about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,417 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and the second variable is Number of Lawyers in the United States.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As GMO corn grew taller and taller, it created a legal "stalk" precedent for plant rights. It led to a kernel of legal disputes over cross-pollination and bio-engineered copyrights. The legal system found itself in a maize of agricultural debates, with lawyers cobbling together cases for and against the genetically modified grain. Ultimately, it ear-resistibly led to a jurisprudence shift, as attorneys realized they could earn husky fees from litigating agricultural biotechnology issues. In reality, this correlation is just a-maize-ing coincidence, and there is no direct causation between these two factors.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ Whimsical illustration ] Create an image of a vast cornfield in Minnesota, with rows of tall, genetically modified corn stretching out into the horizon. Amidst the stalks, a group of corn plants engaged in a heated debate with their neighboring crops, with expressions of determination and disagreement. Surrounding them, a line of sharply-dressed lawyers made of corn husks and silk ties gather, each exuding an air of professionalism and legal expertise. The image should convey the growing demand for "corn-lawyers" and the increasing number of lawyers across the United States, portrayed by fields of cornstalk figures in business suits, each specializing in legal matters concerning the genetically modified crops. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and 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: Photorealism Photorealism An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' Whimsical illustration inspired by bauhaus
ChatGPT: Whimsical illustration

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and Number of Lawyers in the United States, in the following situation: The genetically modified corn started developing legal disputes with neighboring crops, leading to a surge in demand for corn-lawyers.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a vast cornfield in Minnesota, rows of tall, genetically modified corn stretch out as far as the eye can see. Among the stalks, a group of corn plants is engaged in a heated debate with their neighboring crops, while a line of sharp-suited lawyers made of corn husks and silk ties gather around, ready to represent the feuding plants. The growing demand for "corn-lawyers" has led to an increasing number of lawyers across the United States, portrayed by fields of cornstalk figures in business suits, each specializing in legal matters concerning the genetically modified crops.

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: [ Whimsical illustration ] and depicting this scene: In a vast cornfield in Minnesota, rows of tall, genetically modified corn stretch out as far as the eye can see. Among the stalks, a group of corn plants is engaged in a heated debate with their neighboring crops, while a line of sharp-suited lawyers made of corn husks and silk ties gather around, ready to represent the feuding plants. The growing demand for "corn-lawyers" has led to an increasing number of lawyers across the United States, portrayed by fields of cornstalk figures in business suits, each specializing in legal matters concerning the genetically modified crops. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ Whimsical illustration ] Create an image of a vast cornfield in Minnesota, with rows of tall, genetically modified corn stretching out into the horizon. Amidst the stalks, a group of corn plants engaged in a heated debate with their neighboring crops, with expressions of determination and disagreement. Surrounding them, a line of sharply-dressed lawyers made of corn husks and silk ties gather, each exuding an air of professionalism and legal expertise. The image should convey the growing demand for "corn-lawyers" and the increasing number of lawyers across the United States, portrayed by fields of cornstalk figures in business suits, each specializing in legal matters concerning the genetically modified crops.

*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 Minnesota caused Number of Lawyers in the United States to increase.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Kernel Connection: Genetically Modified Corn Production in Minnesota and the Flourishing Flock of Lawyers in the United States

The Journal of Agricultural Law and Genetics

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 witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and 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, make it sound serious.

Your research team used data from USDA and ABA to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9824752 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]]
The Kernel Connection: Genetically Modified Corn Production in Minnesota and the Flourishing Flock of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the intriguing intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and legal professionals by examining the relationship between the use of GMOs in corn grown in Minnesota and the proliferation of lawyers across the United States. Using data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team conducted a thorough analysis from the year 2000 to 2022. We found a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9824752 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between the two variables. Our findings suggest a compelling, albeit perhaps unexpected, link between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in the Land of 10,000 Lakes and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners nationwide. This investigation not only illuminates an unanticipated correlation but also underscores the need for further interdisciplinary exploration.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and 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. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Kernel Connection: Genetically Modified Corn Production in Minnesota and the Flourishing Flock of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the intriguing intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and legal professionals by examining the relationship between the use of GMOs in corn grown in Minnesota and the proliferation of lawyers across the United States. Using data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team conducted a thorough analysis from the year 2000 to 2022. We found a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9824752 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between the two variables. Our findings suggest a compelling, albeit perhaps unexpected, link between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in the Land of 10,000 Lakes and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners nationwide. This investigation not only illuminates an unanticipated correlation but also underscores the need for further interdisciplinary exploration.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The cultivation and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continue to be a topic of fervent debate and scientific scrutiny. Whether one takes a "stalk" on the pro-GMO side or prefers the "earthy" virtues of organic produce, there is no denying the ubiquity of GMOs in modern agriculture. In this study, we redirect our focus from the dietary implications of GMOs to a somewhat "corny" yet surprisingly captivating exploration: the relationship between the production of genetically modified corn in Minnesota and the influx of legal eagles, or as the non-avian populace affectionately calls them, lawyers, in the United States.

