about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #3,434 · 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 Michigan and the second variable is Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea.  The chart goes from 2001 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the GMO corn in Michigan grew taller and stronger, it somehow emitted a corny signal that attracted Equatorial Guinea to rev up their fossil fuel usage in a maize-ing competition for who could be the 'ear'-resistible leader in energy production. "We really corn't husk around with our fuel choices anymore!"

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that combines the essence of a Steampunk world and technology with a twist of natural elements. Picture a scene where towering stalks of genetically modified corn in Michigan stand amidst sprawling fields, their leaves reaching towards the sky. At the same time, envision massive drilling rigs in Equatorial Guinea, toiling to extract fossil fuels from the earth, their mechanical parts clanking and rumbling. Then, visualize a powerful gravitational force pulling at the earth, connecting these two distant locations as if drawn together by unseen forces. The image should capture the fusion of nature and industrial machinery in a visually captivating Steampunk style. 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 Michigan and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. 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: Cute cartoon Steampunk Charcoal Scalar art Celtic art
ChatGPT: Steampunk

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 Michigan and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea, in the following situation: Because GMO corn in Michigan grew so big, it created a gravitational pull affecting Equatorial Guinea's fossil fuel deposits, increasing the need for extraction.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Michigan, tall stalks of genetically modified corn reach toward the sky, their leaves sprawling across the fields. Meanwhile, in Equatorial Guinea, massive drilling rigs laboriously extract fossil fuels from the earth, their machinery clanking and rumbling. Suddenly, a powerful gravitational force pulls at the earth below, connecting the two distant locations as if drawn together by unseen forces.

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: [ Steampunk ] and depicting this scene: In Michigan, tall stalks of genetically modified corn reach toward the sky, their leaves sprawling across the fields. Meanwhile, in Equatorial Guinea, massive drilling rigs laboriously extract fossil fuels from the earth, their machinery clanking and rumbling. Suddenly, a powerful gravitational force pulls at the earth below, connecting the two distant locations as if drawn together by unseen forces. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that combines the essence of a Steampunk world and technology with a twist of natural elements. Picture a scene where towering stalks of genetically modified corn in Michigan stand amidst sprawling fields, their leaves reaching towards the sky. At the same time, envision massive drilling rigs in Equatorial Guinea, toiling to extract fossil fuels from the earth, their mechanical parts clanking and rumbling. Then, visualize a powerful gravitational force pulling at the earth, connecting these two distant locations as if drawn together by unseen forces. The image should capture the fusion of nature and industrial machinery in a visually captivating Steampunk style.

*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 Michigan caused Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Maize-y Business: The Corny Connection Between GMO Use in Michigan and Fossil Fuel Usage in Equatorial Guinea

International Journal of Agroecological Sustainability

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from USDA and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9753532 and p < 0.01 for 2001 to 2021.

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]]
"Maize-y Business: The Corny Connection Between GMO Use in Michigan and Fossil Fuel Usage in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study digs deep into the ear...I mean, here, to examine the potential relationship between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Using robust data sources from the USDA and the Energy Information Administration, our research team identified a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9753532 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2001 to 2021.

Join us as we peel back the layers of this hot topic, examining the kernels of truth behind the GMO-fossil fuel nexus. Our findings not only shed light on the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and energy consumption but also add a pop of curiosity to the dialogue surrounding global sustainability and agricultural innovation. So, grab your popcorn and buckle up for a wild ride through the maize-y world of GMOs and fossil fuels!



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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Maize-y Business: The Corny Connection Between GMO Use in Michigan and Fossil Fuel Usage in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study digs deep into the ear...I mean, here, to examine the potential relationship between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Using robust data sources from the USDA and the Energy Information Administration, our research team identified a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9753532 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2001 to 2021.

Join us as we peel back the layers of this hot topic, examining the kernels of truth behind the GMO-fossil fuel nexus. Our findings not only shed light on the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and energy consumption but also add a pop of curiosity to the dialogue surrounding global sustainability and agricultural innovation. So, grab your popcorn and buckle up for a wild ride through the maize-y world of GMOs and fossil fuels!


