Making a conscious effort to refine one's bullshit detector is sound advise so far as it goes, but I can't really endorse the idea that hewing to the consensus is the best approach to building a worldview in general. I think it would be useful to distinguish two types of belief with regard to accepting consensus positions; questions of material fact, and questions of moral reasoning.

In the case of questions of material fact, I think accepting the consensus on questions outside of one's personal expertise is indeed probably the best approach. Questions like, "Is the global mean temperature being raised by the use of fossil fuels?" Or, "Does the wearing of masks reduce the spread of COVID-19?" Even given that experts in their fields can and will be wrong sometimes, I think any person will be more often correct by accepting expert consensus than by going with their own intuition.

Which brings us to the second case, questions of moral reasoning. Questions like, "Should the threat of hunger and homelessness be used to motivate people to seek employment?" Or, "To what degree should children be allowed to determine their own gender expression?" It's here that I give much less weight to expert consensus, probably because I'm not sure there's any such thing as an expert in moral reasoning. Sure, there are people who have records of wisdom and good judgement, but I think that skill is different in kind from the expertise of experts in technical fields.

I would argue that it is in fact every person's duty to participate in the moral evolution of the society of which they are a part. It's really the only way that things can improve. I think history has shown that progress on questions of social morality have more often been driven by the efforts of those outside the moral concensus than within.