That's just a handwavy reply (look up the research). I know the kind of research, and it is very hard to separate the ideologically motivated one from the worthwhile ones.
"Just hire good professional people, surely?"
So why have any hiring process at all, if it doesn't matter who works for/with you?
Some people realize they spend most of their waking hours at work, so they want to get along with the people they work with.
I don't know what's going on with the 'reply' button, but I don't seem to be able to reply to your latest comments.
Firstly, "google it", well actually "google scholar" it. Go to the public research body rather than the general internet and spend some time finding some reviews (I mean proper peer-reviewed reviews), look for ones that are highly cited and ~5-10 years old. Then start following up, with standard procedures. This seems an important topic to you, and you're unwilling to follow the modern wisdom - which is completely fine, no criticism from me over that. So I would recommend spending at least a couple of weeks on this, go down to the primary experiments that the reviews draw on and see what the researcher's are really debating with each experiment. Look how the experiments being done have informed recent reviews and why viewpoints are changing. Make sure everything you're reading is peer reviewed, or you will waste a lot of time. Without two years+ in a subject, filtering the bull is hard.
I would also be very careful about whether the researchers are indirectly or directly being paid by the recruitment industry rather than centrally funded, since commercial funding makes the validity of the results more uncertain.
So I'm not saying "Google it". I'm saying do some bare minimum reading on the research corpus.
-----
Just to go back to the above message. I'm not saying have no hiring process, obviously you need to evaluate the candidate. But for me, once I've checked for egregious personality flaws, they don't need to be my friends. Think of it this way: falling out with friends is terrible and likely to be very destructive to morale on your team - people will take sides and within the space of an hour your company has been ripped apart. Office politics will be much greater, while bad decisions based on emotion - "can't fire him, we had a real heart to heart last night", "let's do this because I like x more than y" are much more likely.
If you're pros, then melodrama becomes much less likely. Furthermore, you know you've been hired to be great at your job rather than because you behave in a certain way. Better motivation to focus on the job rather than the politics.
If you went through the Google Scholar thing, haven't you saved some articles you approved of? Why not point me directly to it? I don't really have time to become an expert in this by dozens of articles.
Discussing things used to be a good way to gain understanding. You know, back in the day before PC, when people were still willing to have a real discussion.
Discussing things is still a good way to gain understanding. But your unwillingness to acquaint yourself with actual research done on the topic tells me you aren't really interested in gaining understanding, just yelling your opinion louder than everyone else.
"Just hire good professional people, surely?"
So why have any hiring process at all, if it doesn't matter who works for/with you?
Some people realize they spend most of their waking hours at work, so they want to get along with the people they work with.