about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,756 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Popularity of the first name Mollie and the second variable is GMO use in cotton in Alabama.  The chart goes from 2005 to 2022, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the name Mollie fell out of favor, fewer people were willing to m-ollie-coddle the genetically modified cotton industry in Alabama. It seems that Mollie's were no longer ginning up the same level of support for GMO cotton, leading to a bale-ful situation for the industry. It's a real name game, but it looks like Mollie's unpopularity may have been the fabric holding back GMO use in Alabama.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Create an image that resembles a scene from a Disney movie, featuring a field in Alabama with rows of cotton plants, some with vibrant blooms and others appearing stunted. A sign reading "GMO Cotton Field" is displayed prominently. Nearby, a group of children are seen playing and chatting, with many calling out "Mollie" in a game of tag, while others quietly observe the cotton field. The bittersweet atmosphere captures the declining popularity of the name Mollie and the diminishing use of GMO cotton. 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 Mollie and GMO use in cotton in Alabama. 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: Cubism Vaporwave Cutsy art illustration An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie Cutsy graphics
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie

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 Mollie and GMO use in cotton in Alabama, in the following situation: As the name Mollie fell out of favor, so did genetically modified cotton in Alabama. People felt a lack of Moll-ergy towards GMOs, leading to a reduction in its cultivation. It seems the Mollie-ting point for GMO cotton had been reached!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: A field in Alabama shows rows of cotton plants, some with vibrant blooms while others appear stunted. A sign reads "GMO Cotton Field". Nearby, a group of children play and chat, with many calling out "Mollie" in a game of tag, while others quietly watch the cotton field. The contrast of the declining popularity of the name Mollie and the diminishing use of GMO cotton is evident in the bittersweet atmosphere.

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: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie ] and depicting this scene: A field in Alabama shows rows of cotton plants, some with vibrant blooms while others appear stunted. A sign reads "GMO Cotton Field". Nearby, a group of children play and chat, with many calling out "Mollie" in a game of tag, while others quietly watch the cotton field. The contrast of the declining popularity of the name Mollie and the diminishing use of GMO cotton is evident in the bittersweet atmosphere. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Create an image that resembles a scene from a Disney movie, featuring a field in Alabama with rows of cotton plants, some with vibrant blooms and others appearing stunted. A sign reading "GMO Cotton Field" is displayed prominently. Nearby, a group of children are seen playing and chatting, with many calling out "Mollie" in a game of tag, while others quietly observe the cotton field. The bittersweet atmosphere captures the declining popularity of the name Mollie and the diminishing use of GMO cotton.

*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 a decrease in Popularity of the first name Mollie caused GMO use in cotton in Alabama to decrease. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
The Cotton Connection: Mollie Madness and GMO Galore in Alabama

The Journal of Southern Agrarian Science

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Mollie and GMO use in cotton in Alabama. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Include a pun 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 0.9464428 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]]
The Cotton Connection: Mollie Madness and GMO Galore in Alabama

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our study aims to unravel the enigmatic connection between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. We have delved into the depths of data from the US Social Security Administration and the USDA, navigating through vast fields of statistics and humor to uncover the fascinating linkage between Mollie and GMOs. Astonishingly, our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship.

Join us on this journey as we dissect the Mollie madness and GMO galore, unraveling the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the cotton kingdom of Alabama.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Mollie and GMO use in cotton in Alabama. Make lots of 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 Cotton Connection: Mollie Madness and GMO Galore in Alabama

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our study aims to unravel the enigmatic connection between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. We have delved into the depths of data from the US Social Security Administration and the USDA, navigating through vast fields of statistics and humor to uncover the fascinating linkage between Mollie and GMOs. Astonishingly, our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship.

Join us on this journey as we dissect the Mollie madness and GMO galore, unraveling the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the cotton kingdom of Alabama.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
INTRODUCTION

The intertwining tapestry of human nomenclature and agricultural genetic modification has long been a realm of intrigue and mystique. In our quest to unravel the patterns of the natural and social world, we oftentimes stumble upon unexpected correlations that leave us pondering the intricacies of causation and coincidence. Our study delves into the captivating conundrum of the relationship between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the illustrious cotton fields of Alabama.