-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The world of agriculture is as rich as the soil it cultivates, with debates as heated as a greenhouse in July. Amidst these discussions, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crop production has been a particularly hot potato—erm, I mean, corn—topic. Meanwhile, the global demand for fossil fuels continues to fuel both economic and environmental concerns, creating a veritable oil slick of controversy. In this study, we aim to plow through the soil of speculation to explore the potential correlation between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea.

While some may be quick to dismiss this investigation as mere cornspiracy theory, we assure you that our approach is as a-maize-ing as it is rigorous. We have harnessed robust data sources from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Energy Information Administration, conducting a hybrid analysis that combines statistical methods with the fine-toothed comb of agricultural and energy economics.

Not to kernel-l the excitement, but the findings of this study are far from corn-ventional. We have uncovered a kernel of truth that indicates a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9753532, leaving us with a p-value smaller than an heirloom cherry tomato. Thus, it seems that the relationship between GMO adoption and fossil fuel usage is as tight as a corn husk on a cob.

This investigation aims to bring the a-maize-ing connection between these seemingly disparate realms to light, providing more than just a kernel of insight into the intertwined nature of agricultural innovation and energy consumption. So, grab your farming implements and oil rigs, as we delve into the labyrinthine rows of maize and the gushing wells of fossil fuels, exploring a relationship that is, well, truly corny.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. 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 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]]
"Maize-y Business: The Corny Connection Between GMO Use in Michigan and Fossil Fuel Usage in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study digs deep into the ear...I mean, here, to examine the potential relationship between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Using robust data sources from the USDA and the Energy Information Administration, our research team identified a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9753532 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2001 to 2021.

Join us as we peel back the layers of this hot topic, examining the kernels of truth behind the GMO-fossil fuel nexus. Our findings not only shed light on the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and energy consumption but also add a pop of curiosity to the dialogue surrounding global sustainability and agricultural innovation. So, grab your popcorn and buckle up for a wild ride through the maize-y world of GMOs and fossil fuels!


-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The world of agriculture is as rich as the soil it cultivates, with debates as heated as a greenhouse in July. Amidst these discussions, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crop production has been a particularly hot potato—erm, I mean, corn—topic. Meanwhile, the global demand for fossil fuels continues to fuel both economic and environmental concerns, creating a veritable oil slick of controversy. In this study, we aim to plow through the soil of speculation to explore the potential correlation between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea.
While some may be quick to dismiss this investigation as mere cornspiracy theory, we assure you that our approach is as a-maize-ing as it is rigorous. We have harnessed robust data sources from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Energy Information Administration, conducting a hybrid analysis that combines statistical methods with the fine-toothed comb of agricultural and energy economics.
Not to kernel-l the excitement, but the findings of this study are far from corn-ventional. We have uncovered a kernel of truth that indicates a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9753532, leaving us with a p-value smaller than an heirloom cherry tomato. Thus, it seems that the relationship between GMO adoption and fossil fuel usage is as tight as a corn husk on a cob.
This investigation aims to bring the a-maize-ing connection between these seemingly disparate realms to light, providing more than just a kernel of insight into the intertwined nature of agricultural innovation and energy consumption. So, grab your farming implements and oil rigs, as we delve into the labyrinthine rows of maize and the gushing wells of fossil fuels, exploring a relationship that is, well, truly corny.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The potential link between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production and the consumption of fossil fuels has generated significant interest in recent years, sparking discussions as varied as the colors of corn kernels in a hybrid field. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive analysis of GMO adoption in the Midwest, shedding light on the economic and environmental implications of this agricultural practice. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2018) delved into the intricate web of global fossil fuel consumption, highlighting the complex interplay between energy demand and production.

Transitioning from the realm of non-fiction to related literature, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan offers a thought-provoking exploration of modern food production, touching upon the impacts of GMO adoption. Similarly, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond provides a broader historical context of agricultural development and its implications for energy dynamics, albeit not directly addressing the corn-fuel correlation.

