about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,197 · View random

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

AI explanation

As GMO corn production in Wisconsin surged, so did the population of corn earworms. These clever pests developed such a voracious appetite for the genetically modified corn that they inadvertently started a legal battle over the rights to the corn fields. As more and more corn-related lawsuits popped up, lawyers across the United States seized the opportunity to argue for or against the corny cases, leading to a dramatic increase in the number of lawyers. It was a-maize-ing how quickly the legal field became ear-resistibly attracted to this new source of litigation, creating a kernel of truth in the saying, "Where there's a kernel, there's a lawsuit!"

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image that captures the juxtaposition of a vast cornfield filled with rows of genetically modified corn stretching into the horizon in Wisconsin. Intermingled with the cornstalks, depict a sea of sleek, cybernetic lawyers in sharp suits holding briefcases. The lawyers should appear to be seamlessly integrated into the landscape, evoking the modern intersection between nature and technology. The cybernetic art style should enhance the visual impact, blending elements of futuristic technology with the organic setting of the cornfield. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: GMO use in corn grown in Wisconsin and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Voxel art Art nouveau Cybernetic art Whimsical illustration Minimalism
ChatGPT: Cybernetic art

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both GMO use in corn grown in Wisconsin and Number of Lawyers in the United States together. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a vast cornfield in Wisconsin, rows of tall genetically modified corn stretch far into the horizon. Among the cornstalks, a sea of lawyers in suits and briefcases can be seen, representing the large number of lawyers in the United States.

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: [ Cybernetic art ] and depicting this scene: In a vast cornfield in Wisconsin, rows of tall genetically modified corn stretch far into the horizon. Among the cornstalks, a sea of lawyers in suits and briefcases can be seen, representing the large number of lawyers in the United States. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image that captures the juxtaposition of a vast cornfield filled with rows of genetically modified corn stretching into the horizon in Wisconsin. Intermingled with the cornstalks, depict a sea of sleek, cybernetic lawyers in sharp suits holding briefcases. The lawyers should appear to be seamlessly integrated into the landscape, evoking the modern intersection between nature and technology. The cybernetic art style should enhance the visual impact, blending elements of futuristic technology with the organic setting of the cornfield.

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

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

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

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Kernel of Truth: Unveiling the Legal Cornundrum - Quantifying the Link Between GMO Corn in Wisconsin and the Number of Lawyers in the United States

Journal of Agricultural Legal Studies

Jan 2024

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




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a 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 grown in Wisconsin and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from USDA and ABA to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9842152 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2022.

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

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Kernel of Truth: Unveiling the Legal Cornundrum - Quantifying the Link Between GMO Corn in Wisconsin and the Number of Lawyers in the United States"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the intricate relationship between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in the bucolic fields of Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States. Our research team carried out a comprehensive quantitative analysis, utilizing data sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), spanning the years 2000 to 2022. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9842152 and a significantly low p-value, signifying a robust association between the adoption of GMO corn and the proliferation of legal professionals.

While causality eludes our current study, the implications of our findings are not to be husked. The synergy between GMO corn and the legal domain invites a-maize-ing interpretation. Our results warrant further investigation into the multifaceted impacts of agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape, and the potential for kernels of legal wisdom to sprout from this unlikely union.


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 grown in Wisconsin and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Kernel of Truth: Unveiling the Legal Cornundrum - Quantifying the Link Between GMO Corn in Wisconsin and the Number of Lawyers in the United States"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the intricate relationship between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in the bucolic fields of Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States. Our research team carried out a comprehensive quantitative analysis, utilizing data sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), spanning the years 2000 to 2022. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9842152 and a significantly low p-value, signifying a robust association between the adoption of GMO corn and the proliferation of legal professionals.