As we venture into this "stalk" of research, it is necessary to acknowledge the polarized perceptions surrounding GMOs and legal professionals, both of which have been subject to their fair share of skepticism and critique. Nonetheless, our inquisitive minds were drawn to investigate a possible correlation between the two, motivated by the intriguing anecdotal evidence suggesting that "where there's corn, there'll be courtroom drama."

The landscape of GMO production has expanded significantly over the years, much like an enthusiastic cornfield in the Midwest. In parallel, the legal profession in the United States has seen a sprawling growth, reminiscent of the tendrils of a particularly vigorous vine. With these observations in mind, we set out to embark on an inquiry that melds the realms of agricultural science and jurisprudence, adopting a statistical lens to shed light on this unsuspecting correlation.

Our data, sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and vetted by the American Bar Association (ABA), spans a 22-year period from 2000 to 2022. The use of robust statistical methods has allowed us to discern patterns and trends with a level of precision that could rival the finest selection of grains in a farmer's silo. Through our meticulously curated analysis, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient so impressively high that it almost seems genetically modified itself. Indeed, the fruit of our labor yields a coefficient of 0.9824752, accompanied by a p-value that is lower than the chance of finding a needle in a haystack (i.e., less than 0.01). This statistical prowess not only substantiates the existence of a strong association between GMO corn production in Minnesota and the burgeoning population of legal professionals in the United States but also serves as a testament to the power of interdisciplinary exploration.

As we delve further into our findings, let us peel back the layers of this perplexing amalgamation of agriculture and jurisprudence, in hopes of uncovering the "kernel" of truth that lies within.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and 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]]
The Kernel Connection: Genetically Modified Corn Production in Minnesota and the Flourishing Flock of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the intriguing intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and legal professionals by examining the relationship between the use of GMOs in corn grown in Minnesota and the proliferation of lawyers across the United States. Using data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team conducted a thorough analysis from the year 2000 to 2022. We found a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9824752 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between the two variables. Our findings suggest a compelling, albeit perhaps unexpected, link between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in the Land of 10,000 Lakes and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners nationwide. This investigation not only illuminates an unanticipated correlation but also underscores the need for further interdisciplinary exploration.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The cultivation and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continue to be a topic of fervent debate and scientific scrutiny. Whether one takes a "stalk" on the pro-GMO side or prefers the "earthy" virtues of organic produce, there is no denying the ubiquity of GMOs in modern agriculture. In this study, we redirect our focus from the dietary implications of GMOs to a somewhat "corny" yet surprisingly captivating exploration: the relationship between the production of genetically modified corn in Minnesota and the influx of legal eagles, or as the non-avian populace affectionately calls them, lawyers, in the United States.
As we venture into this "stalk" of research, it is necessary to acknowledge the polarized perceptions surrounding GMOs and legal professionals, both of which have been subject to their fair share of skepticism and critique. Nonetheless, our inquisitive minds were drawn to investigate a possible correlation between the two, motivated by the intriguing anecdotal evidence suggesting that "where there's corn, there'll be courtroom drama."
The landscape of GMO production has expanded significantly over the years, much like an enthusiastic cornfield in the Midwest. In parallel, the legal profession in the United States has seen a sprawling growth, reminiscent of the tendrils of a particularly vigorous vine. With these observations in mind, we set out to embark on an inquiry that melds the realms of agricultural science and jurisprudence, adopting a statistical lens to shed light on this unsuspecting correlation.
Our data, sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and vetted by the American Bar Association (ABA), spans a 22-year period from 2000 to 2022. The use of robust statistical methods has allowed us to discern patterns and trends with a level of precision that could rival the finest selection of grains in a farmer's silo. Through our meticulously curated analysis, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient so impressively high that it almost seems genetically modified itself. Indeed, the fruit of our labor yields a coefficient of 0.9824752, accompanied by a p-value that is lower than the chance of finding a needle in a haystack (i.e., less than 0.01). This statistical prowess not only substantiates the existence of a strong association between GMO corn production in Minnesota and the burgeoning population of legal professionals in the United States but also serves as a testament to the power of interdisciplinary exploration.
As we delve further into our findings, let us peel back the layers of this perplexing amalgamation of agriculture and jurisprudence, in hopes of uncovering the "kernel" of truth that lies within.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

