 If we hold that higher-order evidence does not have first-order rational effects, what should we say about cases like Hypoxia? There are two mainstream options defended in the literature. “Level-Splitters” suggest that Aisha’s first-order belief (about G) should follow her first-order evidence, so she should be highly confident of G. But her higher-order belief (about her own rationality, or about what her first-order evidence supports) should follow her higher-order evidence. “Steadfasters” argue that Aisha should just dismiss the higher-order evidence altogether—believe G, and believe that her evidence supports it. (See Alexander 2013, however, for an argument that no response is justified in Aisha’s case, and Leonard 2020 for an argument that it is indeterminate what Aisha should believe.)