about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,341 · 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 and the second variable is Votes for Libertarian Senators in North Carolina.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As GMO corn grows taller, it's whispering of self-reliance and limited government intervention becomes irresistibly persuasive.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ Steampunk ] prompt: In a sprawling North Carolina field, rows of towering GMO corn command attention. Their vivid green leaves catch the sunlight and sway in the breeze, creating a mesmerizing sight. Amidst the foliage, libertarian senators' votes flutter like fireflies, lending an otherworldly ambience to the scene. The fusion of vibrant nature and enigmatic political ideology results in a captivating visual symphony. 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 and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. 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 2D animation Charcoal Scalar art Steampunk Surrealism
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 and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina, in the following situation: As GMO corn grows taller, it's whispering of self-reliance and limited government intervention becomes irresistibly persuasive.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: Rows of tall, vibrant GMO corn stretch as far as the eye can see in a North Carolina field. The cornstalks sway gently in the breeze, their lush green leaves shimmering in the sunlight. Amongst the dense foliage, small clusters of libertarian senators' votes dance like fireflies, casting a soft glow over the field. The whispers of self-reliance and limited government intervention emanating from the corn seem to enchant the dancing votes, creating a harmonious symphony of nature and political ideology.

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: Rows of tall, vibrant GMO corn stretch as far as the eye can see in a North Carolina field. The cornstalks sway gently in the breeze, their lush green leaves shimmering in the sunlight. Amongst the dense foliage, small clusters of libertarian senators' votes dance like fireflies, casting a soft glow over the field. The whispers of self-reliance and limited government intervention emanating from the corn seem to enchant the dancing votes, creating a harmonious symphony of nature and political ideology. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ Steampunk ] prompt: In a sprawling North Carolina field, rows of towering GMO corn command attention. Their vivid green leaves catch the sunlight and sway in the breeze, creating a mesmerizing sight. Amidst the foliage, libertarian senators' votes flutter like fireflies, lending an otherworldly ambience to the scene. The fusion of vibrant nature and enigmatic political ideology results in a captivating visual symphony.

*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 caused Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina to increase.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Corny Politics: Genetically Modified Corn and Libertarian Votes in North Carolina

The Journal of Agrarian Ethics and Biopolitics

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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Include a pun in the title.

Your research team used data from USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2020.

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]]
Corny Politics: Genetically Modified Corn and Libertarian Votes in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research explores the surprising link between genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, as well as the Harvard Dataverse, our study sheds light on this peculiar relationship. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a strong statistical association between the cultivation of GMO corn and the tendencies of North Carolinian voters to lean toward Libertarian candidates. In this paper, we delve into the cornucopia of possibilities that could explain this connection, from the influence of biotechnology on political ideologies to the potential for a-maize-ing campaign strategies. Our results not only stimulate further research in this field but also provide food for thought on the intricate interplay between agriculture and politics.


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Corny Politics: Genetically Modified Corn and Libertarian Votes in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research explores the surprising link between genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, as well as the Harvard Dataverse, our study sheds light on this peculiar relationship. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a strong statistical association between the cultivation of GMO corn and the tendencies of North Carolinian voters to lean toward Libertarian candidates. In this paper, we delve into the cornucopia of possibilities that could explain this connection, from the influence of biotechnology on political ideologies to the potential for a-maize-ing campaign strategies. Our results not only stimulate further research in this field but also provide food for thought on the intricate interplay between agriculture and politics.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
Introduction

Imagine a world where the future of politics is as uncertain as the ripeness of a genetically modified ear of corn. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that world is North Carolina. Welcome to the land of barbeque, bluegrass, and a-maize-ing political correlations. In this study, we set out to unravel the tangled web of genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in the great state of North Carolina. Yes, you heard it right – we are diving headfirst into the quirky world of corny politics.

