Another way to put it might be creating a functional, collective "truth." We are really good at X. Y is the future. We are going to do ABC. 1...2...3... Go Team

Another way to put it might be creating a functional, collective "truth." We are really good at X. Y is the future. We are going to do ABC. 1...2...3... Go Team! It doesn't need to be true, but it does need to create a unified mission, an esprit de corps. 92.6% of all leadership advice is about creating this sort of common truth, so that everyone can cooperate: Team building. Mission statements. Voices of authority. Core values. Crisis of leadership. Everyone sweeps the shed. Extreme ownership... There is a lot of worry these days, largely from the idealogical centre that we achieve a (public-political) consensus on "basic truths" anymore. There is no ground to stand on, in any kind d of divisided discussion. What they're refering to is an absence of "basic truths." Anyway, truths are "expensive." We have 3 scalable, but highly imperfect ways ways of creating truth in modern society: democracy, justice & science. Democracy is supposed to settle debates with the subjective will of the people. But, it's divisive as well as irrational and convinces half the population that the other half is evil. Science is genuinely good at determining truth, where the truth is scientifically determinable. But, science has also produced pseudo-science. Basically bad science that can answer questions which good science cannot: Freudianism/psychology, Marxism, liberal economics/metaphysics and all the "social sciences" claiming to have discovered the truth about women's issues, colonialism or whatnot. Law... Well... This is the most ancient and least believable source of truth. Common law and tiered court systems are almost modelled on cognitive dissonance, making sure new truths do not contradict old ones.