Download png, svg
AI explanation
As the first name Anderson surged in popularity, more parents were subconsciously drawn to the initials A.G. for their children, inadvertently sparking a statewide corny trend. It seems the stalks just couldn't resist the A.G. allure, leading to a-maize-ing levels of GMO corn growth in North Dakota. Looks like the name game had a kernel effect on the crop scene! Corngratulations, it's a-MAIZE-ing what a name can cob-vince! Remember, when it comes to naming trends, it's all fun and games until the corn starts spelling out A.G. in the fields!Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an image of rows of tall, vibrant cornstalks stretching across a sun-drenched field in North Dakota. In the foreground, depict a large, bold banner reading "Anderson" waving above the field. Surrounding the cornstalks, portray a diverse group of people laughing and sharing corny jokes, with bright smiles and animated expressions. Emphasize the signs displaying the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within the field, hinting at the source of the corny humor. Opt for a lighthearted and whimsical tone, capturing the joyful camaraderie among the group. 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: Popularity of the first name Anderson and GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota. 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: Concept art a funny image macro Steampunk Psychedelic Cubism
ChatGPT: a funny image macro
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 Popularity of the first name Anderson and GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota, in the following situation: As the name "Anderson" became more popular, it led to a rise in corny jokes. This abundance of corny humor caused North Dakotans to resort to genetically modified corn to improve their comedy material, thus increasing GMO use in corn.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a field in North Dakota, rows of tall cornstalks stretch out as far as the eye can see. The word "Anderson" is written in large, bold letters on a banner above the field, signifying its popularity. Amid the corn, there are signs showing the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to grow the corn. A group of people gathers around, sharing and laughing at corny jokes, inspired by the name's popularity and the abundance of genetically modified corn.
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 funny image macro ] and depicting this scene: In a field in North Dakota, rows of tall cornstalks stretch out as far as the eye can see. The word "Anderson" is written in large, bold letters on a banner above the field, signifying its popularity. Amid the corn, there are signs showing the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to grow the corn. A group of people gathers around, sharing and laughing at corny jokes, inspired by the name's popularity and the abundance of genetically modified corn. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an image of rows of tall, vibrant cornstalks stretching across a sun-drenched field in North Dakota. In the foreground, depict a large, bold banner reading "Anderson" waving above the field. Surrounding the cornstalks, portray a diverse group of people laughing and sharing corny jokes, with bright smiles and animated expressions. Emphasize the signs displaying the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within the field, hinting at the source of the corny humor. Opt for a lighthearted and whimsical tone, capturing the joyful camaraderie among the group.
*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.
I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Popularity of the first name Anderson caused GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota to increase. Include one good pun.
AI academic paper
Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain The Journal of Wacky Genetics and Quirky Nomenclature 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 Popularity of the first name Anderson and GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Rhyme words in the title.
Your research team used data from US Social Security Administration and USDA to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9243426 and p < 0.01 for 2005 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]]
Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the seemingly unrelated realms of nomenclature and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to investigate the captivating correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the utilization of GMO technology in corn production across North Dakota. With an air of skepticism, we set out to disentangle the mysterious congruence between the two seemingly disparate entities, utilizing meticulous data analysis derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture from the epoch of 2005 to 2022. The results reveal an astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9243426 and p < 0.01, demonstrating an unforeseen numerical overlap that raises eyebrows and prompts inquiries. Our findings offer a compelling narrative, seeking to illustrate the whimsical interconnectedness that pervades myriad facets of our existence, even those that appear to be diametrically distinct. This research goes beyond the mere concatenation of names and agricultural practices; it epitomizes the unexpected convergence of disparate domains, unraveling an enigmatic alliance that beckons further exploration.
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 Popularity of the first name Anderson and GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota. 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]]
Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the seemingly unrelated realms of nomenclature and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to investigate the captivating correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the utilization of GMO technology in corn production across North Dakota. With an air of skepticism, we set out to disentangle the mysterious congruence between the two seemingly disparate entities, utilizing meticulous data analysis derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture from the epoch of 2005 to 2022. The results reveal an astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9243426 and p < 0.01, demonstrating an unforeseen numerical overlap that raises eyebrows and prompts inquiries. Our findings offer a compelling narrative, seeking to illustrate the whimsical interconnectedness that pervades myriad facets of our existence, even those that appear to be diametrically distinct. This research goes beyond the mere concatenation of names and agricultural practices; it epitomizes the unexpected convergence of disparate domains, unraveling an enigmatic alliance that beckons further exploration.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
As we embark upon this academic expedition into the convoluted realms of nomenclature and agronomy, we find ourselves ensnared in a labyrinthine web of correlation, cloaked in the enigmatic shroud of statistical intrigue. The focus of this investigation is the seemingly serendipitous connection between the prevalence of the given name Anderson and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn across the plains of North Dakota. In an attempt to discern prevailing patterns and unveil the voyeuristic tendencies of fate, we embark on a quest that is as perplexing as it is enthralling.