Now, at first glance, one might wonder what on earth corn has to do with political affiliations. Is it that North Carolinians are simply passionate about their corn? Or perhaps there's something more cob-fusing going on behind the scenes. Whatever it may be, our research aims to peel back the layers of this conundrum and get to the kernel of the issue.

With our data drawn from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, we've donned our political stethoscopes and agriculture goggles to dive into this peculiar relationship. By crunching the numbers, we uncovered a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a statistical relationship that is as strong as the grip of a farmer on his favorite cob.

So, what's the deal with GMO corn and Libertarian leanings? Are North Carolinians simply attracted to the seeds of change? Could it be that politicians are harnessing the power of cornstalks to cultivate their voter base? Or maybe, just maybe, there's a kernel of truth to the idea that agriculture and politics are more intertwined than we ever corn-ceived.

Join us as we embark on a journey into the heart of North Carolina's political landscape, where the stalks are tall, the ears are full, and the votes are anything but corny. Let's husk this mystery wide open and see what sort of crop we harvest. Stick around, folks – things are about to get corn-troversial.


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. 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 you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Corny Politics: Genetically Modified Corn and Libertarian Votes in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research explores the surprising link between genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, as well as the Harvard Dataverse, our study sheds light on this peculiar relationship. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a strong statistical association between the cultivation of GMO corn and the tendencies of North Carolinian voters to lean toward Libertarian candidates. In this paper, we delve into the cornucopia of possibilities that could explain this connection, from the influence of biotechnology on political ideologies to the potential for a-maize-ing campaign strategies. Our results not only stimulate further research in this field but also provide food for thought on the intricate interplay between agriculture and politics.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
Imagine a world where the future of politics is as uncertain as the ripeness of a genetically modified ear of corn. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that world is North Carolina. Welcome to the land of barbeque, bluegrass, and a-maize-ing political correlations. In this study, we set out to unravel the tangled web of genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in the great state of North Carolina. Yes, you heard it right – we are diving headfirst into the quirky world of corny politics.
Now, at first glance, one might wonder what on earth corn has to do with political affiliations. Is it that North Carolinians are simply passionate about their corn? Or perhaps there's something more cob-fusing going on behind the scenes. Whatever it may be, our research aims to peel back the layers of this conundrum and get to the kernel of the issue.
With our data drawn from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, we've donned our political stethoscopes and agriculture goggles to dive into this peculiar relationship. By crunching the numbers, we uncovered a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a statistical relationship that is as strong as the grip of a farmer on his favorite cob.
So, what's the deal with GMO corn and Libertarian leanings? Are North Carolinians simply attracted to the seeds of change? Could it be that politicians are harnessing the power of cornstalks to cultivate their voter base? Or maybe, just maybe, there's a kernel of truth to the idea that agriculture and politics are more intertwined than we ever corn-ceived.
Join us as we embark on a journey into the heart of North Carolina's political landscape, where the stalks are tall, the ears are full, and the votes are anything but corny. Let's husk this mystery wide open and see what sort of crop we harvest. Stick around, folks – things are about to get corn-troversial.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In the realm of agricultural politics and its associated shenanigans, researchers have delved into various aspects of GMO cultivation and its effects on political inclinations. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive study examining the impact of genetically modified crops on voter behavior, providing insightful analyses that set the stage for our own exploration. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2018) sought to unravel the intricate relationship between biotechnology and political ideologies, laying the groundwork for further investigations into the a-maize-ing world of agricultural influence on governance.

Turning to non-fiction literature, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan offers a thought-provoking perspective on the industrialization of agriculture, prompting contemplation on the societal ramifications of GMO cultivation. Additionally, "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle brings forth compelling discussions on the intersection of food production and government policies, compelling readers to ponder the complex interplay between agricultural practices and political landscapes.

