Single agent perspective:

My intention → My manifestation → My judgment → My causal impression

Even discussing "subject-object relations" (Chapter 5):
My perspective → Observing others → Forming judgment

All within my subjective interior

5 people in meeting, discussing project direction
Each has their own judgment:

A: Project [+0.8, -0.3](benefit × risk) "Should do"
B: Project [+0.5, -0.7](benefit × risk) "Too risky"
C: Project [+0.6, -0.5](benefit × risk) "Can try"
D: Project [+0.3, -0.8](benefit × risk) "Don't do"
E: Project [+0.7, -0.4](benefit × risk) "Worth investing"

How to reach consensus?

"Is a policy good or bad?"

Different groups:
├─ Beneficiaries: (+ + +)
├─ Victims: (- - -)
├─ Observers: (0 0 0)
└─ Uninformed: (? ? ?)

Does consensus exist?

"Speed of light is constant"

Early physicists:
├─ Einstein: Certain
├─ Lorentz: Doubtful
├─ Planck: Gradually accepting
└─ Others: Observing

How to go from disagreement to consensus?

Agent A: Object=(+0.8)[dimension] @Intention X
Agent B: Object=(+0.7)[dimension] @Intention X
Agent C: Object=(+0.9)[dimension] @Intention X

Overlap degree ≈ 90%
Consensus: Object is positive on this dimension

Case: Witnessing car accident

10 people at scene simultaneously:
- All saw Car A run red light
- All saw Car B get hit
- All heard collision sound

External input highly similar
→ Judgment highly consistent: "Car A's responsibility"

A only saw second half: Thinks Car B fully responsible
B only saw first half: Thinks Car A fully responsible
C heard from others: Uncertain

Different external input → Judgment divergence

Case: Evaluating an employee

Boss's intention: <Evaluate whether to promote>
Origin: Performance contribution
Judgment: Employee(+, ?, ?)  → Focus on performance

HR's intention: <Evaluate whether to retain>
Origin: Team harmony
Judgment: Employee(?, ?, -)  → Focus on attitude

Colleague's intention: <Evaluate whether easy to get along>
Origin: Interpersonal relations
Judgment: Employee(?, ?, +)  → Focus on personality

Same person, different intentions → Judgment divergence

All three use intention <Evaluate overall performance>
All use three-dimensional (A, Q, T)
Origins consistent

Judgments converge: Employee(+, +, -)
Consensus forms

Case: Predicting stock market

Novice investor:
Causal impression: Rising continues rising, falling continues falling
Judgment: Now rising → Will continue rising → Buy

Professional investor:
Causal impression: Rising to high tends to pull back
Judgment: Now rising → May pull back soon → Sell

Same external input (stock price rising)
Different causal impressions → Opposite judgments

All professional investors
All learned same theories
Causal impression libraries highly overlap

Judgments converge
Consensus forms

Overlap degree = f(External input consistency, Intention similarity, Causal impression overlap)

Extremely high overlap (90%+):
- External input: Almost identical
- Intention: Highly consistent
- Causal impressions: Extensively shared
→ Strong consensus (like scientific laws)

High overlap (70-90%):
- External input: Basically same
- Intention: Mostly consistent
- Causal impressions: Core parts shared
→ Stable consensus (like professional domains)

Medium overlap (50-70%):
- External input: Partially same
- Intention: Have commonalities
- Causal impressions: Have intersection
→ Fragile consensus (like within teams)

Low overlap (30-50%):
- External input: Significant differences
- Intention: Not fully consistent
- Causal impressions: Less overlap
→ Controversial state (like political stances)

Extremely low overlap (<30%):
- External input: Each talking past other
- Intention: Fundamentally different
- Causal impressions: Almost no intersection
→ Unable to dialogue (like different cultures)

External input:
- Standardized experiments
- Repeatable validation
- Instrument measurement (reduces subjective differences)
→ Input highly consistent

Intention:
- Common goal: Understanding natural phenomena
- Common standards: Prediction accuracy, falsifiability
- Common origin: Empiricism
→ Intention highly unified

