That of course is only about the tribe's survival, a necessary but not sufficient condition of the survival of one's own genes. Yet similar risks and rewards occur within the tribe in competition for resources. In those cases as well, being persuasive rather than correct might be the better strategy. Persuasive, in this discussion, would include undermining or intimidating competitors, as well as inspiring confidence in the rest of the team.
BTW, the game board is different for women, and there is enormous variety, but I think the same correctness-confidence tradeoffs apply.
The equations may change a bit in the move to pastoral, then agricultural, then trade-and-industrial societies, but the uncomfortable reality remains. It may be a better strategy to be convincing than to be wise. In fact, that may be exactly what plays out in electoral politics. We put our trust in a particular place - a party, a few news sources, a general ideology (Keynes' long-dead-economist), a half-dozen friends - and get along with our day from there.
With all that as introduction, James has interesting thoughts on our news sources.
Postscript: yes, I think it applies to academic and political debate as well.
