Conventional wisdom is a good heuristic. We tend to focus on the cases where it was wrong (the Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe) more so than when the CW is correct. It's great to question/reaffirm widely held beliefs but my attention is a precious resource.

Think about it: specialized communities spring up for times when the collective wisdom of humans is wrong, not when it's right.

Success in option 5 has much more to do with persuasiveness than rationality. I believe that a hyper-rational Urkel would fail every time.

Is it ethical to use irrational persuasion techniques to convince people to become more rational?