Download png, svg
AI explanation
They were developing a new line of marinades marketed as 'perfect for any situation,' prompting the need for some unconventional product testing.Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Prompt: Create a scene resembling a Polaroid photo of a state-of-the-art food science laboratory in Arkansas. Show a group of food scientists and technologists engaged in experiments with innovative food preservation methods. In the background, depict a computer screen showing a spike in Google searches for "how to hide a body," reflecting the unintended consequence of their advances in preservation technology. Ensure the visual is captivating and thought-provoking, utilizing details that convey the tension between scientific progress and unforeseen implications. 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: The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. 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: Steampunk Whimsical illustration Brutalism a Polaroid photo inspired by bauhaus
ChatGPT: a Polaroid photo
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 The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body', in the following situation: Because the increase in food scientists and technologists in Arkansas led to more advanced preservation techniques, causing a rise in "how to hide a body" Google searches as people sought new ways to keep their leftovers fresh for longer.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Arkansas, a group of food scientists and technologists gather in a state-of-the-art laboratory, experimenting with innovative preservation methods. As they work, a computer screen in the background shows a spike in Google searches for "how to hide a body", reflecting the unexpected consequence of their advances in food preservation technology.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ a Polaroid photo ] and depicting this scene: In Arkansas, a group of food scientists and technologists gather in a state-of-the-art laboratory, experimenting with innovative preservation methods. As they work, a computer screen in the background shows a spike in Google searches for "how to hide a body", reflecting the unexpected consequence of their advances in food preservation technology. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Prompt: Create a scene resembling a Polaroid photo of a state-of-the-art food science laboratory in Arkansas. Show a group of food scientists and technologists engaged in experiments with innovative food preservation methods. In the background, depict a computer screen showing a spike in Google searches for "how to hide a body," reflecting the unintended consequence of their advances in preservation technology. Ensure the visual is captivating and thought-provoking, utilizing details that convey the tension between scientific progress and unforeseen implications.
*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.
I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas caused how to hide a body (Google searches for 'how to hide a body') to increase.
AI academic paper
The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body' The Journal of Gastronomical Techne and Internet Inquiry Jan 2024 Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real! |
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.
Make the title an alliteration.
Your research team used data from Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.7984393 and p < 0.01 for 2004 to 2022.
Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)
[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit
ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'
[[ABSTRACT]]
The present study aims to explore the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, a comprehensive analysis was conducted for the period spanning from 2004 to 2022. The startling coefficient of correlation, 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 elicited great curiosity in the research team, leading to an exhaustive investigation of this curious connection. This research brings to light the unexpected relationship between the delectable domain of culinary science and the somewhat disconcerting realm of search engine queries related to clandestine activities. As we delve deeper into the findings, we begin to decipher the whimsical dance between gastronomical expertise and internet inquiries veering into less savory territory. Extraordinary patterns emerge, unveiling a rich, albeit slightly macabre, tapestry that characterizes the juncture of these evidently unrelated fields. The implications of this unusual correlation extend far beyond the confines of academics, beckoning us to consider the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity and behavior.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'
[[ABSTRACT]]
The present study aims to explore the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, a comprehensive analysis was conducted for the period spanning from 2004 to 2022. The startling coefficient of correlation, 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 elicited great curiosity in the research team, leading to an exhaustive investigation of this curious connection. This research brings to light the unexpected relationship between the delectable domain of culinary science and the somewhat disconcerting realm of search engine queries related to clandestine activities. As we delve deeper into the findings, we begin to decipher the whimsical dance between gastronomical expertise and internet inquiries veering into less savory territory. Extraordinary patterns emerge, unveiling a rich, albeit slightly macabre, tapestry that characterizes the juncture of these evidently unrelated fields. The implications of this unusual correlation extend far beyond the confines of academics, beckoning us to consider the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity and behavior.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
ChatGPT:
**[[INTRODUCTION]]**
In the realm of gastronomic innovation and culinary exploration, the contributions of food scientists and technologists are pivotal in shaping our culinary landscape. These dedicated professionals labor tirelessly to enhance food quality, safety, and flavor, armed with a deep understanding of chemistry, microbiology, and engineering. Their efforts manifest in tantalizing flavors, innovative food processing techniques, and the seamless incorporation of technology into the culinary domain. However, amid this delectable tapestry of culinary creativity, the unexpected convergence of another, more ominous realm emerges - one that beckons us to peer into the curious and enigmatic world of search engine queries related to surreptitious activities.
