Asking Eric: My wife uses too much perfume 19%

By R. Eric Thomas32%

7/24/2026, 5:01:07 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 14.9% saturation with 125 hits. Analysis detected 1,147 faulty-reasoning hits from 841 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.6% and a BS Rank of 19% (17,884 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.70% of the article peer group.

Dear Eric: I am finding myself more and more fearful of AI. 
I have family and friends who casually upload their personal images to be AI-altered. 
That’s their prerogative so I never have talked about my AI aversion. 
Recently though, a few family members uploaded group photos including me to generate lighthearted/silly AI images. 
This bothered me a lot, to the point I said something to one of the family members who did it. 
I said that while I know they had no bad intentions and the image was lighthearted and fun, it made me really uncomfortable, and I don’t want my image or images of my family to be uploaded to AI. 
I felt like a total jerk saying anything at all. 
Now I worry that other images I share/have shared are subject to this kind of frivolity by literally anyone in my friend and family circle, especially when it comes to my children. 
I’m not on social media; I’ve been off every social media outlet for more than six years. 
It all scares me, and honestly, I thought everyone knew this about me. 
I just hear and have read stories of AI using images for deep fake, art, pornography and gathering personal data from images (things like location tags). 
Is there a good way to set a boundary like this when you don’t have a social media account to have a tag line that explicitly states it? 
Or a respectful way to tell friends and family that doesn’t make me sound like I’m from the Stone Age sitting in my cave judging them and their life choices? 
 Millennial Neanderthal 
Dear Millennial: Because AI is new and we, unfortunately, don’t have common practices around it, it will put your mind at ease to have proactive FYI conversations with family and friends about your image and those of your children. 
If you wanted to put it out all at once, you might include a line in a holiday letter or something like that. 
But you can also just bring it up in casual conversation. 
“I’ve been thinking a lot about AI. 
I know it’s fascinating to a lot of people, but I really don’t want my image or that of my family ever uploaded. 
I’m just letting everybody know.” 
If you don’t want to go through your whole Rolodex (and I don’t recommend you do), you may have to accept that this isn’t happening every day to you and so the risk of letting it come up versus sending out a mass bulletin is relatively low. 
Dear Eric: After reading what Coco Chanel said about perfume, my wife uses just too much. 
I can’t induce her to use less. 
Any suggestions? 
 Too Much of a Good Thing 
Dear Too Much: It depends on whether this is a matter of personal taste  yours clashing with hers  or if the smell is bothering you. 
If it’s the former, you may need to live and let live. 
If it’s the latter, communicate that in a way that focuses on your experience rather than what she’s doing “wrong.” 
For instance, you might say, “the intensity of the perfume irritates my sinuses, would you mind only wearing so much if we’re going to be out of the house?” 
You’d need to tailor the request to your particular issue with the perfume, however. 
Aromas bother a lot of people; you’re not alone in that. 
For some its allergies or other upper respiratory issues; for others too much of an aroma causes a headache or worse. 
Think about how the perfume is bothering you and ask her to help you come up with a compromise that makes you both happy. 
Dear Eric: I read the trials of “Sick and Worried Mom” regarding talking to her daughters and her employer about the support she needs to manage her current healthcare. 
Regarding her work you rightly recommended that she speak with HR. 
Your other advice was for her to speak with an employment attorney if HR is not an option. 
That is good professional advice. 
But speaking with an attorney about this topic could be pricey for some basic advice. 
Any person employed with an organization that doesn’t have an HR professional has additional options, too. 
1. 
Ask a family member or confidante to do the research for you. 
(She could do this herself easily, but no need to add another task.) 
2. 
Find an HR consultant who can give some advice about how to begin. 
This is likely quicker than an attorney with more moderate pricing. 
You can find one online or through your local Society of Human Resources Professionals. 
 More Resources 
Dear Resources: Thank you for this follow-up. 
You’re right; there may be lower cost options available to the letter writer that won’t tax her valuable time. 
(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: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 3.3%Chicago Tribune: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%R. Eric Thomas: 0.5%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Anchoring Bias1.9%This article: 9.9%R. Eric Thomas: 2.1%Chicago Tribune: 3.9%Availability Heuristic9.9%This article: 2.5%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%Chicago Tribune: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic2.5%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.6%This article: 3.3%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%Chicago Tribune: 5.6%Framing Effect3.3%This article: 7.4%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%Chicago Tribune: 1.2%Loss Aversion7.4%This article: 3.4%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.4%This article: 1.5%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect1.5%This article: 13.8%R. Eric Thomas: 2.8%Chicago Tribune: 2.9%Optimism Bias13.8%This article: 8.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.9%Chicago Tribune: 1.3%Pessimism Bias8.0%This article: 9.5%R. Eric Thomas: 5.8%Chicago Tribune: 6.2%Negativity Bias9.5%This article: 1.2%R. Eric Thomas: 2.5%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 3.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%R. Eric Thomas: 0.6%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%In-Group Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%Chicago Tribune: 8.4%Halo Effect0.0%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: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%Chicago Tribune: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.6%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: 3.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%Chicago Tribune: 2.9%Appeal to Authority3.8%This article: 6.5%R. Eric Thomas: 2.3%Chicago Tribune: 1.0%False Dilemma6.5%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.9%R. Eric Thomas: 4.3%Chicago Tribune: 3.3%Hasty Generalization14.9%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: 5.8%R. Eric Thomas: 3.2%Chicago Tribune: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion5.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.4%Chicago Tribune: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.0%R. Eric Thomas: 2.7%Chicago Tribune: 2.0%Anecdotal5.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%Chicago Tribune: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.8%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: 1.5%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Special Pleading1.5%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.7%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%Chicago Tribune: 0.9%Unattributed Quote6.7%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.6%R. Eric Thomas: 2.4%Chicago Tribune: 7.7%Biased Writer Voice13.6%This article: 4.6%R. Eric Thomas: 7.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.4%Indoctrination4.6%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: 2.3%R. Eric Thomas: 1.5%Chicago Tribune: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.3%

841 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker0.4%attributed speech838writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageHR consultant • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

HR consultant

0%flagged-word coverage
3 attributed words100% of attributed speech67% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.6 ptsWriter: 13.6%HR consultant: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%HR consultant: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%HR consultant: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%HR consultant: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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