Consider this: If you're supporting your own genuine opinion, you might have your own carefully chosen perspective that is slightly different from the question's wording. You only select the answer because it's the closest one of the options, not because it's exactly your answer. So, you may be inclined, then, to say things that are related but don't fit the question exactly. If you're confabulating to support a random opinion, though, what do you have to go by but the wording? The opinion is directing your thoughts then, leading your thoughts to fit the opinion. You aren't trying to cram pre-existing thoughts into an opinion box to make it fit your view.

Or looking at it another way:

When expressing your point of view, the important thing is to express what you feel, regardless of whether it fits the exact question.

When supporting "your" point because you don't want to look like an idiot in front of a researcher, the objective is to support it as precisely as possible, not to express anything.

As for whether your interpretation of that selection is correct: it's past my bed time and I'm getting drowsy, so someone else should answer that part instead.

I think it does. Can't believe I missed that.

Actually, this fits well with my personal experience. I've frequently found it easier to verbalize sophisticated arguments for the other team, since my own opinions just seem self-evident.

Konkvistador's LessWrong improvement algorithm

1. Trick brilliant but contrarian thinker into mainstream position.
2. Trick brilliant but square thinker into contrarian position.
3. Have each write an article defending their take.
4. Enjoy improved rationalist community.