcomes. The contentious debate surrounding the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crop production has led to a kernel of truth: the potential impact of GMOs on human behavior. In this study, we delve into the stalky subject of the correlation between GMO corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates.
Now, don't shuck off this connection just yet. The findings we present here may sound corny, but they hold significant implications for both the agricultural and criminological communities. As the saying goes, we're not just chasing wild husks – there's a-maize-ing potential here for genuine insights.
In recent years, the use of GMOs in agriculture has become as hotly debated as whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. We often hear the age-old joke: "What did the grape say when it got stepped on? Nothing, it just let out a little whine." Well, in the case of GMO corn, the debate isn't just a little whine – it's a full-blown chorus. But amidst the noise, we aim to separate the wheat from the chaff and discern whether there's any true correlation between GMO corn production and violent crime rates.
With the rise of statistical analysis in interdisciplinary research, we have the tools to peel back the husk and reveal the cobs of truth within seemingly unrelated data sets. As we embark on this journey of discovery, let's remember the golden rule: always look on the bright ear of life – even if it means facing some tough stalks along the way.
As we dig deeper into this a-maize-ing connection, we invite our readers to embrace the spirit of scientific inquiry with an open kernel of mind. After all, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, a little bit of corny humor can help make the findings more a-tractory. So, without further ado, let's plow through the field of data and harvest some insight into the complex relationship between GMO corn in South Dakota and violent crime rates.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
To voraciously unravel the husky connection between GMO corn in South Dakota and violent crime rates, we employed a meticulously curated amalgamation of data sources and statistical methodologies. Our research team embarked on a journey reminiscent of a corn maze, navigating through the fields of information to glean kernels of insight from the vast expanse of data.
First, we harvested data on GMO corn production in South Dakota from the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, meticulously sifting through acres of numerical crop yield data. Once we had corn-ered the information on GMO corn production, we pinpointed the relevant time frame that stretched from 2000 to 2022. This involved carefully treading through data fields akin to walking on a cobblestone path – tedious, yet essential for a-maize-ing research yields.
Simultaneously, we gathered data on violent crime rates in South Dakota from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, peeling back the layers of criminal incident reports to expose the statistical kernels at the heart of the matter. Our intrepid journey through the databases was akin to peeling back the layers of a particularly stubborn husk – patience was key, as rushing the process could result in a messier outcome than an excited cob muncher.
With the harvest of data at our disposal, we employed a combination of quantitative methods, including correlation analysis and regression modeling, to sow the seeds of statistical analysis. Our approach was rigorous, yet the occasional "corny" joke was sprinkled in to keep the atmosphere light and allow for some a-MAIZE-ing humor to prevail in the midst of intense number crunching. After all, even the most serious researchers need to "stalk" up on puns to keep the atmosphere lively.
The correlation analysis aimed to unearth the a-MAIZE-ing relationship between GMO corn production and violent crime rates, teasing out whether the two variables were interconnected or just behaving in a stochastic manner. Next, we dove into regression modeling, akin to navigating through a particularly intricate part of the maize, to control for potential confounding variables and find the cobs of truth within the labyrinth of data.
In the midst of our methodological escapades, we diligently upheld the ethos of scientific inquiry – remaining open to unexpected findings, even if they emerged like a-MAIZE-ing surprises in the field of statistical analysis. Our goal was to plow through the acres of data and unearth the latent connections, all while maintaining the spirit of scientific curiosity and the occasional chuckle-inducing pun. After all, who said serious research can't have a kernel of whimsy?
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota and Violent crime rates. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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 FBI Criminal Justice Information Services .
For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9026981, r-squared of 0.8148638, 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]]
"Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the corny correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates. Our research team harvested data from the USDA and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services over the period from 2000 to 2022 to shell out the kernels of truth in this contentious debate. Utilizing statistical analysis, we uncovered a positively husked correlation coefficient of 0.9026981 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, revealing the cob-nectedness between these two seemingly unrelated fields.
Just when you thought GMO debates couldn't get any cornier, our findings suggest that there might be more than meets the husk when it comes to the impact of genetically modified corn on societal behavior. The results of this study also raise the question: Are we truly planting the seeds of destruction with our agricultural practices, or is it all just a kernel of truth in a field of conjecture?
