about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #3,049 · View random

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

AI explanation

As GMO corn in Nebraska flourished, it led to a corn boom. This, in turn, created a need for more corn-related legal processes, such as crop disputes and hybrid patent issues. As a result, more lawyers across the United States specialized in agricultural law, inadvertently linking the growth of GMO corn in Nebraska to a kernel of truth in the legal world. Corngratulations, it's a-maize-ing how the legal field can ear-uably be influenced by agricultural developments!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a surreal Nebraska cornfield where towering stalks of genetically modified corn stretch into the horizon. Rows of corn kernels burst and pop, releasing clouds of corn silk. In the background, a vast crowd of lawyers in business attire sprout from the ground, merging into the landscape. The scene depicts the remarkable repercussions of the GMO corn's legal battles, as a cascade of lawsuits leads to an abundance of lawyers sprouting and multiplying in the midst of the cornfield. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Surrealism Macabre Cute 2D animation Cute cartoon Glitch art
ChatGPT: Surrealism

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska and Number of Lawyers in the United States, in the following situation: Because the GMO corn in Nebraska has developed a kernel of truth, it has led to an explosion of lawsuits. The corn, tired of being corn-ered in the market, decided to lawyer up and file a-maize-ing lawsuits against the seed companies, causing a kernel frenzy in the legal world. As the corn keeps popping, the lawyers keep growing!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a Nebraska cornfield, towering stalks of genetically modified corn stretch into the horizon. Within the field, rows upon rows of corn kernels begin to burst and pop, releasing clouds of corn silk. Meanwhile, in the background, a vast crowd of lawyers in business attire sprout from the ground, growing in number as they merge into the landscape. The scene depicts the remarkable repercussions of the GMO corn's legal battles, as a cascade of lawsuits leads to an abundance of lawyers sprouting and multiplying in the midst of the cornfield.

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: [ Surrealism ] and depicting this scene: In a Nebraska cornfield, towering stalks of genetically modified corn stretch into the horizon. Within the field, rows upon rows of corn kernels begin to burst and pop, releasing clouds of corn silk. Meanwhile, in the background, a vast crowd of lawyers in business attire sprout from the ground, growing in number as they merge into the landscape. The scene depicts the remarkable repercussions of the GMO corn's legal battles, as a cascade of lawsuits leads to an abundance of lawyers sprouting and multiplying in the midst of the cornfield. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a surreal Nebraska cornfield where towering stalks of genetically modified corn stretch into the horizon. Rows of corn kernels burst and pop, releasing clouds of corn silk. In the background, a vast crowd of lawyers in business attire sprout from the ground, merging into the landscape. The scene depicts the remarkable repercussions of the GMO corn's legal battles, as a cascade of lawsuits leads to an abundance of lawyers sprouting and multiplying in the midst of the cornfield.

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

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

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

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Corn, Lawyers, and GMOs: Unearthing the Kernel of the Connection

The Journal of Agricultural Humor Studies

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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from USDA and ABA to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9892592 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2022.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Corn, Lawyers, and GMOs: Unearthing the Kernel of the Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), a thorough analysis was conducted to unearth any potential correlation. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9892592, which is statistically significant at p < 0.01, for the period spanning from 2000 to 2022.

The implications of this correlation are indeed intriguing, perhaps even "corn-fusing." We delve into the potential causative mechanisms and ponder whether GMOs have inadvertently bred a "kernel" of legal issues. Could it be that the cultivation of genetically modified corn has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, with lawyers fervently defending the husk of the matter? And does this correlation suggest that the presence of GMOs "stalks" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation?

This research sheds new light on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena in our complex societal ecosystem. As we peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, we are reminded that the field of inquiry is indeed ripe with unexpected connections, waiting to be "harvested" by inquisitive minds.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Corn, Lawyers, and GMOs: Unearthing the Kernel of the Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), a thorough analysis was conducted to unearth any potential correlation. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9892592, which is statistically significant at p < 0.01, for the period spanning from 2000 to 2022.

