may help if they know what those things are, but seems likely to do more harm if they don't know them, or regard them negatively - and those people are, by hypothesis, the ones who are going to be patronizing and dismissive.

I had considered that. Here's my assumptions:

• The people that do and don't know those things are more likely to elevate their responses from a deferential context to a professional one.
• The people that regard those things negatively or want to be patronizing will produce responses that aren't meaningful.
• The people that do know those things and regard them positively will be impressed and thereby more generous in the quality of their responses.

If true, I think the first assumption is especially important. It's the difference between answering a journalist's question and answering that same question at a professional conference. In the former case, I would have to consider the variety of ways they're likely to misunderstand or skew my answer, and, really, I just want to give them the answer that produces the belief I want. E.g., don't freak about A.I. because you know nothing about it and we do. We're not worried, really. Now, look at this cute dancing robot and give us more funding.

Edit: I forgot to add that I agree with you on changing the wording of Q8. Although, I don't think it makes it any less shibbolethy, just less obviously a shibboleth. Sneaky, I like it.