Causal impressions:
- Common training: Physics/chemistry/math education
- Common paradigm: Current scientific theory framework
- Common methodology: Scientific methodology
→ Causal impression libraries extensively overlap

Result:
Overlap degree extremely high (95%+)
→ Consensus extremely easy to form and extremely stable

External input:
- Same artwork, experience highly personalized
- No "instrument measurement"
→ Input same, but subjective processing varies greatly

Intention:
- Some focus on technique
- Some focus on emotion
- Some focus on ideas
→ Intentions dispersed

Causal impressions:
- Different schools, different training backgrounds
- Diverse aesthetic standards
→ Low causal impression library overlap

Result:
Low overlap degree (30-50%)
→ Hard to form stable consensus
→ "Art has no definite answer"

Case: Earthquake

When earthquake occurs:
- Everyone simultaneously feels shaking
- External input compulsory, synchronous, irrefutable

Immediately forms consensus: "Just had earthquake"

Characteristics:
- Formation speed: Extremely fast (seconds)
- Stability: Extremely high (undeniable)
- Scope: All present

Case: Historical events

"Qin Shi Huang unified six kingdoms in 221 BC"

Vast majority:
- Haven't personally verified
- Trust historians
- Trust textbooks
- Form consensus

Characteristics:
- Formation speed: Fast
- Stability: Depends on authority's stability
- Scope: Authority's influence range

First tier: Direct authority
Scientists → Scientific community
"Einstein said" → Physicists all believe

Second tier: Institutional authority
Textbooks, academic journals, government documents
"Written in books" → Students all believe

Third tier: Media authority
News reports, documentaries, authoritative commentary
"CCTV said" → Public all believes

Fourth tier: Social authority
"Everyone says" → Individuals follow

What if authority is wrong?

Case: Bloodletting therapy
Medieval medical authorities: Sick need bloodletting
→ Forms consensus
→ Persists hundreds of years
→ Later proven wrong

Authority transmission stability = Authority correctness × Authority status

If authority status high but judgment wrong → Stable false consensus

Case: Restaurant choice

You're on unfamiliar street, see two restaurants:
Restaurant A: Queue of 20 people at door
Restaurant B: Empty

You have no other information

Social validation:
"So many queuing, must be good" → Choose A

Consensus forms: Restaurant A is good

Case: Popular trends

Certain fashion style starts trending:
T0: 10 people wear → "A bit special"
T1: 100 people wear → "This is a trend"
T2: 1000 people wear → "Must keep up"
T3: 10000 people wear → "Not wearing means outdated"

Consensus rapidly forms and reinforces

Case: Financial bubbles

T0: Asset price normal
T1: Few people bullish, start buying
T2: Price rises, more people follow
T3: "Everyone buying, must be right"
T4: Crazy chasing, bubble forms
T5: Collapse

Social validation created false consensus
"Everyone bullish" ≠ "Really worth this price"

Case: Law

"Murder is illegal"

This consensus:
- Written into criminal law
- Transmitted through education
- Reinforced through law enforcement
- Cross-generational inheritance

Forms extremely stable consensus

How "law of universal gravitation" becomes consensus:

1. Newton proposes (1687)
2. Scientists verify and accept
3. Written into textbooks (authority transmission)
4. Becomes physics education requirement (institutional solidification)
5. Generations learn through education
6. Becomes "common sense"

Now:
Consensus of billions globally
Extremely high stability

Scientific laws:
Simultaneous experience (experiments repeatable)
+ Authority transmission (scientist consensus)
+ Institutional solidification (textbooks)
→ Extremely high stability

Popular trends:
Only social validation
→ Extremely low stability

Validation frequency: Extremely high (millions of times)
Subjective overlap: Extremely broad (global scientists + users)
Prediction accuracy: Extremely precise (quantified to multiple decimal places)
Stable conditions: Extremely broad (within applicable scope)
Formation path: Simultaneous experience + Authority transmission + Institutional solidification

