about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,597 · 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 cotton and the second variable is Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota.  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 use in cotton decreased, it led to a shortage of cotton candy. This shortage upset the voters in South Dakota, who were looking forward to enjoying cotton candy at local fairs and events. As a result, their dissatisfaction with the lack of this sweet treat caused a shift in political support away from the Democrat Presidential candidate. Remember, you can always count on cotton candy for a politically sweet outcome!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a charming fairground scene, teeming with activity. Picture a sunny day at a bustling South Dakota fairground with adorable graphics. In the foreground, a vibrant field of cotton plants stretches out, some marked with signs proudly declaring them as non-GMO cotton. A delightful cotton candy stand, adorned with cheerful colors, draws the attention of disappointed fairgoers, as a sign reading "Out of Cotton Candy" hangs prominently. Within the crowd, a group of people can be seen murmuring in frustration while waving banners adorned with the Democratic Party's logo. The scene captures the interplay between GMO use in cotton and the votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota due to the shortage of cotton candy. 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 cotton and Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota. 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: Cutsy graphics An image that looks like it is a scene from a Pixar movie Woodblock painting a Polaroid photo Low poly
ChatGPT: Cutesy graphics

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 cotton and Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota, in the following situation: As GMO use in cotton decreased, it led to a shortage of cotton candy. This shortage upset the voters in South Dakota, who were looking forward to enjoying cotton candy at local fairs and events. As a result, their dissatisfaction with the lack of this sweet treat caused a shift in political support away from the Democrat Presidential candidate. Remember, you can always count on cotton candy for a politically sweet outcome!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: Picture a bustling South Dakota fairground filled with excited visitors. On one side, a field of cotton plants stretches out, some marked with signs declaring them as non-GMO cotton. Nearby, a cotton candy stand sits empty, with a sign reading "Out of Cotton Candy" much to the disappointment of fairgoers. Amidst the crowd, a group of people murmur in frustration, while waving banners with the Democratic Party's logo. This visual scene represents the interplay between GMO use in cotton and the votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota due to the shortage of cotton candy.

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: [ Cutesy graphics ] and depicting this scene: Picture a bustling South Dakota fairground filled with excited visitors. On one side, a field of cotton plants stretches out, some marked with signs declaring them as non-GMO cotton. Nearby, a cotton candy stand sits empty, with a sign reading "Out of Cotton Candy" much to the disappointment of fairgoers. Amidst the crowd, a group of people murmur in frustration, while waving banners with the Democratic Party's logo. This visual scene represents the interplay between GMO use in cotton and the votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota due to the shortage of cotton candy. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a charming fairground scene, teeming with activity. Picture a sunny day at a bustling South Dakota fairground with adorable graphics. In the foreground, a vibrant field of cotton plants stretches out, some marked with signs proudly declaring them as non-GMO cotton. A delightful cotton candy stand, adorned with cheerful colors, draws the attention of disappointed fairgoers, as a sign reading "Out of Cotton Candy" hangs prominently. Within the crowd, a group of people can be seen murmuring in frustration while waving banners adorned with the Democratic Party's logo. The scene captures the interplay between GMO use in cotton and the votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota due to the shortage of cotton candy.

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

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

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how a decrease in GMO use in cotton caused Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in South Dakota to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.05)
The Genetically Modified Gaffe: GMO Cotton and the Grand Democratic Votes in South Dakota

The Journal of Agricultural Absurdities

Jan 2024

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




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

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in South Dakota. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title an alliteration.

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 0.8607477 and p < 0.05 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]]
The Genetically Modified Gaffe: GMO Cotton and the Grand Democratic Votes in South Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the curious connection between the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have undertaken a rigorous statistical analysis to scrutinize this perplexing relationship. Our findings reveal a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8607477 and a startling p-value of less than 0.05 for the time span from 2000 to 2020.

As we delved into the data, we couldn't help but notice that the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes seemed to be "seeding" quite a strong and statistically significant correlation. But remember, correlation does not imply causation - a crucial disclaimer that should always "seed" itself in discussions of statistical analyses.

Upon further investigation, it became evident that the presence of GMO cotton cultivation in South Dakota was associated with a noticeable surge in votes for the Democratic presidential candidate. The question "What's up, doc?" comes to mind as we ponder the potential drivers behind this unexpected association. Now, we don't want to "GMO-nize" the seriousness of our findings, but the link between GMO cotton and Democratic votes certainly bears closer examination.

In conclusion, our study sheds light on the curious correlation between the use of GMO cotton and votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. As we continue to "thread" through the fabric of statistical analysis and agricultural practices, it is crucial to exercise caution in interpreting such correlations, remembering the age-old adage: "Struggling with statistics is like hugging a cactus. It's about planting seeds of knowledge, but it can be quite pricky."


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

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in South Dakota. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Genetically Modified Gaffe: GMO Cotton and the Grand Democratic Votes in South Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the curious connection between the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have undertaken a rigorous statistical analysis to scrutinize this perplexing relationship. Our findings reveal a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8607477 and a startling p-value of less than 0.05 for the time span from 2000 to 2020.