In the realm of fiction, the dystopian novel "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood presents a speculative narrative set in a genetically altered world, sparking imaginative ponderings on the potential implications of biotechnological advancements in shaping political dynamics. Furthermore, Aldous Huxley's timeless masterpiece "Brave New World" perpetuates discussions on a future society shaped by genetic engineering, teasing at the notion of how agriculture and governance may intertwine in unforeseen ways.

In our quest to understand the unexpected connections between genetically modified corn and Libertarian votes in North Carolina, we found ourselves immersing in a peculiar blend of non-traditional research sources. In this unique twist of academic exploration, the authors confess to drawing inspiration from unexpected realms, including the whimsical adventures of "Bob the Builder," imbuing our investigation with a dash of playfulness amidst the scholarly rigors. Additionally, the cartoon antics of "Pinky and the Brain" afforded a lighthearted backdrop to our arduous journey through statistical analyses and agrarian musings.

As we traverse the amusingly entangled landscape of GMO corn and political predilections, it becomes evident that our pursuit of knowledge is seasoned with a healthy dose of whimsy and merriment. With an array of peculiar influences shaping our scholarly endeavors, including fictional narratives and animated capers, we approach our investigation with a nod to the unexpected and the rib-tickling, recognizing that embracing unconventional sources enriches the quirky tapestry of academic inquiry. So, let us venture forth into this cornucopia of curiosities, treading the delightful line between academic pursuit and unbridled amusement. After all, who said unraveling political peculiarities couldn't be a-maize-ing fun?


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse . You used data from 2000 to 2020

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]]
Corny Politics: Genetically Modified Corn and Libertarian Votes in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research explores the surprising link between genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, as well as the Harvard Dataverse, our study sheds light on this peculiar relationship. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a strong statistical association between the cultivation of GMO corn and the tendencies of North Carolinian voters to lean toward Libertarian candidates. In this paper, we delve into the cornucopia of possibilities that could explain this connection, from the influence of biotechnology on political ideologies to the potential for a-maize-ing campaign strategies. Our results not only stimulate further research in this field but also provide food for thought on the intricate interplay between agriculture and politics.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Introduction
Imagine a world where the future of politics is as uncertain as the ripeness of a genetically modified ear of corn. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that world is North Carolina. Welcome to the land of barbeque, bluegrass, and a-maize-ing political correlations. In this study, we set out to unravel the tangled web of genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in the great state of North Carolina. Yes, you heard it right – we are diving headfirst into the quirky world of corny politics.
Now, at first glance, one might wonder what on earth corn has to do with political affiliations. Is it that North Carolinians are simply passionate about their corn? Or perhaps there's something more cob-fusing going on behind the scenes. Whatever it may be, our research aims to peel back the layers of this conundrum and get to the kernel of the issue.
With our data drawn from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, we've donned our political stethoscopes and agriculture goggles to dive into this peculiar relationship. By crunching the numbers, we uncovered a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a statistical relationship that is as strong as the grip of a farmer on his favorite cob.
So, what's the deal with GMO corn and Libertarian leanings? Are North Carolinians simply attracted to the seeds of change? Could it be that politicians are harnessing the power of cornstalks to cultivate their voter base? Or maybe, just maybe, there's a kernel of truth to the idea that agriculture and politics are more intertwined than we ever corn-ceived.
Join us as we embark on a journey into the heart of North Carolina's political landscape, where the stalks are tall, the ears are full, and the votes are anything but corny. Let's husk this mystery wide open and see what sort of crop we harvest. Stick around, folks – things are about to get corn-troversial.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

In this study, we employed a mix of data collection and statistical analysis methods that were as varied as the colors of a cob of rainbow corn. First, we donned our virtual farmer hats and scoured the fields of information across the vast expanse of the internet, with particular focus on the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, as well as the Harvard Dataverse. We sifted through bushels of data from 2000 to 2020, carefully separating the GMO kernels from the non-GMO ones to ensure we had a corn-solid dataset.