Examples:
- Law of energy conservation
- Pythagorean theorem
- Constancy of speed of light

Window length: Century-level (within applicable scope)

Validation frequency: High (daily application)
Subjective overlap: Broad (social members)
Prediction accuracy: Medium-high (predictable consequences)
Stable conditions: Specific social scope
Formation path: Authority transmission + Institutional solidification

Examples:
- Legal provisions
- Traditional festivals
- Moral norms

Window length: Decade-century level

Validation frequency: Medium (frequent within profession)
Subjective overlap: Medium (within industry)
Prediction accuracy: Medium (industry experience)
Stable conditions: Specific industry
Formation path: Experience accumulation + Authority transmission

Examples:
- Programmer coding standards
- Doctor diagnosis procedures
- Lawyer practice codes

Window length: Year-level

Validation frequency: Extremely low (mainly following trends)
Subjective overlap: Narrow and rapidly changing
Prediction accuracy: Extremely low (unpredictable)
Stable conditions: Extremely narrow (specific time, platform, group)
Formation path: Mainly social validation

Examples:
- A certain influencer is popular
- A certain meme is trending
- A certain topic goes viral

Window length: Week-month level

T0: Release viral video
T1: Social validation starts, followers surge
T2: "Whole internet watching them"
T3: Peak
T4: New influencer appears, attention shifts
T5: "Who are they?"

Window length: 3 months

Validation frequency: None (pure emotion)
Subjective overlap: Instantaneously extremely high, rapidly disintegrates
Prediction accuracy: None
Stable conditions: Extremely narrow (specific situation)
Formation path: Social validation + Emotional contagion

Examples:
- Financial panic (bank runs)
- Crowd emotions in squares
- Panic caused by rumors

Window length: Hour-day level

T0: Rumor "bank going bankrupt"
T1: Few people withdraw money
T2: Queue getting longer
T3: "Everyone withdrawing, must be problem"
T4: Collective panic, bank run
T5: Bank suspends operations
T6: Government clarifies, panic subsides
T7: "How could we believe that?"

Window length: 1-2 days

Extremely stable (century-level)
  ├─ Scientific laws
  └─ Mathematical truths
  
High stability (decade-century)
  ├─ Laws
  └─ Cultural traditions
  
Medium stability (year-level)
  ├─ Industry conventions
  └─ Professional standards
  
Low stability (month-level)
  ├─ Popular trends
  └─ Online hot topics
  
Extremely unstable (day-level)
  ├─ Emotional resonance
  └─ Collective panic
  
Determining factors:
Validation frequency × Subjective overlap × Prediction accuracy × Condition range × Formation path

Case: Definition of disease

Historically:
"Homosexuality is mental illness" ← Medical authority definition
→ Consensus forms
→ Homosexuals treated, discriminated

1973:
American Psychiatric Association votes: Homosexuality not disease
→ Consensus changes
→ Rights situation changes

Definitional power = Power

Scientists have power to define:
- What is "disease"
- What is "healthy"
- What is "normal"

Why?
- Professional training
- Institutional recognition
- Social trust

Consequences:
Their definitions become consensus
→ Shape everyone's behavior

Judges/legislators have power to define:
- What is "legal"
- What is "criminal"
- What is "rights"

Consequences:
Their definitions have coercive force
→ Direct control over behavior

Media/education system have power to define:
- What is "beautiful"
- What is "success"
- What is "proper"

Consequences:
Their definitions shape values
→ Indirect control over choices

"We're just describing facts objectively"
"We're just following scientific standards"
"We're just enforcing law"

Seems:
- No self-interest
- Pure objective
- Just doing job

But:
- They choose which facts to emphasize
- They set what standards are "scientific"
- They interpret what law "means"

These choices:
- Not neutral
- Reflect specific stance
- Serve specific interests

Women's rights movement:
Contest definition of "women's proper role"

Old definition (male authority):
"Women should stay home"

New definition (feminist movement):
"Women can enter any field"

Struggle:
Who has right to define "women's proper role"?