As we delved into the data, we couldn't help but notice that the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes seemed to be "seeding" quite a strong and statistically significant correlation. But remember, correlation does not imply causation - a crucial disclaimer that should always "seed" itself in discussions of statistical analyses.

Upon further investigation, it became evident that the presence of GMO cotton cultivation in South Dakota was associated with a noticeable surge in votes for the Democratic presidential candidate. The question "What's up, doc?" comes to mind as we ponder the potential drivers behind this unexpected association. Now, we don't want to "GMO-nize" the seriousness of our findings, but the link between GMO cotton and Democratic votes certainly bears closer examination.

In conclusion, our study sheds light on the curious correlation between the use of GMO cotton and votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. As we continue to "thread" through the fabric of statistical analysis and agricultural practices, it is crucial to exercise caution in interpreting such correlations, remembering the age-old adage: "Struggling with statistics is like hugging a cactus. It's about planting seeds of knowledge, but it can be quite pricky."

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

The relationship between agricultural practices and political outcomes has long been of interest to researchers and policymakers alike. In particular, the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) crops has been a topic of heated debate and scrutiny. Our study focuses on the intricate interplay between the cultivation of GMO cotton and the electoral behavior in the state of South Dakota, specifically in relation to votes for the Democratic presidential candidate.

As we dig deeper into this curious connection, we can't help but marvel at the peculiarity of our findings. But let's not "cotton" to hasty conclusions just yet - a hearty dose of statistical analysis and methodical investigation is required to fully unravel this enigmatic relationship. Speaking of cotton, did you hear about the cotton farmer who won an award? He was really good at producing an "a-maize-ing" crop!

It is well established that correlation does not imply causation, a principle particularly relevant when examining the association between GMO cotton and Democratic votes in South Dakota. Nevertheless, the robustness of the statistical relationship we have uncovered warrants a closer examination, prompting us to "thread" through the fabric of agricultural and political dynamics in the state. After all, understanding this correlation is "sew" important for both the agricultural and political landscapes in South Dakota.

The context of South Dakota further adds intrigue to our investigation. Known for its vast agricultural lands and its history of political shifts, the state offers an emblematic backdrop for studying the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes. It is as if the agricultural field and the electoral field are engaged in a complex dance, akin to a "cotton-picking" conundrum that warrants unraveling.

As we unravel this captivating correlation, it becomes evident that the influence of GMO cotton cultivation reaches into the political realm, perhaps sowing the seeds of change in voter behavior. This unexpected association prompts us to ask: What are the underlying drivers of this intriguing pattern? This question lingers in the air, much like a wispy tuft of cotton carried by the wind – an enigma that demands unraveling.

In the following sections of this paper, we delve into the empirical analysis that underpins our findings. By scrutinizing the data with meticulous detail and sound statistical methods, we aim to provide a robust and insightful exploration of the connection between GMO cotton use and Democratic votes in South Dakota. In doing so, we endeavor to contribute to the burgeoning literature at the intersection of agriculture, politics, and statistics, illuminating a thread of inquiry that is as complex as it is captivating. After all, as statisticians, it's our duty to be "punny" when duty "calls" for it!


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

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in South Dakota. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 cite some social media posts you read that seem to be related.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Genetically Modified Gaffe: GMO Cotton and the Grand Democratic Votes in South Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the curious connection between the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have undertaken a rigorous statistical analysis to scrutinize this perplexing relationship. Our findings reveal a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8607477 and a startling p-value of less than 0.05 for the time span from 2000 to 2020.

As we delved into the data, we couldn't help but notice that the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes seemed to be "seeding" quite a strong and statistically significant correlation. But remember, correlation does not imply causation - a crucial disclaimer that should always "seed" itself in discussions of statistical analyses.

Upon further investigation, it became evident that the presence of GMO cotton cultivation in South Dakota was associated with a noticeable surge in votes for the Democratic presidential candidate. The question "What's up, doc?" comes to mind as we ponder the potential drivers behind this unexpected association. Now, we don't want to "GMO-nize" the seriousness of our findings, but the link between GMO cotton and Democratic votes certainly bears closer examination.

In conclusion, our study sheds light on the curious correlation between the use of GMO cotton and votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. As we continue to "thread" through the fabric of statistical analysis and agricultural practices, it is crucial to exercise caution in interpreting such correlations, remembering the age-old adage: "Struggling with statistics is like hugging a cactus. It's about planting seeds of knowledge, but it can be quite pricky."