This study, under the title "The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'", seeks to unravel the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and the seemingly incongruous Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Perhaps, at first glance, this juxtaposition may appear whimsical or inconceivable, but the empirical evidence points to a surprisingly strong association that demands scrutiny.
As researchers, we embark on a journey that traverses the diverse terrains of culinary science and the disquieting domain of clandestine queries, aiming to decipher the whimsical dance between these apparently disparate fields. Our exploration is underpinned by an extensive analysis leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends encompassing a substantial timeframe from 2004 to 2022. The riveting coefficient of correlation, standing at 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, serve as testament to the gravity and peculiarity of this association.
We beckon the reader to join us in this eccentric and unanticipated exploration, as we unravel the perplexing nuances of this strange amalgamation. As we venture forth into the inner workings of these unexpected correlations, we uncover an intricate tapestry of information that compels us to contemplate the confluence of gastronomical prowess and clandestine curiosity. It is our fervent hope that this research journey will not only illuminate the hidden link between these disparate fields but also offer a whimsical and thought-provoking perspective on the idiosyncrasies of human inquiry and interests.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. 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 movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'
[[ABSTRACT]]
The present study aims to explore the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, a comprehensive analysis was conducted for the period spanning from 2004 to 2022. The startling coefficient of correlation, 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 elicited great curiosity in the research team, leading to an exhaustive investigation of this curious connection. This research brings to light the unexpected relationship between the delectable domain of culinary science and the somewhat disconcerting realm of search engine queries related to clandestine activities. As we delve deeper into the findings, we begin to decipher the whimsical dance between gastronomical expertise and internet inquiries veering into less savory territory. Extraordinary patterns emerge, unveiling a rich, albeit slightly macabre, tapestry that characterizes the juncture of these evidently unrelated fields. The implications of this unusual correlation extend far beyond the confines of academics, beckoning us to consider the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity and behavior.
-------
And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of gastronomic innovation and culinary exploration, the contributions of food scientists and technologists are pivotal in shaping our culinary landscape. These dedicated professionals labor tirelessly to enhance food quality, safety, and flavor, armed with a deep understanding of chemistry, microbiology, and engineering. Their efforts manifest in tantalizing flavors, innovative food processing techniques, and the seamless incorporation of technology into the culinary domain. However, amid this delectable tapestry of culinary creativity, the unexpected convergence of another, more ominous realm emerges - one that beckons us to peer into the curious and enigmatic world of search engine queries related to surreptitious activities.
This study, under the title "The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'", seeks to unravel the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and the seemingly incongruous Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Perhaps, at first glance, this juxtaposition may appear whimsical or inconceivable, but the empirical evidence points to a surprisingly strong association that demands scrutiny.
As researchers, we embark on a journey that traverses the diverse terrains of culinary science and the disquieting domain of clandestine queries, aiming to decipher the whimsical dance between these apparently disparate fields. Our exploration is underpinned by an extensive analysis leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends encompassing a substantial timeframe from 2004 to 2022. The riveting coefficient of correlation, standing at 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, serve as testament to the gravity and peculiarity of this association.
We beckon the reader to join us in this eccentric and unanticipated exploration, as we unravel the perplexing nuances of this strange amalgamation. As we venture forth into the inner workings of these unexpected correlations, we uncover an intricate tapestry of information that compels us to contemplate the confluence of gastronomical prowess and clandestine curiosity. It is our fervent hope that this research journey will not only illuminate the hidden link between these disparate fields but also offer a whimsical and thought-provoking perspective on the idiosyncrasies of human inquiry and interests.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The curious correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body' has piqued the interest of researchers in various fields. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive study on the intersection of culinary science and clandestine activities, shedding light on the unexpected parallels that lurk within these distinct domains. Their findings hinted at a peculiar intertwining of gastronomical expertise and the propensity for delving into more sinister inquiries, setting the stage for further exploration into this uncharted territory.
Building on this foundation, Doe (2018) delved deeper into the enigmatic relationship between gastronomic prowess and the disposition to seek information on concealing certain objects, albeit of an anatomical nature. Doe's work brought to the forefront the palpable tension between the savory realm of culinary innovation and the clandestine allure of conducting surreptitious searches.
Jones (2020) expanded on these notions and postulated that the alluring aroma of freshly baked bread might unwittingly conjure up nefarious thoughts in the minds of internet users. This hypothesis, while seemingly far-fetched, necessitated a closer examination of the intricate interplay between the culinary arts and the more disconcerting recesses of human curiosity.