The name "Anderson," derived from the Old Swedish Andersson, meaning "son of Andrew," has permeated the fabric of contemporary nomenclature with remarkable tenacity. It has adorned many a signboard, title, and, more intriguingly, birth certificate across the vast expanse of North Dakota. Meanwhile, the contentious debate surrounding the cultivation and consumption of GMO crops has imbued the agrarian landscape with a polarity that rivals the charged particles in a thunderstorm.
In the annals of academic discourse, the correlation between personal nomenclature and agricultural practices is a rarity that not only piques curiosity but also beckons one to unravel the labyrinth of intertwined influences that govern our societal tapestry. This study seeks to navigate the arcane pathways that connect what may initially appear to be disparate entities, unearthing the hidden intersections that lurk beneath the surface of our empirical understanding.
With an air of resolute skepticism, we venture forth to confront the intricacies of this unexpected correlation, armed with an arsenal of rigorous statistical tools and an insatiable thirst for uncovering the inexplicable. Our quest is rife with intrigue, reminiscent of a detective's pursuit of truth but with a sprinkle of scientific whimsy that makes this investigation a whimsical odyssey through the esoteric landscape of data analysis and conjecture.
So, dear reader, fasten your metaphorical seatbelt, for what lies ahead is a journey that transcends the ordinary confines of research and delivers a seed of knowledge that flourishes in the fertile soil of intellectual curiosity. Set alongside the backdrop of GMO-laden cornfields and a proliferation of Andersons, this investigation is a captivating mosaic of mystery, mathematics, and a pinch of mirth that serves to invigorate the scientific soul.
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 Popularity of the first name Anderson and GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota. 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. Then devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading CVS receipts.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the seemingly unrelated realms of nomenclature and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to investigate the captivating correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the utilization of GMO technology in corn production across North Dakota. With an air of skepticism, we set out to disentangle the mysterious congruence between the two seemingly disparate entities, utilizing meticulous data analysis derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture from the epoch of 2005 to 2022. The results reveal an astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9243426 and p < 0.01, demonstrating an unforeseen numerical overlap that raises eyebrows and prompts inquiries. Our findings offer a compelling narrative, seeking to illustrate the whimsical interconnectedness that pervades myriad facets of our existence, even those that appear to be diametrically distinct. This research goes beyond the mere concatenation of names and agricultural practices; it epitomizes the unexpected convergence of disparate domains, unraveling an enigmatic alliance that beckons further exploration.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As we embark upon this academic expedition into the convoluted realms of nomenclature and agronomy, we find ourselves ensnared in a labyrinthine web of correlation, cloaked in the enigmatic shroud of statistical intrigue. The focus of this investigation is the seemingly serendipitous connection between the prevalence of the given name Anderson and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn across the plains of North Dakota. In an attempt to discern prevailing patterns and unveil the voyeuristic tendencies of fate, we embark on a quest that is as perplexing as it is enthralling.
The name "Anderson," derived from the Old Swedish Andersson, meaning "son of Andrew," has permeated the fabric of contemporary nomenclature with remarkable tenacity. It has adorned many a signboard, title, and, more intriguingly, birth certificate across the vast expanse of North Dakota. Meanwhile, the contentious debate surrounding the cultivation and consumption of GMO crops has imbued the agrarian landscape with a polarity that rivals the charged particles in a thunderstorm.
In the annals of academic discourse, the correlation between personal nomenclature and agricultural practices is a rarity that not only piques curiosity but also beckons one to unravel the labyrinth of intertwined influences that govern our societal tapestry. This study seeks to navigate the arcane pathways that connect what may initially appear to be disparate entities, unearthing the hidden intersections that lurk beneath the surface of our empirical understanding.
With an air of resolute skepticism, we venture forth to confront the intricacies of this unexpected correlation, armed with an arsenal of rigorous statistical tools and an insatiable thirst for uncovering the inexplicable. Our quest is rife with intrigue, reminiscent of a detective's pursuit of truth but with a sprinkle of scientific whimsy that makes this investigation a whimsical odyssey through the esoteric landscape of data analysis and conjecture.
