Asking Eric: Friend punishes those who tell him ‘no’ 11%

By R. Eric Thomas37%

8/7/2026, 12:00:33 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Hasty Generalization, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.7% saturation with 157 hits. Analysis detected 756 faulty-reasoning hits from 839 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.5% and a BS Rank of 11% (27,286 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.20% of the article peer group.

Dear Eric: My friend does not like to hear the word “no.” 
If you tell him no, you will very speedily see his true colors which are more than ugly. 
When he hears the word no, he goes out of his way to make the non-consenting person pay for the falsely perceived misdeeds. 
I have seen with my own eyes this little tower of terror unleash his wrath upon many people. 
The truth is my friend has some very unsavory traits that make people want to tell him no. 
How can I get my friend to know that no means no? 
 The Little Monster Tamer 
Dear Tamer: I’m not certain that this is something you should do. 
Nor am I certain it’s something you can do. 
Your friend’s behavior sounds very troubling and it doesn’t sound like this is a new trait. 
So, if he has lived for a prolonged period of his life refusing to acknowledge “no” and terrorizing those who do tell him no, it’s likely he knows that this is anti-social behavior and doesn’t care. 
So, the task before you may not be teaching him how to act right but rather deciding if you want to remain friends with him at all. 
This isn’t to say he’s unsalvageable. 
We all have the capacity to change, grow, and make amends to those we’ve harmed. 
You can point out what you’ve noticed to him and talk about how you feel seeing him act that way. 
This may have an impact on him. 
But you should be prepared for the possibility that he doesn’t want to hear any negative information about himself and isn’t open to feedback. 
He has to want to change and part of change is accepting that sometimes the answer is “no.” 
Dear Eric: My partner and I live across the street from neighbors who we like very much. 
We go out socially with them occasionally, perhaps once or twice per year. 
They are nice people. 
They’re 10 years younger than us (my partner is 71 and I’m 69, and we are retired). 
They both work, and they have two twenty-something graduate student sons who go away to school. 
My partner and I are very active socially, we exercise a lot, and we travel often. 
Our days are busy. 
When we have nice weather, we enjoy carving out an hour or two away from our chores, and errands to relax and enjoy our front porch, whether to read a chapter, catch up on emails or computer things, listen to headphones, read the newspaper (including “Asking Eric”), et cetera. 
The issue that we have is that if our neighbors notice that we are out on our front porch, they will often come over (either individually or together), plop themselves down, and without asking how we are or what we’ve been up to proceed to talk about their health, their work, themselves, their sons’ lives, their degree programs and their plans for the future. 
The list is endless. 
They will usually stay up to an hour. 
Although we like these neighbors, we feel robbed of the time that we’ve been looking forward to relaxing and enjoying what we planned to do. 
We do not want to alienate, or anger these neighbors, and we have no other area behind our home in which to sit, and we do not want to remain indoors. 
How would you suggest that we handle the frustration and bad feelings that we have when this happens and convey to them that we like them very much but that our porch time is important to us. 
 Closed for Business 
Dear Business: Last year, a letter came in from someone who had a pool and neighbors who felt that they could come over and swim any time. 
One solution that came from readers of this column was to put up a flag whenever the pool was open and take it down whenever guests weren’t welcome. 
A similar system might work for you, but it’s going to take a conversation first. 
It’s perfectly reasonable to tell your neighbors “we enjoy your company, but we’re not always fully available for conversation when we sit outside. 
Sometimes we sit out there to have a little quiet time. 
We want to let you know so that you’re not offended.” 
Then you might suggest a system like, “if the porch light is on, we’ve got time, but if it’s not, we’d love to wave and catch up with you later.” 
It’s possible that this couple is looking for ways to fill their time. 
You aren’t obligated to be that way. 
And if they’re not asking you anything about yourselves, they may just be looking for an audience. 
Communication about what works for you, and what doesn’t, will help you avoid resenting them. 
(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: 2.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%Baltimore Sun: 1.8%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.8%This article: 3.2%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%Baltimore Sun: 2.9%Framing Effect3.2%This article: 3.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Loss Aversion3.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 2.7%Baltimore Sun: 2.0%Optimism Bias1.8%This article: 7.2%R. Eric Thomas: 1.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%Pessimism Bias7.2%This article: 18.7%R. Eric Thomas: 4.4%Baltimore Sun: 5.5%Negativity Bias18.7%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%R. Eric Thomas: 3.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error7.9%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.5%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 1.3%Halo Effect0.5%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%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: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.2%R. Eric Thomas: 1.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%False Dilemma3.2%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.1%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning2.1%This article: 12.2%R. Eric Thomas: 3.5%Baltimore Sun: 2.8%Hasty Generalization12.2%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%Baltimore Sun: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion3.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.1%R. Eric Thomas: 2.1%Baltimore Sun: 1.2%Anecdotal15.1%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.5%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity2.5%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%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: 1.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.9%Baltimore Sun: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 1.3%R. Eric Thomas: 6.2%Baltimore Sun: 2.1%Indoctrination1.3%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: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.0%

839 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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