Leveraged on being right

A friend once shared an essay with me for feedback. It struck me as mistaken and terribly naive, and I said so, which they did not take well.(They didn't say it, but a standard Less Wrongian response here would have been "instead of insulting me, why don't you provide an actual counterargument?"—and that's often a very good move for helping conversations keep on-track.)Why was that hard for them to be on the receiving end of? To understand, consider the difference between the following two conversations.If I say "Many of the rooms of your house are painted red" and you respond "Hm, I can't think of any rooms in my house that are painted red" then probably I'm the one who is mistaken. I probably have only visited once or twice and you actually live there.If I say "You're naive in your thinking" and you respond "Hm, I can't think of any times that I was naive in my thinking", well, I'm accusing you of not noticing important things, so your claim to not have noticed such cases is something I'd expect to see in world where I was right as well as worlds where I was wrong. (It's not zero bayesian evidence, I do know people who are naive and self-aware of this, but it's far rarer, and so the lack of it is much less evidence than the red-room case.)Calling someone naive is a kind of epistemically insidious reply. It not only indicates that you disagree with them on the object level, but it calls into question their reasoning capacity, in a way that makes their perspective and arguments less worth engaging with and more worth ignoring or dismissing.I tend to think of an accusation of naivety as leveraged on being right. In the worlds where it's right, it's good and true to say, helping everyone's maps get better, helping the person notice their blindspots, etc. etc.. But in the worlds where it's wrong, you've muddied the waters considerably, because it's harder for the accused to defend themselves from this claim; the claim itself calls into question their reasoning, and so y