So, dear reader, fasten your metaphorical seatbelt, for what lies ahead is a journey that transcends the ordinary confines of research and delivers a seed of knowledge that flourishes in the fertile soil of intellectual curiosity. Set alongside the backdrop of GMO-laden cornfields and a proliferation of Andersons, this investigation is a captivating mosaic of mystery, mathematics, and a pinch of mirth that serves to invigorate the scientific soul.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In a study by Smith et al., "The Impact of Given Names on Agricultural Practices," the authors find a peculiar correlation between the prevalence of the name Anderson and the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in North Dakota. This finding is further substantiated in the work by Doe and Jones, "Nomenclature and GMOs: A Statistical Analysis," where an uncanny relationship between personal nomenclature and agricultural choices is brought to light.
Furthermore, "Genetically Modified Organisms: A Brief Overview" by Brown provides a comprehensive understanding of GMO technology in corn farming, highlighting the widespread adoption and impact of genetically modified corn on agricultural landscapes across the United States. Similarly, "Names and Numbers: Exploring Statistical Anomalies in Personal Nomenclature" by Grey delves into the statistical idiosyncrasies that underpin the prevalence of specific names in certain geographical regions, offering a potential avenue for investigating the Anderson-GMO correlation.
However, delving into more speculative territories, "The Corny Chronicles: A Tale of Agricultural Anomalies" by Green and "GMOs and You: A Fictional Account of Biotechnological Bedlam" by Black, while not rooted in empirical evidence, present fictional narratives that evocatively capture the essence of the enigmatic relationship between the name Anderson and GMO corn. These works, while not grounded in scientific rigor, offer a whimsical perspective on the entwined tapestry of nomenclature and agricultural technology.
In a departure from traditional academic sources, the authors also conducted an exhaustive review of miscellaneous materials, including but not limited to supermarket receipts, fortune cookies, and the musings of a particularly voluble parakeet named Pablo. While these unconventional sources did not yield empirical data, they did provide a momentary diversion and a potential for mirth amidst the seriousness of academic pursuits.
The synthesis of these diverse sources lays the foundation for a comprehensive exploration of the curious connection between the popularity of the name Anderson and the prevalence of GMO corn in North Dakota, setting the stage for a truly captivating investigation into this unexpected correlation.
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 Popularity of the first name Anderson and GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota. 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 US Social Security Administration and USDA . You used data from 2005 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]]
Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the seemingly unrelated realms of nomenclature and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to investigate the captivating correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the utilization of GMO technology in corn production across North Dakota. With an air of skepticism, we set out to disentangle the mysterious congruence between the two seemingly disparate entities, utilizing meticulous data analysis derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture from the epoch of 2005 to 2022. The results reveal an astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9243426 and p < 0.01, demonstrating an unforeseen numerical overlap that raises eyebrows and prompts inquiries. Our findings offer a compelling narrative, seeking to illustrate the whimsical interconnectedness that pervades myriad facets of our existence, even those that appear to be diametrically distinct. This research goes beyond the mere concatenation of names and agricultural practices; it epitomizes the unexpected convergence of disparate domains, unraveling an enigmatic alliance that beckons further exploration.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As we embark upon this academic expedition into the convoluted realms of nomenclature and agronomy, we find ourselves ensnared in a labyrinthine web of correlation, cloaked in the enigmatic shroud of statistical intrigue. The focus of this investigation is the seemingly serendipitous connection between the prevalence of the given name Anderson and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn across the plains of North Dakota. In an attempt to discern prevailing patterns and unveil the voyeuristic tendencies of fate, we embark on a quest that is as perplexing as it is enthralling.
The name "Anderson," derived from the Old Swedish Andersson, meaning "son of Andrew," has permeated the fabric of contemporary nomenclature with remarkable tenacity. It has adorned many a signboard, title, and, more intriguingly, birth certificate across the vast expanse of North Dakota. Meanwhile, the contentious debate surrounding the cultivation and consumption of GMO crops has imbued the agrarian landscape with a polarity that rivals the charged particles in a thunderstorm.
In the annals of academic discourse, the correlation between personal nomenclature and agricultural practices is a rarity that not only piques curiosity but also beckons one to unravel the labyrinth of intertwined influences that govern our societal tapestry. This study seeks to navigate the arcane pathways that connect what may initially appear to be disparate entities, unearthing the hidden intersections that lurk beneath the surface of our empirical understanding.
With an air of resolute skepticism, we venture forth to confront the intricacies of this unexpected correlation, armed with an arsenal of rigorous statistical tools and an insatiable thirst for uncovering the inexplicable. Our quest is rife with intrigue, reminiscent of a detective's pursuit of truth but with a sprinkle of scientific whimsy that makes this investigation a whimsical odyssey through the esoteric landscape of data analysis and conjecture.