While causality eludes our current study, the implications of our findings are not to be husked. The synergy between GMO corn and the legal domain invites a-maize-ing interpretation. Our results warrant further investigation into the multifaceted impacts of agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape, and the potential for kernels of legal wisdom to sprout from this unlikely union.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Corn, the staple crop of the Midwest, has long been revered for its versatility and importance in sustaining both the agricultural and culinary landscapes of the United States. Meanwhile, lawyers, the stalwart custodians of the legal realm, have been populating the American professional scene in ever-increasing numbers. However, one might not immediately discern a link between these two seemingly disparate entities. That is until one discovers the intriguing interplay between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States.

As we embark on this journey through the fields of statistical analysis and legal demographics, we are faced with the unignorable question: What could possibly connect the creation of scientifically modified corn with the swelling ranks of legal practitioners? Some might argue that it's a maize-ing coincidence, while others might speculate on the kernel of truth hidden within this seemingly incongruous association. It's a puzzle that's more perplexing than trying to separate the kernels from an ear of corn without losing half of them in the process.

In this study, we meticulously examined the correlation between the adoption of GMO corn in Wisconsin and the subsequent proliferation of legal professionals across the United States. Our investigation is firmly rooted in rigorous quantitative analysis, drawing upon datasets from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). Launched in the year 2000 and extending to 2022, our study scrutinized the cornfields and courtrooms alike, aiming to uncover any threads of connection lurking within the stalks of genetically modified corn and the jurisprudential fabric of the legal domain.

Through our academic pursuits, we aim to shed light on this puzzling correlation with more persistence than a kernel stuck in your teeth – and with less discomfort, we hope. So, as we don our metaphorical gardening gloves and legal robes, let's get to the root of this matter and peel back the layers of this legal cornundrum.


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 grown in Wisconsin and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Kernel of Truth: Unveiling the Legal Cornundrum - Quantifying the Link Between GMO Corn in Wisconsin and the Number of Lawyers in the United States"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the intricate relationship between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in the bucolic fields of Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States. Our research team carried out a comprehensive quantitative analysis, utilizing data sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), spanning the years 2000 to 2022. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9842152 and a significantly low p-value, signifying a robust association between the adoption of GMO corn and the proliferation of legal professionals.

While causality eludes our current study, the implications of our findings are not to be husked. The synergy between GMO corn and the legal domain invites a-maize-ing interpretation. Our results warrant further investigation into the multifaceted impacts of agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape, and the potential for kernels of legal wisdom to sprout from this unlikely union.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Corn, the staple crop of the Midwest, has long been revered for its versatility and importance in sustaining both the agricultural and culinary landscapes of the United States. Meanwhile, lawyers, the stalwart custodians of the legal realm, have been populating the American professional scene in ever-increasing numbers. However, one might not immediately discern a link between these two seemingly disparate entities. That is until one discovers the intriguing interplay between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States.
As we embark on this journey through the fields of statistical analysis and legal demographics, we are faced with the unignorable question: What could possibly connect the creation of scientifically modified corn with the swelling ranks of legal practitioners? Some might argue that it's a maize-ing coincidence, while others might speculate on the kernel of truth hidden within this seemingly incongruous association. It's a puzzle that's more perplexing than trying to separate the kernels from an ear of corn without losing half of them in the process.
In this study, we meticulously examined the correlation between the adoption of GMO corn in Wisconsin and the subsequent proliferation of legal professionals across the United States. Our investigation is firmly rooted in rigorous quantitative analysis, drawing upon datasets from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). Launched in the year 2000 and extending to 2022, our study scrutinized the cornfields and courtrooms alike, aiming to uncover any threads of connection lurking within the stalks of genetically modified corn and the jurisprudential fabric of the legal domain.
Through our academic pursuits, we aim to shed light on this puzzling correlation with more persistence than a kernel stuck in your teeth – and with less discomfort, we hope. So, as we don our metaphorical gardening gloves and legal robes, let's get to the root of this matter and peel back the layers of this legal cornundrum.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Smith (2010) conducted a comprehensive analysis of the agricultural landscape in Wisconsin, focusing on the adoption of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn. The study highlighted the increasing prevalence of GMO corn cultivation, attributing it to enhanced crop yields and pest resistance. However, the implications of GMO corn extended beyond agricultural boundaries, sparking unforeseen connections to the legal domain that perhaps even the author did not initially cob-sider.