To contextualize the curious correlation between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in Minnesota and the rapidly growing cohort of legal practitioners in the United States, several seminal works have laid the groundwork for this unanticipated intersection. Smith and colleagues, in their comprehensive analysis of agricultural biotechnology and its socio-economic implications, expound upon the transformative impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on modern farming practices. Furthermore, Doe's seminal work on legal profession demographics offers a nuanced exploration of the factors influencing the burgeoning population of lawyers. These foundational studies provide the intellectual scaffolding for our investigation into the entwined realms of genetic corn modification and legal expertise.

Transitioning from the rigor of academic journals, the literature landscape meanders into broader perspectives, encompassing non-fiction books such as "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, an illuminating treatise on the intricacies of modern food production. Similarly, "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safran Foer presents a thought-provoking examination of the ethical considerations intertwined with agricultural practices, offering tangential insights into the world of GMOs. These non-fiction works, while not directly centered on the symbiotic relationship between genetically modified corn and lawyers, contribute to the multidimensional tapestry of our scholarly pursuit.

Taking a whimsical turn, the realm of fiction also interlaces with our thematic thread. John Grisham's legal thrillers, including "The Firm" and "The Pelican Brief," infuse intrigue and legal drama into our contemplation of the proliferation of legal professionals. Furthermore, the enthralling mysteries of Agatha Christie's "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" lend an air of suspense to our scholarly voyage, albeit in a fashion more befitting a courtroom drama than a cornfield conundrum.

On a tangential note, the board game "Agricola" introduces an element of simulated agricultural strategy, offering a lighthearted parallel to the real-world nuances of GMO production. Likewise, the negotiation dynamics of "Sheriff of Nottingham" provoke reflection on the intricate dealings within the legal domain, albeit within the whimsical context of medieval marketplaces.

As we traverse this eclectic array of literature, it becomes abundantly clear that the interconnectedness of genetically modified corn and the legal profession conjures a scholarly odyssey fraught with the unexpected, where academic rigor mingles with whimsy and intellectual levity.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and 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. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and ABA . You used data from 2000 to 2022

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Kernel Connection: Genetically Modified Corn Production in Minnesota and the Flourishing Flock of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the intriguing intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and legal professionals by examining the relationship between the use of GMOs in corn grown in Minnesota and the proliferation of lawyers across the United States. Using data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team conducted a thorough analysis from the year 2000 to 2022. We found a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9824752 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between the two variables. Our findings suggest a compelling, albeit perhaps unexpected, link between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in the Land of 10,000 Lakes and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners nationwide. This investigation not only illuminates an unanticipated correlation but also underscores the need for further interdisciplinary exploration.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The cultivation and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continue to be a topic of fervent debate and scientific scrutiny. Whether one takes a "stalk" on the pro-GMO side or prefers the "earthy" virtues of organic produce, there is no denying the ubiquity of GMOs in modern agriculture. In this study, we redirect our focus from the dietary implications of GMOs to a somewhat "corny" yet surprisingly captivating exploration: the relationship between the production of genetically modified corn in Minnesota and the influx of legal eagles, or as the non-avian populace affectionately calls them, lawyers, in the United States.
As we venture into this "stalk" of research, it is necessary to acknowledge the polarized perceptions surrounding GMOs and legal professionals, both of which have been subject to their fair share of skepticism and critique. Nonetheless, our inquisitive minds were drawn to investigate a possible correlation between the two, motivated by the intriguing anecdotal evidence suggesting that "where there's corn, there'll be courtroom drama."
The landscape of GMO production has expanded significantly over the years, much like an enthusiastic cornfield in the Midwest. In parallel, the legal profession in the United States has seen a sprawling growth, reminiscent of the tendrils of a particularly vigorous vine. With these observations in mind, we set out to embark on an inquiry that melds the realms of agricultural science and jurisprudence, adopting a statistical lens to shed light on this unsuspecting correlation.
Our data, sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and vetted by the American Bar Association (ABA), spans a 22-year period from 2000 to 2022. The use of robust statistical methods has allowed us to discern patterns and trends with a level of precision that could rival the finest selection of grains in a farmer's silo. Through our meticulously curated analysis, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient so impressively high that it almost seems genetically modified itself. Indeed, the fruit of our labor yields a coefficient of 0.9824752, accompanied by a p-value that is lower than the chance of finding a needle in a haystack (i.e., less than 0.01). This statistical prowess not only substantiates the existence of a strong association between GMO corn production in Minnesota and the burgeoning population of legal professionals in the United States but also serves as a testament to the power of interdisciplinary exploration.
As we delve further into our findings, let us peel back the layers of this perplexing amalgamation of agriculture and jurisprudence, in hopes of uncovering the "kernel" of truth that lies within.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To begin unravelling the enigmatic entanglement between genetically modified corn production in Minnesota and the surge of legal practitioners across the United States, our research team embarked on a voyage through a sea of data spanning from 2000 to 2022. Our primary sources of data were the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). This voyage was akin to navigating the choppy seas of uncertainty, armed with sturdy statistical compasses and a steadfast determination to unearth the underlying connection, much like intrepid explorers seeking treasure in uncharted territories.

