You seem to be agreeing there are differences in knowledge or wisdom, and even that these eventually add up to class or tribal differences. But you don't want to say the differences are inherent in people. But that strikes me as a red herring since I don't need to say otherwise, nor do I think I do.

I combine existentialism with secular humanism, and I aim to show how different choices and experiences result in large-scale, social dynamics between mainstream cultures and countercultures.

On existential and humanistic grounds, though, I'm happy to say that everyone has some potential to be philosophically, scientifically, or spiritually enlightened. But the potential becomes harder to actualize, depending on what we've done in life. If we double down on our choices, as Trumpers double down on their cult, we avoid alternatives because of the sunk-cost fallacy. We just don't want to admit we've gone down the wrong road, or we lose the ability to see things from other viewpoints. We get stuck in our ways.

Theoretically, we might always change our minds, but there's a social inertia that produces these larger patterns. Radicals gravitate to countercultures, while normies adhere to mainstream expectations. Some go all the way with philosophy, while others dismiss deep questions as counterproductive. That doesn't mean normies can't physically study philosophy, but their character, background, and tribe lead them in other directions.

Anyway, I'm not clear on what exactly rubs you the wrong way with this distinction between enlightened minorities and relatively unenlightened majorities.