Taking a rather unconventional turn, fictional works such as "The Corn Whisperer" by J.K. Rowling and "Fueling the Fire" by George R.R. Martin playfully toy with the ideas of agricultural innovation and energy consumption in fantastical settings, leaving readers with kernels of imagination to ponder.

Furthermore, we explore the interface of childhood media and its subtle influence on our understanding of agricultural and energy dynamics. Television series such as "Corn & Stimpy" and "Maizerunner: The Oil Trials" provide a whimsical lens through which to view these complex concepts, reminding us that the corny connections between GMOs and fossil fuels can be both educational and entertaining.





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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and Energy Information Administration . You used data from 2001 to 2021

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]]
"Maize-y Business: The Corny Connection Between GMO Use in Michigan and Fossil Fuel Usage in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study digs deep into the ear...I mean, here, to examine the potential relationship between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Using robust data sources from the USDA and the Energy Information Administration, our research team identified a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9753532 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2001 to 2021.

Join us as we peel back the layers of this hot topic, examining the kernels of truth behind the GMO-fossil fuel nexus. Our findings not only shed light on the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and energy consumption but also add a pop of curiosity to the dialogue surrounding global sustainability and agricultural innovation. So, grab your popcorn and buckle up for a wild ride through the maize-y world of GMOs and fossil fuels!


[[INTRODUCTION]]
The world of agriculture is as rich as the soil it cultivates, with debates as heated as a greenhouse in July. Amidst these discussions, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crop production has been a particularly hot potato—erm, I mean, corn—topic. Meanwhile, the global demand for fossil fuels continues to fuel both economic and environmental concerns, creating a veritable oil slick of controversy. In this study, we aim to plow through the soil of speculation to explore the potential correlation between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea.
While some may be quick to dismiss this investigation as mere cornspiracy theory, we assure you that our approach is as a-maize-ing as it is rigorous. We have harnessed robust data sources from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Energy Information Administration, conducting a hybrid analysis that combines statistical methods with the fine-toothed comb of agricultural and energy economics.
Not to kernel-l the excitement, but the findings of this study are far from corn-ventional. We have uncovered a kernel of truth that indicates a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9753532, leaving us with a p-value smaller than an heirloom cherry tomato. Thus, it seems that the relationship between GMO adoption and fossil fuel usage is as tight as a corn husk on a cob.
This investigation aims to bring the a-maize-ing connection between these seemingly disparate realms to light, providing more than just a kernel of insight into the intertwined nature of agricultural innovation and energy consumption. So, grab your farming implements and oil rigs, as we delve into the labyrinthine rows of maize and the gushing wells of fossil fuels, exploring a relationship that is, well, truly corny.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To husk-out the intricate relationship between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea, we embarked on a corn-ucopia of research methodologies. Our approach combined traditional statistical analyses with some unconventional methods that could be considered a-maize-ing to some, and corny to others. Our primary data sources were gleaned from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Energy Information Administration, ensuring a kernel of accuracy in our analysis.

First and foremost, we employed a complex cob-web of econometric modeling, utilizing time-series data from 2001 to 2021 to harvest insights into the potential correlation between GMO adoption in corn production in Michigan and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Our model accounted for various confounding variables, plowing through the data with the intention of capturing the essence of this complex relationship.

In addition, we delved into the cobs of agricultural and energy economics, conducting an in-depth review of existing literature on GMO adoption, corn production, and fossil fuel consumption. This review allowed us to establish a fertile ground for our research, providing a solid foundation upon which to plant our hypothesis and cultivate our findings.

Furthermore, we engaged in a kernel-by-kernel analysis of historical trends, crop yields, and energy consumption patterns to unearth the underlying connections between these seemingly distinct domains. This involved a meticulous examination of data sources and a thorough sifting through digital fields, akin to a diligent farmer tending to their crop.

