What kaos-people mockingly refer to as “consensual reality” will sometimes be taken up by realists as a misguided attempt at showing that cognitive dissonance is an exception rather than the norm, that their inability disprove the relativity of knowledge does not make knowledge relative.
Worse still, they will sometimes frame the whole point as “OK, maybe I do not know what reality is, but that does not matter, it is not important, what is important is the reality that everyone agrees on”. Can you spot the malice there? The pretence of humility stands here as proof that their position is the only one that is valid.
As i said, «consensual reality» is a code-phrase to state that the status quo has so deeply subverted your perception that you take it for “natural”.
The mocking humility of realism should be our hint that their agenda is not based on trying to picture themselves living in someone else’s shoes. To try and understand an alien world-view is not reconcilable with there is one reality. To truly see from someone else’s eyes means to acknowledge that their very world is another world.
In fact, the only possible conclusion of asking yourself “what if I was living in your shoes?” is to realise that you can’t really ever know. That you can get closer and closer, but you can’t be the same. And that you can’t even measure the distance, which means you must keep trying and trying. You must constantly strive to do something that is impossible, so to say.
Abandoning this fantasy that we know a reality, or enough reality for anything that could possibly matter, or in other words accepting that all our ideas are not certainties but hints, this couldn’t possibly help but to make us “more laid back”. We must accept we are somewhat dumb.