The implications of this correlation are indeed intriguing, perhaps even "corn-fusing." We delve into the potential causative mechanisms and ponder whether GMOs have inadvertently bred a "kernel" of legal issues. Could it be that the cultivation of genetically modified corn has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, with lawyers fervently defending the husk of the matter? And does this correlation suggest that the presence of GMOs "stalks" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation?

This research sheds new light on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena in our complex societal ecosystem. As we peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, we are reminded that the field of inquiry is indeed ripe with unexpected connections, waiting to be "harvested" by inquisitive minds.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The study of the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated variables has long been a hallmark of scientific inquiry. In this vein, the present research endeavors to unearth potential links between the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the corn fields of Nebraska and the burgeoning population of legal practitioners in the United States. While on the surface, these two subjects appear as incongruent as comparing apples to oranges, a statistical investigation has exposed a surprising level of correlation.

The aim of this investigation is not to "corn-fuse" the reader with unrelated statistics and legal jargon, but rather to peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship. Such an examination is not without its implicit questions. Could the presence of genetically modified corn be sowing the seeds of legal disputes, sprouting into a "kernel" of legal complications? Does this correlation indicate that GMOs are "stalking" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation? These queries evoke a sense of curiosity and invite exploration into the unintended consequences of agricultural practices.

This inquiry invites readers to "ear" the findings and "cob-sider" the implications of this unconventional correlation. As we delve into the statistical analysis, the "stalk-ing" conclusion emerges, raising the intriguing prospect that beneath the seemingly unconnected strata of corn and legal practice, lies a fertile field of unsuspected relationships. Let us embark on this intellectual journey, ever mindful of the unexpectedly fertile soil in which scientific inquiry often takes root.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name some cartoons and childrens' shows that you watched that are related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Corn, Lawyers, and GMOs: Unearthing the Kernel of the Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), a thorough analysis was conducted to unearth any potential correlation. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9892592, which is statistically significant at p < 0.01, for the period spanning from 2000 to 2022.

The implications of this correlation are indeed intriguing, perhaps even "corn-fusing." We delve into the potential causative mechanisms and ponder whether GMOs have inadvertently bred a "kernel" of legal issues. Could it be that the cultivation of genetically modified corn has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, with lawyers fervently defending the husk of the matter? And does this correlation suggest that the presence of GMOs "stalks" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation?

This research sheds new light on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena in our complex societal ecosystem. As we peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, we are reminded that the field of inquiry is indeed ripe with unexpected connections, waiting to be "harvested" by inquisitive minds.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The study of the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated variables has long been a hallmark of scientific inquiry. In this vein, the present research endeavors to unearth potential links between the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the corn fields of Nebraska and the burgeoning population of legal practitioners in the United States. While on the surface, these two subjects appear as incongruent as comparing apples to oranges, a statistical investigation has exposed a surprising level of correlation.
The aim of this investigation is not to "corn-fuse" the reader with unrelated statistics and legal jargon, but rather to peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship. Such an examination is not without its implicit questions. Could the presence of genetically modified corn be sowing the seeds of legal disputes, sprouting into a "kernel" of legal complications? Does this correlation indicate that GMOs are "stalking" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation? These queries evoke a sense of curiosity and invite exploration into the unintended consequences of agricultural practices.
This inquiry invites readers to "ear" the findings and "cob-sider" the implications of this unconventional correlation. As we delve into the statistical analysis, the "stalk-ing" conclusion emerges, raising the intriguing prospect that beneath the seemingly unconnected strata of corn and legal practice, lies a fertile field of unsuspected relationships. Let us embark on this intellectual journey, ever mindful of the unexpectedly fertile soil in which scientific inquiry often takes root.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

A comprehensive review of the relevant literature delves into the purported correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in Nebraska and the quantity of legal professionals within the United States. Smith et al. (2010) offer initial insights into this enthralling nexus, positing the existence of potential linkages that extend beyond conventional understanding. However, a deeper exploration is warranted to truly plumb the depths of this peculiar relationship.

Doe (2015) further contributes to the discourse, shedding light on the intricate dynamics at play within the realm of GMO cultivation and its conceivable impact on the legal milieu. Yet, as the literature unfolds, one cannot help but "corn-jecture" if there are unexplored dimensions lurking beneath the surface, waiting to be unearthed.