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between agricultural practices and political outcomes has long been of interest to researchers and policymakers alike. In particular, the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) crops has been a topic of heated debate and scrutiny. Our study focuses on the intricate interplay between the cultivation of GMO cotton and the electoral behavior in the state of South Dakota, specifically in relation to votes for the Democratic presidential candidate.
As we dig deeper into this curious connection, we can't help but marvel at the peculiarity of our findings. But let's not "cotton" to hasty conclusions just yet - a hearty dose of statistical analysis and methodical investigation is required to fully unravel this enigmatic relationship. Speaking of cotton, did you hear about the cotton farmer who won an award? He was really good at producing an "a-maize-ing" crop!
It is well established that correlation does not imply causation, a principle particularly relevant when examining the association between GMO cotton and Democratic votes in South Dakota. Nevertheless, the robustness of the statistical relationship we have uncovered warrants a closer examination, prompting us to "thread" through the fabric of agricultural and political dynamics in the state. After all, understanding this correlation is "sew" important for both the agricultural and political landscapes in South Dakota.
The context of South Dakota further adds intrigue to our investigation. Known for its vast agricultural lands and its history of political shifts, the state offers an emblematic backdrop for studying the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes. It is as if the agricultural field and the electoral field are engaged in a complex dance, akin to a "cotton-picking" conundrum that warrants unraveling.
As we unravel this captivating correlation, it becomes evident that the influence of GMO cotton cultivation reaches into the political realm, perhaps sowing the seeds of change in voter behavior. This unexpected association prompts us to ask: What are the underlying drivers of this intriguing pattern? This question lingers in the air, much like a wispy tuft of cotton carried by the wind – an enigma that demands unraveling.
In the following sections of this paper, we delve into the empirical analysis that underpins our findings. By scrutinizing the data with meticulous detail and sound statistical methods, we aim to provide a robust and insightful exploration of the connection between GMO cotton use and Democratic votes in South Dakota. In doing so, we endeavor to contribute to the burgeoning literature at the intersection of agriculture, politics, and statistics, illuminating a thread of inquiry that is as complex as it is captivating. After all, as statisticians, it's our duty to be "punny" when duty "calls" for it!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "Smith et al.," the authors find that the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton has become increasingly prevalent in the agricultural landscape, particularly in regions with favorable climate and soil conditions. The adoption of GMO cotton has been touted for its potential to increase crop yield and reduce the need for chemical pesticides, making it an attractive option for many cotton producers. Speaking of attractiveness, did you hear about the GMO cotton that tried to win a beauty contest? It was "unbe-leaf-ably" smooth!

As we transition to the electoral landscape, "Doe et al." highlight the dynamics of political voting patterns in the state of South Dakota. The historical predominance of conservative ideologies in the state has provided a unique backdrop for analyzing the impact of agricultural practices on voter behavior. However, the recent surge in Democratic votes has raised eyebrows and piqued curiosity, much like a scientist examining an unexpected result. It's like the cotton and the voters are engaged in a "ballot ballet" of their own!

Venturing into the realm of non-fiction literature, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan sheds light on the complexities of modern agriculture and its ramifications on societal and political domains. Pollan's exploration of genetically modified crops and their influence on the food industry offers a nuanced perspective that resonates with our inquiry. Additionally, "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis offers a fascinating account of unlikely correlations and their far-reaching implications, serving as a reminder of the intricate interplay between seemingly disparate phenomena - much like the unexpected relationship we are probing in this study.

Turning to the realm of fiction, works such as "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair and "Sowing" by Angie Grigaliunas bring to life the agricultural landscape and its intersection with societal dynamics. While these literary works may not offer direct empirical insights, they provide a compelling backdrop for contemplating the multifaceted nature of agricultural practices and their potential influence on broader societal structures.

In the digital domain, a social media post by a concerned citizen in South Dakota captures the essence of the GMO cotton and Democratic votes discourse, stating, "Are we witnessing a 'blue wave' or a 'green revolution' in our state? The correlation seems as enigmatic as a 'cotton candy' cloud in the political sky!" This intriguing comparison encapsulates the prevailing perplexity surrounding the correlation we seek to unravel - it's a riddle as confounding as a cotton candy cloud!

As we navigate through this matrix of agricultural genetics, electoral dynamics, and statistical scrutiny, we are reminded of the words of wisdom from a statistical sage: "When in doubt, follow the 'thread' of curiosity and let it 'weave' its magic in unraveling unexpected correlations." It's like a thread you can't resist pulling - you never know what knotty correlation might unravel next!


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

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in South Dakota. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and 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]]
The Genetically Modified Gaffe: GMO Cotton and the Grand Democratic Votes in South Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the curious connection between the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have undertaken a rigorous statistical analysis to scrutinize this perplexing relationship. Our findings reveal a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8607477 and a startling p-value of less than 0.05 for the time span from 2000 to 2020.

As we delved into the data, we couldn't help but notice that the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes seemed to be "seeding" quite a strong and statistically significant correlation. But remember, correlation does not imply causation - a crucial disclaimer that should always "seed" itself in discussions of statistical analyses.

Upon further investigation, it became evident that the presence of GMO cotton cultivation in South Dakota was associated with a noticeable surge in votes for the Democratic presidential candidate. The question "What's up, doc?" comes to mind as we ponder the potential drivers behind this unexpected association. Now, we don't want to "GMO-nize" the seriousness of our findings, but the link between GMO cotton and Democratic votes certainly bears closer examination.

In conclusion, our study sheds light on the curious correlation between the use of GMO cotton and votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. As we continue to "thread" through the fabric of statistical analysis and agricultural practices, it is crucial to exercise caution in interpreting such correlations, remembering the age-old adage: "Struggling with statistics is like hugging a cactus. It's about planting seeds of knowledge, but it can be quite pricky."

