You’re mis-stating my thoughts and concerns. Just as one data point, oh so many decades past when I was in public school we were taught essentially to “judge not on color of skin but on character”. Prejudice was not tolerated. Period. This was taught in public school, in athletics, in extracurricular activities, at home, by our extended family and by our churches.
Sure, you can point to the black kid, the indian kid, the gay kid, the tall kid, the short kid, the girl with big breasts, the girl with little breasts, the shy kid, the rich kid, the poor kid, the dumb kid, the intellectual kid, the average kid, the outgoing kid, the city kid, the farm kid were all picked on. And whenever teachers, church volunteers, family or neighbors saw this teasing, they stopped it. And sometimes they stopped it with a good ole ass whoppin.
I think where we disagree would be on scope of state sponsored education. You likely view all of the above not as teasing or picking on or inappropriate bullying but as “abuse” or “oppression” or “victimization” or “systemic racism” or “systemic gender bias”.
Our families, churches and extended communities were each chosen to foster our “moral development”. These choices remained choices for each family. Each of these families, neighborhoods, churches, extended communities, high schools, universities, fan clubs were either inherited or chosen for us to each of an “us”, a “we”. Was there healthy “us vs them” competition? Of course there was as everyone goes through life discerning, differentiating, trying on, dropping, adopting. And that was all OK. You want to be an Atheist - go for it. You want to join the Chess Club - go for it. You want to become a Buddhist - sure. You want to vote Democrat - your choice. You want to change your mind. Go for it!
Are you implying that all of “them” (as oppsed to “us”) are a monolithic group or even same developmental level? It’s way too low resolution to be of us outside a herbal tea garden in Boulder.
Most of the things you claim you want are ALREADY supported by the communities, states, nation, etc. Tolerance, respect for racial, sexual, gender differences.
What you really need to own is what you really want, actually demand, is that everyone else ADOPT and CELEBRATE your beliefs. Do I care if someone is Native, Black, White, Hispanic, Lesbian, Straight, Celibate, Gender Fluid, Wicken, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Anti-whatever?
Really I DON’T CARE other than I hope it makes you happy in your life. But what I do care about is that you respect my choices and beliefs in kind.
What I think you desire is a homogeneity driven by the State down to the specifics of what exactly how everyone’s moral development happens. One monolithic, mandated and enforced “moral code” determined and managed by the State Expertocracy if you will - ideally at the Federal level for homogeneity. Individual, family, community, state level choice is eliminated, discernment is outlawed, religion is mandated, here we come Teal. you either simply march in lockstep with whatever the State Experts mandate - or else…
I think you work with lots of people in a social/mental health setting (sorry if I’m off). Is it that they are “comfortable” or already peddling as fast as they can? Sure, some don’t have the skill sets, but is it realistic to think that someone with say an IQ of 85 will “transcend Green to Teal?”
Integralism as I see it is very much an Elite Cognitive set. Gives us a perch upon which we can look down into society and proclaim our “if onlys” onto individuals and groups that likely cannot absorb much more than they currently have taken on.
It is interesting to me that Integralism makes no direct attempt to appeal to any but the most elite cognitively. Hijacking common language with unique definitions, nuanced walking into very judgemental phrases, coyly loaded phrasings.
As you asked how can we get past the “us vs them” paradigm? I would say first we question whether we aren’t the one’s creating the us’s and them’s? Perhaps we at least try to not refer to people in these hijacked derogatory terms. It’s not good for us to do this, reinforcing our on egoistic biases.
Question Mr. Bennett - If a church has formal or informal doctrines that essentially provide the formation for the church, are you saying they MUST adopt your or The Atlantic’s ideals even if counter to their own doctrines?
Should the Greater Metropolitan Transsexual and Gender Fluid Society be forced to let in straight males?
Should the Bronco’s Fan Club be forced to admit loud mouthed 49’ers fans?
@LaWanna Same question applies to the Texas Republican Party regarding homosexuals. Should the Democratic Gay and Gender Fluid Caucus be forced to admit straight Republican women?