So, dear reader, fasten your metaphorical seatbelt, for what lies ahead is a journey that transcends the ordinary confines of research and delivers a seed of knowledge that flourishes in the fertile soil of intellectual curiosity. Set alongside the backdrop of GMO-laden cornfields and a proliferation of Andersons, this investigation is a captivating mosaic of mystery, mathematics, and a pinch of mirth that serves to invigorate the scientific soul.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In unraveling the curious correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in North Dakota, our research team embarked on a methodological journey replete with algorithmic acrobatics and data spelunking extravaganza. The research was conducted over a period from 2005 to 2022, harnessing the sprawling expanse of digitized information made available by the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture. The seemingly incompatible realms of human nomenclature and agricultural genetic engineering were reconciled through a blend of statistical acumen and analytical flair, akin to navigating through a labyrinth of numbers with a treasure map of whimsy.
To initiate our conundrum-conquering quest, we employed a two-fold approach to wrangle the unwieldy datasets into submission. First, we dexterously extracted the frequency of the first name "Anderson" from the US Social Security Administration database, meticulously documenting its proliferation over the years with all the adeptness of a linguistic sleuth hunting for phonetic footprints in the sands of time. Simultaneously, we gleaned data regarding the prevalence of GMO corn cultivation across North Dakota, deftly navigating through the expansive data sets provided by the United States Department of Agriculture, much like a scientific spelunker delving into the depths of statistical stalagmites and stalactites.
Having amassed this trove of information, we then harnessed the formidable power of statistical software to conduct a veritable symphony of quantitative analysis. Drawing from the sonorous repertoire of correlation coefficients and inferential statistics, we performed a rigorous assessment of the relationship between the eponymous Anderson and the omnipresent GMO corn, all the while juggling hypotheses with the fervor of an academic acrobat in the grand circus of data analysis.
Furthermore, in our relentless pursuit of precision, we did not shy away from the enthralling web of covariates and confounders that could potentially cast shadows of doubt on our findings. Through a series of sensitivity analyses and model adjustments, we sought to illuminate the intricate nuances of this compelling correlation, much like a scientific Sherlock Holmes sniffing out the elusive scent of statistical significance amidst the vast expanse of empirical evidence.
In essence, our methodology is a delightful fusion of data mining, statistical acrobatics, and a dash of whimsical pragmatism, all culminating in an empirical ballet that pirouettes through the confluence of human nomenclature and agricultural technology. With our analytical compass pointed firmly toward the intersection of numbers and nomenclature, our methods not only tantalize the intellect but also beckon forth a scientific waltz that transcends the ordinary confines of research methodology.
In the immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton, we stood on the shoulders of statistical giants, not only to advance our understanding of this perplexing correlation but also to revel in the exhilarating dance of data demystification set against the ethereal backdrop of agricultural intrigue. And with that, dear reader, we invite you to don your proverbial Sherlockian cap and join us in this delightful masquerade of empirical exploration, where numbers and nomenclature converge in an enchanting cacophony of correlation and convolution.
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 Popularity of the first name Anderson and GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota. 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 US Social Security Administration and USDA .
For the time period 2005 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9243426, r-squared of 0.8544092, 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]]
Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the seemingly unrelated realms of nomenclature and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to investigate the captivating correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the utilization of GMO technology in corn production across North Dakota. With an air of skepticism, we set out to disentangle the mysterious congruence between the two seemingly disparate entities, utilizing meticulous data analysis derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture from the epoch of 2005 to 2022. The results reveal an astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9243426 and p < 0.01, demonstrating an unforeseen numerical overlap that raises eyebrows and prompts inquiries. Our findings offer a compelling narrative, seeking to illustrate the whimsical interconnectedness that pervades myriad facets of our existence, even those that appear to be diametrically distinct. This research goes beyond the mere concatenation of names and agricultural practices; it epitomizes the unexpected convergence of disparate domains, unraveling an enigmatic alliance that beckons further exploration.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As we embark upon this academic expedition into the convoluted realms of nomenclature and agronomy, we find ourselves ensnared in a labyrinthine web of correlation, cloaked in the enigmatic shroud of statistical intrigue. The focus of this investigation is the seemingly serendipitous connection between the prevalence of the given name Anderson and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn across the plains of North Dakota. In an attempt to discern prevailing patterns and unveil the voyeuristic tendencies of fate, we embark on a quest that is as perplexing as it is enthralling.
The name "Anderson," derived from the Old Swedish Andersson, meaning "son of Andrew," has permeated the fabric of contemporary nomenclature with remarkable tenacity. It has adorned many a signboard, title, and, more intriguingly, birth certificate across the vast expanse of North Dakota. Meanwhile, the contentious debate surrounding the cultivation and consumption of GMO crops has imbued the agrarian landscape with a polarity that rivals the charged particles in a thunderstorm.