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The relationship between agricultural practices and political outcomes has long been of interest to researchers and policymakers alike. In particular, the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) crops has been a topic of heated debate and scrutiny. Our study focuses on the intricate interplay between the cultivation of GMO cotton and the electoral behavior in the state of South Dakota, specifically in relation to votes for the Democratic presidential candidate.
As we dig deeper into this curious connection, we can't help but marvel at the peculiarity of our findings. But let's not "cotton" to hasty conclusions just yet - a hearty dose of statistical analysis and methodical investigation is required to fully unravel this enigmatic relationship. Speaking of cotton, did you hear about the cotton farmer who won an award? He was really good at producing an "a-maize-ing" crop!
It is well established that correlation does not imply causation, a principle particularly relevant when examining the association between GMO cotton and Democratic votes in South Dakota. Nevertheless, the robustness of the statistical relationship we have uncovered warrants a closer examination, prompting us to "thread" through the fabric of agricultural and political dynamics in the state. After all, understanding this correlation is "sew" important for both the agricultural and political landscapes in South Dakota.
The context of South Dakota further adds intrigue to our investigation. Known for its vast agricultural lands and its history of political shifts, the state offers an emblematic backdrop for studying the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes. It is as if the agricultural field and the electoral field are engaged in a complex dance, akin to a "cotton-picking" conundrum that warrants unraveling.
As we unravel this captivating correlation, it becomes evident that the influence of GMO cotton cultivation reaches into the political realm, perhaps sowing the seeds of change in voter behavior. This unexpected association prompts us to ask: What are the underlying drivers of this intriguing pattern? This question lingers in the air, much like a wispy tuft of cotton carried by the wind – an enigma that demands unraveling.
In the following sections of this paper, we delve into the empirical analysis that underpins our findings. By scrutinizing the data with meticulous detail and sound statistical methods, we aim to provide a robust and insightful exploration of the connection between GMO cotton use and Democratic votes in South Dakota. In doing so, we endeavor to contribute to the burgeoning literature at the intersection of agriculture, politics, and statistics, illuminating a thread of inquiry that is as complex as it is captivating. After all, as statisticians, it's our duty to be "punny" when duty "calls" for it!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Our research team embarked on a meticulous and "genetically modified" methodology to investigate the perplexing relationship between the use of GMO cotton and votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. We aggregated data from various sources, including the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, resulting in a comprehensive dataset spanning the years 2000 to 2020. Our study employed a combination of statistical techniques, leveraging robust econometric models to explore the tangled web of factors underlying this unexpected association.

To begin our analysis, we "planted the seeds" of our investigation by collecting detailed information on the cultivation of GMO cotton across different regions of South Dakota. We then carefully cross-pollinated this agricultural data with electoral records to discern patterns and fluctuations in Democratic votes over the two-decade period. Our methodological approach utilized a "bushel" of statistical tools, including regression analysis, propensity score matching, and sensitivity testing, to ensure the reliability and validity of our findings.

In the spirit of thorough investigation, we "branched out" to consider potential confounding variables that could influence both the adoption of GMO cotton and voting behavior. Through a series of robustness checks and sensitivity analyses, we endeavored to untangle the "roots" of any spurious correlations, ensuring that our conclusions were firmly grounded in sound empirical analysis. After all, we wouldn't want our results to be as "flimsy as a cotton candy statistic"!

Our methodology also embraced the use of geographic information systems (GIS) to visualize the spatial distribution of GMO cotton cultivation and electoral patterns across different counties in South Dakota. By overlaying these spatial layers, we sought to glean insights into the localized impact of GMO cotton on Democratic votes, presenting a "plot twist" that illuminated the nuanced interplay between agricultural practices and political preferences.

In the spirit of transparency and openness, we "unfurled" our methodological approach to incorporate robustness checks and sensitivity analyses, ensuring that our findings stood firm against potential methodological challenges. We also conducted "pollination" tests to check for potential biases and data limitations, ensuring that our results were not tainted by unforeseen factors. Remember, in the world of statistics, thoroughness is key – much like a diligent gardener, we tended to every "statistical seedling" with care.

As we embarked on this statistical "cross-breeding" of agricultural and political data, we oscillated between the "fields" of statistical analysis and agricultural economics, sowing the seeds of knowledge in an effort to unravel the tangled "cotton thread" that connects GMO cultivation to voting behavior. Our methodology aimed to "harvest" a rich understanding of this dynamic relationship, "cultivating" nuanced insights that serve to enrich the scholarly discourse on the intersection of agriculture and political dynamics.


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

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in South Dakota. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

For the time period 2000 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.8607477, r-squared of 0.7408866, and p < 0.05.

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 Genetically Modified Gaffe: GMO Cotton and the Grand Democratic Votes in South Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the curious connection between the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have undertaken a rigorous statistical analysis to scrutinize this perplexing relationship. Our findings reveal a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8607477 and a startling p-value of less than 0.05 for the time span from 2000 to 2020.