Last I checked, at the Federal level the Black Caucus won’t let any Black Republicans into the Caucus. Should they be required to change their name to Democratic Black Caucus?
There is so much I could respond to in your post, but I think I’ll just keep it simple.
You said:
And then you went on in your writing to say all of this about me, badly mis-stating my thoughts and concerns::
Ok, so I missed.
Any thoughts on the nuanced vocabulary redefinitions? Is it unfair to see as philosophical jujitsu, as a way to “win”. Or is it development of a much more nuanced vernacular similar to love vs agape/eros/storge?
Do you see anything in the concept that cognitive ability essential creating someone’s center of gravity? What of emotional stability? I think in Big 5 parlance it might be Nueroticism or Agreeableness?
Edit:
P.S. And if I misstate your positions or thinking, feel free to correct. Stylistically I try to make definitive (clarity in my world) statements in order to find these positions. Feel free to “walk back” or modify if you feel I’m off base.
No, again - you are reaching for a straw man agrgument rather than actually looking at what the Article is about.
Fact - Evangelical Churces memberships are tearing each other apart in an Anti-woke crusade.
These events in Evangelical Churches has nothing to do with anyone adobting my ideal, which I have not even mentioned and are not in the article, and have nothing to do with The Atlantic’s Ideals, which again - are not mentioned in the article at all.
As well, neither my nor The Atlantic’s ideals have anything to do with your Anti-woke Crusade, nor the fact that you just so happen to be Christian, and I suspect of the Evangelical variety mentioned in the article.
None of your behavior nor those of your fellow Evangelicals acting poorly has anything to do with my ideals nor the ideals of The Atlantic.
They actually do and call them “allies”.
What is your point?
It’s obvious that you didn’t read the article and are choosing instead to pursue a debate that has nothing to do with the substance of the article.
Hey Ray, I think we’re crossing in the night so to speak.
If an Evangelical Church is “tearing themselves apart” as they sort out including Woke or going Anti-Woke within their beliefs and congregations, WHO CARES, unless you’re in that Church?
Do I care if the Gender Fluid and Transsexuals are at war with the L’s and G’s in the “Rainbow Coalition”? Only a bit of voyeuristic curiosity really. Do I chuckle that even the L&G’s can’t figure out what to do with the T&Q&I&A’s? 
You, me or in this case The Atlantic wading in with “moral assessments” on “this or that Church” is only useful as a voyeuristic diversion. Do I have skin in these Churches? Nope. Do you have skin in these Churches? Nope. Other than this specific author, does The Atlantic or the overwhelming majority of their readers have any skin in this Church’s struggles? Probably extremely minimal given The Atlantic’s far left bias (I’ll look up Dave VZ’s bias meter later)
So why focus on (and the moral judgements on) whether this or that Evangelical Church is Woke or Anti-Woke?
Here’s a similar view into the Far Left’s “religion”. You may that the “the Left isn’t Religious”, but is that really true? Have not, just as your Atlantic author state about the Evangelicals, the Far Left worship their politics as strongly as most “religious” people?
This might not describe you specifically, but wouldn’t you give them a honk and a thumbs up if you were driving by? Evangelicals not being apolitical. Left acting very much the religious zealots.
"There really isn’t another way to politely describe them. In their unhinged protests, they wear the white of the initiates. They spatter themselves with red paints and dyes to represent blood against their white garments. This is a a death cult. They are like religious fanatics of some Dark Age, shrieking, so twisted now with anger as to be unrecognizable in their fury and righteousness."
https://johnkassnews.com/democratic-socialists-mourn-the-loss-of-their-sacrament-of-abortion/
Regarding the Jan 6th Hearings - they might “take down” Trump. I’m not watching The Spectacle, but waiting for the Cliff Notes version afterwards.
What impact will any of this have on the Mid-Terms or 2024 Elections?
By the way, I’m a bit torn in view on the Football Prayer Coach ruling. On one side I’m sick of the anti-Christian attacks, but also don’t want public schools to turn into Coach Jim Bob’s Pentacostal Emporium either. So I assume the Justice’s know a bit about what they are doing.