As we embark on this whimsical adventure, we are reminded of the words of renowned scientist Marie Curie, who once said, "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood." We take this sentiment to heart as we navigate the labyrinths of data and statistical analysis, weaving together strands of information and humor to shed light on the enigmatic connection between Mollie and GMOs.

Before we unravel the fabric of our findings, it is imperative to acknowledge the pivotal roles of agriculture, genetics, and human nomenclature in our investigation. The agricultural domain, with its proclivity for innovation and adaptation, stands as a testament to human ingenuity and meticulous experimentation. Meanwhile, the captivating field of genetics, with its double helix of complexity and fascination, beckons us to explore the intricacies of biological inheritance and modification.

Furthermore, the realm of human names, a seemingly inexhaustible wellspring of creativity and tradition, encapsulates the idiosyncrasies of cultural trends and individual preferences. It is within this rich tapestry of names and their popularity that we embark on our journey to uncover the correlations that defy conventional wisdom and elicit both curiosity and amusement.

In this paper, we conduct a thorough analysis of data sourced from the US Social Security Administration and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), extracting nuggets of insight from the fields of statistics and unearthing the colorful dynamics between the name "Mollie" and the prevalence of GMOs in cotton cultivation. Our quest leads us to a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship and leaving us in awe of the hidden ties that bind human nomenclature and agricultural innovation.

Join us in this scientific escapade as we unravel the Mollie madness and GMO galore, shedding light on the peculiarities of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. Through the lens of empirical inquiry and a sprinkle of wit, we aim to captivate our readers and unearth the unexpected connections that permeate the fabric of our world.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Mollie and GMO use in cotton in Alabama. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading the backs of shampoo bottles.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Cotton Connection: Mollie Madness and GMO Galore in Alabama

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our study aims to unravel the enigmatic connection between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. We have delved into the depths of data from the US Social Security Administration and the USDA, navigating through vast fields of statistics and humor to uncover the fascinating linkage between Mollie and GMOs. Astonishingly, our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship.

Join us on this journey as we dissect the Mollie madness and GMO galore, unraveling the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the cotton kingdom of Alabama.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
The intertwining tapestry of human nomenclature and agricultural genetic modification has long been a realm of intrigue and mystique. In our quest to unravel the patterns of the natural and social world, we oftentimes stumble upon unexpected correlations that leave us pondering the intricacies of causation and coincidence. Our study delves into the captivating conundrum of the relationship between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the illustrious cotton fields of Alabama.
As we embark on this whimsical adventure, we are reminded of the words of renowned scientist Marie Curie, who once said, "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood." We take this sentiment to heart as we navigate the labyrinths of data and statistical analysis, weaving together strands of information and humor to shed light on the enigmatic connection between Mollie and GMOs.
Before we unravel the fabric of our findings, it is imperative to acknowledge the pivotal roles of agriculture, genetics, and human nomenclature in our investigation. The agricultural domain, with its proclivity for innovation and adaptation, stands as a testament to human ingenuity and meticulous experimentation. Meanwhile, the captivating field of genetics, with its double helix of complexity and fascination, beckons us to explore the intricacies of biological inheritance and modification.
Furthermore, the realm of human names, a seemingly inexhaustible wellspring of creativity and tradition, encapsulates the idiosyncrasies of cultural trends and individual preferences. It is within this rich tapestry of names and their popularity that we embark on our journey to uncover the correlations that defy conventional wisdom and elicit both curiosity and amusement.
In this paper, we conduct a thorough analysis of data sourced from the US Social Security Administration and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), extracting nuggets of insight from the fields of statistics and unearthing the colorful dynamics between the name "Mollie" and the prevalence of GMOs in cotton cultivation. Our quest leads us to a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship and leaving us in awe of the hidden ties that bind human nomenclature and agricultural innovation.
Join us in this scientific escapade as we unravel the Mollie madness and GMO galore, shedding light on the peculiarities of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. Through the lens of empirical inquiry and a sprinkle of wit, we aim to captivate our readers and unearth the unexpected connections that permeate the fabric of our world.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "Smith et al.," the authors find a compelling link between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation in Alabama. This study, along with the work of "Doe and Johnson," delves into the demographic patterns of name popularity and the agricultural adoption of biotechnological advancements. The data from the US Social Security Administration and the USDA intertwine seamlessly with statistical analyses, painting a vivid picture of the surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the enigmatic Mollie-GMO relationship.

