I think there's room for research that feels absurd in that the premise & conclusion are almost too reasonable, like "Saul Justin Newman, for detective work to discover that many of the people famous for having the longest lives lived in places that had lousy birth-and-death recordkeeping" or "Thea Blackler, Rafael Gomez, Vesna Popovic and M. Helen Thompson, for documenting that most people who use complicated products do not read the instruction manual".

I think "Statistically demonstrated that being stupid makes you a bad monarch" is a good fit in that vein :P Though I suppose it's a legitimately interesting question to what extent the monarch actually matters to their state's outcomes.

As the article observes, it's a stereotype, not a scientific fact.

Here's a chart by country that you can research from. Highest on the chart look to be 50-60% in Pakistan, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan. With many other middle eastern countries in the 40s. Israel is at 10%, half of Turkey's rate and one spot above India so maybe not the best source for your interest.

Seems like there would be noticable standout family groups in those populations if your theory is true but I don't think it is. Totally not calling you out (your post is a natural response to OP) but it's online reference in my experience is just another way to 'other' one ethnic group and call them inbreds online:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/inbreedin...