We can always Amend the Constitution in 2025 if needed.
@fermented
I’d turn your own question back to yourself, lmao
Why are you so concerned with the left death cult?
On the one hand you say “nothing to see here” “why are you concerned if it isn’t your group”.
Then hypocritically and absurdly you proceed to double talk and get very interested in bashing your chosen image of the cult of the left.
What I find to be astounding is time and again you don’t see your own hypocricy
Also I may add that Churches are required to be non-political to maintain their nonprofit status.
I don’t care if they join politics, but when they do they should be required to pay income tax on all donations received or be convicted of tax evasion.
It’s already the law. When I say “should” I mean the law should be enforced.
Ray, I admit it that I don’t really worry so much about the internal struggles of an Atlantic author’s Evangelical Church. I’m not attached to his church remaining intact or splitting in two - Pentecostal Wokies and Pentecostal Anti-Wokies.
Have you ever owned slaves or been a slave, yet have an opinion on slavery?
Have you ever committed genocide or suffered genocide, yet have an opinion on abortion?
Of course you make decisions based on your moral code, or lack there of.
@FermentedAgave There is something endearing about your defense of the amber stage; it shows your sensitive and compassionate side, a side of you that you are free to also exhibit when speaking of other stages of development too, you know 
Your reference to people with “an IQ of 85” (which would be low-average) sort of confused me. As you probably know, IQ tests are highly controversial, given they introduce the age-old question of ‘nature or nurture’ or more specifically, whether genetics or environmental factors are most influential. I looked a few things up; reportedly, 68% of the US population has an IQ between 85-115, which is the average range. The average IQ in the US is 98. The US is #24 in the world in terms of IQ; the top ten are Asian countries (6 of them) followed by Iceland, Macau, and Switzerland and other Nordic countries as well as the UK and Austria. Here is an article you may be interested in, from which this data came: https://www.healthline.com/health/average-iq#takeaway
As you yourself were getting at with your question “what about emotional stability?” and as we say in Integral land, “cognition is necessary but not sufficient” when it comes to development. There are all those lines of development (sometimes called “multiple intelligences”) that have to be considered: values, moral development, interpersonal skill levels, spiritual intelligence, emotional intelligence, aesthetics, sexual development, etc. etc.–and IQ tests do not necessarily measure such things. As the article I linked to pointed out, creativity, social intelligence, and curiosity are probably not well-addressed by standardized IQ tests.
You say that “Integralism as (you) see it is very much an Elite Cognitive set” and “…Integralism makes no direct attempt to appeal to any but the most elite cognitively.” As I wrote elsewhere at this site, addressing you if I remember correctly, emergent stages of development (such as Integral) are usually first identified by intellectuals who share their knowledge with other intellectuals, then it drifts into academia and the media (and the arts) before it reaches the mass population.
What I think is important to remember is that there is a difference between how an Integralist might speak to family, friends, neighbors, church, community etc. and how we speak to one another at this site and within Integral community. I do not use Integral language or jargon with my community-at-large unless it’s in a teaching setting specifically addressing Integralism. And I think it’s perfectly appropriate to use the language here, appropriate, but not always necessary or required.
You refer to Integral as “hijacking terms.” I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this. Integral is a meta-theory, and as such, does use language from other theorists. The stages of development use terms from Jean Gebser; the states of consciousness (gross, subtle, causal, witness, non-dual) come from Eastern traditions and philosophies; the lines of development are descriptive of the work of others.
One term that has definitely been “hijacked” not by Integralism but by and in culture is the word ‘elite.’ The Latin version of the word was used in the 14th century in religion, fell out of use, then was used in French form 200 years ago, to mean “a choice or select body, the best, or the best part.” The word was perverted in the 60s by segments of leftist academia who accused faculty opposed to separate minority studies departments of being ‘elitist.’ It was perverted once again by conservative intellectuals during the Reagan administration who applied it to the left (e.g. “limousine liberals”). Hillary Clinton as a senator used it to attack economics experts (e.g. “elitist opinions”) who opposed her gas tax holiday policy.