In conclusion, our findings shed light on the potential ear-responsible factors influencing violent crime rates in South Dakota and provide food for thought for further research in the field. Remember, folks, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, the a-maize-ing world of statistical analysis can truly be a-tractory.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The age-old adage that "you reap what you sow" has taken on new meaning in the context of agricultural practices and societal outcomes. The contentious debate surrounding the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crop production has led to a kernel of truth: the potential impact of GMOs on human behavior. In this study, we delve into the stalky subject of the correlation between GMO corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates.
Now, don't shuck off this connection just yet. The findings we present here may sound corny, but they hold significant implications for both the agricultural and criminological communities. As the saying goes, we're not just chasing wild husks – there's a-maize-ing potential here for genuine insights.
In recent years, the use of GMOs in agriculture has become as hotly debated as whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. We often hear the age-old joke: "What did the grape say when it got stepped on? Nothing, it just let out a little whine." Well, in the case of GMO corn, the debate isn't just a little whine – it's a full-blown chorus. But amidst the noise, we aim to separate the wheat from the chaff and discern whether there's any true correlation between GMO corn production and violent crime rates.
With the rise of statistical analysis in interdisciplinary research, we have the tools to peel back the husk and reveal the cobs of truth within seemingly unrelated data sets. As we embark on this journey of discovery, let's remember the golden rule: always look on the bright ear of life – even if it means facing some tough stalks along the way.
As we dig deeper into this a-maize-ing connection, we invite our readers to embrace the spirit of scientific inquiry with an open kernel of mind. After all, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, a little bit of corny humor can help make the findings more a-tractory. So, without further ado, let's plow through the field of data and harvest some insight into the complex relationship between GMO corn in South Dakota and violent crime rates.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our statistical analysis revealed a striking correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates. We found a correlation coefficient of 0.9026981, indicating a strong positive relationship between the two variables. This suggests that as the adoption of GMO corn increased over the years, so did the violent crime rates in South Dakota. It seems that there's more than meets the husk when it comes to the impact of genetically modified corn on societal behavior.
In the realm of unexpected agricultural relationships, this correlation is a-maize-ingly significant. It's almost as if the GMO debate has sprouted a new branch, reaching into the field of criminology. It just goes to show that when it comes to research, you can't cobble together assumptions without digging into the data. A little bit of statistical analysis can truly help separate the wheat from the chaff.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually illustrates the robust relationship we uncovered, providing a clear depiction of the positive correlation between the use of GMO corn and violent crime rates in South Dakota. It's a-maize-ingly clear that there's more to this corny debate than meets the eye.
The r-squared value of 0.8148638 further strengthens our findings, indicating that approximately 81% of the variation in violent crime rates in South Dakota can be explained by the variation in GMO corn usage. This statistic really stalks for itself! It's not just a lucky ear-coincidence; this relationship seems to hold some genuine husk.
Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis, supporting the notion that the observed correlation is unlikely to be a result of random chance. This means that our findings are as reliable as a farmer's almanac – you can thresh them out for a fruitful yield of understanding.
In conclusion, our results indicate a compelling link between GMO corn production in South Dakota and violent crime rates, inviting further scrutiny into the potential societal implications of agricultural practices. It seems that when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, the a-maize-ing world of statistics can truly be a-tractory.
And hey, remember: when life gives you corny correlations, just make cornbread.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota and Violent crime rates. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
"Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the corny correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates. Our research team harvested data from the USDA and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services over the period from 2000 to 2022 to shell out the kernels of truth in this contentious debate. Utilizing statistical analysis, we uncovered a positively husked correlation coefficient of 0.9026981 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, revealing the cob-nectedness between these two seemingly unrelated fields.
Just when you thought GMO debates couldn't get any cornier, our findings suggest that there might be more than meets the husk when it comes to the impact of genetically modified corn on societal behavior. The results of this study also raise the question: Are we truly planting the seeds of destruction with our agricultural practices, or is it all just a kernel of truth in a field of conjecture?
In conclusion, our findings shed light on the potential ear-responsible factors influencing violent crime rates in South Dakota and provide food for thought for further research in the field. Remember, folks, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, the a-maize-ing world of statistical analysis can truly be a-tractory.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The investigation into the potential correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates has garnered an a-maize-ing amount of scholarly attention in recent years. Smith et al. (2015) posit a possible link between the introduction of GMOs and changes in societal behavior, providing a foundation for further exploration in this area. However, as we delve into this research, it's important to remember that not all corny connections lead to a-maize-ing revelations. Speaking of which, why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
The study by Doe and Jones (2018) presents an in-depth analysis of GMO adoption patterns in South Dakota and its potential impact on agricultural yields. While their focus is primarily on productivity, the implications for societal well-being cannot be husked aside. It's a-maize-ing how a seemingly harmless cornfield can sow the seeds of controversy in the academic world.
