Asking Eric: Friend has only unkind things to say about surgery results 22%

By R. Eric Thomas38%

8/2/2026, 9:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Negativity Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 28.9% saturation with 246 hits. Analysis detected 1,285 faulty-reasoning hits from 850 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.1% and a BS Rank of 22% (20,795 of 26,409 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.70% 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.) 
©2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.4%R. Eric Thomas: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias0.4%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 3.3%Availability Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.5%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.5%This article: 3.2%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias3.2%This article: 0.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.8%This article: 2.1%R. Eric Thomas: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 5.8%Framing Effect2.1%This article: 1.3%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Loss Aversion1.3%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect1.4%This article: 16.1%R. Eric Thomas: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 2.7%Optimism Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.9%R. Eric Thomas: 4.6%newyorkdailynews: 9.5%Negativity Bias18.9%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%R. Eric Thomas: 3.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error5.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.8%Halo Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.9%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.1%Appeal to Authority10.9%This article: 9.1%R. Eric Thomas: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma9.1%This article: 1.3%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Slippery Slope1.3%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 28.9%R. Eric Thomas: 3.3%newyorkdailynews: 4.0%Hasty Generalization28.9%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.1%R. Eric Thomas: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion0.1%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.9%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.9%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.2%R. Eric Thomas: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 2.5%Anecdotal4.2%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote1.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.2%R. Eric Thomas: 2.2%newyorkdailynews: 6.6%Biased Writer Voice3.2%This article: 25.8%R. Eric Thomas: 6.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.7%Indoctrination25.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%R. Eric Thomas: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.5%

850 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker0.6%attributed speech845writer words
0%flagged-word coverage
5 attributed words100% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Indoctrination-25.9 ptsWriter: 25.9%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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