While the example is basically correct, I fear it might kill more minds than enlighten then.
By doing this you basically force breach a compartment in someone's mind. While of course a well intentioned person might hope this would motivate them to fix the leak and clear the water out of the flooded compartment, it might however just help sink the ship a little bit more, by making another part of their cognitive tool kit "dangerous" to use.
Browsing through your comment history, there are some comments I disagree with and some I agree with, and certainly the same would be true for you if you looked at my commenting style. I really don't wish to brag, since my style is far from perfect, but perhaps dare I say my approach may be slightly more productive? Though naturally if no commenter's with your style ever appeared I may find myself under overwhelming scrutiny and need to be quieter on some of my contrarian stances.
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.