To echo what other people said, the subjective (the who) matters in social settings, unfortunately. In different countries, support or opposition to the covid jab by the recognized "left wing counterculture" was determined more by which faction was in office than a mass of individuals independently looking up assessments. Maddox made a video in early 2020 using high-schools/undergrad understanding of medicine to make reasonable predictions and policy assessments. Yet only a large minority chose to look past authority and superstition; the pandemic should been retired by mid 2020.

The stance on a topic is arbitrary, whoever is chasing power determines the make up of society, until society collapses under dysfunction like all the fortune 500s of the past 70 years. As soon as interstellar travel becomes affordable, Earth is going to have a drastic brain drain.

As to whether I consider someone's ideas, I attempt persistent first-principles thinking on subjects. Like with economics, I don't expect everyone to worship Mises, but I do expect respect for the window maker's fallacy (opportunity cost). If someone cares more for Marx or for televised drama wrapped as insight, whatever 5% of useful things they might say is so entangled as to not be worth extracting. If 50% of citizens attempted consistent first-principles thinking and general virtue, our financial and legal systems would see massive beneficial reforms.