 We began by noting that higher-order evidence gives rise to a puzzle. It seems that “higher-order evidence”—information about our own irrationality or unreliability—should prompt us to revise our beliefs about the world, but if we do so, we must ignore evidence and reasoning that is directly relevant to the truth of those beliefs. Much of the literature on higher-order evidence revolves around this puzzle: arguing that we should reject one side of the puzzle or the other, or finding ways to hold onto both.