> "Using inbreeding among European monarchs as an instrument shows that rulers with lower cognitive ability led to worse state performance and territorial losses from 10-18C. Rising parliamentary constraints limited rulers' impact."
That seems like a reasonable premise and conclusion though; I think the spirit of these prizes is that one or both of (premise|conclusion) is absurd. You wasted your time being reasonable! ;-)
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.
I agree I guess? Any attribution of any kind of statistical aggregate of IQ to an intuitively recognizable "race" is presumptively fictitious as far as I can tell.
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:
Engineering: Does using a ventilated UV shoe rack decrease odor [yes]
Aviation: Do intoxicated bats fly worse [yes]
Psychology: The effects of telling narcissists they're intelligent ["external feedback helped shape the subjects' perception of their own intelligence, regardless of the accuracy of that feedback" ; negative feedback is more impactful]
Nutrition: Is just cheese the favored pizza of reptiles [yes]
Pediatrics: Does garlic affect breast feeding [yes, babies will feed longer]
Literature: Does fingernail growth diminish as one ages [yes]
Peace: Does slight inebriation increase foreign language composition [yes]
Sad to see my nomination didn't make it.
> "Using inbreeding among European monarchs as an instrument shows that rulers with lower cognitive ability led to worse state performance and territorial losses from 10-18C. Rising parliamentary constraints limited rulers' impact."
https://x.com/ecmaeditors/status/1876275028460753254?s=46
That seems like a reasonable premise and conclusion though; I think the spirit of these prizes is that one or both of (premise|conclusion) is absurd. You wasted your time being reasonable! ;-)
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.
Can‘t inbreeding also increase the IQ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence
As the article observes, it's a stereotype, not a scientific fact.
It's not highly credible though; the article estimates their IQs the same way all other IQ research does, ie they just made it up.
I agree I guess? Any attribution of any kind of statistical aggregate of IQ to an intuitively recognizable "race" is presumptively fictitious as far as I can tell.
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...
2025 Ig Nobel Prize Winners:
Biology: Does painting zebra stripes on cows reduce biting flies [yes]
Chemistry: Does Teflon™ as a food additive increase satiety/fullness [yes, allegedly safely?!]
Physics: Avoiding unpleasant spaghetti sauce texture
Engineering: Does using a ventilated UV shoe rack decrease odor [yes]
Aviation: Do intoxicated bats fly worse [yes]
Psychology: The effects of telling narcissists they're intelligent ["external feedback helped shape the subjects' perception of their own intelligence, regardless of the accuracy of that feedback" ; negative feedback is more impactful]
Nutrition: Is just cheese the favored pizza of reptiles [yes]
Pediatrics: Does garlic affect breast feeding [yes, babies will feed longer]
Literature: Does fingernail growth diminish as one ages [yes]
Peace: Does slight inebriation increase foreign language composition [yes]