My research concerns the Problem of Disagreement: how and if one should modify their beliefs and confidences in response to the incompatible beliefs or confidences of others. Traditional responses fall into two camps in response to this issue; Conciliationists claim we ought to adjust our attitudes to be more like our disputants' and Steadfast responses claim no adjustment is required. I argue that proponents of these views have typically assumed a false dichotomy between these responses. As a result, my central claim is that the traditional views are significantly less well supported than typically assumed and new responses to the Problem of Disagreement are required. The bulk of my thesis sets about supporting the claim that traditional responses are evidentially unsupported and proposes an example alternative to reinforce the central claim.