Our team devised a multi-faceted methodology that could rival the intricate genetic engineering techniques utilized in the development of GMO crops. First, we meticulously gathered information on GMO corn production in Minnesota, meticulously sifting through the digital fields of USDA databases, much like diligent farmers cultivating their crops. We then measured the quantity of genetically modified corn produced, taking into account regional variations and changes in cultivation practices. The corn data was as diverse as the kernels on a cob, with each datapoint conveying a unique story of agricultural prowess.

Simultaneously, we navigated the legal landscape of the United States, relying on the ABA's repository of lawyer population statistics as our guide. Our intrepid journey through this legal terrain involved charting the growth of legal practitioners, noting fluctuations in densities across different states, and identifying seasonal spikes in lawyer graduations – a pursuit not unlike herding cats in the legal throng.

Having meticulously gathered our primary datasets on GMO corn production and legal professionals, our research team fortified itself with an arsenal of statistical tools. Out came the mighty correlations, impartial t-tests, and the trusty linear regression models, each serving as a compass to steer our analysis towards the long-awaited conclusions. We subjected the data to rigorous scrutiny and statistical interrogation, seeking out patterns and relationships that could shed light on this perplexing phenomenon.

One may envision our statistical analyses as a grand agricultural experiment, with each statistical test serving as a separate plot in the vast field of inquiry. We scrutinized the data with the keen eye of a hawk circling above a cornfield, searching for the faintest signs of correlation and causation. The numbers were massaged, manipulated, and coaxed to reveal their innermost secrets, much like coaxing kernels from an ear of corn.

The culmination of this arduous process was the extraction of a correlation coefficient so robust that it stood tall and proud, akin to the strongest stalk in a cornfield. The calculated coefficient of 0.9824752 served as a beacon of statistical significance, guiding our hesitant vessel through the stormy seas of skepticism and doubt. Additionally, the p-value, an elusive metric sought after by all who delve into statistical waters, shimmered like a rare gem, clearly declaring its significance at a level lower than the likelihood of stumbling upon a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow (i.e., less than 0.01).

Armed with these statistical treasures, we emerged from the depths of uncertainty, bolstered by the undeniable strength of our findings. The journey through the database seas and the statistical tides had not been without its challenges, yet we had successfully deciphered the hidden currents of correlation, finding ourselves confronted with a compelling connection between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in the North Star State and the burgeoning legal landscape across the nation.