To measure the influence of GMO corn on Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina, we adopted a method that was as precise as a perfectly husked ear of corn – the Pearson correlation coefficient. This statistical marvel allowed us to quantify the strength and direction of the relationship between the two variables, giving us an a-maize-ing insight into their connection.

Now, prepare yourselves for a twist – we also ventured into the realm of multivariate analysis, employing regression models that were as complex as a maize maze. By introducing additional factors such as demographic and agricultural data, we aimed to peel back the layers of complexity in North Carolina's political landscape, just like peeling back the layers of a corn cob.

To ensure the robustness of our findings, we performed sensitivity analyses that were as meticulous as plucking every single silk from a corn cob. These analyses examined the impact of different data subsets and modeling approaches, allowing us to confirm the consistency and reliability of our results. We were determined to leave no kernel unturned in our pursuit of uncovering the relationship between GMO corn and Libertarian voting patterns.

In the spirit of scientific transparency, we also conducted rigorous checks for potential confounders and biases that could taint our findings, scrutinizing our data as meticulously as a farmer inspects each individual corn kernel. We were dedicated to shucking away any potential sources of error to ensure that our results were as crisp and fresh as a newly picked ear of GMO corn.

Finally, we applied qualitative analysis techniques to extract insights from the sociopolitical context of North Carolina, contemplating the farmer's perspective as well as the voter's perspective to understand the interplay between agriculture and political ideologies. This qualitative component was as rich and flavorful as a corn chowder, adding depth to our understanding of the corny connection between GMO cultivation and Libertarian predilections.

By combining these diverse and thorough methodologies, we set out to harvest a bountiful yield of knowledge about the peculiar relationship between GMO corn and Libertarian votes in the great State of North Carolina. And now, dear readers, it's time to present the fruits of our labor – the tantalizing findings that are as irresistible as freshly buttered corn on the cob. Get ready to sink your intellectual teeth into some corn-troversial insights!


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse .

For the time period 2000 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9076082, r-squared of 0.8237526, 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]]
Corny Politics: Genetically Modified Corn and Libertarian Votes in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research explores the surprising link between genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, as well as the Harvard Dataverse, our study sheds light on this peculiar relationship. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a strong statistical association between the cultivation of GMO corn and the tendencies of North Carolinian voters to lean toward Libertarian candidates. In this paper, we delve into the cornucopia of possibilities that could explain this connection, from the influence of biotechnology on political ideologies to the potential for a-maize-ing campaign strategies. Our results not only stimulate further research in this field but also provide food for thought on the intricate interplay between agriculture and politics.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Introduction
Imagine a world where the future of politics is as uncertain as the ripeness of a genetically modified ear of corn. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that world is North Carolina. Welcome to the land of barbeque, bluegrass, and a-maize-ing political correlations. In this study, we set out to unravel the tangled web of genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in the great state of North Carolina. Yes, you heard it right – we are diving headfirst into the quirky world of corny politics.
Now, at first glance, one might wonder what on earth corn has to do with political affiliations. Is it that North Carolinians are simply passionate about their corn? Or perhaps there's something more cob-fusing going on behind the scenes. Whatever it may be, our research aims to peel back the layers of this conundrum and get to the kernel of the issue.
With our data drawn from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, we've donned our political stethoscopes and agriculture goggles to dive into this peculiar relationship. By crunching the numbers, we uncovered a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a statistical relationship that is as strong as the grip of a farmer on his favorite cob.
So, what's the deal with GMO corn and Libertarian leanings? Are North Carolinians simply attracted to the seeds of change? Could it be that politicians are harnessing the power of cornstalks to cultivate their voter base? Or maybe, just maybe, there's a kernel of truth to the idea that agriculture and politics are more intertwined than we ever corn-ceived.
Join us as we embark on a journey into the heart of North Carolina's political landscape, where the stalks are tall, the ears are full, and the votes are anything but corny. Let's husk this mystery wide open and see what sort of crop we harvest. Stick around, folks – things are about to get corn-troversial.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The findings of our study reveal a strikingly strong correlation between the use of genetically modified corn (GMO) and the voting patterns of North Carolinians in favor of Libertarian candidates for Senators. From 2000 to 2020, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9076082, an r-squared value of 0.8237526, and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a robust statistical relationship that is as clear as the golden hues of a bountiful cornfield.

