 In the clock case, New Rational Reflection also allows for epistemic akrasia: Chloe’s beliefs about the clock come apart from her estimate of what’s rational for her to believe about the clock. But New Rational Reflection offers us an explanation for why this is unproblematic. In normal cases, what’s rational is a good guide to what’s true: if it’s rational to believe it will rain, it’s also likely to be true that it will rain. But in the clock case, this generality doesn’t hold. We can predict that rationality and truth will come apart. So when Chloe’s belief matches her best estimate of what’s true, it will diverge from her best estimate of what’s rational. Furthermore, this divergence comes about because of uncertainty about what’s rational. So by eliminating that uncertainty—by deferring to rationality only on the condition that rationality is not uncertain about its own expertise—New Rational Reflection aims to eliminate that gap between rationality and truth. (See Elga 2013, as well as Horowitz 2014, for further discussion of this feature of the case.)