Our methodology, much like the genetic modification of crops, involved meticulous attention to detail, rigorous analysis, and an unwavering sense of scientific adventure. As we forge ahead to interpret and discuss our findings, let us not forget the intrepid spirit that drove this inquiry, for it is in the pursuit of knowledge that we uncover the true essence of scientific discovery.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and 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. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9824752, r-squared of 0.9652576, 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]]
The Kernel Connection: Genetically Modified Corn Production in Minnesota and the Flourishing Flock of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the intriguing intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and legal professionals by examining the relationship between the use of GMOs in corn grown in Minnesota and the proliferation of lawyers across the United States. Using data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team conducted a thorough analysis from the year 2000 to 2022. We found a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9824752 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between the two variables. Our findings suggest a compelling, albeit perhaps unexpected, link between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in the Land of 10,000 Lakes and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners nationwide. This investigation not only illuminates an unanticipated correlation but also underscores the need for further interdisciplinary exploration.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The cultivation and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continue to be a topic of fervent debate and scientific scrutiny. Whether one takes a "stalk" on the pro-GMO side or prefers the "earthy" virtues of organic produce, there is no denying the ubiquity of GMOs in modern agriculture. In this study, we redirect our focus from the dietary implications of GMOs to a somewhat "corny" yet surprisingly captivating exploration: the relationship between the production of genetically modified corn in Minnesota and the influx of legal eagles, or as the non-avian populace affectionately calls them, lawyers, in the United States.
As we venture into this "stalk" of research, it is necessary to acknowledge the polarized perceptions surrounding GMOs and legal professionals, both of which have been subject to their fair share of skepticism and critique. Nonetheless, our inquisitive minds were drawn to investigate a possible correlation between the two, motivated by the intriguing anecdotal evidence suggesting that "where there's corn, there'll be courtroom drama."
The landscape of GMO production has expanded significantly over the years, much like an enthusiastic cornfield in the Midwest. In parallel, the legal profession in the United States has seen a sprawling growth, reminiscent of the tendrils of a particularly vigorous vine. With these observations in mind, we set out to embark on an inquiry that melds the realms of agricultural science and jurisprudence, adopting a statistical lens to shed light on this unsuspecting correlation.
Our data, sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and vetted by the American Bar Association (ABA), spans a 22-year period from 2000 to 2022. The use of robust statistical methods has allowed us to discern patterns and trends with a level of precision that could rival the finest selection of grains in a farmer's silo. Through our meticulously curated analysis, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient so impressively high that it almost seems genetically modified itself. Indeed, the fruit of our labor yields a coefficient of 0.9824752, accompanied by a p-value that is lower than the chance of finding a needle in a haystack (i.e., less than 0.01). This statistical prowess not only substantiates the existence of a strong association between GMO corn production in Minnesota and the burgeoning population of legal professionals in the United States but also serves as a testament to the power of interdisciplinary exploration.
As we delve further into our findings, let us peel back the layers of this perplexing amalgamation of agriculture and jurisprudence, in hopes of uncovering the "kernel" of truth that lies within.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The bountiful kernels of data harvested for this research endeavor have yielded a remarkably robust correlation between the utilization of genetically modified corn in Minnesota and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners in the United States. Our analysis unveils a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9824752, indicating a near-perfect linear relationship between the two variables. This substantial correlation is further substantiated by an r-squared value of 0.9652576, suggesting that approximately 96.53% of the variation in the number of lawyers can be explained by the use of GMO corn in Minnesota.

The significance of this statistical association is underscored by a p-value less than 0.01, which points to an extremely low probability that the observed correlation is due to random chance. In other words, the likelihood of this relationship occurring by mere coincidence is as scarce as hen's teeth in a cornfield. These findings provide compelling evidence for a meaningful connection between the production of genetically modified corn and the legal landscape across the United States.

Furthermore, in our pursuit of scientific rigour and credibility, we present in Figure 1 a visual representation of the pronounced correlation between GMO corn production in Minnesota and the number of lawyers in the United States. This scatterplot serves as a graphic testimony to the strength of the statistical relationship uncovered in our investigation.

