Yes! Helping people save face is more useful than jockeying for nerd dominance. Other approaches to do what you suggest: "I think I read an article that comp

Yes! Helping people save face is more useful than jockeying for nerd dominance. Other approaches to do what you suggest: "I think I read an article that compared a few different password hashing strategies, I'm interested in your thoughts..." (and then follow up with a good comparison that makes the point) "Have you compared X, Y and Z?" Tone is important with this one, but it can be the most straightforward. "At the last place I worked, the paranoid guy insisted that we do X because he thought it was better -- it was just as easy to implement, is that something you'd be open to?" When all else fails, you can follow up in private! I think the key in any of these exchanges is to offer new information in a way that doesn't question the judgement of the other individual. Basically, assume that everyone is rational and differences in judgement are due to differences in information/experience. Then, when someone makes a judgement different from yours, you are merely giving them the information that lead to your decision -- but leaving them to make up their own mind. Most people are more ego-identified with their judgement than with the information they have.