Doe and Jones (2015) delved into the demographic trends within the legal profession, unraveling the burgeoning numbers of lawyers across the United States. The authors meticulously detailed the factors contributing to this phenomenon, ranging from shifts in educational preferences to changes in legal frameworks. Little did they know that a maize-y mystery would soon emerge, linking their work to the seemingly unrelated world of corn cultivation.

In "The Omniscient Kernel: GMO Corn's Uncharted Legal Realm" (2018), Lorem and Ipsum explored the legal ramifications of GMO corn adoption, shedding light on the potential implications for legal realms beyond agricultural law. Their insights unknowingly paved the way for our current investigation, as we attempt to unveil the corntroversial correlation between GMO corn in Wisconsin and the number of lawyers in the United States.

As we segue from the scholarly realm into the literary one, we encounter "The Corn Identity" by John Maizefield and "A Corn in Time" by Stephen Stalkenberg. These fictitious works, though unrelated to agriculture or law on the surface, offer a-MAIZE-ing parallels to our research quest. Just as the elusive nature of identity underpins the former, and time-traveling adventures form the crux of the latter, our pursuit of understanding the link between GMO corn and legal professionals is equally enigmatic and ripe for unexpected twists.

On a tangentially related note, "Better Call Corn" and "Breaking Stalk" are television shows that, while not directly aligned with the subject matter of our study, bear titles that uncannily resonate with our investigation. Perhaps, in our quest for the kernels of truth surrounding GMO corn and the legal profession, we may find inspiration from the dramatic exploits of legal minds in the fictional realm.

Thus, as we tread the uncharted terrain of GMO corn and legal praxis, we are not merely unraveling a statistical conundrum; we are embarking on a cornucopia of discovery that promises to be anything but corny.


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 grown in Wisconsin and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Kernel of Truth: Unveiling the Legal Cornundrum - Quantifying the Link Between GMO Corn in Wisconsin and the Number of Lawyers in the United States"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the intricate relationship between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in the bucolic fields of Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States. Our research team carried out a comprehensive quantitative analysis, utilizing data sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), spanning the years 2000 to 2022. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9842152 and a significantly low p-value, signifying a robust association between the adoption of GMO corn and the proliferation of legal professionals.

While causality eludes our current study, the implications of our findings are not to be husked. The synergy between GMO corn and the legal domain invites a-maize-ing interpretation. Our results warrant further investigation into the multifaceted impacts of agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape, and the potential for kernels of legal wisdom to sprout from this unlikely union.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Corn, the staple crop of the Midwest, has long been revered for its versatility and importance in sustaining both the agricultural and culinary landscapes of the United States. Meanwhile, lawyers, the stalwart custodians of the legal realm, have been populating the American professional scene in ever-increasing numbers. However, one might not immediately discern a link between these two seemingly disparate entities. That is until one discovers the intriguing interplay between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States.
As we embark on this journey through the fields of statistical analysis and legal demographics, we are faced with the unignorable question: What could possibly connect the creation of scientifically modified corn with the swelling ranks of legal practitioners? Some might argue that it's a maize-ing coincidence, while others might speculate on the kernel of truth hidden within this seemingly incongruous association. It's a puzzle that's more perplexing than trying to separate the kernels from an ear of corn without losing half of them in the process.
In this study, we meticulously examined the correlation between the adoption of GMO corn in Wisconsin and the subsequent proliferation of legal professionals across the United States. Our investigation is firmly rooted in rigorous quantitative analysis, drawing upon datasets from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). Launched in the year 2000 and extending to 2022, our study scrutinized the cornfields and courtrooms alike, aiming to uncover any threads of connection lurking within the stalks of genetically modified corn and the jurisprudential fabric of the legal domain.
Through our academic pursuits, we aim to shed light on this puzzling correlation with more persistence than a kernel stuck in your teeth – and with less discomfort, we hope. So, as we don our metaphorical gardening gloves and legal robes, let's get to the root of this matter and peel back the layers of this legal cornundrum.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

The methodology employed in this research endeavor was as carefully cultivated as the GMO corn in the verdant fields of Wisconsin. Our approach sought to capture the nuanced interplay between the adoption of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn and the proliferation of legal professionals in the United States.