Now, if you've been following along, you might be thinking, "What in tarnation does corn have to do with politics?" Well, my dear readers, that's the million-dollar question! It seems that there's more to this cornfield than meets the eye, and it's not just about butter and salt.

Our analysis unearths a scenario that is as corny as it is thought-provoking. One would be forgiven for thinking that the political landscape has become a-maize-ingly entangled with the agricultural terrain. Are North Carolinians truly swayed by the allure of biotechnology, or is there something deeper at play here? If there's one thing we've learned from this research, it's that the world of politics is as unpredictable as the growth patterns of a cob of GMO corn.

To visually depict this intriguing relationship, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot that encapsulates the potent correlation between GMO corn utilization and Libertarian votes in North Carolina. This figure not only serves as a testimony to the statistical significance of our findings but also illustrates the uncanny interconnectedness of crop cultivation and political inclinations.

In conclusion, our results not only provoke contemplation but sow the seeds of curiosity for further exploration. As we harvest the fruits of our labor, we invite you to ponder the implications of this unearthing for the future of agriculture and politics. After all, in the diverse landscape of North Carolina, the convergence of GMO corn and Libertarian votes is a phenomenon that's as ripe for speculation as a freshly plucked ear of corn.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
Corny Politics: Genetically Modified Corn and Libertarian Votes in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research explores the surprising link between genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, as well as the Harvard Dataverse, our study sheds light on this peculiar relationship. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a strong statistical association between the cultivation of GMO corn and the tendencies of North Carolinian voters to lean toward Libertarian candidates. In this paper, we delve into the cornucopia of possibilities that could explain this connection, from the influence of biotechnology on political ideologies to the potential for a-maize-ing campaign strategies. Our results not only stimulate further research in this field but also provide food for thought on the intricate interplay between agriculture and politics.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In the realm of agricultural politics and its associated shenanigans, researchers have delved into various aspects of GMO cultivation and its effects on political inclinations. Smith et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive study examining the impact of genetically modified crops on voter behavior, providing insightful analyses that set the stage for our own exploration. Similarly, Doe and Jones (2018) sought to unravel the intricate relationship between biotechnology and political ideologies, laying the groundwork for further investigations into the a-maize-ing world of agricultural influence on governance.
Turning to non-fiction literature, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan offers a thought-provoking perspective on the industrialization of agriculture, prompting contemplation on the societal ramifications of GMO cultivation. Additionally, "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle brings forth compelling discussions on the intersection of food production and government policies, compelling readers to ponder the complex interplay between agricultural practices and political landscapes.
In the realm of fiction, the dystopian novel "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood presents a speculative narrative set in a genetically altered world, sparking imaginative ponderings on the potential implications of biotechnological advancements in shaping political dynamics. Furthermore, Aldous Huxley's timeless masterpiece "Brave New World" perpetuates discussions on a future society shaped by genetic engineering, teasing at the notion of how agriculture and governance may intertwine in unforeseen ways.
In our quest to understand the unexpected connections between genetically modified corn and Libertarian votes in North Carolina, we found ourselves immersing in a peculiar blend of non-traditional research sources. In this unique twist of academic exploration, the authors confess to drawing inspiration from unexpected realms, including the whimsical adventures of "Bob the Builder," imbuing our investigation with a dash of playfulness amidst the scholarly rigors. Additionally, the cartoon antics of "Pinky and the Brain" afforded a lighthearted backdrop to our arduous journey through statistical analyses and agrarian musings.
As we traverse the amusingly entangled landscape of GMO corn and political predilections, it becomes evident that our pursuit of knowledge is seasoned with a healthy dose of whimsy and merriment. With an array of peculiar influences shaping our scholarly endeavors, including fictional narratives and animated capers, we approach our investigation with a nod to the unexpected and the rib-tickling, recognizing that embracing unconventional sources enriches the quirky tapestry of academic inquiry. So, let us venture forth into this cornucopia of curiosities, treading the delightful line between academic pursuit and unbridled amusement. After all, who said unraveling political peculiarities couldn't be a-maize-ing fun?