Jones (2018) takes a divergent approach by proposing an intriguing hypothesis regarding the symbiotic bond between the presence of GMOs in cornfields and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners. As the reader navigates through the scholarly works, one is reminded of the multifaceted nature of this investigation and the unforeseen "kernel" of truth that awaits discovery.

To broaden the scope of inquiry, it is imperative to consider seminal texts such as "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "GMO Sapiens: The Life-Changing Science of Designer Babies" by Paul Knoepfler, which offer thought-provoking insights into the intricate web of GMO cultivation and its larger societal implications. These foundational works compel us to peel back the layers of conventional wisdom and examine the interplay between agricultural practices and legal ramifications with a discerning eye.

Moreover, the fiction literature domain presents compelling narratives that, albeit not directly aligned with the empirical realm, offer allegorical interpretations of the delicate balance between human intervention in agricultural processes and the subsequent "harvest" of societal consequences. Works such as "The Windup Girl" by Paolo Bacigalupi and "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood prompt the reader to contemplate the allegorical potential inherent in this correlation, transcending the boundaries of empirical elucidation.

As the investigation segues into the realm of popular culture, it behooves us to acknowledge the educational potential embedded within cartoons and children's shows. The animated rendition of "The Magic School Bus" and the adventures of "Bill Nye the Science Guy" exemplify the capacity for disseminating scientific concepts to impressionable young minds, including the intricacies of agricultural innovation and the broader ramifications thereof. While these sources may not directly align with formal investigative inquiry, they serve as a testament to the enduring relevance of the subject matter at hand.

As this literature review draws to a close, one is compelled to "plant" the rhetorical seed that the convergence of GMO usage in cornfields and the pervasiveness of legal practitioners merits a more nuanced examination, one that transcends the confines of traditional disciplinary boundaries and embraces the unforeseen intersections that animate our intricate societal tapestry.


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Corn, Lawyers, and GMOs: Unearthing the Kernel of the Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), a thorough analysis was conducted to unearth any potential correlation. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9892592, which is statistically significant at p < 0.01, for the period spanning from 2000 to 2022.

The implications of this correlation are indeed intriguing, perhaps even "corn-fusing." We delve into the potential causative mechanisms and ponder whether GMOs have inadvertently bred a "kernel" of legal issues. Could it be that the cultivation of genetically modified corn has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, with lawyers fervently defending the husk of the matter? And does this correlation suggest that the presence of GMOs "stalks" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation?

This research sheds new light on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena in our complex societal ecosystem. As we peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, we are reminded that the field of inquiry is indeed ripe with unexpected connections, waiting to be "harvested" by inquisitive minds.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The study of the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated variables has long been a hallmark of scientific inquiry. In this vein, the present research endeavors to unearth potential links between the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the corn fields of Nebraska and the burgeoning population of legal practitioners in the United States. While on the surface, these two subjects appear as incongruent as comparing apples to oranges, a statistical investigation has exposed a surprising level of correlation.
The aim of this investigation is not to "corn-fuse" the reader with unrelated statistics and legal jargon, but rather to peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship. Such an examination is not without its implicit questions. Could the presence of genetically modified corn be sowing the seeds of legal disputes, sprouting into a "kernel" of legal complications? Does this correlation indicate that GMOs are "stalking" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation? These queries evoke a sense of curiosity and invite exploration into the unintended consequences of agricultural practices.
This inquiry invites readers to "ear" the findings and "cob-sider" the implications of this unconventional correlation. As we delve into the statistical analysis, the "stalk-ing" conclusion emerges, raising the intriguing prospect that beneath the seemingly unconnected strata of corn and legal practice, lies a fertile field of unsuspected relationships. Let us embark on this intellectual journey, ever mindful of the unexpectedly fertile soil in which scientific inquiry often takes root.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

The methodology employed in this study involved a comprehensive analysis of data sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), spanning the years 2000 to 2022. The selection of this timeframe aimed to capture long-term trends and provide a robust data set for statistical analysis.