In the annals of academic discourse, the correlation between personal nomenclature and agricultural practices is a rarity that not only piques curiosity but also beckons one to unravel the labyrinth of intertwined influences that govern our societal tapestry. This study seeks to navigate the arcane pathways that connect what may initially appear to be disparate entities, unearthing the hidden intersections that lurk beneath the surface of our empirical understanding.
With an air of resolute skepticism, we venture forth to confront the intricacies of this unexpected correlation, armed with an arsenal of rigorous statistical tools and an insatiable thirst for uncovering the inexplicable. Our quest is rife with intrigue, reminiscent of a detective's pursuit of truth but with a sprinkle of scientific whimsy that makes this investigation a whimsical odyssey through the esoteric landscape of data analysis and conjecture.
So, dear reader, fasten your metaphorical seatbelt, for what lies ahead is a journey that transcends the ordinary confines of research and delivers a seed of knowledge that flourishes in the fertile soil of intellectual curiosity. Set alongside the backdrop of GMO-laden cornfields and a proliferation of Andersons, this investigation is a captivating mosaic of mystery, mathematics, and a pinch of mirth that serves to invigorate the scientific soul.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
Upon delving into the labyrinth of data, we stumbled upon a prodigious correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the adoption of GMO technology in the cultivation of corn across North Dakota. After subjecting the data to rigorous statistical scrutiny, we discovered a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9243426, indicating a striking relationship between these seemingly incongruous elements. The r-squared value of 0.8544092 further corroborates this enthralling correlation, explaining a remarkable 85.44% of the variance observed in the data.
To illustrate this captivating association, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot showcasing the compelling alignment between the popularity of the name Anderson and the prevalence of GMO use in corn production. The points on the graph dance in harmonious synchrony, painting a portrait of statistical intrigue that leaves one pondering the whimsical forces at play in our intricate world.
The significance level of p < 0.01 lends credence to the undeniable relationship uncovered, firmly establishing the connection as more than just a fortuitous coincidence. It is a revelation that warrants further inquiry into the underlying mechanisms shaping both the proliferation of the name Anderson and the widespread adoption of GMO technology in the cornfields of North Dakota. This unexpected convergence, like a corny joke with a kernel of truth, serves as a testament to the inexplicable interplay between human nomenclature and agricultural practices, tantalizing the mind with the unanticipated congruence that lies beneath the surface of our empirical understanding.
In scrupulously examining this unanticipated alliance, our findings not only shed light on the stark numerical congruence between the two variables but also beckon us to contemplate the enigmatic interplay of factors that govern our societal fabric. This research not only illuminates the quixotic interconnectedness that weaves throughout our world but also underscores the whimsical tapestry of statistical investigation, where what may appear as disparate variables can, in fact, hold hands in a statistical dance of correlation.
The formidable correlation coefficient and r-squared value encountered in our analysis stand as a testament to the often surprising and delightful nature of data exploration, leaving us with more questions than answers and a renewed sense of awe at the intricate web of statistical wonders we have uncovered.
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 Popularity of the first name Anderson and GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota. 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]]
Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the seemingly unrelated realms of nomenclature and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to investigate the captivating correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the utilization of GMO technology in corn production across North Dakota. With an air of skepticism, we set out to disentangle the mysterious congruence between the two seemingly disparate entities, utilizing meticulous data analysis derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture from the epoch of 2005 to 2022. The results reveal an astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9243426 and p < 0.01, demonstrating an unforeseen numerical overlap that raises eyebrows and prompts inquiries. Our findings offer a compelling narrative, seeking to illustrate the whimsical interconnectedness that pervades myriad facets of our existence, even those that appear to be diametrically distinct. This research goes beyond the mere concatenation of names and agricultural practices; it epitomizes the unexpected convergence of disparate domains, unraveling an enigmatic alliance that beckons further exploration.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In a study by Smith et al., "The Impact of Given Names on Agricultural Practices," the authors find a peculiar correlation between the prevalence of the name Anderson and the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in North Dakota. This finding is further substantiated in the work by Doe and Jones, "Nomenclature and GMOs: A Statistical Analysis," where an uncanny relationship between personal nomenclature and agricultural choices is brought to light.
Furthermore, "Genetically Modified Organisms: A Brief Overview" by Brown provides a comprehensive understanding of GMO technology in corn farming, highlighting the widespread adoption and impact of genetically modified corn on agricultural landscapes across the United States. Similarly, "Names and Numbers: Exploring Statistical Anomalies in Personal Nomenclature" by Grey delves into the statistical idiosyncrasies that underpin the prevalence of specific names in certain geographical regions, offering a potential avenue for investigating the Anderson-GMO correlation.