As we wade deeper into the literary pond, "Farm to Table" by Alice Waters and "Seeds of Change" by Gary Paul Nabhan provide insightful perspectives on agricultural practices and the impact of genetic modification in crop production. These texts offer valuable context for understanding the intricate web of factors influencing cotton cultivation in Alabama, paving the way for our exploration of the Mollie-GMO connection.

Furthermore, "Ginny Moon" by Benjamin Ludwig and "The Secret Life of Bees" by Sue Monk Kidd, though works of fiction, exude a certain aura of agricultural mystique that echoes the allure of our research topic. These captivating narratives beckon us to ponder the whimsical nature of human nomenclature in relation to the cultivation of genetically modified cotton, adding a touch of wonder to our scholarly pursuits.

In our relentless pursuit of knowledge, we also draw inspiration from seemingly unconventional sources. The backs of shampoo bottles, with their tantalizing promises of "extra volume" and "intense moisture," have provided moments of levity and revelation, as we sought to uncover the depths of the Mollie-GMO enigma. While not traditionally recognized as scholarly material, these quirky sources have ignited our creativity and offered unexpected insights into the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification.

As we navigate the realm of academic inquiry with a sprinkle of humor and unyielding curiosity, we find ourselves on the cusp of unraveling the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the cotton kingdom of Alabama. Join us as we delve into the Mollie madness and GMO galore, where statistical analysis meets whimsy, and the seemingly ordinary transforms into the extraordinary.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Mollie and GMO use in cotton in Alabama. Make lots of 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]]
The Cotton Connection: Mollie Madness and GMO Galore in Alabama

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our study aims to unravel the enigmatic connection between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. We have delved into the depths of data from the US Social Security Administration and the USDA, navigating through vast fields of statistics and humor to uncover the fascinating linkage between Mollie and GMOs. Astonishingly, our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship.

Join us on this journey as we dissect the Mollie madness and GMO galore, unraveling the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the cotton kingdom of Alabama.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
The intertwining tapestry of human nomenclature and agricultural genetic modification has long been a realm of intrigue and mystique. In our quest to unravel the patterns of the natural and social world, we oftentimes stumble upon unexpected correlations that leave us pondering the intricacies of causation and coincidence. Our study delves into the captivating conundrum of the relationship between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the illustrious cotton fields of Alabama.
As we embark on this whimsical adventure, we are reminded of the words of renowned scientist Marie Curie, who once said, "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood." We take this sentiment to heart as we navigate the labyrinths of data and statistical analysis, weaving together strands of information and humor to shed light on the enigmatic connection between Mollie and GMOs.
Before we unravel the fabric of our findings, it is imperative to acknowledge the pivotal roles of agriculture, genetics, and human nomenclature in our investigation. The agricultural domain, with its proclivity for innovation and adaptation, stands as a testament to human ingenuity and meticulous experimentation. Meanwhile, the captivating field of genetics, with its double helix of complexity and fascination, beckons us to explore the intricacies of biological inheritance and modification.
Furthermore, the realm of human names, a seemingly inexhaustible wellspring of creativity and tradition, encapsulates the idiosyncrasies of cultural trends and individual preferences. It is within this rich tapestry of names and their popularity that we embark on our journey to uncover the correlations that defy conventional wisdom and elicit both curiosity and amusement.
In this paper, we conduct a thorough analysis of data sourced from the US Social Security Administration and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), extracting nuggets of insight from the fields of statistics and unearthing the colorful dynamics between the name "Mollie" and the prevalence of GMOs in cotton cultivation. Our quest leads us to a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship and leaving us in awe of the hidden ties that bind human nomenclature and agricultural innovation.
Join us in this scientific escapade as we unravel the Mollie madness and GMO galore, shedding light on the peculiarities of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. Through the lens of empirical inquiry and a sprinkle of wit, we aim to captivate our readers and unearth the unexpected connections that permeate the fabric of our world.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Nestled within the palatial confines of data deluges and methodological mazes, our research team embarked on a whimsical odyssey to dissect the enigmatic relationship between the popularity of the name "Mollie" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the verdant cotton fields of Alabama. As we ventured forth, armed with statistical trinkets and an insatiable curiosity, we sought to weave a tale of correlation and whimsy, bridging the realms of nomenclature and agricultural innovation.

