Conciliationism is often motivated by appealing to intuitive cases. I argue that this is a mistake and obscures the real commitments of the conciliationist. Instead, I motivate conciliationism by appealing to a plausible picture of belief formation and four intuitive principles: the Independence Principle, the Enkratic Principle, the Equal Weight View, and the Opaque Evidence Principle. I see three upshots to this approach. First, it clarifies the nature of conciliationism and shows that it is not committed to, for example, the Uniqueness Thesis. Second, it clarifies the positions of the opponents of conciliationism. Third, it easily incorporates non-ideal cases, such as cases where interlocutors are not peers.