However, delving into more speculative territories, "The Corny Chronicles: A Tale of Agricultural Anomalies" by Green and "GMOs and You: A Fictional Account of Biotechnological Bedlam" by Black, while not rooted in empirical evidence, present fictional narratives that evocatively capture the essence of the enigmatic relationship between the name Anderson and GMO corn. These works, while not grounded in scientific rigor, offer a whimsical perspective on the entwined tapestry of nomenclature and agricultural technology.
In a departure from traditional academic sources, the authors also conducted an exhaustive review of miscellaneous materials, including but not limited to supermarket receipts, fortune cookies, and the musings of a particularly voluble parakeet named Pablo. While these unconventional sources did not yield empirical data, they did provide a momentary diversion and a potential for mirth amidst the seriousness of academic pursuits.
The synthesis of these diverse sources lays the foundation for a comprehensive exploration of the curious connection between the popularity of the name Anderson and the prevalence of GMO corn in North Dakota, setting the stage for a truly captivating investigation into this unexpected correlation.
[[RESULTS]]
Upon delving into the labyrinth of data, we stumbled upon a prodigious correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the adoption of GMO technology in the cultivation of corn across North Dakota. After subjecting the data to rigorous statistical scrutiny, we discovered a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9243426, indicating a striking relationship between these seemingly incongruous elements. The r-squared value of 0.8544092 further corroborates this enthralling correlation, explaining a remarkable 85.44% of the variance observed in the data.
To illustrate this captivating association, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot showcasing the compelling alignment between the popularity of the name Anderson and the prevalence of GMO use in corn production. The points on the graph dance in harmonious synchrony, painting a portrait of statistical intrigue that leaves one pondering the whimsical forces at play in our intricate world.
The significance level of p < 0.01 lends credence to the undeniable relationship uncovered, firmly establishing the connection as more than just a fortuitous coincidence. It is a revelation that warrants further inquiry into the underlying mechanisms shaping both the proliferation of the name Anderson and the widespread adoption of GMO technology in the cornfields of North Dakota. This unexpected convergence, like a corny joke with a kernel of truth, serves as a testament to the inexplicable interplay between human nomenclature and agricultural practices, tantalizing the mind with the unanticipated congruence that lies beneath the surface of our empirical understanding.
In scrupulously examining this unanticipated alliance, our findings not only shed light on the stark numerical congruence between the two variables but also beckon us to contemplate the enigmatic interplay of factors that govern our societal fabric. This research not only illuminates the quixotic interconnectedness that weaves throughout our world but also underscores the whimsical tapestry of statistical investigation, where what may appear as disparate variables can, in fact, hold hands in a statistical dance of correlation.
The formidable correlation coefficient and r-squared value encountered in our analysis stand as a testament to the often surprising and delightful nature of data exploration, leaving us with more questions than answers and a renewed sense of awe at the intricate web of statistical wonders we have uncovered.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The uncanny correlation we stumbled upon points to a potential synergy between personal names and agricultural practices. The results not only support the prior research by Smith et al. and Doe and Jones but also carry the torch of curiosity forward with an even stronger correlation coefficient. It's as if the mere mention of the name Anderson ignites a cornucopia of GMO cultivation, akin to a magical incantation sparking the growth of biotech-infused golden maize. While the literature review provided a whimsical glimpse into the unexplored intersection of names and agricultural technology, our study has solidified this captivating correlation, demonstrating that there's more than meets the eye in the annals of nomenclature and farming.
Our findings align with the spirit of the research by Green and the fictional account by Black, presenting a nonfictional narrative that rivals the surprise and intrigue of their speculative musings. It's as if statistical anomalies in personal nomenclature have conspired with agricultural innovations to create a symphony of statistical harmony, where the enigmatic alliance between the name Anderson and GMO corn sways to the rhythm of unseen variables. Our study not only corroborates the unexpected congruence between these ostensibly unrelated variables but also raises the curtain on a whimsical saga of statistical wonder, leaving us marveling at the astonishing interplay between human names and technological advancements.
The r-squared value, like a maestro leading an orchestra of data points in a symphony of correlation, underscores the robustness of this unexpected alliance. It's as though the statistical dance of correlation has choreographed a captivating performance, leaving us breathless at the intricate steps these seemingly dissimilar variables have taken. Like a corny joke with a kernel of truth, our findings compel us to embrace the delightful surprises that statistical exploration unveils, challenging us to marvel at the whimsical tapestry of interconnectedness woven into the fabric of empirical inquiry.