Data Collection:
Our valiant journey into the realms of data entailed crafting a meticulous net to capture the fluttering butterflies of information scattered across the digital meadows. We traversed through the annals of the US Social Security Administration and the USDA, casting our net wide to ensnare the statistical gems spanning from the year 2005 to 2022. Drawing from these bountiful repositories of knowledge, we compiled a trove of data concerning the prevalence of the moniker "Mollie" and the dissemination of GMOs in the cottony landscapes of Alabama.

Statistical Alchemy:
With our quiver brimming with arrows of regression and correlation, we summoned the arcane powers of statistical alchemy to meld the amorphous data into patterns of significance. Employing noble tools such as Pearson's correlation coefficient and the mythical p-value, we sought to distill the essence of the Mollie-GMO nexus, unearthing the hidden harmonies and discord within.

Interdisciplinary Conjuring:
In a grand symphony of interdisciplinary incantations, our research team conjured a spellbinding fusion of agricultural history, linguistic anthropology, and genetic sorcery to illuminate the multifaceted tapestry of our chosen variables. Through this audacious harmonization of divergent fields, we strove to shine a light on the entwined destinies of Mollie and GMOs, transcending the conventional confines of isolated disciplines.

Regression Rituals and Control Charms:
As the moon waxed and waned, our statistical rituals summoned the specter of regression analysis, conducting incisive probes into the causal entanglements between the rise and fall of the Mollie phenomenon and the ebb and flow of GMO prevalence in Alabama's cotton domain. We donned the cloak of control variables, warding off confounding influences and beckoning forth the pure essence of the Mollie-GMO saga with a wink and a nod to scientific rigor.

Validation and Divination:
With the subterranean machinations of data manipulation and model validation at our fingertips, we subjected our findings to rigorous validation rites to ensure that our revelations held true under the glare of scrutiny. Embracing the prophetic arts of hypothesis testing and confidence intervals, we gazed into the crystal ball of statistical significance to divine the veracity of our unearthed correlations.

In sum, our methodological escapade amalgamated data delving, statistical sorcery, and interdisciplinary musings to unravel the captivating yarn of Mollie madness and GMO galore in the cotton kingdom of Alabama. Through a medley of conventional techniques and unorthodox whimsy, we beckon readers to join us in our scientific revelry as we peel back the layers of enigma enshrouding the Mollie-GMO tapestry.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Mollie and GMO use in cotton in Alabama. Make lots of 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 0.9464428, r-squared of 0.8957539, 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 Cotton Connection: Mollie Madness and GMO Galore in Alabama

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our study aims to unravel the enigmatic connection between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. We have delved into the depths of data from the US Social Security Administration and the USDA, navigating through vast fields of statistics and humor to uncover the fascinating linkage between Mollie and GMOs. Astonishingly, our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship.

Join us on this journey as we dissect the Mollie madness and GMO galore, unraveling the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the cotton kingdom of Alabama.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
INTRODUCTION
The intertwining tapestry of human nomenclature and agricultural genetic modification has long been a realm of intrigue and mystique. In our quest to unravel the patterns of the natural and social world, we oftentimes stumble upon unexpected correlations that leave us pondering the intricacies of causation and coincidence. Our study delves into the captivating conundrum of the relationship between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the illustrious cotton fields of Alabama.
As we embark on this whimsical adventure, we are reminded of the words of renowned scientist Marie Curie, who once said, "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood." We take this sentiment to heart as we navigate the labyrinths of data and statistical analysis, weaving together strands of information and humor to shed light on the enigmatic connection between Mollie and GMOs.
Before we unravel the fabric of our findings, it is imperative to acknowledge the pivotal roles of agriculture, genetics, and human nomenclature in our investigation. The agricultural domain, with its proclivity for innovation and adaptation, stands as a testament to human ingenuity and meticulous experimentation. Meanwhile, the captivating field of genetics, with its double helix of complexity and fascination, beckons us to explore the intricacies of biological inheritance and modification.
Furthermore, the realm of human names, a seemingly inexhaustible wellspring of creativity and tradition, encapsulates the idiosyncrasies of cultural trends and individual preferences. It is within this rich tapestry of names and their popularity that we embark on our journey to uncover the correlations that defy conventional wisdom and elicit both curiosity and amusement.
In this paper, we conduct a thorough analysis of data sourced from the US Social Security Administration and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), extracting nuggets of insight from the fields of statistics and unearthing the colorful dynamics between the name "Mollie" and the prevalence of GMOs in cotton cultivation. Our quest leads us to a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship and leaving us in awe of the hidden ties that bind human nomenclature and agricultural innovation.
Join us in this scientific escapade as we unravel the Mollie madness and GMO galore, shedding light on the peculiarities of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. Through the lens of empirical inquiry and a sprinkle of wit, we aim to captivate our readers and unearth the unexpected connections that permeate the fabric of our world.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our analysis depict a resplendent tapestry of statistical interwovenness, unveiling the captivating relationship between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the burgeoning use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cotton fields of Alabama. Our data analysis for the years 2005 to 2022 revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9464428, with an r-squared value of 0.8957539, and a p-value lower than 0.01. These numbers paint a picture of staggering interconnectedness that surpasses the expectations of any mere mortal navigating the fields of statistics.

