I recognize that smart people are less likely to make intellectual commitments because they recognize the flaws in their perception and the multivariate nature of reality. But I would not be at all surprised if once we commit we stay committed despite meeting contrary personal opinions. That behavior would make statistical sense even given the higher recognition of fallibility by the smart. When a smart person meets somebody who disagrees with them the odds are pretty good the disagreeing person just hasn't processed the available information as well.
OTOH, when confronted with a recognized authority such as peer review, a smart person is hopefully much more likely to be deferential to that authority over their own opinion than a stupid person (e.g., climate change denial by the stupid).
The scary thing about Milgram was even smart people vested a lab coat with authority. That was disappointing. It may well have changed since then, though, since one of the hallmarks of intelligence stressed in the culture of liberalism ever since has been a high skepticism towards mere symbols of authority (churches, banks, uniforms, flags, etc).