 One might defend this verdict by saying that the exception proves the rule: if I really think that my degree of belief in q should be different than it is, say because I realize I am severely underslept, then surely I should change it accordingly until I come to a credence I do approve of, at which point I will satisfy SR. However even if it is ideal to be in the state of self-respect that SR describes, it seems wrong to say that a state of disapproving of one’s first-order belief when faced with evidence of one’s impaired judgment is irrational. In such a case it would seem to be irrational not to be in a state of self-doubt. Moreover, it is unclear how a revision from a state violating SR to one in conformity with SR can be rational. According to many probabilists the rational way to revise beliefs is via conditionalization, where one’s new degrees of belief come from what one’s previous function said they should be given the new belief that prompts the revision (see entries on  interpretations of probability  and  Bayes’ Theorem).  That is, all change of belief is determined by the conditional probabilities of the function one is changing from. Thus change of belief on the basis of a belief about what my belief is will depend on the value of \(P_i(q\mid P_i(q) = x)\). If the value of \(P_i(q\mid P_i(q)=x)\) isn’t already x then a conditionalization using that conditional probability will not necessarily make \(P_f(q\mid P_f(q)=x) = x\), as required by SR, and it is hard to see how it could. In this approach, similarly to the previous, the whole cycle of epistemic self-doubt and resolution appears to be unavailable to a probabilistically rational subject.