 Some balk at Independence because it simply seems irrational to ignore evidence (see Kelly 2005, 2010, for example). Kelly (2010) presents the objection roughly like this: if higher-order evidence requires us to ignore our first-order evidence, he asks, doesn’t that make rationality far too easy to come by? It appears that someone could botch their first-order reasoning completely, adjust their confidence in the face of higher-order evidence, and (since they are now obligated to ignore the first-order considerations) have all of their earlier rational mistakes forgiven. Christensen (2011) disagrees, arguing that while someone in this situation may have responded to part of her evidence correctly, we can still distinguish between her final belief state and the belief state of someone who didn’t make the initial mistake: someone who did every step properly is more rational than someone who did not. (See Sliwa &amp; Horowitz 2015 for further discussion; see Schoenfield 2015a for an objection.)