Everyone Is Right

The Sensemaking, Action, and Leadership Training (SALT) for Climate initiative tackles a crucial blindspot in today’s climate response: the lack of conscious, integrative sensemaking as a foundation for meaningful action. SALT for Climate brings together cutting-edge psychosocial research, skilled facilitation in human dynamics, and transformative Big Picture metatheories to help climate leaders address the psychological and systemic gaps in existing political, economic, and scientific paradigms.


Through specialized training and coaching, SALT enhances the emotional, social, and consciousness capacities of those leading climate efforts, bridging the divide between climate policies and public understanding—a gap that often stalls progress and drives polarization. This scalable approach complements the scientific and technical aspects of climate action, fostering greater public engagement and supporting more impactful, integrative climate leadership.


In this episode of IAM Insider, host Josh Leonard sits down with Gail Hochachka and Lisa Gibson, leaders of the SALT for Climate initiative, to explore their pioneering approach to climate action. They discuss the often-overlooked psychological and social dimensions of climate work, share insights from their work on collective sensemaking and leadership training, and explain why a focus on human dynamics may be the missing piece in our response to the climate crisis. Listen in to discover how SALT for Climate is helping us rethink what effective climate action looks like.

Watch the full episode here:

https://integrallife.com/the-content-structure-fallacy-the-common-mistake-most-integralists-make/

What is the Content/Structure Fallacy?

The Content/Structure fallacy refers to the mistaken assumption that a person’s surface-level beliefs or statements (content) directly correspond to their deeper developmental stage (structure). In reality, just because someone expresses ideas that seem to align with a particular developmental level doesn’t mean they are themselves operating from that level.

In other words, it’s not what we believe, but how we hold those beliefs that reflects our stage of development.

For example, someone might champion pluralistic (Green) values but do so with the rigid, dogmatic mindset of an earlier Amber stage. This is common in certain ideological movements where progressive values are enforced in authoritarian or dogmatic ways — a clear case of later-stage content being interpreted and enacted through an earlier-stage lens. It’s similar to memorizing the solution to a calculus problem without knowing how to do the math that produces that solution in the first place.

Conversely, just because someone identifies with a traditionally Amber affiliation like Christianity doesn’t mean they hold that faith in a purely Amber way. A person could practice Christianity through the reflective, self-authoring lens of Orange (modern) or even from an Integral (Teal or Turquoise) perspective, embodying a more complex and nuanced understanding of their faith.

We often encounter stereotypes like “environmentalists must be Green” or “entrepreneurs must be Orange,” but these assumptions overlook the complexity of how individuals hold and express their values. It’s possible to advocate for environmental causes (typically associated with Green) from a highly rational, results-oriented (Orange) perspective, or even from a deeply principled and disciplined (Amber) perspective. Similarly, an entrepreneur might embrace meritocratic values (Orange) but approach their business with a more inclusive, systems-aware stance (Green or Teal), or perhaps use.

As such, judging someone’s developmental depth based solely on their surface beliefs or affiliations is a mistake. Once the products of a given stage are socialized within a larger group, they can function more like a horizontal cultural typology than a vertical developmental structure. For example, postmodernism may have emerged from individuals at the Green stage, but as it became widely adopted across the larger culture, it was no longer exclusively populated by Green-stage individuals. Not everyone participating in postmodern culture operates from a Green stage of development. We can observe similar patterns in movements like DEI [link to Seven Sins of DEI] or even in the Integral movement [link to Integral Global].

Lastly, we must also examine our own developmental structures and how they influence our interpretation of others’ content. Our judgments about others might reveal more about our own developmental limitations and blind spots than theirs. If we are using stage theory in shallow or stereotypical ways, it may indicate that we ourselves may have a content-structure fallacy built into our own self-concept, as we repeat integral-sounding content while holding it in decidedly sub-integral ways.

In this insightful conversation, Corey DeVos and Beena Sharma explore the concept of vertical development and its importance in today's world. Beena, with over 30 years of experience in the field, shares her journey and evolving understanding of vertical development.