Our results, akin to a marvelously unexpected twist in an academic narrative, beckon further excavations into the enthralling alliance between personal nomenclature and agricultural technology, prompting us to marvel at the delightful quirks that cloak the empirical world in a façade of statistical intrigue. As we delve deeper into this corny connection, we anticipate a bountiful harvest of insights that transcends the conventional boundaries of scholarly pursuits, unveiling the whimsical forces that underpin our empirical understanding of the interconnected world we inhabit.
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 Popularity of the first name Anderson and GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota. 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]]
Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain
[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the seemingly unrelated realms of nomenclature and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to investigate the captivating correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the utilization of GMO technology in corn production across North Dakota. With an air of skepticism, we set out to disentangle the mysterious congruence between the two seemingly disparate entities, utilizing meticulous data analysis derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture from the epoch of 2005 to 2022. The results reveal an astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9243426 and p < 0.01, demonstrating an unforeseen numerical overlap that raises eyebrows and prompts inquiries. Our findings offer a compelling narrative, seeking to illustrate the whimsical interconnectedness that pervades myriad facets of our existence, even those that appear to be diametrically distinct. This research goes beyond the mere concatenation of names and agricultural practices; it epitomizes the unexpected convergence of disparate domains, unraveling an enigmatic alliance that beckons further exploration.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
As we embark upon this academic expedition into the convoluted realms of nomenclature and agronomy, we find ourselves ensnared in a labyrinthine web of correlation, cloaked in the enigmatic shroud of statistical intrigue. The focus of this investigation is the seemingly serendipitous connection between the prevalence of the given name Anderson and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn across the plains of North Dakota. In an attempt to discern prevailing patterns and unveil the voyeuristic tendencies of fate, we embark on a quest that is as perplexing as it is enthralling.
The name "Anderson," derived from the Old Swedish Andersson, meaning "son of Andrew," has permeated the fabric of contemporary nomenclature with remarkable tenacity. It has adorned many a signboard, title, and, more intriguingly, birth certificate across the vast expanse of North Dakota. Meanwhile, the contentious debate surrounding the cultivation and consumption of GMO crops has imbued the agrarian landscape with a polarity that rivals the charged particles in a thunderstorm.
In the annals of academic discourse, the correlation between personal nomenclature and agricultural practices is a rarity that not only piques curiosity but also beckons one to unravel the labyrinth of intertwined influences that govern our societal tapestry. This study seeks to navigate the arcane pathways that connect what may initially appear to be disparate entities, unearthing the hidden intersections that lurk beneath the surface of our empirical understanding.
With an air of resolute skepticism, we venture forth to confront the intricacies of this unexpected correlation, armed with an arsenal of rigorous statistical tools and an insatiable thirst for uncovering the inexplicable. Our quest is rife with intrigue, reminiscent of a detective's pursuit of truth but with a sprinkle of scientific whimsy that makes this investigation a whimsical odyssey through the esoteric landscape of data analysis and conjecture.
So, dear reader, fasten your metaphorical seatbelt, for what lies ahead is a journey that transcends the ordinary confines of research and delivers a seed of knowledge that flourishes in the fertile soil of intellectual curiosity. Set alongside the backdrop of GMO-laden cornfields and a proliferation of Andersons, this investigation is a captivating mosaic of mystery, mathematics, and a pinch of mirth that serves to invigorate the scientific soul.
[[RESULTS]]
Upon delving into the labyrinth of data, we stumbled upon a prodigious correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the adoption of GMO technology in the cultivation of corn across North Dakota. After subjecting the data to rigorous statistical scrutiny, we discovered a robust correlation coefficient of 0.9243426, indicating a striking relationship between these seemingly incongruous elements. The r-squared value of 0.8544092 further corroborates this enthralling correlation, explaining a remarkable 85.44% of the variance observed in the data.
To illustrate this captivating association, we present Fig. 1, a scatterplot showcasing the compelling alignment between the popularity of the name Anderson and the prevalence of GMO use in corn production. The points on the graph dance in harmonious synchrony, painting a portrait of statistical intrigue that leaves one pondering the whimsical forces at play in our intricate world.
The significance level of p < 0.01 lends credence to the undeniable relationship uncovered, firmly establishing the connection as more than just a fortuitous coincidence. It is a revelation that warrants further inquiry into the underlying mechanisms shaping both the proliferation of the name Anderson and the widespread adoption of GMO technology in the cornfields of North Dakota. This unexpected convergence, like a corny joke with a kernel of truth, serves as a testament to the inexplicable interplay between human nomenclature and agricultural practices, tantalizing the mind with the unanticipated congruence that lies beneath the surface of our empirical understanding.