In "The Omnivore's Dilemma," Michael Pollan explores the complexities of modern food production, shedding light on the ethical and environmental considerations surrounding GMOs. The book reminds us that the corny connections we uncover in our research may have far-reaching implications on the very fabric of our food system. Speaking of fabric, why don't we ever tell secrets on a farm? Because the potatoes have eyes and the corn has ears!
On the fiction front, "Children of the Corn" by Stephen King offers a chilling portrayal of the sinister side of cornfields. Though purely speculative, the novel serves as a reminder that the connotations surrounding corn can often sprout unexpected fears. As researchers, it's our duty to separate fact from fiction, even if it means navigating through a-maize-ing twists and turns.
On a more light-hearted note, the TV show "Corn & Order" may not directly address the subject matter at hand, but its title serves as a friendly reminder that sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. As we navigate through the a-maize-ing maze of research, let's not lose sight of the end goal: to glean insights that can kernelate into meaningful change.
As our literature review reaches its humorous climax, let's not forget the serious implications of our findings. While we may lace our writing with dad jokes and puns, the correlations we uncover have the potential to shape future agricultural and criminological practices. So, let's embrace the a-maize-ing potential of this research and continue sowing the seeds of knowledge. After all, when it comes to serious research, a little bit of corny humor can make the findings more a-tractory.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our statistical analysis revealed a striking correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates. We found a correlation coefficient of 0.9026981, indicating a strong positive relationship between the two variables. This suggests that as the adoption of GMO corn increased over the years, so did the violent crime rates in South Dakota. It seems that there's more than meets the husk when it comes to the impact of genetically modified corn on societal behavior.
In the realm of unexpected agricultural relationships, this correlation is a-maize-ingly significant. It's almost as if the GMO debate has sprouted a new branch, reaching into the field of criminology. It just goes to show that when it comes to research, you can't cobble together assumptions without digging into the data. A little bit of statistical analysis can truly help separate the wheat from the chaff.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually illustrates the robust relationship we uncovered, providing a clear depiction of the positive correlation between the use of GMO corn and violent crime rates in South Dakota. It's a-maize-ingly clear that there's more to this corny debate than meets the eye.
The r-squared value of 0.8148638 further strengthens our findings, indicating that approximately 81% of the variation in violent crime rates in South Dakota can be explained by the variation in GMO corn usage. This statistic really stalks for itself! It's not just a lucky ear-coincidence; this relationship seems to hold some genuine husk.
Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis, supporting the notion that the observed correlation is unlikely to be a result of random chance. This means that our findings are as reliable as a farmer's almanac – you can thresh them out for a fruitful yield of understanding.
In conclusion, our results indicate a compelling link between GMO corn production in South Dakota and violent crime rates, inviting further scrutiny into the potential societal implications of agricultural practices. It seems that when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, the a-maize-ing world of statistics can truly be a-tractory.
And hey, remember: when life gives you corny correlations, just make cornbread.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
Our findings have unveiled an a-maize-ing correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates, aligning with prior research that has sown the seeds of this relationship. Just like a good cornbread recipe, a bit of GMO debate, and crime data statistics can come together to reveal some surprising flavors.
The statistically significant correlation coefficient of 0.9026981 we unearthed blooms from the fertile ground of previous scholarship. While it might sound corny, our results confirm the notion put forth by Smith et al. (2015) that the introduction of GMOs could be intricately related to changes in societal behavior. This discovery prompts us to reflect on the a-maize-ing potential consequences of our agricultural practices.
Our findings also lend credence to the work of Doe and Jones (2018), who focused on the impact of GMO adoption patterns in South Dakota. They might not have set out to uncover the fertile grounds of criminological correlations, but their research provides the bedrock upon which our findings now stand. As the late-night comics might say, this GMO debate isn't just a kernel of truth; it's the whole darn cob!
The robust relationship we have revealed between the use of GMO corn and violent crime rates contradicts speculation that this correlation might be a stalk joke. Our results illustrate that this correlation is not just a corny coincidence but warrants serious consideration. It's as if the GMO debate has grown a huskier branch, reaching into the field of criminology. A-maize-ing, isn't it?
The statistically significant p-value further fortifies the credibility of our findings, adding empirical weight to the idea that this correlation is more than just a-popcorn myth. We can confidently assert that the relationship between GMO corn and violent crime rates in South Dakota is not just a-maize-ing, but statistically sound. It seems we've truly hit the bullseye in this cornfield of research.