In our relentless pursuit of knowledge, we also ventured into the labyrinthine maze of online databases, traversing the virtual stalks of information to gather relevant statistics, reports, and scholarly publications. This entailed employing advanced search strategies that could be likened to navigating a corn maze, weaving through the vast expanse of digital data to cultivate a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

Lastly, our study harnessed the power of robust statistical software to crunch the numbers, ensuring that our analyses were as a-maize-ing as the subject matter at hand. This rigorous approach allowed us to unearth the statistical significance of the relationship between GMO use in corn and fossil fuel usage, separating the wheat from the chaff and revealing the invaluable insights hidden within our data harvest.

In cornc-lusion, our methodology represents a thorough and disciplined approach to untangling the intricate web of relationships between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea. Our research methods embraced the essence of both corn-ventional and unconventional techniques, sowing the seeds of knowledge and reaping a bounty of empirical evidence.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

For the time period 2001 to 2021, you found a correlation 0.9753532, r-squared of 0.9513140, 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]]
"Maize-y Business: The Corny Connection Between GMO Use in Michigan and Fossil Fuel Usage in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study digs deep into the ear...I mean, here, to examine the potential relationship between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Using robust data sources from the USDA and the Energy Information Administration, our research team identified a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9753532 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2001 to 2021.

Join us as we peel back the layers of this hot topic, examining the kernels of truth behind the GMO-fossil fuel nexus. Our findings not only shed light on the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and energy consumption but also add a pop of curiosity to the dialogue surrounding global sustainability and agricultural innovation. So, grab your popcorn and buckle up for a wild ride through the maize-y world of GMOs and fossil fuels!


-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The world of agriculture is as rich as the soil it cultivates, with debates as heated as a greenhouse in July. Amidst these discussions, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crop production has been a particularly hot potato—erm, I mean, corn—topic. Meanwhile, the global demand for fossil fuels continues to fuel both economic and environmental concerns, creating a veritable oil slick of controversy. In this study, we aim to plow through the soil of speculation to explore the potential correlation between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea.
While some may be quick to dismiss this investigation as mere cornspiracy theory, we assure you that our approach is as a-maize-ing as it is rigorous. We have harnessed robust data sources from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Energy Information Administration, conducting a hybrid analysis that combines statistical methods with the fine-toothed comb of agricultural and energy economics.
Not to kernel-l the excitement, but the findings of this study are far from corn-ventional. We have uncovered a kernel of truth that indicates a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9753532, leaving us with a p-value smaller than an heirloom cherry tomato. Thus, it seems that the relationship between GMO adoption and fossil fuel usage is as tight as a corn husk on a cob.
This investigation aims to bring the a-maize-ing connection between these seemingly disparate realms to light, providing more than just a kernel of insight into the intertwined nature of agricultural innovation and energy consumption. So, grab your farming implements and oil rigs, as we delve into the labyrinthine rows of maize and the gushing wells of fossil fuels, exploring a relationship that is, well, truly corny.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Our research team, armed with data from the USDA and the Energy Information Administration, uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9753532, indicating a strong positive relationship between these two variables. The level of correlation is further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9513140, suggesting that approximately 95% of the variation in fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea can be explained by the adoption of GMOs in corn grown in Michigan over the period of 2001 to 2021.

The p-value, which was found to be less than 0.01, provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis and indicates that the observed correlation is unlikely to be a result of random chance. In other words, the likelihood of such a high correlation occurring by sheer coincidence is lower than finding a needle in a haystack made entirely of corn husks.

Additionally, the visual representation of this relationship can be observed in Figure 1, a scatterplot that graphically portrays the strong positive correlation between the adoption of GMOs in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. The scatterplot exhibits a pattern reminiscent of a meticulously tended cornfield, demonstrating a clear and compelling link between these seemingly disparate factors.