The compilation of these insightful studies lays the groundwork for our endeavor to unravel the web of connections between the delectable domain of food science and the rather unsettling realm of internet searches related to clandestine activities. As we journey through this unconventional terrain, we are compelled to consider the whimsical threads that intertwine the seemingly incongruous realms of culinary creativity and covert inquiries, casting a peculiar charm on this unanticipated exploration.
In a tangentially related vein, the seminal work "The Science of Food and Cooking" by McGee (2004) offers a captivating insight into the chemical compositions and transformations that underpin the culinary world, delving into the intricacies of gastronomical alchemy and its wider societal implications. However, while McGee's opus provides an in-depth understanding of the science behind the creation of delectable dishes, it regrettably falls short in addressing the potential ramifications of this culinary knowledge on internet search trends related to unconventional topics.
Turning our attention to fictional narratives that might shed light on the subconscious leanings towards both culinary expertise and clandestine curiosities, the timeless works of Agatha Christie, particularly "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" and "Death on the Nile," beckon us to consider the timeless fascination with the intersection of delectable dinners and, well, murder. While the revered author's mysteries are crafted with an unapologetic penchant for intrigue and devious culinary side plots, they subtly hint at the inextricable links between culinary artistry and less salubrious endeavors.
Furthermore, the cinematic realm offers a myriad of intriguing portrayals that, while not directly relevant to our investigation, provide a whimsical perspective on the interplay between gastronomical expertise and clandestine elements. "Ratatouille," a light-hearted animated feature, illustrates the transformative power of culinary prowess and the protagonist's unwavering dedication to mastering the art of fine dining. However, it regrettably omits any references to internet queries on concealing incriminating evidence, leaving the audience clamoring for a crossover between culinary finesse and criminal capers.
As we navigate through this eclectic array of literature and media, we find ourselves at the crux of a captivating conundrum that demands thorough investigation and a lighthearted appreciation for the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity. It is with this blend of scholarly rigor and irrepressible mirth that we delve into the nuances of our peculiar research endeavor, driven by a fervent curiosity and a penchant for the delightfully unconventional.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. 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 Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends . You used data from 2004 to 2022
Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.
Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'
[[ABSTRACT]]
The present study aims to explore the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, a comprehensive analysis was conducted for the period spanning from 2004 to 2022. The startling coefficient of correlation, 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 elicited great curiosity in the research team, leading to an exhaustive investigation of this curious connection. This research brings to light the unexpected relationship between the delectable domain of culinary science and the somewhat disconcerting realm of search engine queries related to clandestine activities. As we delve deeper into the findings, we begin to decipher the whimsical dance between gastronomical expertise and internet inquiries veering into less savory territory. Extraordinary patterns emerge, unveiling a rich, albeit slightly macabre, tapestry that characterizes the juncture of these evidently unrelated fields. The implications of this unusual correlation extend far beyond the confines of academics, beckoning us to consider the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity and behavior.
[[INTRODUCTION]]
In the realm of gastronomic innovation and culinary exploration, the contributions of food scientists and technologists are pivotal in shaping our culinary landscape. These dedicated professionals labor tirelessly to enhance food quality, safety, and flavor, armed with a deep understanding of chemistry, microbiology, and engineering. Their efforts manifest in tantalizing flavors, innovative food processing techniques, and the seamless incorporation of technology into the culinary domain. However, amid this delectable tapestry of culinary creativity, the unexpected convergence of another, more ominous realm emerges - one that beckons us to peer into the curious and enigmatic world of search engine queries related to surreptitious activities.
This study, under the title "The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'", seeks to unravel the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and the seemingly incongruous Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Perhaps, at first glance, this juxtaposition may appear whimsical or inconceivable, but the empirical evidence points to a surprisingly strong association that demands scrutiny.
As researchers, we embark on a journey that traverses the diverse terrains of culinary science and the disquieting domain of clandestine queries, aiming to decipher the whimsical dance between these apparently disparate fields. Our exploration is underpinned by an extensive analysis leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends encompassing a substantial timeframe from 2004 to 2022. The riveting coefficient of correlation, standing at 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, serve as testament to the gravity and peculiarity of this association.