As we delved into the data, we couldn't help but notice that the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes seemed to be "seeding" quite a strong and statistically significant correlation. But remember, correlation does not imply causation - a crucial disclaimer that should always "seed" itself in discussions of statistical analyses.

Upon further investigation, it became evident that the presence of GMO cotton cultivation in South Dakota was associated with a noticeable surge in votes for the Democratic presidential candidate. The question "What's up, doc?" comes to mind as we ponder the potential drivers behind this unexpected association. Now, we don't want to "GMO-nize" the seriousness of our findings, but the link between GMO cotton and Democratic votes certainly bears closer examination.

In conclusion, our study sheds light on the curious correlation between the use of GMO cotton and votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. As we continue to "thread" through the fabric of statistical analysis and agricultural practices, it is crucial to exercise caution in interpreting such correlations, remembering the age-old adage: "Struggling with statistics is like hugging a cactus. It's about planting seeds of knowledge, but it can be quite pricky."

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The relationship between agricultural practices and political outcomes has long been of interest to researchers and policymakers alike. In particular, the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) crops has been a topic of heated debate and scrutiny. Our study focuses on the intricate interplay between the cultivation of GMO cotton and the electoral behavior in the state of South Dakota, specifically in relation to votes for the Democratic presidential candidate.
As we dig deeper into this curious connection, we can't help but marvel at the peculiarity of our findings. But let's not "cotton" to hasty conclusions just yet - a hearty dose of statistical analysis and methodical investigation is required to fully unravel this enigmatic relationship. Speaking of cotton, did you hear about the cotton farmer who won an award? He was really good at producing an "a-maize-ing" crop!
It is well established that correlation does not imply causation, a principle particularly relevant when examining the association between GMO cotton and Democratic votes in South Dakota. Nevertheless, the robustness of the statistical relationship we have uncovered warrants a closer examination, prompting us to "thread" through the fabric of agricultural and political dynamics in the state. After all, understanding this correlation is "sew" important for both the agricultural and political landscapes in South Dakota.
The context of South Dakota further adds intrigue to our investigation. Known for its vast agricultural lands and its history of political shifts, the state offers an emblematic backdrop for studying the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes. It is as if the agricultural field and the electoral field are engaged in a complex dance, akin to a "cotton-picking" conundrum that warrants unraveling.
As we unravel this captivating correlation, it becomes evident that the influence of GMO cotton cultivation reaches into the political realm, perhaps sowing the seeds of change in voter behavior. This unexpected association prompts us to ask: What are the underlying drivers of this intriguing pattern? This question lingers in the air, much like a wispy tuft of cotton carried by the wind – an enigma that demands unraveling.
In the following sections of this paper, we delve into the empirical analysis that underpins our findings. By scrutinizing the data with meticulous detail and sound statistical methods, we aim to provide a robust and insightful exploration of the connection between GMO cotton use and Democratic votes in South Dakota. In doing so, we endeavor to contribute to the burgeoning literature at the intersection of agriculture, politics, and statistics, illuminating a thread of inquiry that is as complex as it is captivating. After all, as statisticians, it's our duty to be "punny" when duty "calls" for it!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The analysis of the relationship between the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota from 2000 to 2020 yielded compelling results. Our examination revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8607477, indicating a significant positive association between the two variables. Perhaps this correlation is as strong as the fabric woven from GMO cotton itself.

The r-squared value of 0.7408866 suggests that approximately 74.09% of the variation in Democratic votes in South Dakota can be explained by the presence of GMO cotton cultivation. The remaining 25.91% of the variability may be attributed to other factors at play, much like a patchwork quilt comprised of various political dynamics.

Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.05 provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis, bolstering the inference that the correlation is unlikely to have occurred by chance. This statistical significance is as clear as a well-pressed cotton shirt!

Notably, our findings are encapsulated in the scatterplot depicted in Figure 1. The scatterplot visually encapsulates the robust positive relationship between the prevalence of GMO cotton cultivation and higher votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. It's almost as if the data points were sewn together in a pattern that mirrors the correlation coefficient we observed.


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

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in South Dakota. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
The Genetically Modified Gaffe: GMO Cotton and the Grand Democratic Votes in South Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the curious connection between the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have undertaken a rigorous statistical analysis to scrutinize this perplexing relationship. Our findings reveal a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8607477 and a startling p-value of less than 0.05 for the time span from 2000 to 2020.

As we delved into the data, we couldn't help but notice that the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes seemed to be "seeding" quite a strong and statistically significant correlation. But remember, correlation does not imply causation - a crucial disclaimer that should always "seed" itself in discussions of statistical analyses.

Upon further investigation, it became evident that the presence of GMO cotton cultivation in South Dakota was associated with a noticeable surge in votes for the Democratic presidential candidate. The question "What's up, doc?" comes to mind as we ponder the potential drivers behind this unexpected association. Now, we don't want to "GMO-nize" the seriousness of our findings, but the link between GMO cotton and Democratic votes certainly bears closer examination.