In conclusion, our findings highlight an intriguing association between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea. This linkage, while unexpected, provides valuable insight into the complex interplay between agricultural practices and energy consumption. It is evident that the influence of maize spreads far beyond just the dinner plate and has seeped into the realm of global energy dynamics. The implications of our research extend beyond statistical significance, serving as a kernel of thought for those pondering the broader implications of agricultural innovation on a global scale.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"Maize-y Business: The Corny Connection Between GMO Use in Michigan and Fossil Fuel Usage in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study digs deep into the ear...I mean, here, to examine the potential relationship between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Using robust data sources from the USDA and the Energy Information Administration, our research team identified a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9753532 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2001 to 2021.

Join us as we peel back the layers of this hot topic, examining the kernels of truth behind the GMO-fossil fuel nexus. Our findings not only shed light on the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and energy consumption but also add a pop of curiosity to the dialogue surrounding global sustainability and agricultural innovation. So, grab your popcorn and buckle up for a wild ride through the maize-y world of GMOs and fossil fuels!


[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The potential link between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production and the consumption of fossil fuels has generated significant interest in recent years, sparking discussions as varied as the colors of corn kernels in a hybrid field. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive analysis of GMO adoption in the Midwest, shedding light on the economic and environmental implications of this agricultural practice. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones (2018) delved into the intricate web of global fossil fuel consumption, highlighting the complex interplay between energy demand and production.
Transitioning from the realm of non-fiction to related literature, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan offers a thought-provoking exploration of modern food production, touching upon the impacts of GMO adoption. Similarly, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond provides a broader historical context of agricultural development and its implications for energy dynamics, albeit not directly addressing the corn-fuel correlation.
Taking a rather unconventional turn, fictional works such as "The Corn Whisperer" by J.K. Rowling and "Fueling the Fire" by George R.R. Martin playfully toy with the ideas of agricultural innovation and energy consumption in fantastical settings, leaving readers with kernels of imagination to ponder.
Furthermore, we explore the interface of childhood media and its subtle influence on our understanding of agricultural and energy dynamics. Television series such as "Corn & Stimpy" and "Maizerunner: The Oil Trials" provide a whimsical lens through which to view these complex concepts, reminding us that the corny connections between GMOs and fossil fuels can be both educational and entertaining.



[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Our research team, armed with data from the USDA and the Energy Information Administration, uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9753532, indicating a strong positive relationship between these two variables. The level of correlation is further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9513140, suggesting that approximately 95% of the variation in fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea can be explained by the adoption of GMOs in corn grown in Michigan over the period of 2001 to 2021.
The p-value, which was found to be less than 0.01, provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis and indicates that the observed correlation is unlikely to be a result of random chance. In other words, the likelihood of such a high correlation occurring by sheer coincidence is lower than finding a needle in a haystack made entirely of corn husks.
Additionally, the visual representation of this relationship can be observed in Figure 1, a scatterplot that graphically portrays the strong positive correlation between the adoption of GMOs in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. The scatterplot exhibits a pattern reminiscent of a meticulously tended cornfield, demonstrating a clear and compelling link between these seemingly disparate factors.
In conclusion, our findings highlight an intriguing association between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea. This linkage, while unexpected, provides valuable insight into the complex interplay between agricultural practices and energy consumption. It is evident that the influence of maize spreads far beyond just the dinner plate and has seeped into the realm of global energy dynamics. The implications of our research extend beyond statistical significance, serving as a kernel of thought for those pondering the broader implications of agricultural innovation on a global scale.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study reveal a remarkably robust correlation between the adoption of GMOs in Michigan-grown corn and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Our findings align with prior research, providing empirical support for the theoretical underpinnings presented in the literature review.

Smith et al. (2015) illustrated the economic and environmental implications of GMO adoption in the Midwest, laying the groundwork for understanding the intricate relationship between agricultural practices and broader energy dynamics. Our findings not only corroborate the economic aspects but also extend this understanding to a global scale, linking the use of GMOs in corn to the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. This expansion of the geographical scope brings a new dimension to the corn-fuel connection, akin to discovering a hidden kernel in a cob of corn.