Data Collection:
Our research team meticulously collected data from a variety of sources, utilizing information obtained primarily from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). We combed through a-maize-ing amounts of agricultural and legal statistics, spanning the years 2000 to 2022, to extract the kernels of relevant information for our analysis. It involved combing through more data than one would care to shake a cob at.

Statistical Analysis:
To quantitatively assess the potential association between GMO corn in Wisconsin and the number of lawyers in the United States, we employed rigorous statistical techniques. First, we conducted univariate analysis to characterize the trends in GMO corn cultivation in Wisconsin. This analysis was as thorough as husking a corn cob in the midst of a cornhusking competition – we left no kernel unturned.

Subsequently, we conducted a multivariate analysis to examine the correlation between the adoption of GMO corn and the changing landscape of legal professionals across the United States. We utilized advanced statistical models to peel back the layers of this intricate relationship and reveal the potential causal mechanisms at play. Our analysis was as meticulous as separating the silks from an ear of corn before boiling it – ensuring we didn't overlook any crucial details in the process.

Sensitivity Analysis:
Recognizing the potential for confounding variables and unobserved factors, we executed sensitivity analyses to scrutinize the robustness of our findings. We probed the data with the same tenacity one might employ in extracting the last few kernels of popcorn from the bottom of a pot – leaving no doubts lingering about the validity of our results.

Limitations:
While our research was conducted with utmost rigor, it's important to acknowledge the limitations inherent in any study of this nature. The use of secondary data sources may introduce some inherent biases, albeit it didn't dampen our spirits. Additionally, as with any statistical analysis, our findings present associations rather than causality, leaving the court of causation adjourned for future investigation.

In summary, our methodological approach blended the precision of statistical analysis with the inquisitiveness of scientific inquiry, resulting in a study that unraveled the legal cornundrum with more rigor than a cob of GMO corn harvested during a bustling harvest season.


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 grown in Wisconsin and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

For the time period 2000 to 2022, you found a correlation 0.9842152, r-squared of 0.9686796, 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]]
"Kernel of Truth: Unveiling the Legal Cornundrum - Quantifying the Link Between GMO Corn in Wisconsin and the Number of Lawyers in the United States"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the intricate relationship between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in the bucolic fields of Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States. Our research team carried out a comprehensive quantitative analysis, utilizing data sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), spanning the years 2000 to 2022. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9842152 and a significantly low p-value, signifying a robust association between the adoption of GMO corn and the proliferation of legal professionals.

While causality eludes our current study, the implications of our findings are not to be husked. The synergy between GMO corn and the legal domain invites a-maize-ing interpretation. Our results warrant further investigation into the multifaceted impacts of agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape, and the potential for kernels of legal wisdom to sprout from this unlikely union.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Corn, the staple crop of the Midwest, has long been revered for its versatility and importance in sustaining both the agricultural and culinary landscapes of the United States. Meanwhile, lawyers, the stalwart custodians of the legal realm, have been populating the American professional scene in ever-increasing numbers. However, one might not immediately discern a link between these two seemingly disparate entities. That is until one discovers the intriguing interplay between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States.
As we embark on this journey through the fields of statistical analysis and legal demographics, we are faced with the unignorable question: What could possibly connect the creation of scientifically modified corn with the swelling ranks of legal practitioners? Some might argue that it's a maize-ing coincidence, while others might speculate on the kernel of truth hidden within this seemingly incongruous association. It's a puzzle that's more perplexing than trying to separate the kernels from an ear of corn without losing half of them in the process.
In this study, we meticulously examined the correlation between the adoption of GMO corn in Wisconsin and the subsequent proliferation of legal professionals across the United States. Our investigation is firmly rooted in rigorous quantitative analysis, drawing upon datasets from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). Launched in the year 2000 and extending to 2022, our study scrutinized the cornfields and courtrooms alike, aiming to uncover any threads of connection lurking within the stalks of genetically modified corn and the jurisprudential fabric of the legal domain.
Through our academic pursuits, we aim to shed light on this puzzling correlation with more persistence than a kernel stuck in your teeth – and with less discomfort, we hope. So, as we don our metaphorical gardening gloves and legal robes, let's get to the root of this matter and peel back the layers of this legal cornundrum.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our analysis of the data gathered over the period from 2000 to 2022 has unveiled a striking correlation between the use of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in Wisconsin and the number of lawyers in the United States. The Pearson correlation coefficient between these two variables was calculated to be 0.9842152, with an r-squared value of 0.9686796. Furthermore, the p-value was found to be less than 0.01, indicating a robust and significant correlation.

Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the strong positive correlation between the adoption of GMO corn in Wisconsin and the increasing count of lawyers across the United States. The trendline in the plot indicates a clear and consistent relationship between the two variables, leaving little room for ambiguity.

These results, while thought-provoking, warrant caution in attributing causality. The tantalizing association between GMO corn and the legal profession has raised eyebrows and curiosity alike. Further investigation into the underlying mechanisms driving this correlation is essential, as is exploring the potential implications for agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape.

As we reflect on these findings, we are reminded that sometimes the most unexpected combinations can yield fruitful insights. It seems that the legal domain and the fields of genetically modified corn have intertwined in a manner that cannot be easily dismissed as mere coincidence. The implications of this unexpected union - whether it leads to a legal cornucopia of opportunities or potential legal stalk-outs - beckon for continued exploration and analysis.

Our study is just the tip of the "ear-berg" in understanding this intriguing correlation, and we look forward to future research shedding more light on this cornundrum.


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 grown in Wisconsin and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
"Kernel of Truth: Unveiling the Legal Cornundrum - Quantifying the Link Between GMO Corn in Wisconsin and the Number of Lawyers in the United States"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the intricate relationship between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in the bucolic fields of Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States. Our research team carried out a comprehensive quantitative analysis, utilizing data sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), spanning the years 2000 to 2022. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9842152 and a significantly low p-value, signifying a robust association between the adoption of GMO corn and the proliferation of legal professionals.

While causality eludes our current study, the implications of our findings are not to be husked. The synergy between GMO corn and the legal domain invites a-maize-ing interpretation. Our results warrant further investigation into the multifaceted impacts of agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape, and the potential for kernels of legal wisdom to sprout from this unlikely union.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Smith (2010) conducted a comprehensive analysis of the agricultural landscape in Wisconsin, focusing on the adoption of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn. The study highlighted the increasing prevalence of GMO corn cultivation, attributing it to enhanced crop yields and pest resistance. However, the implications of GMO corn extended beyond agricultural boundaries, sparking unforeseen connections to the legal domain that perhaps even the author did not initially cob-sider.
Doe and Jones (2015) delved into the demographic trends within the legal profession, unraveling the burgeoning numbers of lawyers across the United States. The authors meticulously detailed the factors contributing to this phenomenon, ranging from shifts in educational preferences to changes in legal frameworks. Little did they know that a maize-y mystery would soon emerge, linking their work to the seemingly unrelated world of corn cultivation.
In "The Omniscient Kernel: GMO Corn's Uncharted Legal Realm" (2018), Lorem and Ipsum explored the legal ramifications of GMO corn adoption, shedding light on the potential implications for legal realms beyond agricultural law. Their insights unknowingly paved the way for our current investigation, as we attempt to unveil the corntroversial correlation between GMO corn in Wisconsin and the number of lawyers in the United States.
As we segue from the scholarly realm into the literary one, we encounter "The Corn Identity" by John Maizefield and "A Corn in Time" by Stephen Stalkenberg. These fictitious works, though unrelated to agriculture or law on the surface, offer a-MAIZE-ing parallels to our research quest. Just as the elusive nature of identity underpins the former, and time-traveling adventures form the crux of the latter, our pursuit of understanding the link between GMO corn and legal professionals is equally enigmatic and ripe for unexpected twists.
On a tangentially related note, "Better Call Corn" and "Breaking Stalk" are television shows that, while not directly aligned with the subject matter of our study, bear titles that uncannily resonate with our investigation. Perhaps, in our quest for the kernels of truth surrounding GMO corn and the legal profession, we may find inspiration from the dramatic exploits of legal minds in the fictional realm.
Thus, as we tread the uncharted terrain of GMO corn and legal praxis, we are not merely unraveling a statistical conundrum; we are embarking on a cornucopia of discovery that promises to be anything but corny.

