Learning from the past realities is important for guidance of the present into the future.
Yet the realities of the past are like the realities of the present: there are as many viewpoints as there are eyes to see, ears to hear, minds to interpret, and fingers that point.
Out of the vast array of possible directions one can look at any instant, nearly all must be rejected by the focusing on the particular. Checks continually made as to where to look, what to listen for, and why. So there are lots of those individual viewpoints, lots of little realities, so how much does each weigh when adding them up to determine "Consensus Reality?"
And each issue is neither black nor white usually, but shades between. And oneself is a decider, a king-ruler for picking and choosing amongst the little realties to add up to make the past, each interpreted based on criteria as diverse as one's mood of the moment to so-called laws of the physical universe. And the next moment you the king-ruler of decision of which viewpoint to see from and at what to look at, has changed a bit and may chose differently next time. (Use "queen-ruler of decision" for the womenfolk, of course.)
As for "concensus reality", that reality surely is biased by the group selected for concensus, and is likely not the same "concensus reality" found by a different group, or even the same group at a different time and place and focus of interest. Is there really something that takes a poll of the "reality" of each individual of that group? Or is "concensus reality" actually determined by a typical opinion expressed upon interrogation about something and one's response needs to be close to the opinions of the others of the group. (eg, political party; religious affilliation; or work environment) or one is "suspect" as not agreeing to consensus reality and thus is "crazy."
A colorblind person is likely to not follow the consuensus reality of non-colorblind people as to the naming of the color of a particular something.
Someone who has just ridden a bicycle up and got off it, standing there chatting with a friend, is likely to have a differing reality about riding a bicycle than does the friend who doesn"t know how to ride a bicycle; thus it might be said that the concensus reality between riders and non-riders of bicycles is quite different in significant ways. Are one or the other groups "crazy?" In fact, each group might think that 'crazy" opinion of the other group, and be equally valid... or not.
Even the concensus reality of what is "up" and what is "down" needs to have had instruction in the language of the meaning of up and down; if the subject is taught such that it seems to be "ceiling" up, vs "floor" down, then when the person goes to the room above that room, "ceiling" of the lower room became "floor" of the room above it. Up became down in that person's observation, no longer agreeing with the consensus reality of those that stayed in the original room below.
So, I think that perhaps the modified name "Concensus Reality Relativity" might be an incomprehensible concept for some people; perhaps those fundamentalists of Artisan Temperament are likely to be among those.
There are more people of "Artisan Temperament" than any of the other three Temperaments, possibly because they get to enjoy the harvest which was planted by the Idealists, tended by the Rationals and the Guardians, then eventually picked and savored by the harvesting Artisans. The Artisans get to revel in their winnings, their portion of the harvest, living it up wealthy and honored by fellows, desireable as mates because of their command of physical resources, helpful in raising family. So who would want to be anything other than an Artisan type, that gets all the goodies? Yet without the efforts of the Idealists, Rationals and Guardian Temperament type people, the Artisans would have little to harvest.
Realities vary widely depending on Temperament. Perhaps it would be easier to get consensus realities if only those of the same Temperament type were consulted, thus maximizing the mutual viewpoint basics. Understanding that the contrasting consensusl realities are equally valid for each of the Temperaments, would be a step toward solving the problem. While that effort would be more difficult and rigorous than merely pasting the label "crazy" on the others, it might produce more harmoniously useful results.
Concensus reality is very relative. Agree?