Asking Eric: I just want peace in retirement 43%

By R. Eric Thomas33%

7/23/2026, 5:01:12 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 14.5% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 1,113 faulty-reasoning hits from 843 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.9% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,067 of 21,169 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.00% of the article peer group.

Dear Eric: I’m a senior with three grown kids. 
After divorcing young, I rebuilt my life, earned a degree and worked hard to save for retirement. 
Two of my children are independent, but my third child, with his family, still lives in my house despite many conversations and arguments about moving out. 
This prevents me from selling my home as planned, forcing me to use up my savings for my relocation to a different home. 
I feel manipulated and just want peace in retirement. 
I am considering hiring a realtor and attorney to move forward, though I am concerned this will hurt my relationship with this child. 
Am I wrong for prioritizing myself now? 
 Frustrated 
Dear Frustrated: You’re not wrong at all. 
To be frank, it’s imperative that you make a change in this situation. 
You write that you don’t want to hurt your relationship with your child, which is understandable, but it seems clear that the relationship is already hurting. 
You’re not being respected or heard; this isn’t healthy for anyone. 
He may not want you to sell the house for a myriad of reasons, but you are the homeowner and it’s the right choice for you. 
He should respect that and support you in your next step, rather than arguing with you. 
You don’t write whether your child is paying into the mortgage or paying you rent, although I suspect this isn’t the case since you also write that you’re using up your savings. 
It is absolutely fair for you to say that this isn’t working for you, emotionally or financially, and so you’re making a change. 
Your child is not a minor. 
He can and should be responsible for providing for himself (and his family). 
You can help, of course, but this seems to go beyond help, especially because it’s hurting you. 
Contact the realtor and tell your son that you’ve decided to move forward. 
This doesn’t need to be a discussion. 
If your child would like to purchase the home from you, that’s great. 
But be firm about your decision to leave. 
You have already discussed this at length, and it doesn’t seem that your child can be collaborative about this. 
This puts you in an impossible position. 
He may continue to feel angry about it, but you can’t be held captive by his anger. 
That emotion is his responsibility, as well. 
Dear Eric: I am very punctual. 
Decades in business necessitated punctuality, and I carry being on time into my personal life. 
In my mind it is disrespectful to be late and waste the time of others. 
My partner of many years is of a different mindset. 
While he is punctual for work, when it comes to personal plans or engagements, he is consistently 15 to 20 minutes late. 
I find it disrespectful and sometimes embarrassing. 
We have discussed this many times and he knows it upsets me, but the tardiness is a constant. 
Any thoughts? 
 Time After Time 
Dear Time: OK, I don’t want this to come across the wrong way so let me start by assuring you that you’re not being unreasonable and that I understand how frustrating it is to always be waiting for someone else. 
However, you write that you’re of the mindset that lateness is disrespectful and he feels otherwise. 
So, is there some freedom in interpreting his actions differently? 
That is to say, every time he’s late, you may be thinking something along the lines of “this is insulting; this is disrespectful; why would someone who cares about me treat me like this?” 
All of that is understandable. 
But it’s probably fair to say that he’s not trying to insult you and that his lateness is not a reflection of the care he has for you, at least in his mind. 
Changing the narrative around the action may take the temperature down a little bit. 
That doesn’t mean it won’t be annoying. 
But it may be helpful to think “this is something my partner does; I don’t like it; I wish he didn’t. 
But he’s not intentionally trying to waste my time.” 
This is also not to say that all of this is on you. 
It’s not. 
He’s the late one. 
So, it will also be helpful to say to him, “this is an ongoing conflict between the two of us. 
I accept that this is the way you are; I hope you accept that this is the way I am. 
What can we do to solve it so that it doesn’t continue to impact our relationship?” 
One solution might be for him to set his appointments with you earlier so that he inadvertently shows up on time. 
He has to acknowledge that this is something that’s creating an unnecessary roadblock in your relationship and that together you have the power to fix it. 
(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: 8.7%R. Eric Thomas: 3.5%Chicago Tribune: 2.5%Confirmation Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.8%Chicago Tribune: 3.9%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 3.1%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic3.1%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias4.0%This article: 6.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%Chicago Tribune: 6.0%Framing Effect6.0%This article: 2.7%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%Chicago Tribune: 1.1%Loss Aversion2.7%This article: 5.1%R. Eric Thomas: 0.6%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%R. Eric Thomas: 2.6%Chicago Tribune: 2.6%Optimism Bias6.6%This article: 1.9%R. Eric Thomas: 1.8%Chicago Tribune: 1.2%Pessimism Bias1.9%This article: 14.5%R. Eric Thomas: 5.7%Chicago Tribune: 6.4%Negativity Bias14.5%This article: 2.7%R. Eric Thomas: 2.6%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 9.0%R. Eric Thomas: 3.6%Chicago Tribune: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error9.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.6%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%Chicago Tribune: 8.4%Halo Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%Chicago Tribune: 1.5%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 4.7%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%Primacy Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%Chicago Tribune: 3.0%Appeal to Authority6.8%This article: 1.7%R. Eric Thomas: 2.3%Chicago Tribune: 0.9%False Dilemma1.7%This article: 0.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%R. Eric Thomas: 4.2%Chicago Tribune: 3.2%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.2%R. Eric Thomas: 3.3%Chicago Tribune: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion8.2%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.5%Chicago Tribune: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.5%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%Burden of Proof5.0%This article: 1.5%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Appeal to Nature1.5%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.1%R. Eric Thomas: 2.6%Chicago Tribune: 2.0%Anecdotal2.1%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.5%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%Chicago Tribune: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.5%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.6%Chicago Tribune: 0.9%Unattributed Quote3.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.0%R. Eric Thomas: 2.3%Chicago Tribune: 7.7%Biased Writer Voice6.0%This article: 5.6%R. Eric Thomas: 7.3%Chicago Tribune: 1.5%Indoctrination5.6%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.5%Chicago Tribune: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.8%

843 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.