 Adam Elga (2013) argues that this sort of situation motivates a different principle, which he calls “New Rational Reflection” (following Ned Hall’s “New Principal Principle”, and the argument in favor of it; see Hall 1994). Elga argues that just as we should not in general defer (directly) to experts when we know more than they do, we should not in general defer to rationality in cases where it is rational to doubt one’s rationality. If we use “Cr” for an agent’s credence, and “Pr” for a candidate ideally rational credence, we can express Elga’s principle as follows: