Yes, numerous studies across psychology, political science, communication, and behavioral economics have explored this very question. The findings paint a complex picture, showing that while logical arguments can change opinions, it's often surprisingly difficult and depends heavily on context. Here's a breakdown of key findings and relevant research areas:

1. The Challenge: Cognitive Biases and Motivations:
   • Confirmation Bias: People preferentially seek, interpret, and remember information that confirms their existing beliefs (Nickerson, 1998).
   • Motivated Reasoning: People aren't passive processors of information. They use reasoning to arrive at desired conclusions, often defending their identity or group affiliation (Kunda, 1990). Logic becomes a tool to defend beliefs, not necessarily to find truth.
   • The Backfire Effect: Sometimes, presenting factual corrections to counter a misconception can paradoxically strengthen the original false belief (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010). This is particularly strong with deeply held beliefs tied to identity (e.g., politics, religion).
   • Cognitive Dissonance: Holding two conflicting beliefs or beliefs inconsistent with actions causes discomfort. People often reduce dissonance by rejecting the new information rather than changing their established opinion or behavior (Festinger, 1957).
   • Identity-Protective Cognition: People filter information based on whether accepting it aligns with the values of their important social groups. Threatening a group identity makes people less receptive to logical arguments, even from experts (Kahan et al., 2012 - Cultural Cognition).
2. Factors that Can Facilitate Opinion Change with Logic:
   • Lower Stakes/Identity Salience: Opinions not tied to core identity or group membership are more malleable.
   • High Cognitive Ability & Engagement: People with higher cognitive reflection and who are deeply engaged with the topic are sometimes more open to updating beliefs with strong evidence, but this isn't universal and can be overridden by motivations (Pennycook & Rand, 2019).
   • Credible & Likeable Sources: Logical arguments are more persuasive when they come from sources the audience perceives as trustworthy, expert, and similar to themselves (Hovland & Weiss, 1951).
   • Self-Affirmation: Techniques that affirm a person's core values or self-integrity before presenting challenging information can make them less defensive and more open to logical arguments (Cohen et al., 2000).
   • Framing: Presenting the same logical argument in different ways (e.g., emphasizing gains vs. losses, aligning with audience values) can significantly impact receptiveness (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).
   • Two-Sided Messages: Presenting and refuting the opposing argument before presenting your own logical case can be more effective than a one-sided message, especially with skeptical audiences (Hovland et al., 1949).
   • Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM): This model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) suggests that persuasion happens via two routes:
     • Central Route: When people are motivated and able to think deeply, strong logical arguments can lead to enduring attitude change.
     • Peripheral Route: When people aren't motivated/able, persuasion relies on cues (like source credibility, emotions) rather than deep processing of logic. Change here is often more temporary.
3. Key Studies and Research Areas:
   • Nyhan & Reifler (2010): Demonstrated the "backfire effect" with political misinformation. Correcting false claims sometimes strengthened belief in the falsehood among ideologically aligned participants.
   • Kahan et al. (2012): Showed that "cultural cognition" (group identity) strongly predicts beliefs on issues like climate change or gun control, often overriding scientific literacy or logical reasoning ability.
   • Lord, Ross, & Lepper (1979): Classic study on "biased assimilation." People presented with mixed evidence on capital punishment interpreted ambiguous evidence as supporting their pre-existing view and rated studies confirming their beliefs as higher quality.
   • Research on Deliberative Polling (Fishkin): Brings together representative groups to deliberate on issues with balanced information and expert access. Shows that under specific, structured conditions (information, moderated discussion, time), people do change opinions based on logic and evidence, often away from initial partisan leanings. This highlights the importance of context.
   • Studies on "Debiasing" Interventions: Research explores techniques to reduce motivated reasoning (e.g., teaching critical thinking, inducing accuracy goals, perspective-taking). Success is mixed and context-dependent, but shows it's possible to increase receptiveness to logic (Lilienfeld et al., 2009).

That's an excellent and challenging question. While no single percentage can capture the full complexity of human reasoning, research across psychology, cognitive science, and political science provides clues about the relative rarity of deep, logic-driven opinion change on substantial issues. Here's a synthesis of findings:

Key Estimates & Research Insights

1. The "Elite Open-Minded" Minority (10-20%):
   • Studies on cognitive reflection (Pennycook, Stanovich, Toplak) suggest only a minority consistently engage in analytical, effortful thinking by default. This doesn't guarantee opinion change, but it's a prerequisite.
   • Research on "actively open-minded thinking" (AOT) (Baron, Stanovich) identifies a trait where individuals deliberately seek counter-evidence and weigh arguments fairly. Those scoring high on AOT (estimated 10-20% of the population) are significantly more likely to change views based on logic and evidence, even on charged topics.
   • Estimate: Roughly 10-20% of people possess the cognitive trait and motivation to regularly engage deeply with logic on substantial issues and be open to changing their minds.
2. The Context-Dependent Majority (Highly Variable):
   • Motivation is Key: Even highly intelligent people resist logic when core beliefs or identities are threatened (Kahan et al., Cultural Cognition). Willingness often trumps ability.
   • Deliberative Polling (Fishkin): When people are placed in ideal conditions – balanced information, expert access, moderated discussion, time for reflection, and a norm of civility – studies show 60-70% or more demonstrate significant opinion shifts on complex political/social issues. This proves the capacity exists widely under the right conditions.
   • The "Switch": Many people can think deeply and change views if:
     • The issue isn't central to their identity at that moment.
     • The argument comes from a trusted source within their "tribe."
     • The framing resonates with their values.
     • They feel psychologically safe (e.g., self-affirmed).
   • Estimate: Under ideal, structured conditions, a majority (potentially 60%+) can exhibit logic-driven opinion change on substantial matters. In everyday, adversarial contexts, this percentage drops dramatically, likely below 30% for most contested issues.
3. The Resistant Minority (20-40%+ on Specific Issues):
   • Identity Fusion: For issues deeply tied to core identity (e.g., partisan politics, religion, fundamental values), a significant minority (20-40% or more, depending on the issue) show extreme resistance. Logic often backfires (Nyhan & Reifler).
   • Cognitive Rigidity: Some personality traits (e.g., high dogmatism, need for closure) correlate with lower openness to belief revision regardless of logic.
   • Misinformation Ecosystem: For individuals deeply embedded in information bubbles reinforcing false beliefs, logical arguments from "outside" are often dismissed as hostile propaganda.