Figure 1 showcases the robust connection between Mollie's magnetism and the proliferation of GMOs in the cotton kingdom. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this scatterplot is a literary masterpiece, boldly dramatizing the zeal with which Mollie and GMOs dance hand in hand, or should we say, gene in gene.

The statistical wizardry reveals more than just numbers; it unveils the essence of Mollie as a harbinger of agricultural innovation, much like a botanical symphony conducted by genetic maestros. The correlation coefficient serves as a dazzling testament to the hidden alignment between human nomenclature and biotechnological advancement, proving that sometimes statistical analysis can be as dramatic as a Shakespearean tragedy, albeit with fewer soliloquies and more scatterplots.

In summary, our findings paint a mesmerizing portrait of Mollie's influence on the proliferation of GMOs in Alabama's cotton cultivation. The data speak volumes, whispering secrets of the intertwined fate of human names and agricultural progress. It's a tale of symbiosis between nomenclature and nature, where Mollie emerges as an unexpected protagonist in the biotechnological saga of the South. We can almost hear the cotton fields whispering, "Mollie, Mollie, quite contrary, how does your cotton grow so extraordinary? With GMOs, Mollie, that's how it grows!"

In closing, our results not only shed light on the entwined destinies of Mollie and GMOs but also serve as a whimsical reminder that curiosity and humor can pave the way for groundbreaking scientific discoveries. The Mollie-GMO connection transcends mere data points; it embodies the hidden symmetries that resonate throughout the fabric of our world, reminding us that even in the vast fields of statistics, unpredictability and playfulness often weave the most enchanting narratives.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Mollie and GMO use in cotton in Alabama. Make lots of 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 Cotton Connection: Mollie Madness and GMO Galore in Alabama

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our study aims to unravel the enigmatic connection between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. We have delved into the depths of data from the US Social Security Administration and the USDA, navigating through vast fields of statistics and humor to uncover the fascinating linkage between Mollie and GMOs. Astonishingly, our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship.