The discussion covers several key areas:

- The difference between horizontal and vertical development

- Common challenges people face when growing into later stages of development

- How vertical development can help address global challenges and metacrises

- Practical advice and practices for fostering vertical development

- The importance of polarity thinking in personal growth and understanding complex issues

Beena emphasizes that vertical development is not a goal but an outcome of how we live and make sense of the world. She stresses the importance of integrating earlier stages of development and warns against complacency or self-congratulation at later stages.

The conversation also touches on the application of vertical development to global issues, the role of AI in development, and the importance of having both power and perspective to effect change.

Beena introduces her VEDA training programs, which offer in-depth exploration of vertical development for personal growth and professional application. The dialogue concludes with an invitation to the Integral community to engage with these programs and continue their developmental journey. To learn more about these training opportunities, click here:

https://integrallife.com/veda-training

Throughout the discussion, Beena and Corey highlight the transformative potential of understanding and applying vertical development principles in various aspects of life and society.

In this fascinating and far-ranging discussion, Ken Wilber and Andrew Holecek explore the frontiers of integral theory and human consciousness. Ken shares some of the key insights from his latest book, "Finding Radical Wholeness," offering a novel and deeply insightful perspective on the nature of reality and human development.

Listen as Ken and Andrew discuss Ken’s five-fold model of transformation:

Waking Up: The traditional spiritual path of enlightenment or awakening, involving direct experiences of non-dual awareness or unity consciousness. This path is about recognizing our fundamental nature beyond the ego.


Growing Up: Progressing through stages of psychological and cognitive development, from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric and beyond. This path is about expanding our perspective and capacity for understanding complexity.


Opening Up: Expanding our awareness and capacity across multiple intelligences or ways of perceiving and engaging with the world. This path is about actively cultivating different forms of intelligence, such as aesthetic (recognizing beauty), moral, emotional, and others, broadening our perception and deepening our engagement with life.

Cleaning Up: Working through our psychological shadows and unconscious patterns, integrating repressed or denied aspects of ourselves for greater wholeness. By facing and embracing our hidden fears, traumas, and disowned parts, we free up energy and expand our capacity for authentic self-expression and relationship.

Showing Up: Fully embodying our development in the world, actively engaging with life and manifesting our potential in practical ways. This path involves bringing our inner growth and insights into tangible expression, taking responsible action in our relationships, work, and communities, and living with authenticity and purpose in everyday life.

Each of these five paths leads to a distinct form of wholeness that cannot be found through the other paths. The wholeness of Waking Up is not the same as the wholeness of Growing Up, and the wholeness achieved through Cleaning Up is different from that of Opening Up or Showing Up. These various types of wholeness complement each other, but are not reducible to one another, highlighting the importance of a comprehensive approach to human development and transformation.

Ken and Andrew also discuss:

* Wilber's latest thinking on these five types of wholeness, with particular emphasis on the often-overlooked "showing up" dimension.


* A nuanced discussion of the pre/trans fallacy and its continued relevance in contemporary spiritual discourse,


* The critical difference between “adual” and “nondual” experiences,


* An expanded view of matter and consciousness, synthesizing panpsychism, autopoiesis, and integral metatheory,


* Insights into the relationship between involution and evolution, and their moment-to-moment relevance in personal experience,


* Wilber's thoughts on teleology in evolution, balancing fixed and playful aspects of developmental unfolding,


* Practical strategies for embodying integral principles in personal practice and cultural engagement.

Purchase Finding Radical Wholeness by Ken Wilber here:

https://www.shambhala.com/finding-radical-wholeness.html

This discussion was originally published on Andrew Holecek’s Edge of Mind podcast:

https://edgeofmindpodcast.com/ken-wilber-in-an-insightful-discussion-on-integrating-spirituality-science-and-human-development/

Keith Martin-Smith explores the potential and pitfalls of integral theory in addressing global challenges. He argues that while integral thinking offers valuable tools for understanding complex systems and human development, it often falls short in practice due to misapplication and ego-driven superiority complexes. Keith proposes a more nuanced approach: treating people as unique individuals, communicating integral ideas more skillfully, and focusing on practical applications rather than theoretical grandstanding.

[line]

At its best, Integral Theory is a powerful tool and map to help us to better understand ourselves and our world. The AQAL model – all quadrants, lines, levels, states, and types – has helped hundreds, perhaps thousands, better navigate the world with compassion and care, and wisdom and humility.