Mental health diagnosis:
DSM (Diagnostic Manual) has enormous power

What gets included/excluded?
- 1973: Homosexuality removed
- Debate continues: Other conditions?

Stakes:
- Affects millions' lives
- Determines treatment/not
- Influences social attitudes

Case: Gender roles

Agricultural era:
Physical strength important → Men dominate labor
Consensus: "Men work outside, women inside"

Industrial era:
Machines reduce strength need → Women can work
Consensus begins changing

Information era:
Mental labor dominates → Gender差异 diminishes
Consensus: "Gender equality"

External conditions → Consensus follows

Case: Smoking

1950s:
Limited research, social acceptance
Consensus: "Smoking no big deal"

1960s-80s:
Massive research accumulates
Evidence: Lung cancer, heart disease linkage

Now:
Scientific consensus: "Smoking extremely harmful"
→ Public consensus changed
→ Policy changed (bans, taxes)

Case: Colonial discourse

Colonial era:
European power dominates
Consensus: "Colonialism brings civilization"

Post-colonial era:
Former colonies gain voice
New consensus: "Colonialism was exploitation"

Power shift → Discourse shift → Consensus shift

Those benefiting from old consensus
Have motive to resist change

Example: Tobacco industry
- Fund contrary research
- Attack scientists
- Lobby politicians
- Delay policy change

Goal: Prolong old consensus window

Changing consensus means:
- Relearning
- Overturning prior investment
- Admitting previous error

Too painful → Prefer maintaining old consensus

Example: Senior scholars in paradigm shifts

Old consensus written into:
- Textbooks
- Laws
- Professional training

Huge cost to change
→ Resists change

Few people question old consensus
Provide new evidence/perspective

Most people:
- Dismiss
- Attack
- Ignore

Challengers:
- Marginalized
- Called "heretics"
- Face professional risks

More research supports new view
More people start doubting old consensus

Begins appearing:
- Internal community debates
- Media reports
- Public attention

When enough people accept new view
Power balance tips

Turning point:
- Key authority figures convert
- Major institutions change stance
- Media narrative shifts

New view becomes mainstream
Written into textbooks, policies

Old view:
- Becomes "outdated"
- Supporters marginalized
- Historical curiosity

New consensus stabilizes

Stage 1 (1543-1600):
Copernicus proposes, few accept
Church opposes, Giordano Bruno burned

Stage 2 (1600-1687):
Galileo, Kepler provide more evidence
Debates intensify

Stage 3 (1687-1750):
Newton's laws validate
Key scientists accept

Stage 4 (1750-1850):
Scientific authority fully accepts
Becomes new common sense

Total time: ~150 years

Written into laws, textbooks
→ Cross-generational inheritance
→ Becomes "common sense"
→ Challengers viewed as heretics

Example: Certain ideologies

Too many depend on this consensus for profit
→ Have motive to maintain
→ Suppress challengers

Example: Certain industry "unspoken rules"

Changing consensus means:
- Relearning
- Overturning prior investment
- Admitting previous error

Too painful → Rather maintain old consensus

Example: Senior scholars in paradigm shifts

Even knowing old consensus problematic
But no better option
→ "Make do with it"

Example: Certain imperfect theories
"Though imperfect, it's our best explanation currently"

Surface: 100% support X
Reality: 50% support, 50% oppose but silent

False consensus = Suppressed/hidden disagreement

Stage 1:
Media/authority repeatedly express view A
→ A appears "mainstream"

Stage 2:
Those holding view B:
"Everyone supports A, only I don't agree"
→ Fear isolation
→ Stay silent

Stage 3:
Because B supporters silent
→ A appears even more "mainstream"
→ B supporters even less dare speak
→ Spiral downward

Result:
False consensus "everyone supports A"
Reality: Many support B, just don't say

Government/media heavily promote: "This policy is great"

Public:
- 30% genuinely support
- 40% dissatisfied but don't dare say (fear isolation/suppression)
- 30% unaware

Surface: Appears "broad consensus"
Reality: Majority dissatisfied but silent

Risk:
False consensus accumulates tension
→ Suddenly erupts
→ "How did everyone suddenly oppose?"