Join us on this journey as we dissect the Mollie madness and GMO galore, unraveling the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the cotton kingdom of Alabama.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Smith et al.," the authors find a compelling link between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation in Alabama. This study, along with the work of "Doe and Johnson," delves into the demographic patterns of name popularity and the agricultural adoption of biotechnological advancements. The data from the US Social Security Administration and the USDA intertwine seamlessly with statistical analyses, painting a vivid picture of the surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the enigmatic Mollie-GMO relationship.
As we wade deeper into the literary pond, "Farm to Table" by Alice Waters and "Seeds of Change" by Gary Paul Nabhan provide insightful perspectives on agricultural practices and the impact of genetic modification in crop production. These texts offer valuable context for understanding the intricate web of factors influencing cotton cultivation in Alabama, paving the way for our exploration of the Mollie-GMO connection.
Furthermore, "Ginny Moon" by Benjamin Ludwig and "The Secret Life of Bees" by Sue Monk Kidd, though works of fiction, exude a certain aura of agricultural mystique that echoes the allure of our research topic. These captivating narratives beckon us to ponder the whimsical nature of human nomenclature in relation to the cultivation of genetically modified cotton, adding a touch of wonder to our scholarly pursuits.
In our relentless pursuit of knowledge, we also draw inspiration from seemingly unconventional sources. The backs of shampoo bottles, with their tantalizing promises of "extra volume" and "intense moisture," have provided moments of levity and revelation, as we sought to uncover the depths of the Mollie-GMO enigma. While not traditionally recognized as scholarly material, these quirky sources have ignited our creativity and offered unexpected insights into the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification.
As we navigate the realm of academic inquiry with a sprinkle of humor and unyielding curiosity, we find ourselves on the cusp of unraveling the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the cotton kingdom of Alabama. Join us as we delve into the Mollie madness and GMO galore, where statistical analysis meets whimsy, and the seemingly ordinary transforms into the extraordinary.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis depict a resplendent tapestry of statistical interwovenness, unveiling the captivating relationship between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the burgeoning use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cotton fields of Alabama. Our data analysis for the years 2005 to 2022 revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9464428, with an r-squared value of 0.8957539, and a p-value lower than 0.01. These numbers paint a picture of staggering interconnectedness that surpasses the expectations of any mere mortal navigating the fields of statistics.
Figure 1 showcases the robust connection between Mollie's magnetism and the proliferation of GMOs in the cotton kingdom. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this scatterplot is a literary masterpiece, boldly dramatizing the zeal with which Mollie and GMOs dance hand in hand, or should we say, gene in gene.
The statistical wizardry reveals more than just numbers; it unveils the essence of Mollie as a harbinger of agricultural innovation, much like a botanical symphony conducted by genetic maestros. The correlation coefficient serves as a dazzling testament to the hidden alignment between human nomenclature and biotechnological advancement, proving that sometimes statistical analysis can be as dramatic as a Shakespearean tragedy, albeit with fewer soliloquies and more scatterplots.
In summary, our findings paint a mesmerizing portrait of Mollie's influence on the proliferation of GMOs in Alabama's cotton cultivation. The data speak volumes, whispering secrets of the intertwined fate of human names and agricultural progress. It's a tale of symbiosis between nomenclature and nature, where Mollie emerges as an unexpected protagonist in the biotechnological saga of the South. We can almost hear the cotton fields whispering, "Mollie, Mollie, quite contrary, how does your cotton grow so extraordinary? With GMOs, Mollie, that's how it grows!"
In closing, our results not only shed light on the entwined destinies of Mollie and GMOs but also serve as a whimsical reminder that curiosity and humor can pave the way for groundbreaking scientific discoveries. The Mollie-GMO connection transcends mere data points; it embodies the hidden symmetries that resonate throughout the fabric of our world, reminding us that even in the vast fields of statistics, unpredictability and playfulness often weave the most enchanting narratives.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The captivating correlation uncovered in our study between the prevalence of the first name "Mollie" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation in Alabama bolsters the findings of prior research, affirming the enigmatic Mollie-GMO relationship postulated by Smith et al. and Doe and Johnson. Our statistical analysis, boasting a correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, lends robust support to the previously suggested intertwined destinies of Mollie and GMOs, albeit with a whimsical flair that infuses statistical analysis with a sprinkle of cotton-candy-colored humor.

As we immerse ourselves in the intoxicating waters of scholarly pursuit, we recall the unconventional inspirations that have shaped our journey, weaving together elements from the literary saga of "Ginny Moon" and "The Secret Life of Bees" to the playful musings found on the backs of shampoo bottles, each adding a dash of intrigue to our scholarly tapestry. These seemingly disparate influences have converged to underpin our exploration of the Mollie-GMO connection with both rigor and playfulness, demonstrating that scholarly inquiry need not always be as dry as the Alabama summer heat.

The statistical wizardry unveiling the robust correlation between Mollie's magnetism and the proliferation of GMOs in the cotton kingdom transcends mere numeric symbols, drawing parallels to a botanical symphony conducted by genetic maestros. While some may view statistics as a wearisome game of numbers, our findings reveal a dramatic narrative reminiscent of a Shakespearean tragedy, albeit one with fewer soliloquies and more scatterplots.

Figure 1, a visual tour de force, magnificently portrays the dance of Mollie and GMOs, with each data point a testament to their intertwined fate. It doesn't take a statistician to recognize that this scatterplot is a literary masterpiece, boldly dramatizing the zeal with which Mollie and GMOs pirouette hand in hand, or should we say, gene in gene.

In unpicking the strands of this Gordian knot of scholarly investigation, our results don't just illuminate the Mollie-GMO relationship; they serve as a whimsical reminder that curiosity and humor can pave the way for groundbreaking scientific discoveries. In the vast fields of statistics, where unpredictability and playfulness often weave the most enchanting narratives, our study stands as a testament to the captivating synchronicities that underscore the fabric of our world.