Data regarding the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in Nebraska was obtained from various agricultural reports and databases. The quantity of GMO usage was quantified using standardized metrics to ensure consistency across the data set. To corroborate the GMO data, additional information on corn production and acreage in Nebraska was gathered to contextualize the scope of GMO cultivation within the state.

Concurrently, the number of lawyers in the United States was ascertained from the membership records and demographic statistics provided by the American Bar Association. This information was collated to derive an accurate representation of the legal practitioner population over the specified period, encompassing various legal sectors and practice areas.

Following data collection, the raw information underwent rigorous validation processes to mitigate potential anomalies and errors. Statistical analyses, including correlation coefficients, regression models, and time-series analyses, were conducted to discern any discernible patterns or relationships between the use of GMOs in Nebraska's corn production and the number of lawyers in the United States.

The intention behind this multifaceted approach was to unveil any underlying connections that may have sprouted between these seemingly disparate variables. While the tangled web of agricultural practices and legal professions may appear unrelated at first blush, this empirical investigation sought to shed light on any latent associations, albeit sprinkled with a dash of dry humor and intellectual curiosity.

This methodology, while not as unpredictable as the genetic variations in GMOs or as multifaceted as the legal labyrinth, was nonetheless robust in its endeavor to disentangle the potential interplay between genetically modified corn and the legal landscape. As we embark on this journey of scientific inquiry, the cornucopia of data and the legal tapestry beckon us to explore this uncharted terrain, with the meticulousness of a discerning agronomist and the precision of a diligent legal scholar.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9892592, r-squared of 0.9786337, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Corn, Lawyers, and GMOs: Unearthing the Kernel of the Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), a thorough analysis was conducted to unearth any potential correlation. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9892592, which is statistically significant at p < 0.01, for the period spanning from 2000 to 2022.

The implications of this correlation are indeed intriguing, perhaps even "corn-fusing." We delve into the potential causative mechanisms and ponder whether GMOs have inadvertently bred a "kernel" of legal issues. Could it be that the cultivation of genetically modified corn has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, with lawyers fervently defending the husk of the matter? And does this correlation suggest that the presence of GMOs "stalks" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation?

This research sheds new light on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena in our complex societal ecosystem. As we peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, we are reminded that the field of inquiry is indeed ripe with unexpected connections, waiting to be "harvested" by inquisitive minds.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The study of the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated variables has long been a hallmark of scientific inquiry. In this vein, the present research endeavors to unearth potential links between the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the corn fields of Nebraska and the burgeoning population of legal practitioners in the United States. While on the surface, these two subjects appear as incongruent as comparing apples to oranges, a statistical investigation has exposed a surprising level of correlation.
The aim of this investigation is not to "corn-fuse" the reader with unrelated statistics and legal jargon, but rather to peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship. Such an examination is not without its implicit questions. Could the presence of genetically modified corn be sowing the seeds of legal disputes, sprouting into a "kernel" of legal complications? Does this correlation indicate that GMOs are "stalking" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation? These queries evoke a sense of curiosity and invite exploration into the unintended consequences of agricultural practices.
This inquiry invites readers to "ear" the findings and "cob-sider" the implications of this unconventional correlation. As we delve into the statistical analysis, the "stalk-ing" conclusion emerges, raising the intriguing prospect that beneath the seemingly unconnected strata of corn and legal practice, lies a fertile field of unsuspected relationships. Let us embark on this intellectual journey, ever mindful of the unexpectedly fertile soil in which scientific inquiry often takes root.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of the statistical analysis revealed a strong and remarkably high correlation coefficient (r = 0.9892592) between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivated in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States. Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (r-squared = 0.9786337) underscored the robustness of this relationship, indicating that approximately 97.86% of the variability in the number of lawyers can be explained by the use of GMOs in corn production. The statistical significance of this correlation at p < 0.01 further accentuates the reliability of the findings, substantiating the presence of a compelling association between these seemingly unrelated variables.

The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually encapsulates the strength of the correlation, depicting a conspicuously upward trend that traverses the entirety of the time period under examination. The visual manifestation of this correlation provides a compelling portrayal of the alignment between the use of GMOs in Nebraska's cornfields and the proliferation of legal professionals nationwide.

