 Christensen takes the puzzles surrounding higher-order evidence to show that the requirements of rationality sometimes conflict with one another, putting agents like Aisha in an epistemic bind. This proposal differs from the two-norm views discussed below, in that there is just one notion of epistemic rationality at work. According to the dilemma view, in some circumstances, it is impossible to satisfy all the rational requirements at once.(see Christensen 2007a, 2010a, 2013, 2016b, and 2021c). In his more recent work (see Christensen 2021c), Christensen sees the norms in conflict, in Aisha’s case, as one requiring us to believe what our evidence entails, and another requiring us to revise in light of higher-order evidence. (An alternative possibility, which Christensen suggests in earlier work [see his 2013], is that the second norm is explicitly an anti-akratic norm.)