 While non-ideal agents are limited in their reasoning abilities, they are also limited in their abilities to double-check and “police” themselves. Appealing to this consideration, Joshua Schechter (2013) makes a suggestion that cuts in the opposite direction from DiPaolo’s: he argues that perhaps our epistemic imperfections cap our responsibility to respond to higher-order evidence. This means that while our available evidence may call for extensive belief revision—and while a more ideal agent would revise her beliefs in response to higher-order evidence—non-ideal believers like us are permitted to stop when we’ve done what we can.