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the data gathered over the period from 2000 to 2022 has unveiled a striking correlation between the use of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in Wisconsin and the number of lawyers in the United States. The Pearson correlation coefficient between these two variables was calculated to be 0.9842152, with an r-squared value of 0.9686796. Furthermore, the p-value was found to be less than 0.01, indicating a robust and significant correlation.
Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the strong positive correlation between the adoption of GMO corn in Wisconsin and the increasing count of lawyers across the United States. The trendline in the plot indicates a clear and consistent relationship between the two variables, leaving little room for ambiguity.
These results, while thought-provoking, warrant caution in attributing causality. The tantalizing association between GMO corn and the legal profession has raised eyebrows and curiosity alike. Further investigation into the underlying mechanisms driving this correlation is essential, as is exploring the potential implications for agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape.
As we reflect on these findings, we are reminded that sometimes the most unexpected combinations can yield fruitful insights. It seems that the legal domain and the fields of genetically modified corn have intertwined in a manner that cannot be easily dismissed as mere coincidence. The implications of this unexpected union - whether it leads to a legal cornucopia of opportunities or potential legal stalk-outs - beckon for continued exploration and analysis.
Our study is just the tip of the "ear-berg" in understanding this intriguing correlation, and we look forward to future research shedding more light on this cornundrum.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The results of our study corroborate and extend the findings of previous research, shedding light on the enigmatic relationship between the adoption of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States. As Smith (2010) initially observed, the prevalence of GMO corn cultivation indeed transcends traditional agricultural boundaries, sprouting unanticipated connections to the legal domain. Although initially, this connection might have seemed as likely as finding a needle in a corn stack, our study robustly establishes the correlation, dashing any skepticism about potential coincidences.

Furthermore, as Doe and Jones (2015) meticulously detailed the demographic trends within the legal profession, their comprehensive analysis of the factors contributing to the surge in lawyers across the United States inadvertently laid the groundwork for our corn-inspired exploration. Now, with our robust correlation coefficient resembling a cob of statistical significance, it is evident that their work tilled the fertile ground for our research endeavor.

In "The Omniscient Kernel: GMO Corn's Uncharted Legal Realm" (Lorem and Ipsum, 2018), the potential legal ramifications of GMO corn adoption were a-MAIZE-ingly brought to the forefront. Little did they know that their insights into the legal realms beyond agricultural law would sow the seeds for our novel investigation. As we find ourselves knee-deep in the corntroversy, our study not only supports but also expands upon the previously uncharted terrain they ventured into.

While initially, some may have dismissed the curious correlation between GMO corn and the legal profession as mere husk, our findings solidify the reality of this intriguing connection. The tantalizing association between these two seemingly disparate realms may seem as unlikely as finding a corn cob in a haystack, but its statistical robustness leaves little room for doubt about its existence.

Our results suggest that the synergy between GMO corn and the legal domain beckons further exploration and analysis. The statistical correlation uncovered may hint at opportunities untapped and outcomes unforeseen. As our study merely scratches the surface of this cornucopia of discovery, the a-MAIZE-ing parallels to fictional works such as "The Corn Identity" and "A Corn in Time" underscore the unforeseen twists and turns on the road to unraveling this legal cornundrum.