In conclusion, our study has unearthed a kernel of knowledge that underscores the vital importance of considering the impact of agricultural practices on societal behavior. While it might seem like a corny connection, it's clear that there's a-maize-ing potential in further exploring the wider implications of this correlation. After all, when it comes to serious research, a little bit of corny humor can make the findings more a-tractory.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota and Violent crime rates. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. 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]]
"Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates"
[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we examine the corny correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates. Our research team harvested data from the USDA and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services over the period from 2000 to 2022 to shell out the kernels of truth in this contentious debate. Utilizing statistical analysis, we uncovered a positively husked correlation coefficient of 0.9026981 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, revealing the cob-nectedness between these two seemingly unrelated fields.
Just when you thought GMO debates couldn't get any cornier, our findings suggest that there might be more than meets the husk when it comes to the impact of genetically modified corn on societal behavior. The results of this study also raise the question: Are we truly planting the seeds of destruction with our agricultural practices, or is it all just a kernel of truth in a field of conjecture?
In conclusion, our findings shed light on the potential ear-responsible factors influencing violent crime rates in South Dakota and provide food for thought for further research in the field. Remember, folks, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, the a-maize-ing world of statistical analysis can truly be a-tractory.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
The age-old adage that "you reap what you sow" has taken on new meaning in the context of agricultural practices and societal outcomes. The contentious debate surrounding the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crop production has led to a kernel of truth: the potential impact of GMOs on human behavior. In this study, we delve into the stalky subject of the correlation between GMO corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates.
Now, don't shuck off this connection just yet. The findings we present here may sound corny, but they hold significant implications for both the agricultural and criminological communities. As the saying goes, we're not just chasing wild husks – there's a-maize-ing potential here for genuine insights.
In recent years, the use of GMOs in agriculture has become as hotly debated as whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. We often hear the age-old joke: "What did the grape say when it got stepped on? Nothing, it just let out a little whine." Well, in the case of GMO corn, the debate isn't just a little whine – it's a full-blown chorus. But amidst the noise, we aim to separate the wheat from the chaff and discern whether there's any true correlation between GMO corn production and violent crime rates.
With the rise of statistical analysis in interdisciplinary research, we have the tools to peel back the husk and reveal the cobs of truth within seemingly unrelated data sets. As we embark on this journey of discovery, let's remember the golden rule: always look on the bright ear of life – even if it means facing some tough stalks along the way.
As we dig deeper into this a-maize-ing connection, we invite our readers to embrace the spirit of scientific inquiry with an open kernel of mind. After all, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, a little bit of corny humor can help make the findings more a-tractory. So, without further ado, let's plow through the field of data and harvest some insight into the complex relationship between GMO corn in South Dakota and violent crime rates.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of our statistical analysis revealed a striking correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates. We found a correlation coefficient of 0.9026981, indicating a strong positive relationship between the two variables. This suggests that as the adoption of GMO corn increased over the years, so did the violent crime rates in South Dakota. It seems that there's more than meets the husk when it comes to the impact of genetically modified corn on societal behavior.
In the realm of unexpected agricultural relationships, this correlation is a-maize-ingly significant. It's almost as if the GMO debate has sprouted a new branch, reaching into the field of criminology. It just goes to show that when it comes to research, you can't cobble together assumptions without digging into the data. A little bit of statistical analysis can truly help separate the wheat from the chaff.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually illustrates the robust relationship we uncovered, providing a clear depiction of the positive correlation between the use of GMO corn and violent crime rates in South Dakota. It's a-maize-ingly clear that there's more to this corny debate than meets the eye.
The r-squared value of 0.8148638 further strengthens our findings, indicating that approximately 81% of the variation in violent crime rates in South Dakota can be explained by the variation in GMO corn usage. This statistic really stalks for itself! It's not just a lucky ear-coincidence; this relationship seems to hold some genuine husk.
Moreover, the p-value of less than 0.01 provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis, supporting the notion that the observed correlation is unlikely to be a result of random chance. This means that our findings are as reliable as a farmer's almanac – you can thresh them out for a fruitful yield of understanding.
In conclusion, our results indicate a compelling link between GMO corn production in South Dakota and violent crime rates, inviting further scrutiny into the potential societal implications of agricultural practices. It seems that when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, the a-maize-ing world of statistics can truly be a-tractory.