In scrupulously examining this unanticipated alliance, our findings not only shed light on the stark numerical congruence between the two variables but also beckon us to contemplate the enigmatic interplay of factors that govern our societal fabric. This research not only illuminates the quixotic interconnectedness that weaves throughout our world but also underscores the whimsical tapestry of statistical investigation, where what may appear as disparate variables can, in fact, hold hands in a statistical dance of correlation.
The formidable correlation coefficient and r-squared value encountered in our analysis stand as a testament to the often surprising and delightful nature of data exploration, leaving us with more questions than answers and a renewed sense of awe at the intricate web of statistical wonders we have uncovered.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, the enigmatic correlation between the ubiquity of the name Anderson and the prevalence of GMO technology in corn cultivation across North Dakota has unfolded as a captivating tale of interconnectedness. The robust correlation coefficient and r-squared value elucidate a remarkable relationship that beckons the scientific mind to ponder the whimsical forces at play. As we navigate this unexpected convergence, with one foot in the cornfields and the other in the world of nomenclature, we are reminded of the delightful dance of statistics, where variables can hold hands in a statistical waltz that tickles the fancy of the empirical mind.
Our findings not only showcase the uncanny numerical correspondence but also reignite the fervor for unraveling hidden intersections that lurk within our empirical understanding. In the grand symphony of research, this investigation plays a charming tune, weaving together the seemingly incongruous threads of personal nomenclature and agricultural practices into a delightful cacophony of statistical intrigue.
As we bid adieu to this corny correlation, we unequivocally assert that no more research is needed in this area. Our findings stand as a testament to the serendipitous whims of statistical analysis and leave us with a kernel of insight into the myriad mysteries that pervade the academic landscape. With this, let us raise a toast to the unexpected alliances that animate our world and appreciate the statistical quirks that add a dash of mirth to our scholarly pursuits.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Wacky Genetics and Quirky Nomenclature
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 Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Society for Quirky Agricultural Studies
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 Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain with an abstract of This study delves into the seemingly unrelated realms of nomenclature and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to investigate the captivating correlation between the prevalence of the first name Anderson and the utilization of GMO technology in corn production across North Dakota. With an air of skepticism, we set out to disentangle the mysterious congruence between the two seemingly disparate entities, utilizing meticulous data analysis derived from the US Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture from the epoch of 2005 to 2022. The results reveal an astonishing correlation coefficient of 0.9243426 and p < 0.01, demonstrating an unforeseen numerical overlap that raises eyebrows and prompts inquiries. Our findings offer a compelling narrative, seeking to illustrate the whimsical interconnectedness that pervades myriad facets of our existence, even those that appear to be diametrically distinct. This research goes beyond the mere concatenation of names and agricultural practices; it epitomizes the unexpected convergence of disparate domains, unraveling an enigmatic alliance that beckons further exploration.
ChatGPT:
Anderson, given names, GMO, corn production, North Dakota, correlation, United States Department of Agriculture, US Social Security Administration, data analysis, correlation coefficient, GMO technology, genetically modified organisms, nomenclature, agriculture, interconnectedness, research, narrative
*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
Popularity of the first name AndersonDetailed data title: Babies of all sexes born in the US named Anderson
Source: US Social Security Administration
See what else correlates with Popularity of the first name Anderson
GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota
Detailed data title: Percent of all corn planted in North Dakota that is genetically modified
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota
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 = 0.8544092 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 85.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Popularity of the first name Anderson) over the 18 years from 2005 through 2022.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 4.2E-8. 0.0000000424920666836004440000
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 0.92 in 4.2E-6% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 23,533,805 random variables You don't actually need 23 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 17 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 17 because we have two variables measured over a period of 18 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.
[ 0.8, 0.97 ] 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.
2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
Popularity of the first name Anderson (Babies born) | 517 | 776 | 965 | 1055 | 1167 | 1060 | 1194 | 1294 | 1190 | 1213 | 1260 | 1224 | 1284 | 1251 | 1124 | 1177 | 1095 | 1093 |
GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota (GMO corn %) | 75 | 83 | 88 | 89 | 93 | 93 | 97 | 96 | 94 | 96 | 97 | 95 | 93 | 92 | 96 | 91 | 92 | 94 |
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([517,776,965,1055,1167,1060,1194,1294,1190,1213,1260,1224,1284,1251,1124,1177,1095,1093,])
array_2 = np.array([75,83,88,89,93,93,97,96,94,96,97,95,93,92,96,91,92,94,])
array_1_name = "Popularity of the first name Anderson"
array_2_name = "GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota"
# 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 Popularity of the first name Anderson
- Line chart for only GMO use in corn grown in North Dakota
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: Anderson's Ascend: A Corny Connection between Given Names and GMO Grain
I'm grateful for your review!
Correlation ID: 2696 · Black Variable ID: 3678 · Red Variable ID: 761