NPR84%

How to decide whether to step back from a difficult relationship  or stick it out 38%

By Marielle Segarra0% Clare Marie Schneider0% Malaka Gharib0%

10/28/2025, 8:01:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 15.4% saturation with 146 hits. Analysis detected 1,145 faulty-reasoning hits from 945 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.9% and a BS Rank of 38% (13,666 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.40% of the article peer group.

You have a strained relationship with your father, but he recently developed health issues and needs someone to care for him. 
You don't feel emotionally fulfilled in your marriage, but you've been with your partner for 10 years. 
You've made a new friend who's nice most of the time, but is mean when she's angry. 
Should you step back from these relationships or stick them out? 
These are the kinds of dilemmas that therapist KC Davis tackles in her book published earlier this year, Who Deserves Your Love: How to Create Boundaries to Start, Strengthen or End Any Relationship. 
It offers practical advice on how to move forward when relationships with family members, romantic partners or friends become difficult. 
The book features a flowchart that Davis calls "The Relationship Decision Tree." 
It consists of questions that Davis asks clients when their loved ones are behaving in a way that bothers them. 
It helps them "make decisions about whether to lean into this relationship or disengage," she says. 
Davis, author of the best-selling book How to Keep House While Drowning, talks through a few questions adapted from her framework. 
Why is this behavior objectionable to you? 
This question can help you pinpoint exactly what's "bothering you about a person you love," Davis says, because often there are many reasons. 
Parsing through the "why" can help you decide how to proceed. 
Let's say your roommate isn't doing their chores. 
Ask yourself what annoys you specifically about that behavior, Davis says. 
Is it just something you don't like, or is it actually hurtful or harmful? 
Are they willing to change? 
Once you start digging deeper, you might find that those dirty dishes in the sink "actually directly impact me negatively," Davis says. 
Maybe they're starting to attract bugs. 
Your next move is to have a conversation with your roommate. 
Are they willing to change their behavior? 
They may not do things exactly your way, so work on a solution together. 
Maybe you strike a deal where they cook and you clean, or they commit to doing the dishes before the end of the night. 
Does staying in this relationship violate my values? 
Your most important values are your physical safety, your psychological safety and the physical and psychological safety of minor children, Davis says. 
"If I cannot meet those responsibilities, then it's against my values to continue in this relationship." 
You may have other core values as well, like the safety of a dependent parent or sibling, or the keeping of your sobriety. 
Would leaving this relationship violate my values? 
What happens if staying in the relationship doesn't violate your values, but you still don't want to maintain the relationship? 
"This is where it gets really unique to you and the relationship," Davis says. 
Think about what you feel you owe the relationship and consider your history. 
How long have you known the person? 
What are your obligations and responsibilities to them? 
"If I was stood up by a first date, I'm not obligated to give that person a second chance," Davis says. 
"But if my mom stood me up for lunch, it would probably be against my values to say, 'that's it, I'm never speaking to you again.'" 
If I want to disengage, what could that look like? 
Let's say it doesn't go against your values to leave the relationship. 
And so you end up deciding to disengage. 
How do you do that, exactly? 
Davis says every scenario will be different, so take a moment to think about how you want to handle the situation in ways that protect your values. 
Disengaging from a marriage, for example, might mean getting a divorce  but it could also mean being platonic co-parents living in the same house. 
Disengaging from your parents might mean cutting them off and never talking to them again  but it could also mean only seeing them on holidays, she says. 
Disengaging from a friend might mean you stop talking to them all together. 
It could also mean that you stop making one-on-one plans with them, but stay in the same social circle, she says. 
Whatever you decide, give yourself permission to step back from the relationship. 
And remember, this doesn't have to be a permanent decision. 
It can be something you do temporarily as you tend to your wellbeing, Davis says. 
If I want to maintain the relationship, how could I do so with boundaries? 
You might decide to stay in a relationship without disengaging because you feel like you have a responsibility to that person. 
Or, you might decide you're fulfilled by the relationship in certain ways and it's meaningful to you to maintain it. 
In that case, it will be important to create boundaries, or rules you set up for yourself to protect your physical and psychological wellbeing, Davis says. 
Let's say your dad, who has dementia, is verbally abusive, she says. 
Your boundary might be to visit him once a week, then call a person whom you love and trust to debrief with you after the visit. 
Or maybe you're fed up with your partner who goes cycling for six hours every Saturday and isn't doing his fair share of the housework, she says. 
Your boundary might be to limit doing his chores for him by hiring a housekeeper. 
The idea here is to "not try to get them to change, but learn how to take care of yourself on the backend," she says. 
If you or a loved one is experiencing intimate partner violence, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1 800 799-SAFE. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.4%Marielle Segarra: 2.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 2.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Marielle Segarra: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 2.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.8%Marielle Segarra: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.8%This article: 5.3%Marielle Segarra: 2.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias5.3%This article: 9.0%Marielle Segarra: 7.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect9.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 3.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Marielle Segarra: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect6.1%This article: 3.2%Marielle Segarra: 4.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Marielle Segarra: 4.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Marielle Segarra: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error2.6%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Marielle Segarra: 3.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.6%Marielle Segarra: 14.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority12.6%This article: 6.0%Marielle Segarra: 2.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma6.0%This article: 2.6%Marielle Segarra: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope2.6%This article: 1.7%Marielle Segarra: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning1.7%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 5.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.0%Marielle Segarra: 4.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 2.1%Marielle Segarra: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question2.1%This article: 0.8%Marielle Segarra: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.8%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.5%Marielle Segarra: 4.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal7.5%This article: 2.8%Marielle Segarra: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman2.8%This article: 2.3%Marielle Segarra: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.3%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.8%Marielle Segarra: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.8%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.3%Marielle Segarra: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading2.3%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.6%Marielle Segarra: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 3.5%Marielle Segarra: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.1%Biased Writer Voice3.5%This article: 15.4%Marielle Segarra: 7.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.0%Indoctrination15.4%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Marielle Segarra: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.4%

945 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers44%attributed speech532writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 22 words • 100.0% coverageKC Davis • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 21 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageKC Davis • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 26 words • 100.0% coverageKC Davis • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 26 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 27 words • 0.0% coverageKC Davis • 15 words • 100.0% coverageKC Davis • 25 words • 100.0% coverageNational Domestic Violence Hotline • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

KC Davis

84%flagged-word coverage
393 attributed words95% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Indoctrination+31.8 ptsWriter: 2.3%KC Davis: 34.1%34.1%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.1 ptsWriter: 13.9%KC Davis: 3.8%3.8%Biased Writer Voice-6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%KC Davis: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%KC Davis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.