That is one of the most perculiar theories I have ever come across.
I'm pretty sure a lot of console players would also enjoy higher refresh rates if the console hardware and flat screen TVs were able to support it.
Why would you conclude that a 60Hz refresh rate is the superior option, only based on the fact that consoles are limited to 60 (sometimes 30) FPS and that consolepayers don't care?
Since consoles are limited to 60 FPS, you have to make do with what the hardware is capable of, and a lot of people find that acceptable
But how do you conclude from this, that most console players wouldn't prefer a higher refresh rate, if the option was available?
What data shows that console players are completely uninsterested in higher options than 60 FPS, even if they were available?
I'm interested since it seems that you base your theory on the premis that not a single consoleplayer would be interested in higher refresh rates, even if available
If you believe console players are the benchmark for what technology is superior, you would need to find out first, how many would actually prefer 60Hz over higher refresh rate options, if they were available on console
EDIT
Personally, I can't remember the last time I used my PlayStation, and didn't notice the choppines of 60Hz compared to my 120+ FPS on my PC capable of 144Hz.
For slow paced games, it doesn't matter much, but high paced FPS games, for example, high refresh rates changes the experience completely