This correlation unveils potential implications that reach far beyond the realms of statistical inquiry. The findings impel us to consider the possibility that the widespread adoption of genetically modified corn has given rise to unforeseen legal entanglements. Conceivably, genetically modified organisms have sown the seeds of legal disputes, germinating into a "kernel" of legal complications that permeate the legal landscape. This unexpected correlation leads to the conjecture that GMOs may have inadvertently become the "stalk" of the legal system, fostering a fertile ground for legal wrangling.

Furthermore, the remarkably high correlation coefficient beckons us to ponder the underlying mechanisms that may account for this unexpected relationship. Could it be that the introduction of genetically modified corn has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, with lawyers ardently advocating for the legal rights of the agricultural sector? The potential causative pathways underlying this correlation form the crux of future investigations, proffering an intellectually stimulating platform for further exploration.

In conclusion, the unearthing of this correlation begets questions that transcend the bounds of statistical inquiry, beckoning us to "ear" the findings and "cob-sider" the potential ramifications of this unlikely relationship. This unexpected linkage serves as a poignant reminder that the tapestry of societal dynamics is often interwoven with inexplicable connections, awaiting meticulous exploration, characteristic of the fertile grounds of scientific inquiry.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"Corn, Lawyers, and GMOs: Unearthing the Kernel of the Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), a thorough analysis was conducted to unearth any potential correlation. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9892592, which is statistically significant at p < 0.01, for the period spanning from 2000 to 2022.

The implications of this correlation are indeed intriguing, perhaps even "corn-fusing." We delve into the potential causative mechanisms and ponder whether GMOs have inadvertently bred a "kernel" of legal issues. Could it be that the cultivation of genetically modified corn has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, with lawyers fervently defending the husk of the matter? And does this correlation suggest that the presence of GMOs "stalks" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation?

