Asking Eric: This person was being cruel 37%

By R. Eric Thomas37%

8/2/2026, 10:01:47 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Optimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.5% saturation with 155 hits. Analysis detected 950 faulty-reasoning hits from 840 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.3% and a BS Rank of 37% (19,275 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 63.00% of the article peer group.

Dear Eric: Several years ago, after I had a basal cell carcinoma removed from my nose and had some reparative work done, my husband and I visited a long-time acquaintance. 
She looked at me and said, “oh, I guess that’s the best he could do.” 
Yikes. 
I spoke to her (after the shock wore off) and she refused to apologize and even asked me how I got my husband to marry me. 
What would you have said in reply? 
 Shocked Friend 
Dear Shocked: Sometimes the best reply is no reply at all, because this person was being cruel and, when you pointed the unkindness out, she doubled down. 
So, in my book, that means they’re not interested in or capable of having a productive or kind conversation at the moment. 
It might have been a passing mood, for which she could make amends for later, or it might have been some other issue. 
Or it might have been basic unkindness. 
Whatever the reason, it wouldn’t have served you to continue to engage with her. 
Sometimes we need to protect ourselves by removing ourselves from conversations. 
I write a lot in this column about communication, and I believe that when we communicate with each other and extend grace to each other, we can solve a lot of problems. 
But that doesn’t mean we always have to stay in the room if grace is not on offer and communication is being replaced by cruelty. 
Dear Eric: My question is not headline news, rather about courtesy and manners. 
More often than one would expect when my wife and I eat out at a better restaurant, the waiter will get the order slightly wrong. 
It could be a drink or a slight variant of the dish. 
When the error is discovered, the waiter will say “that drink or dish is on me  then when the bill comes, we are charged. 
Sometimes they bring an unordered dessert that we get charged for, too. 
Usually, I am too timid to bring it up and pay the entire bill with tip. 
I think I probably should be more assertive, but I try to avoid uncomfortable situations. 
What is your call? 
 Overly Courteous 
Dear Courteous: It may put your mind at ease to reframe these situations as conversations instead of conflicts. 
The server wants to bring you what you ordered  it’s their job and good servers want to provide good service. 
So, they would rather you alert them that something didn’t go quite as planned than for you to have a bad experience. 
Similarly, if the server has forgotten to move an item off of the check, it won’t reflect poorly on you to bring it to their attention and ask them to fix it. 
Most point-of-service systems make this relatively easy. 
So, do consider being more assertive when these things happen. 
You may find that getting in the habit of letting a server know when you’ve been charged incorrectly takes the bite out of it and your anxiety about it will go away. 
You’re not chastising the server or even complaining. 
You’re simply pointing out a small change that needs to be made. 
You might also consider heading this issue off at the pass by declining the free dish or drink and just asking for the item that you ordered. 
Again, this isn’t complaining. 
It may be helpful to remember that drinks and dishes get remade all of the time. 
If it’s not what you ordered, you don’t have to eat it or drink it. 
Dear Eric: I’d like to add to your response to the letter from “Second Act” who was considering a career change. 
I changed careers in my early 40s after spending two decades as an account executive in media sales. 
In researching my next step, I enlisted the help of a life/career coach. 
Her suggestion was to interview people in the profession I wanted to enter; with questions about experiences in the broad context of their work life. 
In my case, this was contacting mental health professionals. 
These interviews were a vital part of my transition to clinical social work through a graduate degree. 
I happily spent more than 25 years as a mental health clinician. 
As a midlife career changer, we take some of the skills we learn in our first career with us to the second. 
All experience matters. 
 Happy Second Act 
Dear Second Act: Thanks for writing! 
Enlisting the services of a career counselor can be a gamechanger. 
These professionals are trained to help clients work through the logistical, professional, and emotional challenges of a career change (and many other work hurdles). 
Additionally, it’s very wise to talk to others in the field one is considering entering. 
Their experiences and connections can help lay the groundwork for a successful transition. 
(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: 0.5%R. Eric Thomas: 2.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.3%Confirmation Bias0.5%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%Chicago Tribune: 2.3%Availability Heuristic3.3%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic1.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.8%This article: 2.1%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%Chicago Tribune: 3.6%Framing Effect2.1%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.6%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Loss Aversion1.8%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 2.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect2.0%This article: 12.0%R. Eric Thomas: 2.7%Chicago Tribune: 1.9%Optimism Bias12.0%This article: 1.7%R. Eric Thomas: 1.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Pessimism Bias1.7%This article: 18.5%R. Eric Thomas: 4.4%Chicago Tribune: 4.0%Negativity Bias18.5%This article: 3.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.5%Chicago Tribune: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias3.8%This article: 5.8%R. Eric Thomas: 3.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error5.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%Chicago Tribune: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%Chicago Tribune: 5.5%Halo Effect2.5%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: 0.5%Chicago Tribune: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%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: 5.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.4%Appeal to Authority5.8%This article: 8.5%R. Eric Thomas: 1.8%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%False Dilemma8.5%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.8%R. Eric Thomas: 3.5%Chicago Tribune: 2.0%Hasty Generalization8.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.1%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%Chicago Tribune: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion0.1%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%Chicago Tribune: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.5%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Appeal to Nature2.5%This article: 2.6%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Composition/Division2.6%This article: 0.8%R. Eric Thomas: 2.1%Chicago Tribune: 1.2%Anecdotal0.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.6%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%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: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Unattributed Quote1.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.2%R. Eric Thomas: 1.9%Chicago Tribune: 5.7%Biased Writer Voice3.2%This article: 16.9%R. Eric Thomas: 6.2%Chicago Tribune: 1.3%Indoctrination16.9%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: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%R. Eric Thomas: 1.3%Chicago Tribune: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.5%

840 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.