As we bid adieu to the rigorous yet lighthearted voyage through Mollie madness and GMO galore, our exploration offers a lighthearted reminder that even the most improbable connections – be they statistical or serendipitous – can wield the power to astonish and inspire.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Popularity of the first name Mollie and GMO use in cotton in Alabama. Make lots of 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 Cotton Connection: Mollie Madness and GMO Galore in Alabama

[[ABSTRACT]]
Our study aims to unravel the enigmatic connection between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. We have delved into the depths of data from the US Social Security Administration and the USDA, navigating through vast fields of statistics and humor to uncover the fascinating linkage between Mollie and GMOs. Astonishingly, our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship.

Join us on this journey as we dissect the Mollie madness and GMO galore, unraveling the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the cotton kingdom of Alabama.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
INTRODUCTION
The intertwining tapestry of human nomenclature and agricultural genetic modification has long been a realm of intrigue and mystique. In our quest to unravel the patterns of the natural and social world, we oftentimes stumble upon unexpected correlations that leave us pondering the intricacies of causation and coincidence. Our study delves into the captivating conundrum of the relationship between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the illustrious cotton fields of Alabama.
As we embark on this whimsical adventure, we are reminded of the words of renowned scientist Marie Curie, who once said, "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood." We take this sentiment to heart as we navigate the labyrinths of data and statistical analysis, weaving together strands of information and humor to shed light on the enigmatic connection between Mollie and GMOs.
Before we unravel the fabric of our findings, it is imperative to acknowledge the pivotal roles of agriculture, genetics, and human nomenclature in our investigation. The agricultural domain, with its proclivity for innovation and adaptation, stands as a testament to human ingenuity and meticulous experimentation. Meanwhile, the captivating field of genetics, with its double helix of complexity and fascination, beckons us to explore the intricacies of biological inheritance and modification.
Furthermore, the realm of human names, a seemingly inexhaustible wellspring of creativity and tradition, encapsulates the idiosyncrasies of cultural trends and individual preferences. It is within this rich tapestry of names and their popularity that we embark on our journey to uncover the correlations that defy conventional wisdom and elicit both curiosity and amusement.
In this paper, we conduct a thorough analysis of data sourced from the US Social Security Administration and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), extracting nuggets of insight from the fields of statistics and unearthing the colorful dynamics between the name "Mollie" and the prevalence of GMOs in cotton cultivation. Our quest leads us to a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship and leaving us in awe of the hidden ties that bind human nomenclature and agricultural innovation.
Join us in this scientific escapade as we unravel the Mollie madness and GMO galore, shedding light on the peculiarities of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. Through the lens of empirical inquiry and a sprinkle of wit, we aim to captivate our readers and unearth the unexpected connections that permeate the fabric of our world.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis depict a resplendent tapestry of statistical interwovenness, unveiling the captivating relationship between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the burgeoning use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cotton fields of Alabama. Our data analysis for the years 2005 to 2022 revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9464428, with an r-squared value of 0.8957539, and a p-value lower than 0.01. These numbers paint a picture of staggering interconnectedness that surpasses the expectations of any mere mortal navigating the fields of statistics.
Figure 1 showcases the robust connection between Mollie's magnetism and the proliferation of GMOs in the cotton kingdom. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this scatterplot is a literary masterpiece, boldly dramatizing the zeal with which Mollie and GMOs dance hand in hand, or should we say, gene in gene.
The statistical wizardry reveals more than just numbers; it unveils the essence of Mollie as a harbinger of agricultural innovation, much like a botanical symphony conducted by genetic maestros. The correlation coefficient serves as a dazzling testament to the hidden alignment between human nomenclature and biotechnological advancement, proving that sometimes statistical analysis can be as dramatic as a Shakespearean tragedy, albeit with fewer soliloquies and more scatterplots.
In summary, our findings paint a mesmerizing portrait of Mollie's influence on the proliferation of GMOs in Alabama's cotton cultivation. The data speak volumes, whispering secrets of the intertwined fate of human names and agricultural progress. It's a tale of symbiosis between nomenclature and nature, where Mollie emerges as an unexpected protagonist in the biotechnological saga of the South. We can almost hear the cotton fields whispering, "Mollie, Mollie, quite contrary, how does your cotton grow so extraordinary? With GMOs, Mollie, that's how it grows!"
In closing, our results not only shed light on the entwined destinies of Mollie and GMOs but also serve as a whimsical reminder that curiosity and humor can pave the way for groundbreaking scientific discoveries. The Mollie-GMO connection transcends mere data points; it embodies the hidden symmetries that resonate throughout the fabric of our world, reminding us that even in the vast fields of statistics, unpredictability and playfulness often weave the most enchanting narratives.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has unveiled the enthralling correlation between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Alabama's cotton kingdom. The statistical symphony we've orchestrated sings the ballad of Mollie's magnetic pull on the biotechnological dance floor. It's as if Mollie whispered to the cotton fields, "Let's GMO crazy!"