We beckon the reader to join us in this eccentric and unanticipated exploration, as we unravel the perplexing nuances of this strange amalgamation. As we venture forth into the inner workings of these unexpected correlations, we uncover an intricate tapestry of information that compels us to contemplate the confluence of gastronomical prowess and clandestine curiosity. It is our fervent hope that this research journey will not only illuminate the hidden link between these disparate fields but also offer a whimsical and thought-provoking perspective on the idiosyncrasies of human inquiry and interests.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
ChatGPT:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the pursuit of unraveling the entangled web of culinary expertise and clandestine curiosity, our research team undertook a methodological odyssey, guided by the principles of empirical rigor and a pinch of scientific whimsy. The first step in our quest involved the acquisition of data pertinent to the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas. To accomplish this feat, we turned to the esteemed Bureau of Labor Statistics, extracting comprehensive employment figures spanning from 2004 to 2022. Armed with these numerical nuggets of gastronomic prowess, we embarked on a statistical sojourn, seeking to discern any peculiar patterns lurking beneath the surface.
Subsequently, our expedition led us into the digital domain, where the enigmatic trails of online queries beckoned our exploration. Leveraging the bountiful repository of Google Trends, we delved into the labyrinthine archives of search engine inquiries related to the phrase 'how to hide a body'. This digital escapade spanned the same temporal expanse as our culinary census, encompassing the years from 2004 to 2022.
With our data troves secured, we undertook a series of intricate statistical analyses, wielding the formidable tools of correlation coefficients and regression models. Through the alchemy of mathematical manipulation, we sought to unveil the hidden connections between the delectable world of culinary science and the peculiar proclivities of internet denizens.
Moreover, as seasoned sleuths of scientific inquiry, we recognized the need for additional investigations to fortify our findings. A supplementary examination of demographic and socio-economic factors within the state of Arkansas was conducted, aiming to discern any ambient influences that might surreptitiously meddle with our observed correlations. Additionally, a foray into the annals of psychological literature was undertaken, in a spirited endeavor to comprehend the underlying motivations fueling the enigmatic searches that permeated the digital realm.
Our methodological escapade culminated in the unveiling of a coherent narrative that intertwines the delectable intricacies of culinary science with the rather disconcerting undercurrents of surreptitious internet inquiries. The findings of our expedition are presented in the subsequent sections, brimming with insights and revelations that bridge the realms of gastronomic expertise and the unanticipated quirks of online exploration.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. 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 Bureau of Larbor Statistics and Google Trends .
For the time period 2004 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.7984393, r-squared of 0.6375053, and p < 0.01.
One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.
Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'
[[ABSTRACT]]
The present study aims to explore the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, a comprehensive analysis was conducted for the period spanning from 2004 to 2022. The startling coefficient of correlation, 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 elicited great curiosity in the research team, leading to an exhaustive investigation of this curious connection. This research brings to light the unexpected relationship between the delectable domain of culinary science and the somewhat disconcerting realm of search engine queries related to clandestine activities. As we delve deeper into the findings, we begin to decipher the whimsical dance between gastronomical expertise and internet inquiries veering into less savory territory. Extraordinary patterns emerge, unveiling a rich, albeit slightly macabre, tapestry that characterizes the juncture of these evidently unrelated fields. The implications of this unusual correlation extend far beyond the confines of academics, beckoning us to consider the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity and behavior.
-------
And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
In the realm of gastronomic innovation and culinary exploration, the contributions of food scientists and technologists are pivotal in shaping our culinary landscape. These dedicated professionals labor tirelessly to enhance food quality, safety, and flavor, armed with a deep understanding of chemistry, microbiology, and engineering. Their efforts manifest in tantalizing flavors, innovative food processing techniques, and the seamless incorporation of technology into the culinary domain. However, amid this delectable tapestry of culinary creativity, the unexpected convergence of another, more ominous realm emerges - one that beckons us to peer into the curious and enigmatic world of search engine queries related to surreptitious activities.
This study, under the title "The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'", seeks to unravel the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and the seemingly incongruous Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Perhaps, at first glance, this juxtaposition may appear whimsical or inconceivable, but the empirical evidence points to a surprisingly strong association that demands scrutiny.
As researchers, we embark on a journey that traverses the diverse terrains of culinary science and the disquieting domain of clandestine queries, aiming to decipher the whimsical dance between these apparently disparate fields. Our exploration is underpinned by an extensive analysis leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends encompassing a substantial timeframe from 2004 to 2022. The riveting coefficient of correlation, standing at 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, serve as testament to the gravity and peculiarity of this association.