In other words, the word has been sorely perverted over years and decades to basically, these days, ‘slur knowledge’, or to denounce others as ‘outside the normative American values,’ or ‘not average Americans.’ The word is also used to refer to the “powerful” who have a disproportionate amount of wealth, or privilege, or political power, or skill. (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/opinion/30jacoby.html)
So how are you using the word ‘elite’ in regards to Integralism?
Deflection, Denial, Projection and Straw Manning by Trump Republicans and their media lapdogs failed to stop the investigation and it continues to gain not only more evidence, but also more public support.
We move onward and upward to silence as the Republicans involved dread the day it will be their turn when a fleet of Black SUV’s drive up to their house. The silence of dread as the guilty just hope by some miracle the hammer doesn’t fall on them as hard as they expect it should.
Haha! Thanks for the well considered dialog @LaWanna 
“in defense” of the Amber horde or perhaps a lesson from history that we might all consider? The further power moves away from the masses, the more likely the “peasants with torches and pitchforks” are to come out. I do have a large extended family that spans a very broad cognitive spectrum.
I do agree that environment does have a small, yet measurable impact on cognitive ability. On the extremes, a child locked in a padded cell will likely exhibit much less ability than the child raised in a safe loving extended family with adults and older children actively stretching the child’s intellect with increasingly complex experiences and training. Just as cultural differences can also influence cognitive development. Some cultures promote heavily increased complexity. Contrasting to the last pow wow in contrast to the Mozart and Beethoven concert in Vienna I attended highlights, in my mind, this desire to master complexity. I can love one for the accessibility to all and, at least for me, unavoidable spiritual experience with the exquisite intricacy, excruciating training and masterful execution of the other, which also is a deeply spiritual experience.
I think your underlying premise is that “it’s not just about cognitive ability”, with which I completely agree. But regardless of any “IQ isn’t fair” arguments, the more complex roles in society do reward handsomely greater cognitive ability. The US military put a moratorium on bringing in anyone with an IQ below 85. Not because they are racist or prejudiced or mean or unfair, but simply because they find roles nor train someone with an IQ of 85 where they could be successful. Not even pumping gas or washing dishes. The military is HIGHLY motivated to be able to draft in time of need from the broadest possible population base.
So what do we do with this? We can include the Big 5 personality traits: Agreeableness, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness, Neuroticism as also critical for success and contribution as well. You likely see this on a daily basis. Someone’s Introversion and Disagreeableness might completely hide their Conscientiousness and IQ.
On “Integralism is for the Elite”, this is what I ascertained which Corey confirmed as target audience. Similiar to your academy to mainstream trickle down flow. I posited a +80th percentile (115 IQand greater) and Corey thought more appropriately 98th percentile (130 or greater).
From my experience to read and comprehend Wilber’s books required concentration and focus. You need to be pretty smart to read the hallowed texts. Some are more accessible than others, but no amount of “agreeableness” or “extroversion” will make Integral Theory as written by Wilber accessible below a certain cognitive level. And this is all very appropriate and ok, until you get to applying in the real world.
Where my “defense” () of Amber kicks in are in the “punching down” comparisons of Integralism to, as an example, to the Mythic Literal Pre-Rationals. In my personal experience, these Amber Mythic Literal Pre-Rational Churches actually do include and serve the broad spectrum of humanity. They operate soup kitchens and coat drives for say the <85 IQ demographic, skills training for the 85-105, and esoteric spiritual formation for all. In my experience there is little to no “power and control” dynamic, other than the good of the community. This shows on Sunday’s with the actual butts in the seats (smart, dumb, downs syndrome, geniuses, black, LGBTQIA+, white, latino, foreign, native born, young, old) . When I volunteer we BY INTENTION have opportunities for everyone to contribute, jobs for everyone as we serve both our direct church community but the broader community at large. Kids groups organize themselves on their tasks. If someone is a CEO, they might lead the fund raising drive or bus tables, the average guy might empty the trash or pull together a crew to landscape the elderly widow’s yard, the <85 guy might push the lawn mower or be the cashier. Meanwhile, some of us may go on very esoteric retreats or deep spiritual studies reading historically impactful scholars.
