Asking Eric: Boss is an alcoholic, but no one at office will face reality 73%

By R. Eric Thomas32%

3/30/2026, 9:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Optimism Bias, and Framing Effect, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 28.9% saturation with 236 hits. Analysis detected 1,957 faulty-reasoning hits from 817 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.9% and a BS Rank of 73% (6,038 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.40% of the article peer group.

Dear Eric: My boss is what could be called a “functioning alcoholic,” which in this case means that, in spite of having a severe drinking problem, he manages to hold down a job, even while actively drunk. 
Over the years, I have been phasing out the act of “looking the other way.” 
My refusal to accept his drinking has led him to cast his wrath upon me on occasion. 
He thinks that I am trying to take him down. 
What I want is for him and for everyone in my office to face reality. 
It is a very sad thing to watch. 
Thankfully, I don’t have to interact with him much. 
I feel let down by my boss. 
A big part of my job is to make him look good, and it seems like he is sabotaging my efforts. 
I have now basically given up my support for him. 
If I were to report him to upper management or talk to him about it directly (I would prefer to do the latter), he would just clean up his act for a few days and then revert. 
Now it feels like working for him is making me an enabler of his habit. 
I am seeking some way, any way to cope here. 
 Lost Office Worker 
Dear Worker: It will help you to put an internal boundary between you and your boss. 
In your letter, there seems to be a sense of personal responsibility for, or disappointment in, your boss and his actions. 
While his drinking is a professional problem that’s impacting your ability to do your job, stopping it seems to have taken on aspects of a personal crusade. 
It’s telling that you feel like you’re enabling him. 
Doing your job, even if that job requires fixing his mistakes, isn’t enabling. 
There’s a hierarchy here; you don’t have the power. 
Drawing that distinction for yourself is going to be helpful. 
It may not be feasible for you to make him and everyone in the office face reality. 
Nor is that your job. 
To that end, talking to management is going to be a better choice than continuing to be drawn into and triggered by his actions. 
You can express your concerns about him  there is absolutely help available  but your focus in this conversation with management needs to be on what you need in order to be able to do your job successfully. 
That’s the thing you can control. 
Dear Eric: My boyfriend and I have been together for six months. 
We’re men in our 30s. 
I have a very friendly relationship with my ex-partner that my boyfriend resents. 
He never has anything nice to say about him and is always misreading the things my ex says and does. 
I think my boyfriend mostly resents the fact that I have a close relationship with my ex because his relationship with his ex is basically nonexistent. 
I don’t blame him for wanting nothing to do with his ex. 
Everything I’ve heard about the ex sounds terrible. 
My ex, who is really just a good friend at this point, is part of a group trip that we’ve been invited on this spring. 
I really want to go but my boyfriend is acting very strange about it. 
He keeps talking about the cost. 
And he complains that he doesn’t want to take time away from work. 
(He works for himself.) 
He says I can just go without him, but should I believe him? 
 Vacation Friend 
Dear Friend: On one hand, sure. 
In relationships, we should be able to take what the other person says as the truth, or the truth as they understand it. 
And, in turn, we should endeavor to speak with vulnerability and transparency. 
So many relationships get hamstrung by one or both partners expecting the other to read their minds. 
But when it comes to boyfriends, girlfriends, partners, spouses, the psychic hotline is disconnected. 
We have to say what’s on our minds. 
To that end, you should be able to take what your boyfriend is saying at face value. 
But that sentiment has an asterisk the size of an asteroid: I wouldn’t recommend you do that now. 
Although his doubts are unfounded, his insecurities are part of what he’s communicating to you. 
So, whether or not you decide to go away with your friends, you and your boyfriend need to have a conversation about trust. 
And he’d be wise to work on whatever trauma is still lingering from his last relationship. 
He doesn’t have to be best friends with your ex, but our partners don’t get to dictate who our friends are. 
This friendship was a part of your life when your current relationship started; he needs to learn how to accept it because that’s a part of accepting you. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.2%R. Eric Thomas: 3.3%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias8.2%This article: 2.1%R. Eric Thomas: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias2.1%This article: 8.3%R. Eric Thomas: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 10.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic10.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias3.8%This article: 14.1%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect14.1%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.7%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias1.7%This article: 4.7%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect4.7%This article: 14.8%R. Eric Thomas: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias14.8%This article: 10.4%R. Eric Thomas: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias10.4%This article: 20.1%R. Eric Thomas: 5.8%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias20.1%This article: 5.8%R. Eric Thomas: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 10.5%R. Eric Thomas: 3.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error10.5%This article: 2.6%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect3.1%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: 2.2%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 0.7%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.7%This article: 1.2%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias1.2%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: 6.7%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority6.7%This article: 8.2%R. Eric Thomas: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma8.2%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.4%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.4%This article: 7.0%R. Eric Thomas: 4.3%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization7.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 3.2%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion1.8%This article: 2.9%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question2.9%This article: 5.3%R. Eric Thomas: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.3%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof1.8%This article: 2.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.1%R. Eric Thomas: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal3.1%This article: 2.6%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman2.6%This article: 7.3%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.3%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground5.8%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: 10.6%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote10.6%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.1%R. Eric Thomas: 2.4%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice13.1%This article: 28.9%R. Eric Thomas: 7.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination28.9%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: 4.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.8%

817 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.