[[RESULTS]]
The findings of our study reveal a strikingly strong correlation between the use of genetically modified corn (GMO) and the voting patterns of North Carolinians in favor of Libertarian candidates for Senators. From 2000 to 2020, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9076082, an r-squared value of 0.8237526, and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a robust statistical relationship that is as clear as the golden hues of a bountiful cornfield.
Now, if you've been following along, you might be thinking, "What in tarnation does corn have to do with politics?" Well, my dear readers, that's the million-dollar question! It seems that there's more to this cornfield than meets the eye, and it's not just about butter and salt.
Our analysis unearths a scenario that is as corny as it is thought-provoking. One would be forgiven for thinking that the political landscape has become a-maize-ingly entangled with the agricultural terrain. Are North Carolinians truly swayed by the allure of biotechnology, or is there something deeper at play here? If there's one thing we've learned from this research, it's that the world of politics is as unpredictable as the growth patterns of a cob of GMO corn.
To visually depict this intriguing relationship, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot that encapsulates the potent correlation between GMO corn utilization and Libertarian votes in North Carolina. This figure not only serves as a testimony to the statistical significance of our findings but also illustrates the uncanny interconnectedness of crop cultivation and political inclinations.
In conclusion, our results not only provoke contemplation but sow the seeds of curiosity for further exploration. As we harvest the fruits of our labor, we invite you to ponder the implications of this unearthing for the future of agriculture and politics. After all, in the diverse landscape of North Carolina, the convergence of GMO corn and Libertarian votes is a phenomenon that's as ripe for speculation as a freshly plucked ear of corn.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Now, let's husk through the kernels of truth that we've gleaned from our study. Our findings, which unearthed a positively corntastic correlation between GMO corn cultivation and Libertarian votes in North Carolina, align tantalizingly with prior research. The work of Smith et al. (2015) sowed the seeds of curiosity with their exploration of genetically modified crops' influence on voter behavior. Our results not only validate their findings but also add a dash of buttery richness to the biotechnological-political tapestry.

Remember our lighthearted nod to the influence of unconventional sources in our literature review? Well, it turns out that even "Pinky and the Brain" may have unwittingly prophesied the corny entwinement of agriculture and governance. Who would have thought that amidst their capers, they were secretly hinting at the profound impact of GMO corn on political proclivities?

As we reflect on our study’s results, we can’t help but crack a kernel of pun-derful amusement. The statistical correlation we've uncovered is as surprising as finding a lone popcorn kernel in the bottom of the bowl - it's unexpected and might just make you rethink your snacking habits. But jests aside, our findings raise captivating questions about the intricate web of factors influencing voter decision-making. Are North Carolinians subconsciously drawn to the allure of genetically modified marvels, or is there a deeper, root-bound rationale for their political leanings?

Figure 1, the visual encapsulation of our tantalizing findings, acts as a cornucopia of food for thought. Its striking illustration of the potent relationship between GMO corn utilization and Libertarian votes in North Carolina is enough to make even the most ardent skeptic exclaim, "Well, butter my cornbread!"

As we mull over this curious melding of corn and politics, we are left with an unshakable appreciation for the unruly, unpredictable nature of our political landscape. Our study not only cultivates curiosity but also plants the kernels of inquiry that may yield a bountiful harvest of future research avenues.

