 The second possibility is to say that higher-order evidence simply has no effect on first-order or higher-order beliefs. (Following the peer disagreement literature, we could call this a “steadfast” view; Smithies [2019] calls it “upward push”.) Kelly (2005) seems to tentatively support this view in the context of peer disagreement (though his later work defends a more moderate “total evidence” view; see, for example, Kelly 2010). Titelbaum (2015) argues for the nearby position that a rational agent can never be mistaken about the rational requirements that apply to her situation (although she might be rationally uncertain as to which situation she is in); he writes that “mistakes about rationality are mistakes of rationality”. Titelbaum’s argument for this rests on the assumption that epistemic akrasia is irrational. (See also Titelbaum 2019. See C. Field 2019 for criticism of this position.) Tal (2021) also defends the steadfast view, in part appealing to the irrationality of epistemic akrasia.