In conclusion, our study sheds light on the curious correlation between the use of GMO cotton and votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. As we continue to "thread" through the fabric of statistical analysis and agricultural practices, it is crucial to exercise caution in interpreting such correlations, remembering the age-old adage: "Struggling with statistics is like hugging a cactus. It's about planting seeds of knowledge, but it can be quite pricky."

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Smith et al.," the authors find that the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton has become increasingly prevalent in the agricultural landscape, particularly in regions with favorable climate and soil conditions. The adoption of GMO cotton has been touted for its potential to increase crop yield and reduce the need for chemical pesticides, making it an attractive option for many cotton producers. Speaking of attractiveness, did you hear about the GMO cotton that tried to win a beauty contest? It was "unbe-leaf-ably" smooth!
As we transition to the electoral landscape, "Doe et al." highlight the dynamics of political voting patterns in the state of South Dakota. The historical predominance of conservative ideologies in the state has provided a unique backdrop for analyzing the impact of agricultural practices on voter behavior. However, the recent surge in Democratic votes has raised eyebrows and piqued curiosity, much like a scientist examining an unexpected result. It's like the cotton and the voters are engaged in a "ballot ballet" of their own!
Venturing into the realm of non-fiction literature, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan sheds light on the complexities of modern agriculture and its ramifications on societal and political domains. Pollan's exploration of genetically modified crops and their influence on the food industry offers a nuanced perspective that resonates with our inquiry. Additionally, "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis offers a fascinating account of unlikely correlations and their far-reaching implications, serving as a reminder of the intricate interplay between seemingly disparate phenomena - much like the unexpected relationship we are probing in this study.
Turning to the realm of fiction, works such as "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair and "Sowing" by Angie Grigaliunas bring to life the agricultural landscape and its intersection with societal dynamics. While these literary works may not offer direct empirical insights, they provide a compelling backdrop for contemplating the multifaceted nature of agricultural practices and their potential influence on broader societal structures.
In the digital domain, a social media post by a concerned citizen in South Dakota captures the essence of the GMO cotton and Democratic votes discourse, stating, "Are we witnessing a 'blue wave' or a 'green revolution' in our state? The correlation seems as enigmatic as a 'cotton candy' cloud in the political sky!" This intriguing comparison encapsulates the prevailing perplexity surrounding the correlation we seek to unravel - it's a riddle as confounding as a cotton candy cloud!
As we navigate through this matrix of agricultural genetics, electoral dynamics, and statistical scrutiny, we are reminded of the words of wisdom from a statistical sage: "When in doubt, follow the 'thread' of curiosity and let it 'weave' its magic in unraveling unexpected correlations." It's like a thread you can't resist pulling - you never know what knotty correlation might unravel next!

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the relationship between the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota from 2000 to 2020 yielded compelling results. Our examination revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8607477, indicating a significant positive association between the two variables. Perhaps this correlation is as strong as the fabric woven from GMO cotton itself.
The r-squared value of 0.7408866 suggests that approximately 74.09% of the variation in Democratic votes in South Dakota can be explained by the presence of GMO cotton cultivation. The remaining 25.91% of the variability may be attributed to other factors at play, much like a patchwork quilt comprised of various political dynamics.
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.05 provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis, bolstering the inference that the correlation is unlikely to have occurred by chance. This statistical significance is as clear as a well-pressed cotton shirt!
Notably, our findings are encapsulated in the scatterplot depicted in Figure 1. The scatterplot visually encapsulates the robust positive relationship between the prevalence of GMO cotton cultivation and higher votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. It's almost as if the data points were sewn together in a pattern that mirrors the correlation coefficient we observed.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of our study have unraveled a fascinating correlation between the cultivation of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. It seems that the presence of GMO cotton has "threaded" an intriguing association with Democratic votes, offering a glimpse into the intricate tapestry of agricultural practices and political preferences. It's a correlation that's as unexpected as finding a GMO cotton plant sporting a tuxedo - truly a "dapper crop!"

As we reflect on the literature review, the insights gleaned from prior research have provided a solid foundation for our investigation. The work of "Smith et al." on the prevalence of GMO cotton cultivation resonates with our findings, underscoring the widespread adoption of this agricultural practice. It's like the cotton plants themselves are whispering, "GMO are the real MVPs of the agricultural game!"

Similarly, the electoral dynamics discussed by "Doe et al." have set the stage for our examination of voting patterns in South Dakota. The recent surge in Democratic votes, akin to a sudden burst of cotton blossom, has offered a fertile ground for probing the correlation with GMO cotton. It's almost as if the voters are saying, "We're 'barack-ing' this association, and we're not 'bailin' on it anytime soon!"

In light of these connections, our results have not only affirmed the prior research but have also "seeded" new avenues for contemplation. The robust correlation coefficient and the statistically significant p-value lend credence to the strength of the association observed in our analysis. It's as if the statistical tests themselves are saying, "This correlation is 'cotton-pickin' significant!"

The high r-squared value further underscores the influence of GMO cotton cultivation on Democratic votes in South Dakota. Approximately 74.09% of the variation in Democratic votes can be attributed to the presence of GMO cotton, emphasizing the considerable impact of this agricultural practice on political outcomes. It's like GMO cotton is casting its "vote" in the political landscape with an undeniable presence.

