Edited because I misread the description of B the first time.
If the other people's wrong interpretation is causing them harm beyond the harm that A is risking, and if the other people could be convinced of their error if A made an effort, it would be altruistic/ethical to be candid. I don't have a strong opinion on how strong the moral obligation to help others be more accurate is on A. With that caveat, A looks better in my eyes because ey figured out something other people didn't and was instrumentally ration enough to keep quiet about it, and there's no reason given to believe that B would have been candid had ey figured it out too. A is confirmed smart/rational and willing to lie about this issue, B is confirmed less smart/rational and has unknown willingness-to-lie. If we give A 1 Status Point for epistemic rationality (figuring out the truth), 1 point for instrumental rationality (being savvy enough to lie), and -1 point for moral shadiness, ey comes out with +1 point. If we give B -1 Status Point for not figuring out the truth and no points for lying because we didn't see em face that decision, ey comes out with -1 points.
This is thread where I'm trying to figure out a few things about signalling on LessWrong and need some information, so please immediately after reading about the two individuals please answer the poll. The two individuals:
A. Sees that an interpretation of reality shared by others is not correct, but tries to pretend otherwise for personal gain and/or safety.
B. Fails to see that an interpretation of reality is shared by others is flawed. He is therefore perfectly honest in sharing the interpretation of reality with others. The reward regime for outward behaviour is the same as with A.
To add a trivial inconvenience that matches the inconvenience of answering the poll before reading on, comments on what I think the two individuals signal,what the trade off is and what I speculate the results might be here versus the general population, is behind this link.