If the counter-party is constrained by confirmation bias, can there be a valuable dialog?

I was initially skeptical of this study as a reverse biased case subject to weak controls and structure. And it might be but I think it illustrates a larger issue which I have been mulling.

The study is Equalitarianism: A source of liberal bias by Bo M. Winegard, Cory J. Clark, and Connor R. Hasty. From the Abstract:

Recent scholarship has challenged the long-held assumption in the social sciences that Conservatives were more biased than Liberals, contending that the predominance of Liberals in the social sciences might have caused social scientists to ignore liberal bias. Here, we argue that victims’ groups are one potent source of liberal bias. We contend that many Liberals are cosmic egalitarians, that is, they believe that demographic groups do not differ (genetically) on socially valued traits (e.g., math ability, IQ). This, coupled with a sacred narrative about protecting victims’ groups (e.g., Blacks, Muslims, women), leads to bias against any challenge to cosmic egalitarianism that portrays a perceived privileged group more favorably than a perceived victims’ group (Equalitarianism bias). Eight studies support this theory. Liberalism was associated with perceiving certain groups as victims (Studies 1a-1b). In Studies 2-7, Liberals evaluated the same study as less credible when the results concluded that a privileged group (men and Whites) had a superior quality relative to a victims’ group (women and Blacks) than vice versa. To rule out alternative explanations of Bayesian (or some other normative) reasoning, we used within-subjects designs in Studies 6 and 7. Significant order effects for Liberals suggest that Liberals think that they should not evaluate identical information differently depending on which group is said to have a superior quality, yet do so. In all studies, higher equalitarianism mediated the relationship between more liberal ideology and lower credibility ratings when privileged groups were said to score higher on a socially valuable trait.

Yes, the academy is left leaning. And yes, the social sciences, in particular sociology, psychology, and anthropology, are especially prone to the bigoted, racist, hateful biases of postmodernism/multiculturalism and the other neo-marxist philosophies. And yes, people can go overboard proving that to be the case. And finally, yes, confirmation bias afflicts everyone.

Because that seems all this is. The academy is left leaning and the social science research is generally conducted by those steeped in postmodernism with its rejection of the Enlightenment and reason and evidence and natural rights and rule of law, and equality under the law, etc. They see only what they want to see. They know that they should "not evaluate identical information differently" based on whether it supports or conflicts with their ideology. They know that and yet do it
anyway as this research confirms.

Stepping away from the specifics of the research and the particulars of confirmation bias, there is a larger issue I have been mulling.

Time is limited. There are people who are so steeped in a belief system (such as postmodernism and its ilk) that there is no conceivable way that time invested in discussion will bear any fruit. You will not convince them of anything at variance with their faith-based ideology.

You might also be so-blinkered, which you have to take into account, but assuming that you are willing and able to recognize the instances where either the evidence is on their side or where it is insufficient to resolve a question one way or another, should you engage with such a party?

If your time is limited, you understand their position and they are unable to comprehend a different wold-view, is there any value to such a conversation? Instinctively the answer seems to be yes. But I am not so sure. If your objective is to maximize the return of acquired knowledge or insight from conversations and interpersonal interactions, there are some that won't pass muster. I think that is true and yet it goes against the grain.