In conclusion, we have laid the groundwork for future research to delve deeper into the multifaceted impacts of agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape. Our study serves as a poignant reminder that, in the world of research, the most unexpected combinations can yield fruitful insights; in this case, perhaps even a bounty of legal wisdom lying dormant in the fields of GMO corn.

Let's us remember, the ear-ly bird may catch the worm, but the early statistician catches the trends in aMAYSing correlations!


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 grown in Wisconsin and Number of Lawyers in the United States. Make it seem dry like academic research paper, but with lots of subtle hidden offhand remarks, jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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]]
"Kernel of Truth: Unveiling the Legal Cornundrum - Quantifying the Link Between GMO Corn in Wisconsin and the Number of Lawyers in the United States"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this paper, we delve into the intricate relationship between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in the bucolic fields of Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States. Our research team carried out a comprehensive quantitative analysis, utilizing data sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), spanning the years 2000 to 2022. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9842152 and a significantly low p-value, signifying a robust association between the adoption of GMO corn and the proliferation of legal professionals.

While causality eludes our current study, the implications of our findings are not to be husked. The synergy between GMO corn and the legal domain invites a-maize-ing interpretation. Our results warrant further investigation into the multifaceted impacts of agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape, and the potential for kernels of legal wisdom to sprout from this unlikely union.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Corn, the staple crop of the Midwest, has long been revered for its versatility and importance in sustaining both the agricultural and culinary landscapes of the United States. Meanwhile, lawyers, the stalwart custodians of the legal realm, have been populating the American professional scene in ever-increasing numbers. However, one might not immediately discern a link between these two seemingly disparate entities. That is until one discovers the intriguing interplay between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States.
As we embark on this journey through the fields of statistical analysis and legal demographics, we are faced with the unignorable question: What could possibly connect the creation of scientifically modified corn with the swelling ranks of legal practitioners? Some might argue that it's a maize-ing coincidence, while others might speculate on the kernel of truth hidden within this seemingly incongruous association. It's a puzzle that's more perplexing than trying to separate the kernels from an ear of corn without losing half of them in the process.
In this study, we meticulously examined the correlation between the adoption of GMO corn in Wisconsin and the subsequent proliferation of legal professionals across the United States. Our investigation is firmly rooted in rigorous quantitative analysis, drawing upon datasets from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). Launched in the year 2000 and extending to 2022, our study scrutinized the cornfields and courtrooms alike, aiming to uncover any threads of connection lurking within the stalks of genetically modified corn and the jurisprudential fabric of the legal domain.
Through our academic pursuits, we aim to shed light on this puzzling correlation with more persistence than a kernel stuck in your teeth – and with less discomfort, we hope. So, as we don our metaphorical gardening gloves and legal robes, let's get to the root of this matter and peel back the layers of this legal cornundrum.

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the data gathered over the period from 2000 to 2022 has unveiled a striking correlation between the use of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in Wisconsin and the number of lawyers in the United States. The Pearson correlation coefficient between these two variables was calculated to be 0.9842152, with an r-squared value of 0.9686796. Furthermore, the p-value was found to be less than 0.01, indicating a robust and significant correlation.
Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the strong positive correlation between the adoption of GMO corn in Wisconsin and the increasing count of lawyers across the United States. The trendline in the plot indicates a clear and consistent relationship between the two variables, leaving little room for ambiguity.
These results, while thought-provoking, warrant caution in attributing causality. The tantalizing association between GMO corn and the legal profession has raised eyebrows and curiosity alike. Further investigation into the underlying mechanisms driving this correlation is essential, as is exploring the potential implications for agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape.
As we reflect on these findings, we are reminded that sometimes the most unexpected combinations can yield fruitful insights. It seems that the legal domain and the fields of genetically modified corn have intertwined in a manner that cannot be easily dismissed as mere coincidence. The implications of this unexpected union - whether it leads to a legal cornucopia of opportunities or potential legal stalk-outs - beckon for continued exploration and analysis.
Our study is just the tip of the "ear-berg" in understanding this intriguing correlation, and we look forward to future research shedding more light on this cornundrum.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation into the intertwined fates of GMO corn cultivation in Wisconsin and the proliferation of legal professionals across the United States has yielded a-maize-ing results. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.9842152 and considerably low p-value strongly hint at a connection that is more than just corny coincidence. It's safe to say that the legal fraternity and the humble cornfield may share a mutual kernel of influence that extends beyond mere happenstance.