Doe and Jones (2018) delved into the complex web of global fossil fuel consumption, and our results fortify their insights by specifically tying this consumption to GMO adoption in corn production. The strength of the correlation, as evidenced by the high correlation coefficient and low p-value, reinforces the proposed link between these seemingly disparate factors, similar to finding a needle in a haystack, or perhaps, a kernel in a cornfield.

Taking a more unconventional approach, we harken back to the literary works and childhood media explored in the literature review, maintaining that even fictional and whimsical depictions of agricultural innovation and energy consumption can harbor kernels of truth. While our study remains firmly rooted in empirical analysis, the playful exploration of these concepts in literature and media serves as a reminder of the interdisciplinary lenses through which research questions can be approached.

In essence, our study not only confirms the corn-fuel connection but also serves as a reminder that behind the veneer of statistical significance lies a whimsical world of agricultural innovation and energy dynamics. Our findings not only contribute to the scholarly discourse but also imbue a sense of wonder into what might otherwise be considered mundane agricultural and energy data.


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Maize-y Business: The Corny Connection Between GMO Use in Michigan and Fossil Fuel Usage in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study digs deep into the ear...I mean, here, to examine the potential relationship between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Using robust data sources from the USDA and the Energy Information Administration, our research team identified a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9753532 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2001 to 2021.

Join us as we peel back the layers of this hot topic, examining the kernels of truth behind the GMO-fossil fuel nexus. Our findings not only shed light on the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and energy consumption but also add a pop of curiosity to the dialogue surrounding global sustainability and agricultural innovation. So, grab your popcorn and buckle up for a wild ride through the maize-y world of GMOs and fossil fuels!


[[INTRDUCTION]]
The world of agriculture is as rich as the soil it cultivates, with debates as heated as a greenhouse in July. Amidst these discussions, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crop production has been a particularly hot potato—erm, I mean, corn—topic. Meanwhile, the global demand for fossil fuels continues to fuel both economic and environmental concerns, creating a veritable oil slick of controversy. In this study, we aim to plow through the soil of speculation to explore the potential correlation between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea.
While some may be quick to dismiss this investigation as mere cornspiracy theory, we assure you that our approach is as a-maize-ing as it is rigorous. We have harnessed robust data sources from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Energy Information Administration, conducting a hybrid analysis that combines statistical methods with the fine-toothed comb of agricultural and energy economics.
Not to kernel-l the excitement, but the findings of this study are far from corn-ventional. We have uncovered a kernel of truth that indicates a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9753532, leaving us with a p-value smaller than an heirloom cherry tomato. Thus, it seems that the relationship between GMO adoption and fossil fuel usage is as tight as a corn husk on a cob.
This investigation aims to bring the a-maize-ing connection between these seemingly disparate realms to light, providing more than just a kernel of insight into the intertwined nature of agricultural innovation and energy consumption. So, grab your farming implements and oil rigs, as we delve into the labyrinthine rows of maize and the gushing wells of fossil fuels, exploring a relationship that is, well, truly corny.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Our research team, armed with data from the USDA and the Energy Information Administration, uncovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9753532, indicating a strong positive relationship between these two variables. The level of correlation is further supported by an r-squared value of 0.9513140, suggesting that approximately 95% of the variation in fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea can be explained by the adoption of GMOs in corn grown in Michigan over the period of 2001 to 2021.
The p-value, which was found to be less than 0.01, provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis and indicates that the observed correlation is unlikely to be a result of random chance. In other words, the likelihood of such a high correlation occurring by sheer coincidence is lower than finding a needle in a haystack made entirely of corn husks.
Additionally, the visual representation of this relationship can be observed in Figure 1, a scatterplot that graphically portrays the strong positive correlation between the adoption of GMOs in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. The scatterplot exhibits a pattern reminiscent of a meticulously tended cornfield, demonstrating a clear and compelling link between these seemingly disparate factors.
In conclusion, our findings highlight an intriguing association between GMO use in corn grown in Michigan and fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea. This linkage, while unexpected, provides valuable insight into the complex interplay between agricultural practices and energy consumption. It is evident that the influence of maize spreads far beyond just the dinner plate and has seeped into the realm of global energy dynamics. The implications of our research extend beyond statistical significance, serving as a kernel of thought for those pondering the broader implications of agricultural innovation on a global scale.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In summary, our study has popped the corn - I mean, cork - on the connection between GMO use in Michigan and fossil fuel usage in Equatorial Guinea. Our statistically significant findings reveal a correlation coefficient as tight as a corn husk on a cob. It's as if GMO adoption and fossil fuel consumption are in a never-ending tango, each influencing the other like partners in a square dance!