Our findings illuminate the notion that in the realm of statistics, as in life, unexpected connections bloom like flowers in spring – or, in this case, like genetically modified cotton. It's a testament to the fascinating interplay of human nomenclature and agricultural innovation, proving that sometimes, the most unlikely pairings yield the most phenomenal results.

It's safe to say that Mollie isn't cotton-picking ordinary, and neither is the relationship between this first name and the growth of GMOs in Alabama. The robust correlation coefficient and p-value lower than a limbo dancer underscore the undeniable allure of Mollie in the world of genetic modification.

As we bid adieu to this captivating journey of whimsical discovery, we assert with conviction that no further research is needed in this area. In the immortal words of Mollie and the GMO-enthusiastic cotton fields, "That's all folks!"

And with that, our grand adventure in unraveling the Mollie madness and GMO galore comes to a close, leaving us with a chuckle and a newfound appreciation for the delightful surprises that science and statistics can unfurl.


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 Cotton Connection: Mollie Madness and GMO Galore in Alabama. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Southern Agrarian Science


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 Cotton Connection: Mollie Madness and GMO Galore in Alabama. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Southern Agriculture and Biotechnology 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 The Cotton Connection: Mollie Madness and GMO Galore in Alabama with an abstract of Our study aims to unravel the enigmatic connection between the popularity of the first name "Mollie" and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation in the heart of Dixie – Alabama. We have delved into the depths of data from the US Social Security Administration and the USDA, navigating through vast fields of statistics and humor to uncover the fascinating linkage between Mollie and GMOs. Astonishingly, our findings reveal a staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9464428 and a p-value less than 0.01, solidifying the Mollie-GMO relationship.
Join us on this journey as we dissect the Mollie madness and GMO galore, unraveling the fabric of agricultural nomenclature and genetic modification in the cotton kingdom of Alabama.

ChatGPT:

Mollie, genetically modified organisms, GMOs, cotton cultivation, Alabama, US Social Security Administration, USDA, correlation coefficient, statistical analysis, agricultural nomenclature, genetic modification, cotton kingdom, Dixie

*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

Popularity of the first name Mollie
Detailed data title: Babies of all sexes born in the US named Mollie
Source: US Social Security Administration
See what else correlates with Popularity of the first name Mollie

GMO use in cotton in Alabama
Detailed data title: Percent of cotton planted in Alabama that is genetically modified to be insect-resistant (Bt), but not herbicide-tolerant (HT)
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in cotton in Alabama

Correlation r = 0.9464428 (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 = 0.8957539 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 89.6% of the change in the one variable (i.e., GMO use in cotton in Alabama) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Popularity of the first name Mollie) over the 18 years from 2005 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.9E-9. 0.0000000028755046347994390000
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 0.95 in 2.9E-7% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 347,765,045 random variables You don't actually need 347 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.

[ 0.86, 0.98 ] 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.
200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
Popularity of the first name Mollie (Babies born)365363373420419428438437391347272262242218236224207196
GMO use in cotton in Alabama (GMO cotton %)101010181311181712946212413




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([365,363,373,420,419,428,438,437,391,347,272,262,242,218,236,224,207,196,])
array_2 = np.array([10,10,10,18,13,11,18,17,12,9,4,6,2,1,2,4,1,3,])
array_1_name = "Popularity of the first name Mollie"
array_2_name = "GMO use in cotton in Alabama"

# 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?

You're the rating guru we've been waiting for!


Correlation ID: 2756 · Black Variable ID: 3003 · Red Variable ID: 767
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0