Scenario: Company meeting

Boss: "Does everyone agree with this plan?"

Surface: Everyone nods
"Unanimously approved"

Reality:
- 2 people genuinely support
- 5 people have doubts but don't dare say
  (fear being seen as "uncooperative")
- 3 people think it won't work but don't want to offend boss

False consensus forms

Plan execution:
- Poor execution (because not genuinely committed)
- Problems surface
- Boss: "Didn't you all agree?"
- Employees: "..."

Cost of false consensus

Observe others' choices
→ Doubt own judgment
→ Change expression (not change belief)

Case: Asch conformity experiments
Obviously wrong answer
But if majority chooses
→ Individual follows (at least superficially)

Certain view massively forwarded on social media
→ "So many support, must be right"
→ Even if you have doubts, follow and forward
→ Assist false consensus

Reality:
Many forwarding also have doubts
Just everyone conforming

All media, all people saying same thing
→ Suspicious

Real consensus:
Should have discussion, disagreement, detail differences

If completely uniform
→ May be different voices suppressed

Only slogans, no argumentation
"Everyone supports"
"This is consensus"
"No need to discuss"

Real consensus:
Based on argumentation, evidence, testability

If refuses discussion
→ May be false consensus

Challengers suppressed:
"How can you think that?"
"Everyone agrees, just you don't"
"Is there something wrong with you?"

Real consensus:
Welcomes challenge and validation

If no questioning allowed
→ Very likely false

Public setting: All say support
Private chat: Various complaints

Huge discrepancy → False consensus

Surface harmony, internal dissatisfaction
→ Tension continuously accumulates
→ Certain trigger event
→ Suddenly erupts

Example: Certain social movements
"How did everyone suddenly take to streets?"
Reality: Dissatisfaction long accumulated, just didn't dare say

Decision-makers think "everyone supports"
→ Make decisions based on false consensus
→ Face huge resistance during execution
→ Surprised: "Didn't everyone agree?"

No one dares raise different opinions
→ Errors cannot be pointed out
→ Wrong all the way

Example: Certain project failures
"Already knew wouldn't work, but no one dared say"

Mechanism:
Same information repeatedly appears
→ Familiarity increases
→ Mistake familiarity for correctness
→ "Feel like everyone says so"

Example: Advertising
Same slogan repeated 1000 times
→ You start believing

Techniques:
- Multi-channel repetition (TV, internet, offline)
- Multi-format repetition (text, images, video)
- Long-term repetition (continuous months)

Mechanism:
Find authorities/celebrities/experts to support
→ Borrow their credibility
→ "Even XX says so, must be right"

Examples:
- Scientists endorse products
- Celebrities forward views
- Government officials make statements

Techniques:
- Choose authorities influential to audience
- Emphasize authority's expertise/status
- "90% of experts agree" (selective presentation)

Mechanism:
Show "many people already believe/participate"
→ Trigger conformity psychology
→ "Everyone doing this, I should too"

Examples:
- "Already 1 million users"
- "Whole internet discussing"
- "Your friends all forwarding"

Techniques:
- Emphasize quantity (millions, nationwide, everyone)
- Show surrounding people (people you know also believe)
- Create "not keeping up means falling behind" anxiety

Mechanism:
Activate strong emotions (fear, anger, pride)
→ Bypass rational thinking
→ Form consensus driven by emotion

Examples:
- War mobilization: "Enemy brutal" → Hatred → Consensus
- Patriotism: "Our glory" → Pride → Consensus
- Panic marketing: "Not buying means done for" → Fear → Consensus

Techniques:
- Strong images/stories
- Simplified good vs evil opposition
- Time pressure ("must act now")

Mechanism:
Prevent different opinions from voicing
→ Create illusion of "unanimity"
→ False consensus

