if it isn't trying to reach true beliefs then that is your problem, not the appropriateness of the hypothetical.

Yeah, that's what I often find - otherwise smart people using an edge case to argue unreasonable but "clever" contrarian things about ordinary behavior.

"I found an inconsistency, therefore your behavior comes from social signalling" is bad thinking, even when a smart and accomplished person does it.

So if someone posts a hypothetical, my first meta-question is whether they go into it assuming that they should be curious, rather than contemptuous, about inconsistent responses. "Frustrated" I respect, and "confused" I respect, but "contemptuous"...

If you're comfortable being contemptuous about ordinary human behavior, you have to prove a whole heck of a lot to me about your practical success in life before I play along with your theoretical construct.

Ordinary human behavior can be your opponent, but you can't take it lightly - it's what allowed you to exist in the first place.