The cornucopia of evidence presented here not only sheds light on the unexpected kinship between genetically modified corn and the legal profession but also invites further inquiry into the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and societal dynamics. Our findings pose a ripe opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration that transcends the traditional boundaries of scientific inquiry, culminating in a veritable feast of knowledge awaiting exploration.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and 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. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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]]
The Kernel Connection: Genetically Modified Corn Production in Minnesota and the Flourishing Flock of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the intriguing intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and legal professionals by examining the relationship between the use of GMOs in corn grown in Minnesota and the proliferation of lawyers across the United States. Using data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team conducted a thorough analysis from the year 2000 to 2022. We found a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9824752 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between the two variables. Our findings suggest a compelling, albeit perhaps unexpected, link between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in the Land of 10,000 Lakes and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners nationwide. This investigation not only illuminates an unanticipated correlation but also underscores the need for further interdisciplinary exploration.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
To contextualize the curious correlation between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in Minnesota and the rapidly growing cohort of legal practitioners in the United States, several seminal works have laid the groundwork for this unanticipated intersection. Smith and colleagues, in their comprehensive analysis of agricultural biotechnology and its socio-economic implications, expound upon the transformative impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on modern farming practices. Furthermore, Doe's seminal work on legal profession demographics offers a nuanced exploration of the factors influencing the burgeoning population of lawyers. These foundational studies provide the intellectual scaffolding for our investigation into the entwined realms of genetic corn modification and legal expertise.
Transitioning from the rigor of academic journals, the literature landscape meanders into broader perspectives, encompassing non-fiction books such as "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, an illuminating treatise on the intricacies of modern food production. Similarly, "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safran Foer presents a thought-provoking examination of the ethical considerations intertwined with agricultural practices, offering tangential insights into the world of GMOs. These non-fiction works, while not directly centered on the symbiotic relationship between genetically modified corn and lawyers, contribute to the multidimensional tapestry of our scholarly pursuit.
Taking a whimsical turn, the realm of fiction also interlaces with our thematic thread. John Grisham's legal thrillers, including "The Firm" and "The Pelican Brief," infuse intrigue and legal drama into our contemplation of the proliferation of legal professionals. Furthermore, the enthralling mysteries of Agatha Christie's "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" lend an air of suspense to our scholarly voyage, albeit in a fashion more befitting a courtroom drama than a cornfield conundrum.
On a tangential note, the board game "Agricola" introduces an element of simulated agricultural strategy, offering a lighthearted parallel to the real-world nuances of GMO production. Likewise, the negotiation dynamics of "Sheriff of Nottingham" provoke reflection on the intricate dealings within the legal domain, albeit within the whimsical context of medieval marketplaces.
As we traverse this eclectic array of literature, it becomes abundantly clear that the interconnectedness of genetically modified corn and the legal profession conjures a scholarly odyssey fraught with the unexpected, where academic rigor mingles with whimsy and intellectual levity.

[[RESULTS]]
The bountiful kernels of data harvested for this research endeavor have yielded a remarkably robust correlation between the utilization of genetically modified corn in Minnesota and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners in the United States. Our analysis unveils a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9824752, indicating a near-perfect linear relationship between the two variables. This substantial correlation is further substantiated by an r-squared value of 0.9652576, suggesting that approximately 96.53% of the variation in the number of lawyers can be explained by the use of GMO corn in Minnesota.
The significance of this statistical association is underscored by a p-value less than 0.01, which points to an extremely low probability that the observed correlation is due to random chance. In other words, the likelihood of this relationship occurring by mere coincidence is as scarce as hen's teeth in a cornfield. These findings provide compelling evidence for a meaningful connection between the production of genetically modified corn and the legal landscape across the United States.
Furthermore, in our pursuit of scientific rigour and credibility, we present in Figure 1 a visual representation of the pronounced correlation between GMO corn production in Minnesota and the number of lawyers in the United States. This scatterplot serves as a graphic testimony to the strength of the statistical relationship uncovered in our investigation.
The cornucopia of evidence presented here not only sheds light on the unexpected kinship between genetically modified corn and the legal profession but also invites further inquiry into the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and societal dynamics. Our findings pose a ripe opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration that transcends the traditional boundaries of scientific inquiry, culminating in a veritable feast of knowledge awaiting exploration.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The cornucopia of evidence uncovered in our investigation into the relationship between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in Minnesota and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners in the United States yields noteworthy implications ripe for scholarly rumination. Our findings, perhaps as unexpected as stumbling upon a proverbial kernel in a haystack, warrant thoughtful consideration and further contemplation.

In alignment with the foundational works that have paved the path for this unanticipated empirical linkage, our results provide resounding support for the earlier assertions of Smith and colleagues regarding the transformative impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on agriculture. The strong statistical correlation between GMO corn production in Minnesota and the proliferation of lawyers across the United States echoes the reverberations of agricultural biotechnology's socio-economic implications, as delineated by Smith and his compatriots. This substantiation not only reinforces the empirical underpinnings of their work but also extends the purview of GMO influence to the legal profession, engendering an interdisciplinary tapestry as intricate as a strand of DNA.

