One fascinating context where this research may be applied is jury decisions. Such a research may also serve as a validation for this study's conclusion that polarization may be associated with better quality decisions, but in a different context.
Obviously, jury decision in trials can be very consequential and jury selection process often aims at picking "neutral" (not-polarized?) jury members to protect the trial from biases. Along whichever dimension one choses, I wonder if more "polarized" juries tend to make "better" trial decisions for convictions. And what implications may that have for the jury selection and wider institutional context.
One fascinating context where this research may be applied is jury decisions. Such a research may also serve as a validation for this study's conclusion that polarization may be associated with better quality decisions, but in a different context.
Obviously, jury decision in trials can be very consequential and jury selection process often aims at picking "neutral" (not-polarized?) jury members to protect the trial from biases. Along whichever dimension one choses, I wonder if more "polarized" juries tend to make "better" trial decisions for convictions. And what implications may that have for the jury selection and wider institutional context.