And hey, remember: when life gives you corny correlations, just make cornbread.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, our findings reveal an undeniable correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates, yielding a statistically significant relationship that cannot be brushed aside. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.9026981 and the p-value of less than 0.01 huskily emphasize the noteworthy connection, indicating that the adoption of GMO corn appears to be correlated with an increase in violent crime rates.
It's almost as if these findings popped out of a corn-filled mystery novel – who would have thought that corn could hold such a-MAIZE-ing sway over social behavior? This correlation truly corn-firms the impact of agricultural practices on societal outcomes, cultivating a new field of interdisciplinary inquiry.
Now, amidst this husky debate, it's natural to crack a pun or two, but the implications of our findings are no laughing matter. The statistical analysis speaks louder than words, and the correlation unearthed in this study offers a kernel of insight into the potential ramifications of GMO corn production on community dynamics.
Given these compelling results, it's safe to say that no more research is needed in this area. We've husked out the truth and exposed the cob-nectedness between GMO corn and violent crime rates in South Dakota. It's time to let this field lie fallow and turn our attention to other pressing matters – after all, there's no need to keep beating this dead stalk.
And hey, if you ever find yourself in a corn maze, just remember: you can always count on some a-MAIZE-ing statistical analysis to help you find your way out.
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 Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Agricultural Anomalies
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 Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Center for Agricultural Anomalies and Societal Trends (CAAST)
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 Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates with an abstract of In this study, we examine the corny correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in South Dakota and violent crime rates. Our research team harvested data from the USDA and FBI Criminal Justice Information Services over the period from 2000 to 2022 to shell out the kernels of truth in this contentious debate. Utilizing statistical analysis, we uncovered a positively husked correlation coefficient of 0.9026981 with a statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, revealing the cob-nectedness between these two seemingly unrelated fields.
Just when you thought GMO debates couldn't get any cornier, our findings suggest that there might be more than meets the husk when it comes to the impact of genetically modified corn on societal behavior. The results of this study also raise the question: Are we truly planting the seeds of destruction with our agricultural practices, or is it all just a kernel of truth in a field of conjecture?
In conclusion, our findings shed light on the potential ear-responsible factors influencing violent crime rates in South Dakota and provide food for thought for further research in the field. Remember, folks, when it comes to uncovering unexpected correlations, the a-maize-ing world of statistical analysis can truly be a-tractory.
ChatGPT:
GMO corn, South Dakota, violent crime rates, genetically modified organisms, USDA data, FBI Crime Data, correlation coefficient, statistical analysis, agricultural practices, societal behavior, corn production, crime correlation, GMO debate
*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 South DakotaDetailed data title: Percent of all corn planted in South Dakota that is genetically modified to be insect-resistant (Bt), but not herbicide-tolerant (HT)
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota
Violent crime rates
Detailed data title: The violent crime rate per 100,000 residents in United States
Source: FBI Criminal Justice Information Services
See what else correlates with Violent crime rates
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 = 0.8148638 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 81.5% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Violent crime rates) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 3.8E-9. 0.0000000038422070014393460000
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 0.9 in 3.8E-7% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 260,267,081 random variables You don't actually need 260 million variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.
p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.
In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.
Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 22 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 22 because we have two variables measured over a period of 23 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.
[ 0.78, 0.96 ] 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 South Dakota (GMO corn %) | 35 | 30 | 33 | 34 | 28 | 30 | 20 | 16 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
Violent crime rates (Violent crime) | 506.5 | 504.5 | 494.4 | 475.8 | 463.2 | 469 | 479.3 | 471.8 | 458.6 | 431.9 | 404.5 | 387.1 | 387.8 | 369.1 | 361.6 | 373.7 | 397.5 | 394.9 | 383.4 | 380.8 | 398.5 | 387 | 380.7 |
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([35,30,33,34,28,30,20,16,7,6,6,7,9,2,3,1,4,3,2,3,4,3,1,])
array_2 = np.array([506.5,504.5,494.4,475.8,463.2,469,479.3,471.8,458.6,431.9,404.5,387.1,387.8,369.1,361.6,373.7,397.5,394.9,383.4,380.8,398.5,387,380.7,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in corn grown in South Dakota"
array_2_name = "Violent crime rates"
# 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 South Dakota
- Line chart for only Violent crime rates
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Stalked by Science: A-maize-ing Connections Between GMO Corn in South Dakota and Violent Crime Rates
Your correlation inspection deserves a standing ovation!
Correlation ID: 1850 · Black Variable ID: 720 · Red Variable ID: 20220