Asking Eric: How do I handle my feelings? 66%

By R Eric Thomas26%

7/15/2026, 10:01:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Optimism Bias, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 17.8% saturation with 150 hits. Analysis detected 1,426 faulty-reasoning hits from 841 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.7% and a BS Rank of 66% (7,573 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.40% of the article peer group.

Dear Eric: I’m 70 and very happily married (together 38 years). 
We both love music and lately after seeing a performance, there’s a meet-and-greet with the musicians. 
A particular musician and I have chatted several times. 
The last time, I got an autograph and a hug. 
I am on cloud 9! 
I love my spouse (I would never cheat) and I have assured my spouse it’s like when I was a kid and loved Paul in the Beatles. 
But now I just can’t shake my infatuation and look forward to meeting this musician again. 
How do I handle my feelings? 
 Infatuated 
Dear Infatuated: Try to right-size your feelings by reminding yourself that what you’re responding to is a sometimes-intoxicating combination of performance charisma, talent, perhaps celebrity and music, which we all know carries a lot of emotional weight. 
In short, you’re not really responding to the musician as a person; you’re responding to the way the musician’s craft and presence make you feel. 
It doesn’t seem like your spouse has any jealousy about it, nor reason to. 
This is good. 
The crush does appear to be wholly innocuous. 
It’s common to develop a parasocial relationship with a celebrity  or even a non-celebrity  when we get glimpses into their lives or enjoy their work. 
Remind yourself that these giddy infatuated feelings are all part of the act. 
They’re not fake, but they don’t have anything to do with your life. 
Don’t dwell on them, though. 
It can be unhealthy to give into the temptation to fantasize about another meeting or to spend too much time scrolling through the musician’s social media account, for instance. 
Instead, redirect it to the music. 
You’re a fan and that’s fine. 
That’s what you want and that’s what the musician wants. 
Play the tape out: what do you want to happen next? 
Probably just another chat, right? 
You don’t have intentions of running away together. 
Remind yourself of that. 
You might even make your fandom part of your relationship with your spouse by listening to the music together or even making one of the songs “your song.” 
Dear Eric: I’m writing from the Delta Sky Club in Atlanta, where I’m honestly stunned by the number of people taking loud business calls on their cellphones. 
This isn’t a case of one person speaking a little too loudly. 
There are multiple people, all around the lounge, carrying on full-volume business conversations as if the rest of us are simply part of their office. 
It makes what should be a quieter, more comfortable travel experience feel like a noisy open-floor call center. 
I understand that travel days can be workdays, and sometimes people need to take calls. 
But there seems to be very little awareness that others nearby may be trying to relax, read, eat or simply enjoy a few minutes of peace before boarding a flight. 
What is the polite way to handle this? 
Is it ever appropriate to say something directly to the person? 
Should I ask lounge staff to intervene? 
Or is this just the new reality of travel, where everyone is expected to tolerate loud business calls in shared spaces? 
 Headache in ATL 
Dear Headache: I placed a call to Delta about this  in an appropriate place. 
Unfortunately, I didn’t hear back. 
But whether one is in a lounge or some other public space, it’s easy for private conversations to become a public concern, whether it’s because of sheer volume or one person’s volume. 
If someone is being particularly loud, you might ask them to keep the volume at a conversational level. 
Or, if the call is on a speaker, you might be better served talking to a staff member and finding out what their policies are. 
The staff will also be able to direct you to a more peaceful place in the lounge. 
When all else fails, remind yourself that at least it’s quieter in the lounge than in the rest of the terminal. 
Dear Eric: In response to “Tired of Being Kept in the Dark” whose parents manage properties that the letter writer will inherit, you could have directed the letter writer to begin teaching him or herself how to manage income property by reading books or attending apartment owner’s association events near them. 
Real estate courses at community colleges are also great. 
I took over my parents’ real estate holdings when they were still alive and now manage my own. 
I learned on the job, asked questions from veterans and read books. 
I started 70 years ago, still learning, and going strong. 
 On the Job 
Dear Job: I like this. 
Being proactive about learning the basics may also show the letter writer’s parents that the letter writer will be a good steward of the properties that will one day be inherited. 
(Send questions to R. 
Eric Thomas at eric@askingeric.com or P.O. 
Box 22474, Philadelphia, PA 19110. 
Follow him on Instagram and sign up for his weekly newsletter at rericthomas.com.) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.5%R Eric Thomas: 2.9%Baltimore Sun: 1.7%Confirmation Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%R Eric Thomas: 2.8%Baltimore Sun: 3.2%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 3.8%R Eric Thomas: 1.1%Baltimore Sun: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.8%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.9%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias8.0%This article: 8.1%R Eric Thomas: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Framing Effect8.1%This article: 2.5%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Loss Aversion2.5%This article: 2.5%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 1.2%R Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect1.2%This article: 8.7%R Eric Thomas: 2.9%Baltimore Sun: 3.4%Optimism Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.4%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%R Eric Thomas: 6.2%Baltimore Sun: 5.2%Negativity Bias15.5%This article: 8.4%R Eric Thomas: 2.3%Baltimore Sun: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias8.4%This article: 6.5%R Eric Thomas: 2.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error6.5%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%R Eric Thomas: 0.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.8%This article: 3.7%R Eric Thomas: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 3.4%Halo Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%R Eric Thomas: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 1.3%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 3.8%R Eric Thomas: 0.9%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.4%R Eric Thomas: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 2.2%Appeal to Authority3.4%This article: 5.5%R Eric Thomas: 2.4%Baltimore Sun: 1.6%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.7%R Eric Thomas: 6.0%Baltimore Sun: 3.6%Hasty Generalization7.7%This article: 6.1%R Eric Thomas: 0.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Red Herring6.1%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.1%R Eric Thomas: 2.5%Baltimore Sun: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion7.1%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.7%R Eric Thomas: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.7%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.0%R Eric Thomas: 4.1%Baltimore Sun: 2.2%Anecdotal8.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.2%R Eric Thomas: 1.7%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.2%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.2%R Eric Thomas: 1.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Middle Ground6.2%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.0%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice4.0%This article: 17.8%R Eric Thomas: 8.2%Baltimore Sun: 3.2%Indoctrination17.8%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%R Eric Thomas: 1.5%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.3%

841 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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