We don't count as a prime example, no?
seems like we have a long way to go...

BTW, being neutral almost always serves to provide an unbiased analysis.
Therefore, not believing is not the "problem", if I might say so.
The "Perfect Observer" has to be very analytical and rational. It has to think logically and be open to new logics as long as they aren't ridiculously outrageous.

The whole point is to figure out which beliefs are less outrageous than others, by hearing the reasoning behind each and thinking about it from a neutral point of view.
This way "not believing" is the whole purpose of the thing, that we're talking about.