If identity is based on individual values and analytical judgments, consensus is independent of personal beliefs, analyses, or derived opinions. Regarding the definition of consensus under the framework of Intelligenism, I do not agree with Baidu Baike’s description of consensus as a shared understanding or common Approval, values, and ideals sought by different social strata or interest groups. Instead, my definition aligns closely with Wikipedia’s definition of consensus: a community solution accepted by conflicting parties (even if reluctantly or by shelving disputes).

(https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BD%95%E8%B0%93%E5%85%B1%E8%AF%86)

According to Wikipedia’s definition, consensus does not imply a subjective right or wrong, but rather serves as a solution to reconcile differences in individual perspectives. Under this definition, consensus does not equate to Approval or agreement among organizational individuals. It is a sustained state enabling the organization to function effectively under recognized rules, even when the organizational approval degree is not 1 (i.e., individuals hold differing views on organizational elements). In many scenarios, organizational consensus means that individuals can resolve disputes over opinions or interests within a recognized framework to reach a provisional outcome, which I term a “consensus-building mechanism.” These mechanisms may include persuasion, voting, or discussion, but consensus does not aim to eliminate all dissent or achieve complete agreement. Instead, it seeks an acceptable conclusion that individuals relatively acknowledge despite differing opinions.

For example, in a company, potential employees sign labor contracts, but in practice, employees and the company may not always agree on all terms of the employment relationship. However, they can reach a consensus on a dispute resolution mechanism (e.g., resolving disputes through litigation in court). Similarly, in disputes between consumers and sellers, consensus can be reached by seeking government intervention under consumer protection laws or through legal action. These examples illustrate consensus-based dispute resolution mechanisms in the absence of full identity.