While we must exercise caution in inferring causality, it's clear that this association is not just a mere stalk market anomaly. Indeed, the legal cornundrum we've unearthed warrants further exploration into the underlying mechanisms at play. The ramifications for agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape are more significant than we initially husked.

Now, we do acknowledge that our findings may pique skepticism, and some may even dismiss them as sheer cob-wash. However, it's important to recognize that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, and our study has revealed the potential for kernels of legal wisdom to sprout from the most unexpected of places.

With all that said, it's our firm belief that further research in this area is behind us. We confidently assert that no more research is needed in this domain. After all, we've already gotten to the root of the matter, and it's time to let this legal cornundrum rest in peas.


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 Kernel of Truth: Unveiling the Legal Cornundrum - Quantifying the Link Between GMO Corn in Wisconsin and the Number of Lawyers in the United States. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

Journal of Agricultural Legal Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Kernel of Truth: Unveiling the Legal Cornundrum - Quantifying the Link Between GMO Corn in Wisconsin and the Number of Lawyers in the United States. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Agricultural and Legal Research (SALR)


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 Kernel of Truth: Unveiling the Legal Cornundrum - Quantifying the Link Between GMO Corn in Wisconsin and the Number of Lawyers in the United States with an abstract of In this paper, we delve into the intricate relationship between the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in the bucolic fields of Wisconsin and the burgeoning count of lawyers across the United States. Our research team carried out a comprehensive quantitative analysis, utilizing data sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), spanning the years 2000 to 2022. Our findings reveal a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9842152 and a significantly low p-value, signifying a robust association between the adoption of GMO corn and the proliferation of legal professionals.
While causality eludes our current study, the implications of our findings are not to be husked. The synergy between GMO corn and the legal domain invites a-maize-ing interpretation. Our results warrant further investigation into the multifaceted impacts of agricultural biotechnology on the legal landscape, and the potential for kernels of legal wisdom to sprout from this unlikely union.

ChatGPT:

GMO corn, Wisconsin, United States lawyers, quantitative analysis, USDA data, American Bar Association data, correlation coefficient, p-value, causality, agricultural biotechnology, legal landscape, legal profession, GMO impacts, biotechnology and law

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



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

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

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

Correlation r = 0.9842152 (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 = 0.9686796 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 96.9% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Number of Lawyers in the United States) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in corn grown in Wisconsin) over the 23 years from 2000 through 2022.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 2.81E-17. 0.0000000000000000280642781295
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

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

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.98 in 2.81E-15% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 35,632,486,087,316,872 random variables You don't actually need 35 quadrillion variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

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

[ 0.96, 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.
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022
GMO use in corn grown in Wisconsin (GMO corn %)1122261022353738415363727070717272767677
Number of Lawyers in the United States (Lawyers)10224601048900104975010586601084500110477011169701143360116212011803901203100122545012452001268010128143013007001312870133596013423801352080132874013279101327010




Why this works

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




Try it yourself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([1,1,2,2,2,6,10,22,35,37,38,41,53,63,72,70,70,71,72,72,76,76,77,])
array_2 = np.array([1022460,1048900,1049750,1058660,1084500,1104770,1116970,1143360,1162120,1180390,1203100,1225450,1245200,1268010,1281430,1300700,1312870,1335960,1342380,1352080,1328740,1327910,1327010,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in corn grown in Wisconsin"
array_2_name = "Number of Lawyers in the United States"

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

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



Reuseable content

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

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

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

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

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

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating skills are legendary!


Correlation ID: 2197 · Black Variable ID: 751 · Red Variable ID: 542
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0