 

At its worst, integral Theory can lead to what Keith Martin-Smith calls the “insufferable integralist,” or someone who uses the theory to look down on others they deem “less evolved” then they are. Or to create a cognitive tower from which to look down on the world, disembodied and unable to do much of anything but watch. This can create a cult-like “in-group” that can become obsessed with their own development and use the model as a cudgel on others.

 

Today we face a polycrisis or metacrisis – existential-level problems in economics, technology, energy production and access, late-stage capitalism,  increasing polarity in almost all Western democracies, and the fracturing of truth. For the first time, the existential challenges facing humankind are entirely created and sustain by us. More and more, we all live in our separate worlds, with our own beliefs, cultures, and good and bad guys. And the world burns, people suffer, and we divide against one another at a time we need to be coming together.

 

Can Integral Theory, applied wisely, do good for the world, and for each of us? How do we hold the model lightly but wisely, and be careful about the traps it can create? Key concepts discussed in this talk will be polarities such as discernment versus judgement, modesty versus surety, compassion versus condemnation.

 

If you’ve been curious how Integral might help you and the world, but leery of the ways it can seemingly misguide those who know it, this talk may be helpful for you.

Modern law enforcement faces complex and evolving challenges that demand innovative solutions. High-profile incidents, such as the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Eric Garner, have intensified public scrutiny, leading to significant swings in perception and policy. To navigate this turbulent environment, integrative frameworks offer the most promising path forward. By addressing deep-rooted issues and promoting sustainable change, these frameworks provide the necessary tools for transformative progress in policing.

In this wide-ranging roundtable discussion, the Institute of Applied Metatheory’s Josh Leonard hosts three leading experts in the field of integral policing to explore how applying big-picture, integrative frameworks could help address the complex challenges facing modern law enforcement.

The three panelists for this conversation are Chris Orrey, a retired police lieutenant from California, Gestur Palmason, a former police officer from Iceland, and Ryan Johansen, the current Chief of Police for San Bruno, California. Together, they explore the current landscape of policing from a big-picture perspective and demonstrate the potential for integral metatheory to drive transformative change in one of the most critical and challenging issue areas of our time.

The discussion delves into the powerful pendulum swings in public perception and policy that often follow high-profile incidents like the murder of George Floyd in 2020, and how an integral approach could help transcend these reactive cycles through a dialectical integration of opposing social pressures.

Key leverage points for transformation that emerge from the conversation include:

1. Training police leadership in the Integral Four Quadrants model as a powerful sense-making tool for navigating complexity

2. Emphasizing officer wellness and resilience programs to support the healthy interior development of individual officers

3. Rethinking police metrics and KPIs to more holistically assess the success and health of police departments across all four quadrants

4. Fostering a culture of ongoing learning and development that empowers officers to adapt and grow with the increasing complexity of their roles

While the path to a more integral future for policing is far from clear, the remarkable results and breakthroughs shared by Chief Johansen offer an inspiring glimpse of what's possible when these big-picture integrative frameworks are put into practice with tact and vision.

The roundtable also reflects on the critical role of developmental leadership in shepherding this transformation. As more mature leaders begin to recognize the power and potential of integrative frameworks to help them better navigate the complexities of modern policing, we could be on the cusp of an exciting new wave of innovation and evolution in the field.

Join us for this thought-provoking and timely discussion as we explore how integrative metatheory could hold the key to ushering in a new era of policing — one that fosters greater trust, effectiveness, and resilience for officers and communities alike.

Watch the full discussion here:

https://integrallife.com/reintegrating-dei/

What does DEI look like if we remove the politically loaded terms and ideas and focus on a developmental understanding instead? What might we see if we ourselves can take a broader and deeper view into this divisive and important cultural moment that is reshaping our world?

A postmodern view, one that has moved beyond the strict confines of rationality, is what has brought awareness of many of DEI’s principles and claims to the foreground of our culture. This developmental perspective can see things that pervious perspectives were blind to, and at its best, DEI shows us a world in which cultural assumptions, the social construction of the self, and the limitations of rationality and science can create powerfully unseen bias against certain groups.

