 If we agree with this line of thought, we might draw two lessons. First: treating rationality as an expert is a complicated job, and any rational expert deference principle must be formulated carefully. If we can predict that rationality and truth will come apart, we should not defer unrestrictedly to rationality. And relatedly, we might take cases like this to show that epistemic akrasia can be rational: it can crop up even on some views according to which higher-order evidence is epistemically significant.