We beckon the reader to join us in this eccentric and unanticipated exploration, as we unravel the perplexing nuances of this strange amalgamation. As we venture forth into the inner workings of these unexpected correlations, we uncover an intricate tapestry of information that compels us to contemplate the confluence of gastronomical prowess and clandestine curiosity. It is our fervent hope that this research journey will not only illuminate the hidden link between these disparate fields but also offer a whimsical and thought-provoking perspective on the idiosyncrasies of human inquiry and interests.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[RESULTS]]
ChatGPT:
[[RESULTS]]
The results of the analysis revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.7984393 between the number of food scientists and technologists employed in Arkansas and the frequency of Google searches for the rather disconcerting phrase 'how to hide a body'. This coefficient, along with an r-squared value of 0.6375053, signified a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The p-value of less than 0.01 further emphasized the statistical significance of this unexpected association, prompting the research team to embark on a journey of inquiry into the whimsical interplay between the culinary domain and queries intruding into the realm of clandestine activities.
The scatterplot depicted in Figure 1 visually encapsulates the compelling relationship uncovered through our analysis, showcasing the remarkable alignment of the number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas with the frequency of Google searches for methods of surreptitious disposal. The figure elegantly portrays the unlikely bond between culinary expertise and the evidently more enigmatic facets of human curiosity, inviting contemplation on the idiosyncrasies that underpin this unanticipated correlation.
This astonishing finding not only underscores the prevalence of human curiosity in peculiar realms but also highlights the intricate interconnections that interlace seemingly unrelated fields of inquiry. The implications reverberate beyond the boundaries of our study, prodding us to reflect on the capricious nature of human interests and the unexpected harmonies that unfold between disparate domains. Indeed, the convergence of the savory and the sinister in this context sparks a whimsical dance of conjecture, encouraging us to discern the peculiar melodies woven into the fabric of these seemingly incongruous areas of human inquiry.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 500 tokens.
Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.
Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.
[[TITLE]]
The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'
[[ABSTRACT]]
The present study aims to explore the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, a comprehensive analysis was conducted for the period spanning from 2004 to 2022. The startling coefficient of correlation, 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 elicited great curiosity in the research team, leading to an exhaustive investigation of this curious connection. This research brings to light the unexpected relationship between the delectable domain of culinary science and the somewhat disconcerting realm of search engine queries related to clandestine activities. As we delve deeper into the findings, we begin to decipher the whimsical dance between gastronomical expertise and internet inquiries veering into less savory territory. Extraordinary patterns emerge, unveiling a rich, albeit slightly macabre, tapestry that characterizes the juncture of these evidently unrelated fields. The implications of this unusual correlation extend far beyond the confines of academics, beckoning us to consider the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity and behavior.
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The curious correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body' has piqued the interest of researchers in various fields. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive study on the intersection of culinary science and clandestine activities, shedding light on the unexpected parallels that lurk within these distinct domains. Their findings hinted at a peculiar intertwining of gastronomical expertise and the propensity for delving into more sinister inquiries, setting the stage for further exploration into this uncharted territory.
Building on this foundation, Doe (2018) delved deeper into the enigmatic relationship between gastronomic prowess and the disposition to seek information on concealing certain objects, albeit of an anatomical nature. Doe's work brought to the forefront the palpable tension between the savory realm of culinary innovation and the clandestine allure of conducting surreptitious searches.
Jones (2020) expanded on these notions and postulated that the alluring aroma of freshly baked bread might unwittingly conjure up nefarious thoughts in the minds of internet users. This hypothesis, while seemingly far-fetched, necessitated a closer examination of the intricate interplay between the culinary arts and the more disconcerting recesses of human curiosity.
The compilation of these insightful studies lays the groundwork for our endeavor to unravel the web of connections between the delectable domain of food science and the rather unsettling realm of internet searches related to clandestine activities. As we journey through this unconventional terrain, we are compelled to consider the whimsical threads that intertwine the seemingly incongruous realms of culinary creativity and covert inquiries, casting a peculiar charm on this unanticipated exploration.
In a tangentially related vein, the seminal work "The Science of Food and Cooking" by McGee (2004) offers a captivating insight into the chemical compositions and transformations that underpin the culinary world, delving into the intricacies of gastronomical alchemy and its wider societal implications. However, while McGee's opus provides an in-depth understanding of the science behind the creation of delectable dishes, it regrettably falls short in addressing the potential ramifications of this culinary knowledge on internet search trends related to unconventional topics.
Turning our attention to fictional narratives that might shed light on the subconscious leanings towards both culinary expertise and clandestine curiosities, the timeless works of Agatha Christie, particularly "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" and "Death on the Nile," beckon us to consider the timeless fascination with the intersection of delectable dinners and, well, murder. While the revered author's mysteries are crafted with an unapologetic penchant for intrigue and devious culinary side plots, they subtly hint at the inextricable links between culinary artistry and less salubrious endeavors.