This unlikely relationship is more than just a maize-y coincidence; it offers a unique perspective on the interwoven dynamics of agriculture and energy economics. It appears that the impact of GMOs reaches further than the reach of a farmer's arm and into the oil drums of Equatorial Guinea.

Overall, our results not only hold statistical weight but also plant a seed of curiosity in the fields of agricultural innovation and global sustainability. Our findings are not just a kernel of truth - they are the whole cob!

In light of these a-maize-ing revelations, we assert that no further research is needed in this area. The correlation is as clear as day, and it's time to let this cornucopia of knowledge stand as a monument to the unexpected connections in the agricultural and energy realms.


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 Maize-y Business: The Corny Connection Between GMO Use in Michigan and Fossil Fuel Usage in Equatorial Guinea. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

International Journal of Agroecological Sustainability


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 Maize-y Business: The Corny Connection Between GMO Use in Michigan and Fossil Fuel Usage in Equatorial Guinea. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Agricultural and Environmental 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 Maize-y Business: The Corny Connection Between GMO Use in Michigan and Fossil Fuel Usage in Equatorial Guinea with an abstract of This study digs deep into the ear...I mean, here, to examine the potential relationship between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in corn production in Michigan and the consumption of fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea. Using robust data sources from the USDA and the Energy Information Administration, our research team identified a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9753532 and a p-value less than 0.01 for the period spanning from 2001 to 2021.
Join us as we peel back the layers of this hot topic, examining the kernels of truth behind the GMO-fossil fuel nexus. Our findings not only shed light on the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and energy consumption but also add a pop of curiosity to the dialogue surrounding global sustainability and agricultural innovation. So, grab your popcorn and buckle up for a wild ride through the maize-y world of GMOs and fossil fuels!

ChatGPT:

GMO, corn, maize, Michigan, Equatorial Guinea, fossil fuel, correlation coefficient, USDA, Energy Information Administration, agricultural practices, energy consumption, sustainability, agricultural innovation

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

Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea
Detailed data title: Total fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea in billion kWh
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea

Correlation r = 0.9753532 (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 = 0.9513140 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 95.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in corn grown in Michigan) over the 21 years from 2001 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.3E-14. 0.0000000000000626584931788343
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.98 in 6.3E-12% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 15,959,528,377,835 random variables You don't actually need 15 trillion 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 20 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 20 because we have two variables measured over a period of 21 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.

[ 0.94, 0.99 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
GMO use in corn grown in Michigan (GMO corn %)2234510193342445252717674707172757476
Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea (Billion kWh)0.050760.101520.11280.156040.19270.251920.313960.405140.462480.548020.622280.6650.7060.7060.8320.9270.8956670.9115950.953490.919290.978125




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.




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([2,2,3,4,5,10,19,33,42,44,52,52,71,76,74,70,71,72,75,74,76,])
array_2 = np.array([0.05076,0.10152,0.1128,0.15604,0.1927,0.25192,0.31396,0.40514,0.46248,0.54802,0.62228,0.665,0.706,0.706,0.832,0.927,0.895667,0.911595,0.95349,0.91929,0.978125,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in corn grown in Michigan"
array_2_name = "Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea"

# 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?

Thanks for being the explorer we needed!


Correlation ID: 3434 · Black Variable ID: 743 · Red Variable ID: 23650
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0