Methods:
- Delete posts, ban accounts (technical means)
- Stigmatize questioners ("you're XXX")
- Social punishment (isolation, suppression)

Result:
Surface "broad consensus"
Actually suppressed

Write into:
- Textbooks (next generation automatically accepts)
- Laws (external coercion)
- Industry standards (professional coercion)

Effect:
- No need to argue each time
- Becomes "common sense"
- Challengers viewed as ignorant

Can't just promote once and stop
Need continuous reinforcement:
- Memorial days
- Rituals
- Re-emphasize during major events

Example:
Certain national ideology
→ Continuously reinforced through holidays, rituals
→ Maintain consensus

Ensure:
- Mainstream media unified message
- Education system unified textbooks
- Reduce exposure to different voices

Effect:
- Reduce possibility of wavering
- Maintain consensus stability

Let people benefit from this consensus
→ Have motive to maintain

Example:
Certain industry "industry rules"
→ Compliant people profit
→ Everyone has motive to maintain
→ Consensus stable

Find examples old consensus can't explain
→ Repeatedly demonstrate
→ Accumulate doubt

Example:
Old consensus: "This method works"
You:
- Find 10 failure cases
- Analyze in detail why failed
- Show to key decision-makers

Effect:
Old consensus starts wavering

Same facts, different frames
→ Different consensus

Example:
Old narrative: "Overtime is dedication"
New narrative: "Overtime is exploitation"

Same behavior
Different moral judgment

Old consensus relies on old authorities
You find new authorities to endorse new view

Example:
Old consensus: Senior experts support
You: Find more persuasive experts opposing

Authority vs authority
Weaken old consensus

Not just criticize old
Also provide new option

Example:
Not just say "this plan won't work"
Also say "this new plan is better"

Having alternative → Easier to change

Consensus windows change
External conditions change → Consensus may loosen

Example:
Normal times: Old consensus very stable
Crisis times: Old consensus fails
→ This is timing to push new consensus

"Don't waste a crisis"

Strategies:
- Massive research validation (simultaneous experience)
- IPCC reports (authority endorsement)
- Media coverage (social dissemination)
- Education popularization (institutional solidification)

Effect:
97% scientific community consensus
"Human-caused climate change is real"

Strategies:
- Fund opposing research (create "controversy")
- Amplify uncertainty ("scientists also uncertain")
- Attack authorities ("IPCC unreliable")
- Create confusion ("climate changed before too")

Effect:
Public consensus lower than scientific community
"Seems still controversial"

Ensure everyone:
- Same goal (what to achieve)
- Same origin (what standards to evaluate by)

Method:
- Explicitly discuss: "What's our goal?"
- Record after reaching agreement
- Review during subsequent decisions

Avoid:
Talking past each other, different intentions, never consensus

Ensure everyone:
- Sees same data
- Knows same background
- Accesses same cases

Method:
- Information transparent, accessible to all
- Regular sync, reduce information gap
- Before major decisions: First align information

Avoid:
Information asymmetry → Different judgments → No consensus

Team needs:
- Similar professional training
- Common experience accumulation
- Unified methodology

Method:
- Team training
- Retrospectives (precipitate causal impressions)
- Build team "knowledge base"

Effect:
Causal impression overlap → Judgments converge → Easy consensus

Don't:
Surface "unanimous approval"
Actually each has thoughts

But:
- Encourage expressing different opinions
- Deeply discuss disagreement roots
- Understand where differences lie

Effect:
- Real consensus (not false)
- Strong execution (because genuinely committed)

During discussion: Full expression
After decision: Unified execution

Even if you don't fully agree
But since team decided
→ During execution no complaints, no negativity

This is organizational discipline
Not suppressing individuals

When consensus:
- Based on wrong information
- Ignores important counterexamples
- Harms long-term interests
- Based on false public opinion

You should challenge
Even if risky

"Everyone might not have noticed this data..."
Not "you're wrong"
But "I'll supplement some information"