However, it is imperative to exercise caution and recognize the limitations of our study. While our results reveal a compelling correlation, they do not establish a causal relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes. As we navigate the complex fabric of correlated variables, it's crucial to remember that correlation is not causation, lest we "unravel" the integrity of our statistical inferences. After all, making assumptions about causation based on correlation is like believing that growing cotton candy trees will solve the world's sugar shortage!

In addition, the presence of unobserved variables and other contextual factors may underpin the observed correlation, warranting further investigation. It's like a patch of soil in a cotton field that needs a little more tilling to yield a comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving the connection between GMO cotton and political voting patterns.

In essence, our study has added a "stitch" of insight to the intricate fabric of agricultural and political dynamics in South Dakota. The unexpected correlation between GMO cotton and Democratic votes "grows" curiosity and opens avenues for future inquiry. It's like uncovering a pair of denim jeans made from GMO cotton - an unexpected twist in the fabric of statistical analysis!


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

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between GMO use in cotton and Votes for the Democrat Presidential candidate in South Dakota. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
The Genetically Modified Gaffe: GMO Cotton and the Grand Democratic Votes in South Dakota

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the curious connection between the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have undertaken a rigorous statistical analysis to scrutinize this perplexing relationship. Our findings reveal a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8607477 and a startling p-value of less than 0.05 for the time span from 2000 to 2020.

As we delved into the data, we couldn't help but notice that the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes seemed to be "seeding" quite a strong and statistically significant correlation. But remember, correlation does not imply causation - a crucial disclaimer that should always "seed" itself in discussions of statistical analyses.

Upon further investigation, it became evident that the presence of GMO cotton cultivation in South Dakota was associated with a noticeable surge in votes for the Democratic presidential candidate. The question "What's up, doc?" comes to mind as we ponder the potential drivers behind this unexpected association. Now, we don't want to "GMO-nize" the seriousness of our findings, but the link between GMO cotton and Democratic votes certainly bears closer examination.

In conclusion, our study sheds light on the curious correlation between the use of GMO cotton and votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. As we continue to "thread" through the fabric of statistical analysis and agricultural practices, it is crucial to exercise caution in interpreting such correlations, remembering the age-old adage: "Struggling with statistics is like hugging a cactus. It's about planting seeds of knowledge, but it can be quite pricky."

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The relationship between agricultural practices and political outcomes has long been of interest to researchers and policymakers alike. In particular, the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) crops has been a topic of heated debate and scrutiny. Our study focuses on the intricate interplay between the cultivation of GMO cotton and the electoral behavior in the state of South Dakota, specifically in relation to votes for the Democratic presidential candidate.
As we dig deeper into this curious connection, we can't help but marvel at the peculiarity of our findings. But let's not "cotton" to hasty conclusions just yet - a hearty dose of statistical analysis and methodical investigation is required to fully unravel this enigmatic relationship. Speaking of cotton, did you hear about the cotton farmer who won an award? He was really good at producing an "a-maize-ing" crop!
It is well established that correlation does not imply causation, a principle particularly relevant when examining the association between GMO cotton and Democratic votes in South Dakota. Nevertheless, the robustness of the statistical relationship we have uncovered warrants a closer examination, prompting us to "thread" through the fabric of agricultural and political dynamics in the state. After all, understanding this correlation is "sew" important for both the agricultural and political landscapes in South Dakota.
The context of South Dakota further adds intrigue to our investigation. Known for its vast agricultural lands and its history of political shifts, the state offers an emblematic backdrop for studying the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes. It is as if the agricultural field and the electoral field are engaged in a complex dance, akin to a "cotton-picking" conundrum that warrants unraveling.
As we unravel this captivating correlation, it becomes evident that the influence of GMO cotton cultivation reaches into the political realm, perhaps sowing the seeds of change in voter behavior. This unexpected association prompts us to ask: What are the underlying drivers of this intriguing pattern? This question lingers in the air, much like a wispy tuft of cotton carried by the wind – an enigma that demands unraveling.
In the following sections of this paper, we delve into the empirical analysis that underpins our findings. By scrutinizing the data with meticulous detail and sound statistical methods, we aim to provide a robust and insightful exploration of the connection between GMO cotton use and Democratic votes in South Dakota. In doing so, we endeavor to contribute to the burgeoning literature at the intersection of agriculture, politics, and statistics, illuminating a thread of inquiry that is as complex as it is captivating. After all, as statisticians, it's our duty to be "punny" when duty "calls" for it!

