Where would you place saying nothing in your hierarchy.

I think that saying nothing is better than being right and mean, because being right and mean is usually counter productive and reinforces the wong belief.

Humans are simply wired to use aggression as overriding evidence of the person being wrong. If your goal is to change minds, it just doesn't work.

> Humans are simply wired to use aggression as overriding evidence of the person being wrong.

This is not always true, many mathematicians and physicists can be mean when they argue but they still listen to each other and acknowledge when they are wrong.

I agree that there are fringe cases where individuals can separate emotional reactions from factual arguments. I would argue that it is the exception to the norm, and there is usually an implicit understanding of mutual respect

It depends on how much you have to win or lose.

If you win practically nothing by telling the truth, saying nothing is better.

If saying nothing means that people will treat you or others unfairly, then I would say that being mean and right is better than saying nothing. The problem with this is that one can never really know when one is right.

This is just my ethical judgement though, not a practical guide to convince people. Maybe being mean is never convenient, or maybe it's convenient but unethical(?).

My experience is that saying something and being mean leads to others doubling down on their position, unfair or not because you made yourself an enemy.