Reduce confrontation
Increase acceptance

"If X is true, how to explain Y?"
Not direct denial
But logical challenge

Let others discover contradictions themselves

First privately communicate, find others also doubtful
Then collectively express

Effect:
"Not just me thinking this"
→ Reduce "isolation" risk
→ Increase persuasiveness

Don't challenge when boss in bad mood
Don't challenge when team extremely tired

Choose:
- Calm discussion moments
- Settings with time for deep analysis
- Stages when decision not yet finalized

Not just "this is wrong"
Also "I suggest this"

Having alternative → Constructive
More likely accepted

Don't:
See "everyone supports" → Immediately follow

But:
1. Based on my information, what's my judgment?
2. Does my judgment match majority?
3. If not, why?
4. Is it my information insufficient, or they didn't consider certain factors?

Then decide:
- Follow majority
- Or reserve opinion
- Or express different view

When you feel:
"Not saying this, will be isolated"
"Not keeping up, will fall behind"

This is social pressure signal

Ask yourself:
- Is this genuine agreement, or considering pressure?
- Without pressure, what would I choose?

Distinguish: Real consensus vs conformity

Actively seek:
- Voices not supporting mainstream view
- Overlooked counterexamples
- Different perspectives

Not opposing for sake of opposing
But to avoid information cocoon

Comprehensive information → Better judgment

Don't wholesale accept certain consensus
First verify small-scale:

"Everyone says X works"
→ I first try small-scale
→ Indeed works, then expand
→ Doesn't work, then question

Practice test > Blind following

In team/organization/society
What consensus already exists?

Examples:
- "Efficiency important" (organizational consensus)
- "Innovation is future" (social consensus)
- "Customer first" (industry consensus)

After identifying, leverage them

You want to advance: New project X

Find existing consensus:
Organizational consensus: "We need innovation"

Link phrasing:
"Project X is exactly the innovation attempt we need"

Effect:
Borrow consensus power
Advance your goal

If existing consensus unfavorable
Create new:

Steps:
1. Provide new information/perspective
2. Find authority endorsement
3. Small-scale validate effectiveness
4. Gradually disseminate

Example:
You want to push remote work

1. Provide data: Remote efficiency doesn't drop but rises
2. Find success cases: Certain famous company fully remote
3. Small team pilot: Prove feasible
4. Disseminate: Gradually persuade more people

Eventually: Form new consensus "remote work feasible"

1. Consensus comes from subjective overlap
   - Similar external inputs
   - Similar intention origins
   - Similar causal impressions

2. Consensus has different stability levels
   - Scientific laws: Extremely stable
   - Popular trends: Extremely unstable

3. Stability depends on:
   - Validation frequency
   - Subjective overlap degree
   - Prediction accuracy
   - Condition range
   - Formation path

4. No need to assume "objective ontology"
   - Scientific laws stable, not because "conforming to objectivity"
   - But because: High-frequency validation + Broad overlap + Precise prediction

Observation:
- Scientists say: "We pursue objective truth"
- Judges say: "Decide based on objective facts"
- Media says: "Objective reporting"
- People say: "You're too subjective"

"Objectivity" everywhere

But if:
- We can never jump out of subjective to verify "objective"
- Consensus stability doesn't rely on "objective ontology"
- "Conforming to objectivity" cannot be operationally verified

Then what's the real role of this concept "objectivity"?

Review Section 5: Power effects of consensus

We said:
- Whoever defines consensus wields power
- Definitional boundaries = Power boundaries

Now add an observation:

"Objectivity" often used to:
- Suppress different opinions: "This is objective fact, no debate"
- Establish authority: "We grasp objective truth"
- Create hierarchy: "I'm objective, you're subjective"

What does this resemble?

The role of concept "objectivity"
Is not epistemological (helping us know the world)
But power-theoretical (helping establish authority structures)

Like:
A certain concept historically had similar role
Used to establish transcendent authority
Used to suppress individual experience
Used to maintain hierarchy

What was that concept?