Now, dear reader, the stage is set for a-maize-ing future investigations into the surprisingly savory connection between genetically modified corn and political predilections. So, grab your cob pipe and let's delve deeper into this captivating agricultural-political maze.

Stay tuned for the next installment where we attempt to unscramble the mystery of GMO tomatoes and their impact on political party affiliations. Until then, don't lose sight of the cornfield for the ears!


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in corn and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
Corny Politics: Genetically Modified Corn and Libertarian Votes in North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
This groundbreaking research explores the surprising link between genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, as well as the Harvard Dataverse, our study sheds light on this peculiar relationship. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a strong statistical association between the cultivation of GMO corn and the tendencies of North Carolinian voters to lean toward Libertarian candidates. In this paper, we delve into the cornucopia of possibilities that could explain this connection, from the influence of biotechnology on political ideologies to the potential for a-maize-ing campaign strategies. Our results not only stimulate further research in this field but also provide food for thought on the intricate interplay between agriculture and politics.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Introduction
Imagine a world where the future of politics is as uncertain as the ripeness of a genetically modified ear of corn. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that world is North Carolina. Welcome to the land of barbeque, bluegrass, and a-maize-ing political correlations. In this study, we set out to unravel the tangled web of genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in the great state of North Carolina. Yes, you heard it right – we are diving headfirst into the quirky world of corny politics.
Now, at first glance, one might wonder what on earth corn has to do with political affiliations. Is it that North Carolinians are simply passionate about their corn? Or perhaps there's something more cob-fusing going on behind the scenes. Whatever it may be, our research aims to peel back the layers of this conundrum and get to the kernel of the issue.
With our data drawn from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), MIT Election Data and Science Lab, and the Harvard Dataverse, we've donned our political stethoscopes and agriculture goggles to dive into this peculiar relationship. By crunching the numbers, we uncovered a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and a p-value of less than 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a statistical relationship that is as strong as the grip of a farmer on his favorite cob.
So, what's the deal with GMO corn and Libertarian leanings? Are North Carolinians simply attracted to the seeds of change? Could it be that politicians are harnessing the power of cornstalks to cultivate their voter base? Or maybe, just maybe, there's a kernel of truth to the idea that agriculture and politics are more intertwined than we ever corn-ceived.
Join us as we embark on a journey into the heart of North Carolina's political landscape, where the stalks are tall, the ears are full, and the votes are anything but corny. Let's husk this mystery wide open and see what sort of crop we harvest. Stick around, folks – things are about to get corn-troversial.

[[RESULTS]]
The findings of our study reveal a strikingly strong correlation between the use of genetically modified corn (GMO) and the voting patterns of North Carolinians in favor of Libertarian candidates for Senators. From 2000 to 2020, we found a correlation coefficient of 0.9076082, an r-squared value of 0.8237526, and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a robust statistical relationship that is as clear as the golden hues of a bountiful cornfield.
Now, if you've been following along, you might be thinking, "What in tarnation does corn have to do with politics?" Well, my dear readers, that's the million-dollar question! It seems that there's more to this cornfield than meets the eye, and it's not just about butter and salt.
Our analysis unearths a scenario that is as corny as it is thought-provoking. One would be forgiven for thinking that the political landscape has become a-maize-ingly entangled with the agricultural terrain. Are North Carolinians truly swayed by the allure of biotechnology, or is there something deeper at play here? If there's one thing we've learned from this research, it's that the world of politics is as unpredictable as the growth patterns of a cob of GMO corn.
To visually depict this intriguing relationship, we present Figure 1, a scatterplot that encapsulates the potent correlation between GMO corn utilization and Libertarian votes in North Carolina. This figure not only serves as a testimony to the statistical significance of our findings but also illustrates the uncanny interconnectedness of crop cultivation and political inclinations.
In conclusion, our results not only provoke contemplation but sow the seeds of curiosity for further exploration. As we harvest the fruits of our labor, we invite you to ponder the implications of this unearthing for the future of agriculture and politics. After all, in the diverse landscape of North Carolina, the convergence of GMO corn and Libertarian votes is a phenomenon that's as ripe for speculation as a freshly plucked ear of corn.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In the wacky world of politics, the corny connection between genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes in North Carolina has left us in a-MAIZE-ment. The statistically robust relationship we've uncovered is as clear as day, shining brighter than a cornfield under a midsummer sun. It seems that North Carolinians have taken a liking to the GMO-candidate, opting for a-maize-ing distributions of their votes.

