One of the things we're most proud of on Elevated Thoughts is that we don't pretend to have it all figured out. We've changed our minds on air. We've contradicted our own earlier episodes. And we think that's a feature, not a bug.
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, here are five things we got wrong — and what changed our thinking.
1. "Social media censorship is the biggest threat to free speech"
What we said: In our early Twitter/X episode, we both leaned heavily into the idea that platform moderation was the defining free speech issue of our time.
What we learned: After talking with experts on the topic and digging into the actual data, we realized this framing was too narrow. Content moderation is a real issue, but it exists alongside government surveillance, corporate consolidation of media, and economic barriers to journalism. Focusing only on social media deplatforming actually distracted from bigger structural threats to speech.
The lesson: The most visible issue isn't always the most important one.
2. "Both sides are equally responsible for polarization"
What we said: As a bipartisan show, we defaulted to a symmetry assumption — that the left and right were mirror images of each other in terms of media behavior, extremism, and institutional distrust.
What we learned: The data doesn't support perfect symmetry. Research from multiple political scientists we've hosted shows that while both sides have contributed to polarization, the mechanisms are different. Asymmetric polarization is real, and pretending otherwise isn't balanced — it's inaccurate.
The lesson: Fairness doesn't mean treating two unequal things as equal.
3. "Conspiracy theories are mostly harmless"
What we said: We initially treated conspiracy content as entertainment — fun to explore, harmless to engage with.
What we learned: After our deep dives into pseudo-archaeology and MH370 orb videos, we saw how conspiracy communities actually function. The radicalization pipeline is real. The epistemological damage is measurable. And treating it as "just entertainment" gives it room to spread.
The lesson: The line between curiosity and credulity is thinner than we thought.
4. "You can change someone's mind with facts alone"
What we said: Cooper especially believed that if you just presented the right data clearly enough, reasonable people would update their views.
What we learned: Facts are necessary but insufficient. Belief change also requires trust, emotional safety, and identity-compatible framing. Our best episodes aren't the ones where we "won" an argument with data — they're the ones where a guest helped us see a problem from a perspective we'd never considered.
The lesson: Persuasion is about more than information. It's about relationship.
5. "We don't need expert guests — the debate format is enough"
What we said: In the early days, we thought the core value of the show was two regular guys hashing it out.
What we learned: We were half right. The two-person dynamic is essential. But adding experts to the conversation elevated the quality of our disagreements dramatically. We stopped repeating talking points and started engaging with primary research. Our audience noticed the difference immediately.
The lesson: Know what you don't know, and bring in people who do.
Being wrong isn't the problem. Staying wrong is. We're going to keep making mistakes on this show — and we're going to keep owning them when we do.
That's the deal.