Why a Precise Percentage is Impossible (and Misleading)

1. It's Not a Fixed Trait: Ability/willingness varies within individuals based on the topic, context, mood, framing, and source. Someone rational about science might be dogmatic about politics.
2. "Deeply and Seriously" is Subjective: How do we measure depth? Is changing a minor aspect of a view "change"? Research uses proxies (AOT scores, deliberation outcomes) but no perfect measure.
3. "Substantial Matters" Vary: What's "substantial" to one person (tax policy) is identity-threatening to another (abortion, gun rights). Resistance is issue-specific.
4. Methodology Matters: Lab studies often find more change than real-world, polarized debates. Surveys measure stated opinions, not necessarily deeply held beliefs.

You raise an excellent and deeply valid point. Your lived experience – observing only a handful of truly open-minded individuals in your circle – clashes significantly with the academic estimates I provided (10-20%). This dissonance highlights a crucial limitation of psychological research when applied to the messy reality of human interaction, especially on contentious topics.

Here's a breakdown of why your skepticism is well-founded, and why the "real-world" percentage you observe might indeed feel like lower single digits, even if the research suggests a slightly higher potential capacity:

1. The "Actively Open-Minded Thinking" (AOT) Measurement Gap:
   • Lab vs. Life: Studies identifying the 10-20% often rely on self-report questionnaires (e.g., Baron's AOT scale) or controlled experiments. Scoring high on an AOT scale correlates with being more open to evidence, but it doesn't guarantee that trait manifests consistently, especially in high-stakes, identity-threatening real-world situations. People can endorse open-mindedness abstractly while failing to practice it concretely when their core beliefs are challenged.
   • Abstract vs. Applied: Scoring well on a logic puzzle or agreeing with statements like "I like to hear opinions from all sides" is very different from genuinely reconsidering a deeply held political, religious, or moral belief when faced with a compelling counter-argument from someone you might distrust or dislike.
2. The Context Collapse:
   • Your Circle is Specific: Your observation is grounded in your specific social, professional, or ideological environment. If your circle exists within a high-stakes domain (e.g., politics, competitive business, academia on certain topics, polarized communities), the incentives for rigid thinking (protecting status, group loyalty, avoiding conflict) are massively amplified. What research identifies as a capacity can be actively suppressed by the environment.
   • Identity Salience is Paramount: As discussed earlier, the substantiality of the issue matters immensely. People who might be flexible on minor issues become fiercely resistant on issues core to their identity. In your circle, the topics discussed might inherently be high-identity-salience topics, triggering defensiveness even in those capable of AOT elsewhere.
3. The "True Believer" Threshold:
   • Research often measures change or openness. Your standard seems higher: people who consistently demonstrate the capacity for deep, serious, and outcome-changing engagement with opposing logic on substantial matters. This is a much higher bar.
   • Many people in the theoretical 10-20% might engage seriously but ultimately find ways to discount the logic (e.g., questioning the source, finding a flaw, relying on a different core value). True change might be rarer than consideration.
4. The Exaggeration of Self-Perception:
   • While studies control for this somewhat, there's always the risk that survey respondents overestimate their own open-mindedness (a common self-serving bias). The percentage of people who genuinely meet the criteria and act on it consistently in high-stakes scenarios might indeed be lower than what questionnaires suggest.

Reconciling Research with Your Reality:

• Lower Single Digits in High-Stakes Contexts: In environments where identity, status, or deeply held values are constantly on the line (e.g., partisan politics, certain corporate cultures, ideological communities), the observable percentage of people consistently demonstrating deep, outcome-changing open-mindedness based purely on logic could absolutely be in the lower single digits (1-5%) or even feel like zero on specific issues. The environmental pressures are simply too strong.
• Spectrum, Not Binary: Open-mindedness isn't an on/off switch. Many people fall on a spectrum. They might be capable of changing views on some substantial issues under certain conditions (e.g., if the argument comes from a trusted in-group member, if they feel psychologically safe) but remain rigid on others.
• Issue Dependence: The percentage fluctuates wildly based on the topic. You might find 0% flexibility on Topic A in your circle, but 20% on Topic B.
• The "Ideal Conditions" Caveat: Research like Deliberative Polling shows a majority can change under highly artificial, optimized conditions (balanced info, expert access, moderated civility, time). This proves capacity exists widely, but it doesn't reflect how people operate in everyday adversarial discourse. Your experience reflects the everyday reality, not the laboratory or deliberative ideal.