Very cool, and illuminating. I'm actually a little surprised to see that lower corruption correlates so well with higher income. Admittedly, I could believe that part of that is a self selecting phenomena - IE, people with money immigrate to non-corrupt places. It may also be that alot of the money that's corrupting the cheap places is flowing from the wealthy ones.
On the first, the implied assumption is that perceived corruption correlates reasonably well to actual. (I haven't proven)
Don't disagree with the general second statement. Sure, corruption can come about because of an unmet need. It's market forces at work when the market won't respond. But the implied point that the higher per capita income results in less met needs doesn't seem intuitively obvious, since purchasing power often rises at near parity with PC Income. Several places perceived as corrupt on this list actually have better purchasing power per (money unit) than the US.
I believe corruption and poverty have a circular cause-effect relationship. Corruption causes poverty (by moving money into the pockets of the corrupt) and prevents people from raising economically, forcing many to become corrupt themselves (when your only option of making middle- or upper-class money are bribes and theft).
It's definitely a leap, but there's a decent amount of information (not proof however) on the subject laying around. We still don't understand how the brain brings about consciousness. I guess I should say it's not a huge leap to assume it has something to do with other things we also don't understand. Given quantum effect and number theory still elude us in areas, it's a decent approach to assume they might be related.
I've debugged problems in my code that, at first glance, appear to be unrelated to each other. Given something is slightly off in one area isn't a proof something of in another area is related, but it's a good place to start looking.
> At least in/near any decent size city, there should be a large enough population to create classes of a reasonable size of same age students at roughly the same level.
Why? There is great educational value in being in a class which has different levels.
If you are smarter: learning to help others, working together with people that are slower than you are, learning that usually intelligence is not one-dimensional and kids that are not very good at math might be great at writing…
If you are less smart the benefits are across the board. I remember reading a study about mixing kids from different incomes in the same school as opposed to wealth segregation (you might argue that smarts and wealth are not the same, but they are often highly correlated at least when starting out) and the conclusions were that there was no drawback for the rich kids, but huuuge advantages for the poorer.