We must not overlook the whimsical entries of the literature review that, despite their seemingly tangential nature, have serendipitously found resonance in our empirical inquiries. Akin to the unexpected plot twists in a legal thriller a la John Grisham or the strategic negotiations in "Sheriff of Nottingham," our investigative voyage has encountered intriguing parallels in the real-world interplay between GMO corn and the legal domain. While maintaining due scholarly sobriety, these whimsical connections serve as a compelling reminder of the delightful unpredictability inherent in the pursuit of knowledge.

Furthermore, the robust correlation coefficient and r-squared value uncovered in our statistical analyses underscore the profound nature of the relationship between GMO corn production and the legal landscape. The p-value less than 0.01 emphatically dismisses the whims of chance, highlighting the vanishingly slim likelihood of this correlation arising by happenstance. The numerical rigor of these findings, akin to the precision of an expertly executed legal brief, bolsters the credibility of our empirical claims and warrants the attention of the scholarly community.

In conclusion, our investigation warrants further interdisciplinary collaboration and exploration, akin to the collaborative strategizing in "Agricola," as we seek to unravel the intricacies of this unexpected union between genetically modified corn and the legal profession. The scholarly feast laid bare by our findings invites a veritable bonanza of knowledge-seeking, where empirical rigor intertwines with the unexpected, rendering this inquiry a delightful and intellectually stimulating pursuit.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota and 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. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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]]
The Kernel Connection: Genetically Modified Corn Production in Minnesota and the Flourishing Flock of Lawyers in the United States

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the intriguing intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and legal professionals by examining the relationship between the use of GMOs in corn grown in Minnesota and the proliferation of lawyers across the United States. Using data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team conducted a thorough analysis from the year 2000 to 2022. We found a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9824752 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between the two variables. Our findings suggest a compelling, albeit perhaps unexpected, link between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in the Land of 10,000 Lakes and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners nationwide. This investigation not only illuminates an unanticipated correlation but also underscores the need for further interdisciplinary exploration.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The cultivation and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continue to be a topic of fervent debate and scientific scrutiny. Whether one takes a "stalk" on the pro-GMO side or prefers the "earthy" virtues of organic produce, there is no denying the ubiquity of GMOs in modern agriculture. In this study, we redirect our focus from the dietary implications of GMOs to a somewhat "corny" yet surprisingly captivating exploration: the relationship between the production of genetically modified corn in Minnesota and the influx of legal eagles, or as the non-avian populace affectionately calls them, lawyers, in the United States.
As we venture into this "stalk" of research, it is necessary to acknowledge the polarized perceptions surrounding GMOs and legal professionals, both of which have been subject to their fair share of skepticism and critique. Nonetheless, our inquisitive minds were drawn to investigate a possible correlation between the two, motivated by the intriguing anecdotal evidence suggesting that "where there's corn, there'll be courtroom drama."
The landscape of GMO production has expanded significantly over the years, much like an enthusiastic cornfield in the Midwest. In parallel, the legal profession in the United States has seen a sprawling growth, reminiscent of the tendrils of a particularly vigorous vine. With these observations in mind, we set out to embark on an inquiry that melds the realms of agricultural science and jurisprudence, adopting a statistical lens to shed light on this unsuspecting correlation.
Our data, sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and vetted by the American Bar Association (ABA), spans a 22-year period from 2000 to 2022. The use of robust statistical methods has allowed us to discern patterns and trends with a level of precision that could rival the finest selection of grains in a farmer's silo. Through our meticulously curated analysis, we have unveiled a correlation coefficient so impressively high that it almost seems genetically modified itself. Indeed, the fruit of our labor yields a coefficient of 0.9824752, accompanied by a p-value that is lower than the chance of finding a needle in a haystack (i.e., less than 0.01). This statistical prowess not only substantiates the existence of a strong association between GMO corn production in Minnesota and the burgeoning population of legal professionals in the United States but also serves as a testament to the power of interdisciplinary exploration.
As we delve further into our findings, let us peel back the layers of this perplexing amalgamation of agriculture and jurisprudence, in hopes of uncovering the "kernel" of truth that lies within.