What does this look like, from the mature DEI viewpoint? What can it really see, what are its own hidden assumptions, and why is it causing so much societal friction that is overheating everything from school board meetings to national politics?

In Europe, we are seeing the rise of the far right. In America, we see Trumpism fighting to turn back the clock on many of DEI’s policies. And many in the middle have seen even the best-meaning DEI initiatives produce frustrating unintended and hypocritical consequences, such as illiberalism, exclusivity in their demands for inclusivity, homogeneity in their call for heterogeneity, and intolerance in their desire for tolerance.

A robust and thorough understanding of the primary worldviews at play can help us to better appreciate what’s really being seen, how each stage is showing us important truths even as they create their own problems that need solving.

In this talk, Keith Martin-Smith explains the developmental levels in detail that allowed DEI to form in the first place, as well as the levels from which DEI is often expressed (and resisted) from, allowing us to more clearly see and understand the cultural wars we are all experiencing.

The goal of this talk is to bring greater understanding and empathy for those advocating the DEI view, as well as for those fighting against it, all framed by a broader and deeper understanding of the evolution of our personal and cultural worldviews and how they interact with each other.

Have you ever wondered how big-picture philosophical frameworks could revolutionize social innovation and drive meaningful change in the world?

Are you curious about the integral movement’s journey over the last 20 years, and the social shifts that are now catalyzing the emergence of an entirely new era of integral leadership?

In this first episode of the IAM Insider Show, Josh Leonard and Robb Smith discuss the founding and evolution of the Institute of Applied Metatheory (IAM), an international applied philosophy network dedicated to the education and application of “big picture” philosophical systems and metatheories. The conversation also reflects on the integral movement’s various phases and challenges over the years, the social shifts necessitating IAM’s emergence, and the four foundational hypotheses underpinning IAM’s work.

In a world grappling with unprecedented crises, from climate change to social unrest, Robb and Josh investigate the critical necessity of an organization that unites and empowers scholar-practitioners to collaboratively develop and apply transformative, integrative metatheories. These cutting-edge frameworks hold the potential to untangle complex, interconnected issues and forge paths towards a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable future for all. “Problems cannot be solved from the same stage that created them”, as the adage goes — and IAM is the latest effort to cohere an entirely new stage of problem-solving and crisis management. Discover how applying integrative metatheory to the most pressing 21st-century challenges could be the key to unlocking transformative solutions for a world that so clearly needs them.

Josh and Robb go on to outline their plans to expand the IAM network through pilot initiatives and Applied Metatheory Initiative (AMI) Incubation Grants, empowering leaders to apply integrative metatheory across various issue areas. They also discuss the development of an applied Complex Integral Realism framework, the importance of educating the integral community about other integrative metatheories, and IAM’s aim to provide resources and support to maximize the impact of metatheory-driven solutions. The episode concludes with an announcement about the upcoming Request for Proposals (RFP) for AMI Incubation Grants.

It has never been a more exciting time to be an integralist. We invite you to join us on this new adventure — your chance to be part of a movement that has the potential to revolutionize social innovation as we know it, and to explore the powerful potentials of big-picture philosophical frameworks as a way to catalyze meaningful change in the world.

Chapters:

00:00 Introduction

01:13 The Three-Stage History of the Integral Movement

12:24 Societal Changes Driving IAM

31:40 The Need For Integrative Sensemaking Software

48:50 The Four Hypotheses

1:10:00 Context: AI Meets Metatheory

1:29:21 IAM’s Plans for 2024

1:49:00 Developing a Complex Integral Realism Protocol

1:58:51 What’s Next: AMI Incubation Grants

Watch the video version here:

https://integrallife.com/iam-organizing-big-pictures-for-the-transformation-age/

Watch the full episode here:

https://integrallife.com/healing-the-infosphere

In today’s digital era, the infosphere is a vast and tumultuous sea of information, where news and data churn through the collective consciousness at breakneck speed. This relentless flow presents profound challenges as individuals and societies grapple with the complexities of discerning truth from misinformation, genuine discourse from manipulative rhetoric, and enduring values from fleeting trends. Amidst this chaotic backdrop, the need for a transformative approach to journalism becomes clear — an approach that not only navigates these turbulent waters but also seeks to calm them, providing clarity and insight in a world overwhelmed by the noise of perpetual connectivity.

In this wide-ranging discussion, Corey deVos talks to Stefan Schultz, a journalist at Der Spiegel magazine, about his model for integral journalism that he has been developing over the past few years. This model, staggering in both its depth and its breadth, examines journalism and media literacy through a developmental lens, looking at how the infosphere shapes society and how journalism can positively influence this process.

Stefan outlines the four key problem areas he sees in journalism today: frustration among reporters, dissatisfaction in audiences due to lack of perspectives/empathy/positivity in coverage, challenges for media companies in retaining subscribers, and polarization in society. To address these systemic issues, Stefan convened an interdisciplinary team to examine the problem from all angles and prototype solutions. He views journalism as one part of a larger ecosystem that also includes both the infosphere and society. Every developmental stage, from Amber to Teal, has beneficial and detrimental impacts on this ecosystem. The goal is to amplify the positive contributions of each stage while minimizing the negatives — for example, having journalists at different stages collaborate: Amber focuses on group cohesion, Orange on investigation, Green on empathy, Teal on synthesis, etc.

Ultimately, integral journalism aims to facilitate development by exposing people to more complex information, healthier discourse, and inspiration for transformation. While the infosphere has become decentralized and overwhelming, journalists can still act as “beacons” to promote greater wisdom and maturity in public dialogue. The integral model provides a roadmap for how journalism can evolve to better meet the needs of a complex world.

Watch the full discussion here:

https://integrallife.com/the-art-of-integral-conversation

Dr. Keith Witt and Corey deVos explore the concept of “turquoise dialectic” – a sophisticated form of integral discourse that emerges at the later stages of human development. Drawing upon their deep understanding of adult development and integral theory, they explore the feeling and transformative potential of the turquoise “we-space”, and how we might create the conditions for this type of conversation to unfold.

What is a “turquoise dialectic”?

The term “dialectic” originates in ancient Greece, signifying the various methods of reasoning and discussion in order to discover the truth. It is most often associated with the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, whose well-known process of “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” is often regarded as a fundamental aspect of integral thinking and sense-making. In this discussion, we refer to the term “dialectic” to represent a fluid, multidimensional form of discourse that acknowledges the constructed nature of all perspectives, and seeks to both situate and synthesize those perspectives (and their associated methods of knowing) into a more coherent understanding of reality — consciously inquiring into the frameworks and assumptions that shape our perceptions and understandings of the world around us.

This kind of Turquoise discourse facilitates the emergence of new forms of consciousness, co-creating novel ways of being and understanding that align with the interdependence and mystery of existence. Communication becomes a sacred practice of conscious participation in the evolution of humanity and the kosmos, demanding radical humility, transparency, and a release of fixed identities. Participants continually challenge themselves to expand awareness, embrace paradox, and open to the unknown, engaging in an ongoing exploration of the frontiers of human potential.

How do we set the conditions for a turquoise dialectic?

Imagine that every conversation is something like a poker game, where the players decide the rules before each hand. If you’ve got five players at the table, and each is coming from an Amber stage of development, then the rules will be set up according to Amber-stage views and values, and it will basically be an Amber game. If all the players are Turquoise, you’ll get turquoise rules, a turquoise game, and therefore a turquoise we-space. It’s as simple as that!

Or is it?

Human beings, after all, are far more complicated than this. We are not developmental stereotypes, we instead possess an entire stack of evolutionary intelligences within us — all of which are constantly growing and adapting, and any of which we may be inhabiting at a given time, depending on the context we find ourselves in. Turquoise people can happily play Red games, Amber games, Orange games, and so forth, because all of these stages are still alive within them.

The trick, therefore, is not just getting the right people to the table, but also establishing the right rules and norms that are most conducive to turquoise enfoldment. Of course, these are not the sorts of strict rules and regulations that we might find in an Amber game. They are rather a series of basic guardrails, orienting generalizations, and attractor points that can help the group to self-organize, participants to self-regulate, and the dialectic itself to self-govern. It’s about “rigging the game” so that authentic transformation, deep empathy, and collective sense-making become the winning strategies, allowing us to create a space together that invites and includes all of us, and all of the multitudes we contain, while guiding us toward our highest and wisest possible Self.