Concealing unconventional beliefs with high inferential distance to those you are speaking with makes sense. Dismissing those beliefs with the absurdity heuristic does not.
Also, I think you underestimate the utility of rhetorical strategies. For example, you could:
Talk about these weird beliefs in a hypothetical, facetious manner (or claim you had been).
Close the inferential difference gradually using the Socratic method.
Introduce them to the belief indirectly. For example, you could link them to a more conventional LessWrong sequence post and let them investigate the others on their own.
Ask them for help finding what is objectively and specifically wrong with the weird belief.
Concealing unconventional beliefs with high inferential distance to those you are speaking with makes sense. Dismissing those beliefs with the absurdity heuristic does not.
Also, I think you underestimate the utility of rhetorical strategies. For example, you could:
Talk about these weird beliefs in a hypothetical, facetious manner (or claim you had been).
Close the inferential difference gradually using the Socratic method.
Introduce them to the belief indirectly. For example, you could link them to a more conventional LessWrong sequence post and let them investigate the others on their own.
Ask them for help finding what is objectively and specifically wrong with the weird belief.