I am not arguing that their research is useless or uninteresting, simply that it shouldn't be communicated like it actually proves anything for on-the-ground polarization.

It's a bit like when we have AI papers that anthropomorphize their model by saying they benefit from "dreaming". This is true among the community of experts that actually work on the topic, it is simply irrelevant or downright misleading for a more "public" audience.

I don't think diverse thinking is equivalent to partisan conflict. Lots of constructive groups have very diverse thinking.

Likewise, many groups with minimal differences, i.e. group think, may still fight intensely over those small differences.