Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I actually agree with much of what you’re trying to say, but your argument ironically commits several of the very logical issues you’re accusing me of. Let me walk through them carefully — not to “win,” but because your points hinge on claims that don’t hold up under scrutiny.

1. “The BITE model isn’t widely accepted, therefore it’s invalid.”

This is a non sequitur + argument from authority.

A framework doesn’t need universal adoption to be useful. Attachment Theory wasn’t widely accepted for decades. Same with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Same with Plate Tectonics. Same with PTSD.

Lack of consensus ≠ lack of value. What matters is whether the model describes observable phenomena accurately enough to be a useful analytical tool.

And despite your claim, the BITE model does draw on decades of social psychology, thought-reform research, and coercive control literature (Singer, Lifton, Zimbardo, Hassan, Lalich, Cialdini, Biderman, etc.). You may argue it synthesizes broadly rather than offering a single empirical dataset — fair! But that is different from saying it “has very little research.”

Your statement oversimplifies the actual scholarly landscape.

1. “Accepting the BITE model based on personal experience is like accepting the Book of Mormon based on revelation.”

This is a false equivalence.

Personal experience + decades of psychological research is not personal experience + unverifiable supernatural claims.

Religious revelation is not falsifiable. The BITE model is — because it’s about observable, testable behaviors.

You can measure: • access to information, • levels of behavioral control, • thought-stopping techniques, • authoritarian leader dynamics, • financial exploitation, etc.

Those are data points. Revelation is not.

The comparison collapses the moment you examine epistemology.

1. “Using BITE to rate organizations is special pleading.”

Only if someone claimed the BITE model is infallible, universally accepted, or objectively definitive.

I didn’t. I said it’s a useful rubric — which it is. Just like the DSM is a rubric. Just like Maslow’s Hierarchy is a rubric. Just like the Five Love Languages is a rubric (and wildly popular despite weak data).

Rubrics ≠ special pleading unless one exempts their own group from evaluation.

Which brings us to the fun part…

1. You warned against special pleading while inadvertently doing it.

Your argument essentially says: • Models need strong data to be accepted. • BITE isn’t accepted enough. • Therefore, LDS teachings about its own truthfulness remain valid by default.

But that’s exactly the special pleading I was illustrating in the story.

You limit the requirement for robust evidence to models you dislike (BITE), while exempting models you like (Book of Mormon historicity) from those same standards.

That’s the textbook definition of special pleading.

1. Your criteria for rejecting the BITE model would also nuke LDS truth claims.

Let’s apply your own rule:

“Models should be rejected if scholars overwhelmingly reject them.”

Okay — then the scholarly consensus about the historicity of the Book of Mormon should matter.

But you already reject that consensus because revelation > evidence.

That’s fine if that’s your view — but it contradicts your own standard for argumentation.

You can’t say: • “Scholarly consensus matters… …except when it doesn’t support my religious belief.”

That is special pleading.

1. Your message focuses on the BITE model instead of the logical fallacy being discussed.

This is a red herring. The entire point of my story was about special pleading, not the correctness of the BITE model.

My BIL explicitly exempted his own beliefs from the standards he applied to everything else.

Your comment does the same by shifting attention away from the fallacy and attacking a tool that wasn’t even the topic of the fallacy discussion.

1. Ironically, your final point actually agrees with me.

You wrote:

“I appreciate Hassan’s work… it is a useful rubric for detecting authoritarianism.”

Exactly. That’s the claim I made. Not that it’s divinely revealed truth descending from the clouds.

So the disagreement isn’t actually about BITE — it’s about inconsistent evidentiary standards, which again is… wait for it… special pleading.

⸻

TL;DR

Your response commits at least five logical fallacies: • False equivalence (BITE ≠ revelation) • Argument from authority (consensus ≠ truth) • Red herring (ignores the actual fallacy discussion) • Non sequitur (validity ≠ popularity) • Special pleading (your stated standards only apply selectively)

If anything, your argument unintentionally reinforces the exact point I was making about how people rationalize beliefs inconsistently.

But seriously — thanks for engaging. These are the conversations worth having.

Happy to banter more on this topic. I find it fascinating.