[[RESULTS]]
The analysis of the relationship between the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota from 2000 to 2020 yielded compelling results. Our examination revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.8607477, indicating a significant positive association between the two variables. Perhaps this correlation is as strong as the fabric woven from GMO cotton itself.
The r-squared value of 0.7408866 suggests that approximately 74.09% of the variation in Democratic votes in South Dakota can be explained by the presence of GMO cotton cultivation. The remaining 25.91% of the variability may be attributed to other factors at play, much like a patchwork quilt comprised of various political dynamics.
Furthermore, the p-value of less than 0.05 provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis, bolstering the inference that the correlation is unlikely to have occurred by chance. This statistical significance is as clear as a well-pressed cotton shirt!
Notably, our findings are encapsulated in the scatterplot depicted in Figure 1. The scatterplot visually encapsulates the robust positive relationship between the prevalence of GMO cotton cultivation and higher votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. It's almost as if the data points were sewn together in a pattern that mirrors the correlation coefficient we observed.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our study has unveiled a compelling correlation between the utilization of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the support garnered by the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota from 2000 to 2020. The substantial correlation coefficient of 0.8607477 and the persuasive p-value of less than 0.05 underscore the robustness of the statistical relationship. It is as if the GMO cotton fields were whispering political inclinations to the voters, urging them to "plant" their support in the Democratic camp. Now, that's what we call a 'seedy' political influence!

The r-squared value of 0.7408866 further emphasizes the substantial proportion of variation in Democratic votes in South Dakota that can be attributed to the presence of GMO cotton cultivation. Such a strong association between agricultural practices and electoral behavior is akin to the seamless stitching of a well-tailored garment.

At this point, one might wonder, can we truly pluck out causation from this correlation? Well, that's a 'cotton'-picking question. Our findings certainly prompt us to delve deeper into the underlying mechanisms driving this unexpected relationship. Perhaps the GMO cotton fields are silently swaying the voters with their 'charismatic' fibers.

Therefore, while our study offers a fascinating glimpse into the interplay between agricultural practices and political preferences, it also poses intriguing questions that warrant further exploration. After all, understanding this connection is more than just a 'fluffy' matter - it has tangible implications for both the agricultural and political landscapes in South Dakota.

But let's not 'spin' this further - as tempting as it may be to 'weave' more puns into this conclusion, it is paramount to remember the scientific seriousness of our inquiry. For now, our findings offer a considerable 'thread' of insight into the association between GMO cotton use and votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota.

In this light, we assert that further research in this area is unnecessary. After all, with such a strong correlation, it seems that the cotton has already 'picked' its side!

In S. Dakota, agricultural practices don't just influence the economy but also 'plow' the way for political preferences. Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week!


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 Genetically Modified Gaffe: GMO Cotton and the Grand Democratic Votes in South Dakota. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Agricultural Absurdities


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 Genetically Modified Gaffe: GMO Cotton and the Grand Democratic Votes in South Dakota. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Agricultural Advancement and Ethical Governance Evaluation (IAAEGE)


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 Genetically Modified Gaffe: GMO Cotton and the Grand Democratic Votes in South Dakota with an abstract of In this study, we delve into the curious connection between the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) cotton and the number of votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. Utilizing data from the USDA and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, we have undertaken a rigorous statistical analysis to scrutinize this perplexing relationship. Our findings reveal a tantalizing correlation coefficient of 0.8607477 and a startling p-value of less than 0.05 for the time span from 2000 to 2020.
As we delved into the data, we couldn't help but notice that the relationship between GMO cotton and Democratic votes seemed to be "seeding" quite a strong and statistically significant correlation. But remember, correlation does not imply causation - a crucial disclaimer that should always "seed" itself in discussions of statistical analyses.
Upon further investigation, it became evident that the presence of GMO cotton cultivation in South Dakota was associated with a noticeable surge in votes for the Democratic presidential candidate. The question "What's up, doc?" comes to mind as we ponder the potential drivers behind this unexpected association. Now, we don't want to "GMO-nize" the seriousness of our findings, but the link between GMO cotton and Democratic votes certainly bears closer examination.
In conclusion, our study sheds light on the curious correlation between the use of GMO cotton and votes for the Democratic presidential candidate in South Dakota. As we continue to "thread" through the fabric of statistical analysis and agricultural practices, it is crucial to exercise caution in interpreting such correlations, remembering the age-old adage: "Struggling with statistics is like hugging a cactus. It's about planting seeds of knowledge, but it can be quite pricky.

ChatGPT:

GMO cotton, Democratic votes, South Dakota, USDA data, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, statistical analysis, correlation coefficient, p-value, causation, cultivation, agricultural practices, statistical significance

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

Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota
Detailed data title: Percentage of all votes cast for the Democrat Presidential candidate in South Dakota
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota

Correlation r = 0.8607477 (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 = 0.7408866 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 74.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in cotton) over the 6 years from 2000 through 2020.

p < 0.05, which statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.028. 0.0277366641966052300000000000
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 0.86 in 2.8% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 36 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 5 because we have two variables measured over a period of 6 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.

[ 0.16, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

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


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

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
200020042008201220162020
GMO use in cotton (GMO cotton %)1516181445
Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota (Percentage of votes)37.564238.443644.747439.866131.737435.6053




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,237 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 636,906,169 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([15,16,18,14,4,5,])
array_2 = np.array([37.5642,38.4436,44.7474,39.8661,31.7374,35.6053,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in cotton"
array_2_name = "Votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate in South Dakota"

# 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?

Cheers to you for rating this correlation!


Correlation ID: 5597 · Black Variable ID: 778 · Red Variable ID: 26167
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0