I only mention the church since Integralism seemingly has traditional religions in the “developmental crosshairs” with critique after critique, and then only highlights a demographic or group with which they think they compare favorably. In my estimation always chosen are those that very will might be peddling as fast as they can already with poor whites being the easiest punch-down target. Yet when you apply similar critiques to Integralism, the harrumphing and deflections abound. Perhaps a better term is Elitism, but it’s hard to use together in a grammatically correct sentence with Integralism?
One thing that comes to mind is can a church be both Pre-Rational Literal Mythic and Orange and Green? There are a LOT of people from all over the world that are highly celebrated in most Churches (unless you focus on the Strawman examples). Seems extremely “multi-cultural” with mutual respect, cultural respect, and celebration of multi-cultural. Maybe there’s no way around a Church being anything more than Amber in integral parlance?
P.S. Here is a nice cheat sheet on Normal Distributions (with IQ, SAT, ACT mapped).
Doesn’t the Rolling Stones target washed out Hippies? You’ve really got to get the right weed or you’re going to be paranoid all the time.
Here is your basic problem @FermentedAgave
In fact, Rolling Stone checks out with a factual rating of “High”
Yes, they are left biased, but maintain a high degree of factual accuracy.
The problem you have is that you apparently are not able to differentiate between bias and innaccuracy. This is why you are so easily duped by the Right Wing Media and make a fool of yourself because you just assume Right Bias = factually correct.
In this example, you went out of your way to make claims that the Bidens and Democrats in general would be facing charges and investigations soon - because you were Duped by factually innnacurate stories that you agreed with politically. Meanwhile, Rolling Stone made sure it got the facts first, and then was able to make a story from it that is factually accurate but from a Left perspective.
And you aren’t even using the word “Paranoid” correctly. Why would I be “paranoid” that Republicans are getting rounded up left and right and will face searches, seizures, public embarrassment and possibly jail time? The words “joy” and “mirthful” describe my state when reading the article, not “Paranoid”.
And honestly, gramps - You need to get over the 60’s, lol. Ain’t been no hippies around anywhere for decades.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rolling-stone/
The fact that it has been a Premier successful Rock and Roll, Music, Pop, Culture and Political Magazine for over 50 years is clear evidence that it is NOT only read by washed-out Hippies.
You must be thinking of The Drudge Report or similar washed out Far Right Media outlets.
It’s been nearly two months since someone attempted to compromise the integrity of the judicial process by leaking Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade . The damaging consequences of that attack on the court can’t be overstated, and it’s a scandal of its own that we still don’t know who the leaker was, since Chief Justice Roberts passed the investigation to the same FBI that went 44 days before agreeing to even investigate attacks on pro-life clinics when pressed by The Federalist.
That said, the leaker, who was lauded by many Democrats as a “brave clerk” who “risked his or her career” to “warn the country,” turned out to be a contender for the most useless self-immolation in America. His or her actions did absolutely nothing but further reveal the left’s contempt for our republic and its laws anytime they stand firm against the left’s agenda.
P.S. @raybennett You do realize that MediaBiasFactCheck is one dude - Dave Van Zandt to be exact. Gotta run now, my dementia is flaring up. Careful which Bud you reach for buddy (linked).
@FermentedAgave You are indeed the master of straw manning.
Why is it relevant if it’s one man or a corporation?
And it’s pretty impossible it’s one man by the way - just like @corey-devos isn’t just one man running this site.
Have you ever tried to do something similar by yourself? Good luck.
Interesting morning readings on Cognitive Ability and what it might or might not mean, and other stuff.
New buzzer - Cognitive Immobility
The Disinformationists seem to be getting retired.
https://unherd.com/thepost/goodbye-and-good-luck-rachel-maddow/