 In their 1998 discussion of the generality problem, Conee and Feldman acknowledge that turning to psychology will help winnow down the number of eligible process types. But they express skepticism that it will always yield a unique process type. Why won’t there be multiple psychologically “real” process types responsible for a given belief token? Subsequent developments of the psychological approach have tried to address this worry. For example, Beebe (2004) proposes that the relevant process type will always be an information-processing procedure or algorithm. Of course, there will often be indefinitely many types of this kind, of varying reliability. To pick out the appropriate type, Beebe offers the following instructions. Let A be the broadest such type. Choose a partition that is the broadest objectively homogeneous subclass of A within which the token process falls, where a class is objectively homogeneous if no statistically relevant partition of it can be effected. Beebe’s proposal has been challenged by Dutant and Olsson (2013), who argue that it faces a dilemma: either it does not always yield a unique process type or it leads to trivialization by collapsing reliability into truth. For a more recent variant of Beebe’s solution, aimed at addressing Dutant and Olsson’s concerns, see Kampa (2018).