It's interesting that they present open-mindedness as an intrinsic advantage, where often in political debate one would see openness as the move "cooperate" in a prisoner dilemma, exposing oneself to defection of the opponent.
On the other hand I totally do not understand the purpose of step 2. A bunch of quote and a video about being wrong. Maybe because it's old news from an aspiring rationalist. But is really someone deeply entrenched in a political ideology going to be convinced by two quote from Buddha?
Anyway, a Marginal Revolution comment brings up an interesting point related to the whole project:

Interesting. But one can notice that all the thinkers and opinions presented as diverse share the same basic morality. I might have overseen them, but I haven’t seen any citation of Nietzsche, or of Hindu sacred texts justifying a cast system, or even of the anti-democratic Plato of the Republic.
In fact, studying these very foreign systems of thought would not only enrich the point of view of students, but could also help close the gap between Liberals, Libertarians and Conservative (the three groups addressed by the survey) by showing them how they agree on, essentially, everything — closing that gap being the aim of the whole “viewpoint diversity” project.