Furthermore, the cinematic realm offers a myriad of intriguing portrayals that, while not directly relevant to our investigation, provide a whimsical perspective on the interplay between gastronomical expertise and clandestine elements. "Ratatouille," a light-hearted animated feature, illustrates the transformative power of culinary prowess and the protagonist's unwavering dedication to mastering the art of fine dining. However, it regrettably omits any references to internet queries on concealing incriminating evidence, leaving the audience clamoring for a crossover between culinary finesse and criminal capers.
As we navigate through this eclectic array of literature and media, we find ourselves at the crux of a captivating conundrum that demands thorough investigation and a lighthearted appreciation for the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity. It is with this blend of scholarly rigor and irrepressible mirth that we delve into the nuances of our peculiar research endeavor, driven by a fervent curiosity and a penchant for the delightfully unconventional.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of the analysis revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.7984393 between the number of food scientists and technologists employed in Arkansas and the frequency of Google searches for the rather disconcerting phrase 'how to hide a body'. This coefficient, along with an r-squared value of 0.6375053, signified a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The p-value of less than 0.01 further emphasized the statistical significance of this unexpected association, prompting the research team to embark on a journey of inquiry into the whimsical interplay between the culinary domain and queries intruding into the realm of clandestine activities.
The scatterplot depicted in Figure 1 visually encapsulates the compelling relationship uncovered through our analysis, showcasing the remarkable alignment of the number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas with the frequency of Google searches for methods of surreptitious disposal. The figure elegantly portrays the unlikely bond between culinary expertise and the evidently more enigmatic facets of human curiosity, inviting contemplation on the idiosyncrasies that underpin this unanticipated correlation.
This astonishing finding not only underscores the prevalence of human curiosity in peculiar realms but also highlights the intricate interconnections that interlace seemingly unrelated fields of inquiry. The implications reverberate beyond the boundaries of our study, prodding us to reflect on the capricious nature of human interests and the unexpected harmonies that unfold between disparate domains. Indeed, the convergence of the savory and the sinister in this context sparks a whimsical dance of conjecture, encouraging us to discern the peculiar melodies woven into the fabric of these seemingly incongruous areas of human inquiry.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[DISCUSSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[DISCUSSION]]
The unexpected nexus between the number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body' has unfurled a tapestry of inconceivable connections, beckoning us to contemplate the whimsical dance between gastronomical expertise and clandestine queries. Our findings not only align with prior research that hinted at the peculiar intertwining of culinary science and less savory pursuits but also shed light on the robust relationship underpinning this seemingly surprising correlation.
Drawing from the literature review, our results bolster Smith et al.'s (2015) initial revelation of an unanticipated linkage between gastronomical expertise and the propensity for exploring more sinister inquiries. The robust correlation coefficient unveiled in our research echoes the palpable tension outlined by Doe (2018) and expands on Jones' (2020) hypothesis, illuminating the intriguing interplay between the allure of freshly baked bread and clandestine thoughts. This alignment with previous studies underscores the irrefutable nature of the gastronomic-cum-querulous precariousness that envelops our investigation, infusing it with a lighthearted appreciation for the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity.
The startling correlation coefficient and statistically significant p-value unearthed in our analysis aptly encapsulate the captivating conundrum at the heart of this research. The unmistakable alignment of the number of food scientists and technologists with the frequency of Google searches for surreptitious activities is akin to a culinary masterpiece—a delectable fusion of unlikely ingredients, leaving the audience entranced by its unexpected harmony.
Our research brings to the forefront the beguiling interconnections that interlace seemingly incongruous fields, challenging us to confront the capricious nature of human interests and the clandestine allure of internet inquiries. As we wade through this unconventional terrain, we are compelled to tease out the fascinating nuances that underpin the amalgamation of savory science and surreptitious queries, beckoning us to embrace the delightful unorthodoxy of our research undertaking.
In the spirit of rigorous inquiry and a desire to uncover the enigmatic threads that bind the savory and the sinister, our discussion of the correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body' embarks on a whimsical quest, one that defies convention and invites us to revel in the playful interplay of incongruous domains.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.
Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.
Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.
Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'
[[ABSTRACT]]
The present study aims to explore the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, a comprehensive analysis was conducted for the period spanning from 2004 to 2022. The startling coefficient of correlation, 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 elicited great curiosity in the research team, leading to an exhaustive investigation of this curious connection. This research brings to light the unexpected relationship between the delectable domain of culinary science and the somewhat disconcerting realm of search engine queries related to clandestine activities. As we delve deeper into the findings, we begin to decipher the whimsical dance between gastronomical expertise and internet inquiries veering into less savory territory. Extraordinary patterns emerge, unveiling a rich, albeit slightly macabre, tapestry that characterizes the juncture of these evidently unrelated fields. The implications of this unusual correlation extend far beyond the confines of academics, beckoning us to consider the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity and behavior.
[[INTRDUCTION]]
In the realm of gastronomic innovation and culinary exploration, the contributions of food scientists and technologists are pivotal in shaping our culinary landscape. These dedicated professionals labor tirelessly to enhance food quality, safety, and flavor, armed with a deep understanding of chemistry, microbiology, and engineering. Their efforts manifest in tantalizing flavors, innovative food processing techniques, and the seamless incorporation of technology into the culinary domain. However, amid this delectable tapestry of culinary creativity, the unexpected convergence of another, more ominous realm emerges - one that beckons us to peer into the curious and enigmatic world of search engine queries related to surreptitious activities.
This study, under the title "The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'", seeks to unravel the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and the seemingly incongruous Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Perhaps, at first glance, this juxtaposition may appear whimsical or inconceivable, but the empirical evidence points to a surprisingly strong association that demands scrutiny.
As researchers, we embark on a journey that traverses the diverse terrains of culinary science and the disquieting domain of clandestine queries, aiming to decipher the whimsical dance between these apparently disparate fields. Our exploration is underpinned by an extensive analysis leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends encompassing a substantial timeframe from 2004 to 2022. The riveting coefficient of correlation, standing at 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01, serve as testament to the gravity and peculiarity of this association.
We beckon the reader to join us in this eccentric and unanticipated exploration, as we unravel the perplexing nuances of this strange amalgamation. As we venture forth into the inner workings of these unexpected correlations, we uncover an intricate tapestry of information that compels us to contemplate the confluence of gastronomical prowess and clandestine curiosity. It is our fervent hope that this research journey will not only illuminate the hidden link between these disparate fields but also offer a whimsical and thought-provoking perspective on the idiosyncrasies of human inquiry and interests.
[[RESULTS]]
The results of the analysis revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.7984393 between the number of food scientists and technologists employed in Arkansas and the frequency of Google searches for the rather disconcerting phrase 'how to hide a body'. This coefficient, along with an r-squared value of 0.6375053, signified a robust relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The p-value of less than 0.01 further emphasized the statistical significance of this unexpected association, prompting the research team to embark on a journey of inquiry into the whimsical interplay between the culinary domain and queries intruding into the realm of clandestine activities.
The scatterplot depicted in Figure 1 visually encapsulates the compelling relationship uncovered through our analysis, showcasing the remarkable alignment of the number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas with the frequency of Google searches for methods of surreptitious disposal. The figure elegantly portrays the unlikely bond between culinary expertise and the evidently more enigmatic facets of human curiosity, inviting contemplation on the idiosyncrasies that underpin this unanticipated correlation.
This astonishing finding not only underscores the prevalence of human curiosity in peculiar realms but also highlights the intricate interconnections that interlace seemingly unrelated fields of inquiry. The implications reverberate beyond the boundaries of our study, prodding us to reflect on the capricious nature of human interests and the unexpected harmonies that unfold between disparate domains. Indeed, the convergence of the savory and the sinister in this context sparks a whimsical dance of conjecture, encouraging us to discern the peculiar melodies woven into the fabric of these seemingly incongruous areas of human inquiry.
-------
Your response should start like this:
[[CONCLUSION]]
ChatGPT:
[[CONCLUSION]]
In conclusion, the findings of this study illuminate the unexpected and rather quirky relationship between the number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas and the frequency of Google searches for 'how to hide a body'. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.7984393, alongside the visually compelling scatterplot, underscores the whimsical convergence of culinary expertise and curious inquiries delving into the clandestine realm. It appears that as food science and technology thrive, so does the public's proclivity for surreptitious pursuits, giving a whole new meaning to the phrase "cooking up trouble."
As we reflect on the implications of this peculiar correlation, it becomes evident that the intersection of these seemingly incongruous fields beckons us to contemplate the capricious nature of human curiosity. One might say that the results leave us with food for thought, albeit of a rather macabre nature.
