 Maria Lasonen-Aarnio (2020) argues that the conflict comes from two different modes of evaluation which we can apply to Aisha’s case. In addition to evaluating whether believers have correctly followed the epistemic requirements that apply to them, or have correctly accommodated their evidence, we can also evaluate their belief-forming dispositions. If Aisha holds onto her belief about G, while recognizing the danger of hypoxia in her own case, she is responding appropriately to her evidence and is (if her belief is formed in the right way) following the requirements that apply to her. But she is also manifesting a disposition that is unlikely to serve her well in the long term: ignoring what appears to be a conclusive reason for belief (her belief that she’s likely to be hypoxic, and therefore likely to be responding inappropriately to her evidence) will often involve actual conclusive reasons for belief. We can criticize Aisha for manifesting this disposition, even if this particular case is not one of the situations in which it goes wrong. (A relevant comparison here is Rule versus Act Utilitarianism: a good rule might occasionally lead to imperfect outcomes, whereas a good outcome might occasionally be the result of a bad rule. See Coates [2012] for a similar suggestion about rules in this context.)