The Good Side of Hypocrisy

Hal Finney points out that moving your opinion toward that of majority (earlier discussed here) has a downside:

In classic group-decision experiments like "guess how many beans in the jar", you get less accurate answers if people call out their guesses one after the other, because they are revealing their adjusted beliefs, that take into account the social consensus (perhaps without realizing it). If people write their answers down, we get Rolf's kind of beliefs, uninfluenced by the consensus view, and those have been shown to be more accurate on average.

Apparently the consensus is more accurate only when we don't talk about it. (Applying this to the global-warming controversy will be left as an exercise for the reader.)

It might be best to express what your personal analysis says while simultaneously adjusting your private opinions (which might be revealed in your actions) closer to the opinions of the majority. Of course, in that case it makes sense to give verbal support for an unpopular policy (if that's what your reasoning says) while dodging any actual involvement. There are lots of examples all across the political spectrum.

For example, it might make sense to criticize government spending and insulation from the free market while being a tenured professor at a public university … or to defend an unpopular war while dodging the draft … or to criticize racism while moving to an all-white neighborhood.

To sum up, the existence of hypocrisy is not necessarily a reason to dismiss the words of the hypocrites out of hand.