With these compelling findings laid bare, it is clear that no stone, or in this case, no body, is left unturned in the pursuit of scientific inquiry. It is our firm conviction that this study sheds light on a truly unexpected interplay, one that tantalizes the intellect while leaving us with a dash of bemusement. In light of the enlightening findings, it is our candid recommendation that further research in this particular area might be as unnecessary as an extra dessert after a sumptuous meal - delightful, but perhaps superfluous.
Therefore, we venture to assert that no further investigation is needed to pursue this avenue of exploration, as the correlation between the employment of food scientists and technologists and the inquiries into clandestine activities has been thoroughly and deliciously unraveled.
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.
ChatGPT:
The Journal of Gastronomical Techne and Internet Inquiry
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.
ChatGPT:
The Institute for Culinary Technology and Societal Analysis
Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body' with an abstract of The present study aims to explore the peculiar correlation between the number of food scientists and technologists in the state of Arkansas and Google searches for the phrase 'how to hide a body'. Leveraging data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Google Trends, a comprehensive analysis was conducted for the period spanning from 2004 to 2022. The startling coefficient of correlation, 0.7984393, and the statistically significant p-value of less than 0.01 elicited great curiosity in the research team, leading to an exhaustive investigation of this curious connection. This research brings to light the unexpected relationship between the delectable domain of culinary science and the somewhat disconcerting realm of search engine queries related to clandestine activities. As we delve deeper into the findings, we begin to decipher the whimsical dance between gastronomical expertise and internet inquiries veering into less savory territory. Extraordinary patterns emerge, unveiling a rich, albeit slightly macabre, tapestry that characterizes the juncture of these evidently unrelated fields. The implications of this unusual correlation extend far beyond the confines of academics, beckoning us to consider the idiosyncrasies of human curiosity and behavior.
ChatGPT:
food scientists, technologists, Arkansas, Google searches, 'how to hide a body', correlation, culinary science, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Google Trends, data analysis, search engine queries, clandestine activities, internet inquiries, human behavior
*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.
Discover a new correlation
View all correlations
View all research papers
Report an error
Data details
The number of food scientists and technologists in ArkansasDetailed data title: BLS estimate of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas
Source: Bureau of Larbor Statistics
See what else correlates with The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas
Google searches for 'how to hide a body'
Detailed data title: Relative volume of Google searches for 'how to hide a body' (Worldwide, without quotes)
Source: Google Trends
Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
See what else correlates with Google searches for 'how to hide a body'
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 = 0.6375053 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 63.8% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Google searches for 'how to hide a body') is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas) over the 19 years from 2004 through 2022.
p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 4.2E-5. 0.0000416802413918083400000000
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 0.8 in 0.0042% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 23,992 random variables You don't actually need 23 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. 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.
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 18 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 18 because we have two variables measured over a period of 19 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.
[ 0.54, 0.92 ] 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.
2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas (Laborers) | 50 | 50 | 60 | 60 | 70 | 230 | 240 | 220 | 250 | 380 | 350 | 300 | 140 | 120 | 190 | 240 | 340 | 310 | 240 |
Google searches for 'how to hide a body' (Rel. search volume) | 9.5 | 6.33333 | 6.58333 | 8.25 | 15.75 | 15.5833 | 16.25 | 30.1667 | 51.4167 | 54.0833 | 83 | 70.5833 | 43.6667 | 38.75 | 36.4167 | 41.3333 | 56.5833 | 75.25 | 72.25 |
Why this works
- Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
- Lack of causal connection: There is probably
Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied. - Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple
Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
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([50,50,60,60,70,230,240,220,250,380,350,300,140,120,190,240,340,310,240,])
array_2 = np.array([9.5,6.33333,6.58333,8.25,15.75,15.5833,16.25,30.1667,51.4167,54.0833,83,70.5833,43.6667,38.75,36.4167,41.3333,56.5833,75.25,72.25,])
array_1_name = "The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas"
array_2_name = "Google searches for 'how to hide a body'"
# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)
# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)
Reuseable content
You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.
For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."
When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.
Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.
Download images for these variables:
- High resolution line chart
The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.
If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.
Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape. - High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
- Alternative high resolution line chart
- Scatterplot
- Portable line chart (png)
- Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
- Line chart for only The number of food scientists and technologists in Arkansas
- Line chart for only Google searches for 'how to hide a body'
- AI-generated correlation image
- The spurious research paper: The Ties between Tasty Technology and Troubling Trends: The Relationship between Food Scientists and Google Searches for 'How to Hide a Body'
I'm genuinely thankful for your rating!
Correlation ID: 3437 · Black Variable ID: 16888 · Red Variable ID: 1513