Say that you and your epistemic peer have the same evidence but disagree about P. You can:
Conciliate/Meet in the Middle: when you learn that you believe P and that your peer believes ~P (or: you assign cr(P)=x, she assigns cr(P) does not equal x), you should become less confident in your initial judgment and now suspend judgment about P (or: assign a credence to P halfway between your initial credence and your peers credence)
Stick to your guns: when you learn about disagreement, maintain original judgement about P
I can think of many situations where you should stick to your guns, such as a hypothetical situation where you are on a jury for a death penalty case. If you believe that person is innocent with all the evidence presented to you, you should not conciliate, since this is a life or death matter, and this decision can heavily lay on your conscience.
However, is conciliating/meeting in the middle ever rational? Doesn't that deny that there is the truth? For example, in the trial case, the defendant is either innocent or guilty, no in-between. Also, when you have all the evidence, which includes the pros/con, advantages/disadvantages, doesn't an established truth prevail?
I'm thinking that conciliating/meeting in the middle is an option and/or can be rational in discussing opinionated matters. For example, you can disagree on your favorite color or where to go for vacation, because those things are based on personal preference and there is no absolute truth attached to them. But I'm not seeing how it can apply to cases where there are documented facts that bring about a truth.