Person B, but the magnitude of the distinction I make will probably be highly context dependent.
At least that was my original answer. Now I lean toward mostly person B, and sometimes person A.
There are a number of reasons to be wary of person A. While they will likely make for a more interesting story character, in real life their behavior can cause a number of serious problems. First, while we should presumably fairly distinguish between person A and person C (where person C only thinks they see that an interpretation of reality shared by others is not correct, and tries to pretend otherwise for personal gain and/or safety), any one individual is unlikely to be able to tell whether they are A or C, and will tend to default to believing they are A. If we set person A and person C to be criminal-killing vigilantes, for example, I think it then becomes clear that we, as a society, must take certain steps to prevent the behaviors of person C from being encouraged. Otherwise, the innocent who has been truly acquitted of murder will likely die. Discouraging people from disconnecting from society in the way that both person A and C does is one way to do that. Secrecy in important issues can be a necessity if society itself is broken, but that doesn’t make it desirable. The more people you can check your ideas with, the more likely you can correct your mistakes by being shown information you have not considered (or have others correct your mistakes for you, as seen below).
If we consider person B now, they are more like the juror in the court who truly believes that an innocent person is guilty of murder. I say this because a person who interfaces honestly in society will tend to be acting within a societal context. Even if they and all their peers convict the innocent person, the convicted may still have a chance to live and possibly to be freed one day.
I think that many of the responders to this poll are considering these people and their behaviors in isolation, when they should also be considered within the context of society. Person B is the better person to have around or be in the cases where society is not so completely broken as to be worthless. Person A may be the better person only when civilization gives no other recourse. Even then, that will be highly dependent on their motives.
I should also note that I suspect I have been person A, B, and C at various points in my life (though fortunately at no point did this involve being directly responsible for the life or death of another). My point here is that one should also keep in consideration that these are not actually separate people, but separate behaviors. I am somewhat doubtful that I live in a universe that so cleverly divides people into categories like ‘secretive and always right’, ‘secretive and always wrong’ and ‘honest and always wrong’. So I think one should also consider whether one wants to encourage honesty or secrecy in any given individual in general.
Person B, but the magnitude of the distinction I make will probably be highly context dependent.
At least that was my original answer. Now I lean toward mostly person B, and sometimes person A.
There are a number of reasons to be wary of person A. While they will likely make for a more interesting story character, in real life their behavior can cause a number of serious problems. First, while we should presumably fairly distinguish between person A and person C (where person C only thinks they see that an interpretation of reality shared by others is not correct, and tries to pretend otherwise for personal gain and/or safety), any one individual is unlikely to be able to tell whether they are A or C, and will tend to default to believing they are A. If we set person A and person C to be criminal-killing vigilantes, for example, I think it then becomes clear that we, as a society, must take certain steps to prevent the behaviors of person C from being encouraged. Otherwise, the innocent who has been truly acquitted of murder will likely die. Discouraging people from disconnecting from society in the way that both person A and C does is one way to do that. Secrecy in important issues can be a necessity if society itself is broken, but that doesn’t make it desirable. The more people you can check your ideas with, the more likely you can correct your mistakes by being shown information you have not considered (or have others correct your mistakes for you, as seen below).
If we consider person B now, they are more like the juror in the court who truly believes that an innocent person is guilty of murder. I say this because a person who interfaces honestly in society will tend to be acting within a societal context. Even if they and all their peers convict the innocent person, the convicted may still have a chance to live and possibly to be freed one day.
I think that many of the responders to this poll are considering these people and their behaviors in isolation, when they should also be considered within the context of society. Person B is the better person to have around or be in the cases where society is not so completely broken as to be worthless. Person A may be the better person only when civilization gives no other recourse. Even then, that will be highly dependent on their motives.
I should also note that I suspect I have been person A, B, and C at various points in my life (though fortunately at no point did this involve being directly responsible for the life or death of another). My point here is that one should also keep in consideration that these are not actually separate people, but separate behaviors. I am somewhat doubtful that I live in a universe that so cleverly divides people into categories like ‘secretive and always right’, ‘secretive and always wrong’ and ‘honest and always wrong’. So I think one should also consider whether one wants to encourage honesty or secrecy in any given individual in general.