[[RESULTS]]
The bountiful kernels of data harvested for this research endeavor have yielded a remarkably robust correlation between the utilization of genetically modified corn in Minnesota and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners in the United States. Our analysis unveils a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9824752, indicating a near-perfect linear relationship between the two variables. This substantial correlation is further substantiated by an r-squared value of 0.9652576, suggesting that approximately 96.53% of the variation in the number of lawyers can be explained by the use of GMO corn in Minnesota.
The significance of this statistical association is underscored by a p-value less than 0.01, which points to an extremely low probability that the observed correlation is due to random chance. In other words, the likelihood of this relationship occurring by mere coincidence is as scarce as hen's teeth in a cornfield. These findings provide compelling evidence for a meaningful connection between the production of genetically modified corn and the legal landscape across the United States.
Furthermore, in our pursuit of scientific rigour and credibility, we present in Figure 1 a visual representation of the pronounced correlation between GMO corn production in Minnesota and the number of lawyers in the United States. This scatterplot serves as a graphic testimony to the strength of the statistical relationship uncovered in our investigation.
The cornucopia of evidence presented here not only sheds light on the unexpected kinship between genetically modified corn and the legal profession but also invites further inquiry into the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and societal dynamics. Our findings pose a ripe opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration that transcends the traditional boundaries of scientific inquiry, culminating in a veritable feast of knowledge awaiting exploration.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has unveiled an uncanny correlation between the production of GMO corn in Minnesota and the influx of legal professionals in the United States, marking a statistical relationship as tight as the seal on a corn silo. While the connection may initially appear as surprising as finding a cob of corn in a lawyer's briefcase, our rigorous analysis confirms the robustness of the association. As we laboriously combed through the data, it became clear that the relation between GMO corn and the legal landscape is as undeniable as the prolific yield of a well-tended maize field.

The implications of this research extend beyond the realm of statistical curiosity, igniting a spark of curiosity akin to lighting a candle in a corn maze. Our findings beckon for a deeper understanding of the intricate interconnection between agriculture and societal dynamics. We urge scholars and researchers to peel back the layers of this "corny" conundrum, for it holds the potential to sow fertile ground for interdisciplinary collaboration and intellectual harvests of unparalleled depth.

However, while our study provides substantial evidence for this unexpected correlation, we cannot ignore the fact that further research in this area may ultimately yield no more fruitful findings than a barren patch of earth. Thus, we conclude that the field is ripe enough, and perhaps overripe, and that no further research is warranted. Any future investigations would likely be as extraneous as a cornstalk in a haystack.


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 The Kernel Connection: Genetically Modified Corn Production in Minnesota and the Flourishing Flock of Lawyers in the United States. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Agricultural Law and Genetics


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 The Kernel Connection: Genetically Modified Corn Production in Minnesota and the Flourishing Flock of Lawyers in the United States. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Ethical Agriculture and Legal Dynamics (SEALD)


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 The Kernel Connection: Genetically Modified Corn Production in Minnesota and the Flourishing Flock of Lawyers in the United States with an abstract of This paper delves into the intriguing intersection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and legal professionals by examining the relationship between the use of GMOs in corn grown in Minnesota and the proliferation of lawyers across the United States. Using data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), our research team conducted a thorough analysis from the year 2000 to 2022. We found a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9824752 and a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a strong statistical association between the two variables. Our findings suggest a compelling, albeit perhaps unexpected, link between the cultivation of genetically modified corn in the Land of 10,000 Lakes and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners nationwide. This investigation not only illuminates an unanticipated correlation but also underscores the need for further interdisciplinary exploration.

ChatGPT:

GMOs, genetically modified organisms, corn production, Minnesota, United States, lawyers, legal professionals, USDA, American Bar Association, correlation coefficient, statistical association, interdisciplinary exploration

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

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 = 0.9824752 (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 = 0.9652576 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 96.5% 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 Minnesota) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 8.4E-17. 0.0000000000000000835007070151
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 0.98 in 8.4E-15% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 11,975,946,500,898,048 random variables You don't actually need 11 quadrillion 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.

[ 0.96, 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.
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota (GMO corn %)244711111628404146484778817880828380798486
Number of Lawyers in the United States (Lawyers)10224601048900104975010586601084500110477011169701143360116212011803901203100122545012452001268010128143013007001312870133596013423801352080132874013279101327010




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([2,4,4,7,11,11,16,28,40,41,46,48,47,78,81,78,80,82,83,80,79,84,86,])
array_2 = np.array([1022460,1048900,1049750,1058660,1084500,1104770,1116970,1143360,1162120,1180390,1203100,1225450,1245200,1268010,1281430,1300700,1312870,1335960,1342380,1352080,1328740,1327910,1327010,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in corn grown in Minnesota"
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?

I'm genuinely thankful for your rating!


Correlation ID: 2417 · Black Variable ID: 744 · Red Variable ID: 542
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0