Our findings have certainly turned the tables, showing that the influence of biotechnology extends beyond the realms of agriculture. It appears that the seeds of political change may be sown right into the GMO cornfields, engaging voters in ways we never KERN-ceived. Perhaps it's high time we start reassessing our political strategies and start using more corny jokes to appeal to the electorate.

As tempting as it may be to crack a few corny puns, our results inspire serious contemplation. The intertwining of agriculture and politics in the Tar Heel State is as surprising as finding a whole cob in your popcorn. Who knew that the political terrain is as rich and varied as the soil that nurtures it?

Ladies and gentlemen, the curtain falls on this study, and we bid adieu to the GMO-Libertarian tango. It's now crystal clear that no more research is needed in this area. We've peeled back the layers of this conundrum, and the verdict is as solid as a cob - the connection between GMO use in corn and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina is as strong and undeniable as the crunch of an ear of freshly harvested corn. It's time for us to let this kernel of knowledge sow its own seeds and explore other uncharted research pastures. After all, in the wild world of science, there's always a new seed waiting to sprout.


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 Corny Politics: Genetically Modified Corn and Libertarian Votes in North Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Agrarian Ethics and Biopolitics


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 Corny Politics: Genetically Modified Corn and Libertarian Votes in North Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Agricultural Policy and Bioethics


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 Corny Politics: Genetically Modified Corn and Libertarian Votes in North Carolina with an abstract of This groundbreaking research explores the surprising link between genetically modified corn (GMO) and Libertarian votes for Senators in North Carolina. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, as well as the Harvard Dataverse, our study sheds light on this peculiar relationship. Our findings reveal a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9076082 and p < 0.01 for the years 2000 to 2020, indicating a strong statistical association between the cultivation of GMO corn and the tendencies of North Carolinian voters to lean toward Libertarian candidates. In this paper, we delve into the cornucopia of possibilities that could explain this connection, from the influence of biotechnology on political ideologies to the potential for a-maize-ing campaign strategies. Our results not only stimulate further research in this field but also provide food for thought on the intricate interplay between agriculture and politics.

ChatGPT:

genetically modified corn, North Carolina, Libertarian votes, USDA, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, correlation coefficient, political ideologies, biotechnology, agriculture, politics

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

Votes for Libertarian Senators in North Carolina
Detailed data title: Percentage of votes cast for Federal Libertarian Senate candidates in North Carolina
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for Libertarian Senators in North Carolina

Correlation r = 0.9076082 (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 = 0.8237526 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 82.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for Libertarian Senators in North Carolina) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in corn) over the 7 years from 2000 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0047. 0.0047391047971296540000000000
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 0.91 in 0.47% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 211 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 6 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 6 because we have two variables measured over a period of 7 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.

[ 0.49, 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.
2002200420082010201420162020
GMO use in corn (GMO corn %)264047767679
Votes for Libertarian Senators in North Carolina (Percentage of votes)1.450211.375053.123382.093433.742353.572533.13374




Why this works

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




Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([2,6,40,47,76,76,79,])
array_2 = np.array([1.45021,1.37505,3.12338,2.09343,3.74235,3.57253,3.13374,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in corn"
array_2_name = "Votes for Libertarian Senators in North Carolina"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your dedication to rating warms my heart!


Correlation ID: 4341 · Black Variable ID: 752 · Red Variable ID: 26438
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0