 Advocates of higher-order defeat have offered a few different responses to this class of objections. One option, proposed by Elga (2010), is to say that principles like HOD are exempt from undermining. (Elga’s view draws on an argument found in Lewis 1971 and H. Field 2000, for the conclusion that our most fundamental belief-forming methods must be self-recommending.) Another option is to say that our attitude towards principles like HOD is not one of belief, but some other type of attitude. (See Goldberg 2013, Barnett 2019, and Fleisher 2021 for examples of this approach.) Finally, one might simply deny that Sam is obligated to enter the paradoxical loop once his belief in HOD is undermined. Christensen (2013, 2021a, 2021b) argues along these lines. The loop gets started if we think that once Sam rationally doubts HOD, he is rationally required to stop adopting the beliefs that HOD recommends, and instead adopt whichever beliefs he now regards as most rational. But this thought is not part of HOD, and we are free to deny it—we can maintain that HOD is true, and rationally binding even for those who rationally doubt it. (This is different from saying that HOD must be self-recommending; on Elga’s proposal, one should believe that one should always follow HOD, and also always follow it. On Christensen’s, one should always follow HOD, regardless of what one should believe one should do.) This response would bypass the paradox. But it comes at what some defenders of HOD see as a cost: it means we must accept some instances of rational epistemic akrasia. If Sam revises his belief in HOD, but continues to follow it, as this suggestion would have him do, he will end up with a belief state whose rationality he doubts.