sophisticated respondents selected arguments from like-minded groups 70-75% of the time. For example, on average sophisticated opponents of stricter gun control sought out 6 arguments of the NRA or the Republican Party and only 2 arguments from the partisan opposition. Table 2 presents the results from a regression of this bias measure on t1 attitude extremity for both studies and both issues. The results are straightforward and confirm the pattern in Figure 5: Ps were more likely to read the argument of a sympathetic source than to expose themselves to an opposing point of view. Supporters of gun control or affirmative action were significantly more likely to search out the arguments of “their” issue groups (e.g., Citizens Against Handguns or the NAACP).
Without a detailed reading of the whole report, it does appear they are showing the 'closed-minded' rightwing is actaully more open to hearing the other side of the arguement, whereas the 'opened minded' leftwing has no interest in the other side of the arguement and perfer to remain ignorant of facts that counter their position.
But the overarching question implied here, is whether public participation in seeking policy solutions through consensus is valid in terms of finding effective and beneficial outcomes.
The tendency of their argument seems to me to be to disqualify the public on grounds of bias from participation in policymaking.
It's the old attack on citizen rights in the name of getting it right. An upscale version of making the trains run on time.
Or do I oversimplify?