 Finally, Christensen (2021a) argues that New Rational Reflection doesn’t go far enough. New Rational Reflection says we should defer, to some extent, to any theory of rationality we think might possibly be right. But what if we think it’s possible that rationality can come apart from the truth—as it does in the clock case, or even more broadly, as it does on views that allow moral encroachment? (On the extreme end, consider views on which rationality is about believing what makes you happy.) Surely we should not defer to them, even a little bit. (If one of them is right, of course, we should follow it—but the present question is just about whether we should treat different candidates for rationality as experts.) So Christensen argues we should reject New Rational Reflection, and focus on attaining beliefs we take to be accurate, rather than beliefs we take to be rational. This may mean moving away entirely from rationality-focused level-bridging principles.