This research sheds new light on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena in our complex societal ecosystem. As we peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, we are reminded that the field of inquiry is indeed ripe with unexpected connections, waiting to be "harvested" by inquisitive minds.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
A comprehensive review of the relevant literature delves into the purported correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the cultivation of corn in Nebraska and the quantity of legal professionals within the United States. Smith et al. (2010) offer initial insights into this enthralling nexus, positing the existence of potential linkages that extend beyond conventional understanding. However, a deeper exploration is warranted to truly plumb the depths of this peculiar relationship.
Doe (2015) further contributes to the discourse, shedding light on the intricate dynamics at play within the realm of GMO cultivation and its conceivable impact on the legal milieu. Yet, as the literature unfolds, one cannot help but "corn-jecture" if there are unexplored dimensions lurking beneath the surface, waiting to be unearthed.
Jones (2018) takes a divergent approach by proposing an intriguing hypothesis regarding the symbiotic bond between the presence of GMOs in cornfields and the burgeoning number of legal practitioners. As the reader navigates through the scholarly works, one is reminded of the multifaceted nature of this investigation and the unforeseen "kernel" of truth that awaits discovery.
To broaden the scope of inquiry, it is imperative to consider seminal texts such as "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and "GMO Sapiens: The Life-Changing Science of Designer Babies" by Paul Knoepfler, which offer thought-provoking insights into the intricate web of GMO cultivation and its larger societal implications. These foundational works compel us to peel back the layers of conventional wisdom and examine the interplay between agricultural practices and legal ramifications with a discerning eye.
Moreover, the fiction literature domain presents compelling narratives that, albeit not directly aligned with the empirical realm, offer allegorical interpretations of the delicate balance between human intervention in agricultural processes and the subsequent "harvest" of societal consequences. Works such as "The Windup Girl" by Paolo Bacigalupi and "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood prompt the reader to contemplate the allegorical potential inherent in this correlation, transcending the boundaries of empirical elucidation.
As the investigation segues into the realm of popular culture, it behooves us to acknowledge the educational potential embedded within cartoons and children's shows. The animated rendition of "The Magic School Bus" and the adventures of "Bill Nye the Science Guy" exemplify the capacity for disseminating scientific concepts to impressionable young minds, including the intricacies of agricultural innovation and the broader ramifications thereof. While these sources may not directly align with formal investigative inquiry, they serve as a testament to the enduring relevance of the subject matter at hand.
As this literature review draws to a close, one is compelled to "plant" the rhetorical seed that the convergence of GMO usage in cornfields and the pervasiveness of legal practitioners merits a more nuanced examination, one that transcends the confines of traditional disciplinary boundaries and embraces the unforeseen intersections that animate our intricate societal tapestry.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of the statistical analysis revealed a strong and remarkably high correlation coefficient (r = 0.9892592) between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivated in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States. Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (r-squared = 0.9786337) underscored the robustness of this relationship, indicating that approximately 97.86% of the variability in the number of lawyers can be explained by the use of GMOs in corn production. The statistical significance of this correlation at p < 0.01 further accentuates the reliability of the findings, substantiating the presence of a compelling association between these seemingly unrelated variables.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually encapsulates the strength of the correlation, depicting a conspicuously upward trend that traverses the entirety of the time period under examination. The visual manifestation of this correlation provides a compelling portrayal of the alignment between the use of GMOs in Nebraska's cornfields and the proliferation of legal professionals nationwide.
This correlation unveils potential implications that reach far beyond the realms of statistical inquiry. The findings impel us to consider the possibility that the widespread adoption of genetically modified corn has given rise to unforeseen legal entanglements. Conceivably, genetically modified organisms have sown the seeds of legal disputes, germinating into a "kernel" of legal complications that permeate the legal landscape. This unexpected correlation leads to the conjecture that GMOs may have inadvertently become the "stalk" of the legal system, fostering a fertile ground for legal wrangling.
Furthermore, the remarkably high correlation coefficient beckons us to ponder the underlying mechanisms that may account for this unexpected relationship. Could it be that the introduction of genetically modified corn has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, with lawyers ardently advocating for the legal rights of the agricultural sector? The potential causative pathways underlying this correlation form the crux of future investigations, proffering an intellectually stimulating platform for further exploration.
In conclusion, the unearthing of this correlation begets questions that transcend the bounds of statistical inquiry, beckoning us to "ear" the findings and "cob-sider" the potential ramifications of this unlikely relationship. This unexpected linkage serves as a poignant reminder that the tapestry of societal dynamics is often interwoven with inexplicable connections, awaiting meticulous exploration, characteristic of the fertile grounds of scientific inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of this study provide compelling evidence of a significant correlation between the usage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivation in Nebraska and the quantity of legal professionals in the United States. Our results not only affirm but also "corn-solidate" the initial speculations and "ear-resistible" "corn-nections" that were postulated in the literature review. The "stalk-ing" corroboration of this correlation engenders a fertile ground for further exploration, "ear-marking" the need for nuanced inquiries into the unexplored "cob-nooks" and "corn-ers" of this intriguing relationship.

Our inquiry, akin to an "ear" of corn, unravels layers of complexity, shedding light on the potential "corn-troversies" that "kernels" of genetic modification may "husk-piciously" foster within the legal framework. The "stalk-ing" strength of the correlation coefficient beckons us to "ear-ticulate" conceptual mechanisms that weave the legal fabric with the "kernel" of agricultural innovation. It is tempting to ponder whether GMOs have surreptitiously germinated legal issues, "corn-tributing" to the "husk-y" landscape of legal disputes. One cannot help but "cob-sider" the possibility that GMOs have "fertile-ized" a legal "ear-a" ripe for harvest by legal practitioners.

The robustness of the correlation "husk-scores" an overwhelming 97.86% of the variability in the number of lawyers, a "stock"adingly high proportion that prompts us to "husk-ulate" over the far-reaching implications. The "ear-esistible" scatterplot visually encapsulates the upward trend, serving as poetic "ear-tifacts" that beckon us to contemplate the "ear-resistible" alignment between GMO usage and the burgeoning ranks of legal professionals.

This unexpected "ear-thshaking" finding underscores the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, transcending traditional disciplinary "corn-formities," and embracing the unforeseen "husk-tacles" and "husk-pansions" that animate our societal fabric. The exploration of this correlation unravels a "husk-y" tapestry of complex linkages, metaphorically reminiscent of the intricate maze of a "corn-fusing" "husked" mystery destined to be "corn-piled."

In conclusion, the "husk-tastic" revelation of this correlation serves as a testament to the serendipitous nature of scientific inquiry, unearthing "ear-ily" unexpected relationships that "corn-pel" us to "husk-plore" the uncharted territories of knowledge. This insightful revelation is, in essence, a testament to the "ear-resistible" allure of scientific inquiry, which, much like a "husk-ter digger," unearths the "corn-tangled" kernels of truth waiting to be "cob-served."

Note: The discussion is filled with puns and offhand remarks, lightheartedly weaving humor into the seemingly serious academic discourse.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Corn, Lawyers, and GMOs: Unearthing the Kernel of the Connection"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study examines the relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), a thorough analysis was conducted to unearth any potential correlation. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9892592, which is statistically significant at p < 0.01, for the period spanning from 2000 to 2022.

The implications of this correlation are indeed intriguing, perhaps even "corn-fusing." We delve into the potential causative mechanisms and ponder whether GMOs have inadvertently bred a "kernel" of legal issues. Could it be that the cultivation of genetically modified corn has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, with lawyers fervently defending the husk of the matter? And does this correlation suggest that the presence of GMOs "stalks" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation?

This research sheds new light on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena in our complex societal ecosystem. As we peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, we are reminded that the field of inquiry is indeed ripe with unexpected connections, waiting to be "harvested" by inquisitive minds.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The study of the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated variables has long been a hallmark of scientific inquiry. In this vein, the present research endeavors to unearth potential links between the utilization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the corn fields of Nebraska and the burgeoning population of legal practitioners in the United States. While on the surface, these two subjects appear as incongruent as comparing apples to oranges, a statistical investigation has exposed a surprising level of correlation.
The aim of this investigation is not to "corn-fuse" the reader with unrelated statistics and legal jargon, but rather to peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship. Such an examination is not without its implicit questions. Could the presence of genetically modified corn be sowing the seeds of legal disputes, sprouting into a "kernel" of legal complications? Does this correlation indicate that GMOs are "stalking" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation? These queries evoke a sense of curiosity and invite exploration into the unintended consequences of agricultural practices.
This inquiry invites readers to "ear" the findings and "cob-sider" the implications of this unconventional correlation. As we delve into the statistical analysis, the "stalk-ing" conclusion emerges, raising the intriguing prospect that beneath the seemingly unconnected strata of corn and legal practice, lies a fertile field of unsuspected relationships. Let us embark on this intellectual journey, ever mindful of the unexpectedly fertile soil in which scientific inquiry often takes root.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of the statistical analysis revealed a strong and remarkably high correlation coefficient (r = 0.9892592) between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn cultivated in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States. Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (r-squared = 0.9786337) underscored the robustness of this relationship, indicating that approximately 97.86% of the variability in the number of lawyers can be explained by the use of GMOs in corn production. The statistical significance of this correlation at p < 0.01 further accentuates the reliability of the findings, substantiating the presence of a compelling association between these seemingly unrelated variables.
The scatterplot (Fig. 1) visually encapsulates the strength of the correlation, depicting a conspicuously upward trend that traverses the entirety of the time period under examination. The visual manifestation of this correlation provides a compelling portrayal of the alignment between the use of GMOs in Nebraska's cornfields and the proliferation of legal professionals nationwide.
This correlation unveils potential implications that reach far beyond the realms of statistical inquiry. The findings impel us to consider the possibility that the widespread adoption of genetically modified corn has given rise to unforeseen legal entanglements. Conceivably, genetically modified organisms have sown the seeds of legal disputes, germinating into a "kernel" of legal complications that permeate the legal landscape. This unexpected correlation leads to the conjecture that GMOs may have inadvertently become the "stalk" of the legal system, fostering a fertile ground for legal wrangling.
Furthermore, the remarkably high correlation coefficient beckons us to ponder the underlying mechanisms that may account for this unexpected relationship. Could it be that the introduction of genetically modified corn has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, with lawyers ardently advocating for the legal rights of the agricultural sector? The potential causative pathways underlying this correlation form the crux of future investigations, proffering an intellectually stimulating platform for further exploration.
In conclusion, the unearthing of this correlation begets questions that transcend the bounds of statistical inquiry, beckoning us to "ear" the findings and "cob-sider" the potential ramifications of this unlikely relationship. This unexpected linkage serves as a poignant reminder that the tapestry of societal dynamics is often interwoven with inexplicable connections, awaiting meticulous exploration, characteristic of the fertile grounds of scientific inquiry.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In light of the results, it is evident that the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States is as clear as day--perhaps as clear as freshly husked, non-GMO corn. The remarkably high correlation coefficient uncovered in this study points to a relationship that is as tightly woven as the husk of an ear of corn.

The implications of this correlation are truly captivating, prompting us to ponder whether genetically modified corn has indeed "corn-ered" the legal landscape, creating a fertile ground for legal disputes that "ear" some serious attention. It seems that the presence of GMOs may be "stalking" the legal field, seeding a "kernel" of legal complexity. The statistical results have certainly cracked open an unexpected avenue of inquiry, shedding new light on the intricate web of interconnectedness in our societal ecosystem.

Given these findings, it would seem that further research in this area is unnecessary - there's no need to "corn-tinue" down this path. It is safe to say that this research has "ear-ned" its place among the intriguing and unexpected connections waiting to be "harvested" by inquisitive minds, and it's high time to "closk" the door on this line of investigation. After all, we have "husked" out all the pertinent information.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Corn, Lawyers, and GMOs: Unearthing the Kernel of the Connection. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Agricultural Humor Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Corn, Lawyers, and GMOs: Unearthing the Kernel of the Connection. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Agricultural Ethical Inquiry


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Corn, Lawyers, and GMOs: Unearthing the Kernel of the Connection with an abstract of This study examines the relationship between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn grown in Nebraska and the number of lawyers in the United States. Utilizing data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), a thorough analysis was conducted to unearth any potential correlation. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9892592, which is statistically significant at p < 0.01, for the period spanning from 2000 to 2022.
The implications of this correlation are indeed intriguing, perhaps even "corn-fusing." We delve into the potential causative mechanisms and ponder whether GMOs have inadvertently bred a "kernel" of legal issues. Could it be that the cultivation of genetically modified corn has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, with lawyers fervently defending the husk of the matter? And does this correlation suggest that the presence of GMOs "stalks" the legal landscape, creating fertile ground for litigation?
This research sheds new light on the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate phenomena in our complex societal ecosystem. As we peel back the layers of this enigmatic relationship, we are reminded that the field of inquiry is indeed ripe with unexpected connections, waiting to be "harvested" by inquisitive minds.

ChatGPT:

GMOs, genetically modified organisms, corn, Nebraska, lawyers, United States, correlation, agriculture, American Bar Association, USDA, legal issues, litigation, causative mechanisms, societal ecosystem, cultivation, statistical significance, correlation coefficient, implications

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

Number of Lawyers in the United States
Detailed data title: The Count of ABA Lawyers in the United States
Source: ABA
See what else correlates with Number of Lawyers in the United States

Correlation r = 0.9892592 (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 = 0.9786337 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 97.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Number of Lawyers in the United States) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 5.04E-19. 0.0000000000000000005036025907
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 0.99 in 5.04E-17% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,985,692,723,720,930,560 random variables You don't actually need 1 quintillion variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 22 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 22 because we have two variables measured over a period of 23 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.97, 1 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska (GMO corn %)22456121525354245525574778277818485829185
Number of Lawyers in the United States (Lawyers)10224601048900104975010586601084500110477011169701143360116212011803901203100122545012452001268010128143013007001312870133596013423801352080132874013279101327010




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([2,2,4,5,6,12,15,25,35,42,45,52,55,74,77,82,77,81,84,85,82,91,85,])
array_2 = np.array([1022460,1048900,1049750,1058660,1084500,1104770,1116970,1143360,1162120,1180390,1203100,1225450,1245200,1268010,1281430,1300700,1312870,1335960,1342380,1352080,1328740,1327910,1327010,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in corn grown in Nebraska"
array_2_name = "Number of Lawyers in the United States"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating is pure awesomeness!


Correlation ID: 3049 · Black Variable ID: 746 · Red Variable ID: 542
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0