You're in a discussion about whether your company should invest in new software. Suddenly, someone mentions how the competing vendor's CEO once made controversial political statements. The conversation shifts entirely—and twenty minutes later, no one has evaluated whether the software actually meets your needs.

This is a red herring in action. Named after the practice of using smoked fish to throw hunting dogs off a scent trail, red herrings are pieces of information that seem relevant but actually lead your reasoning away from what matters. Learning to spot them is one of the most practical thinking skills you can develop.

Red herrings rarely announce themselves. They slip into conversations wearing the disguise of relevance. The most common pattern is the emotional pivot—introducing information that triggers feelings rather than advancing logic. When debating a policy, someone might share a heart-wrenching personal story that, while moving, doesn't actually address whether the policy works.

Another frequent pattern is the character detour. Instead of evaluating an argument, the discussion shifts to the person making it. 'Well, he's never run a business' sounds like it matters, but whether someone has run a business tells you nothing about whether their specific claim is true or false.

The scope creep pattern expands the question until the original issue disappears. A conversation about whether to buy a particular car becomes a debate about environmental policy, then capitalism itself. Each jump feels connected, but you've traveled miles from your actual decision. Watch for moments when the topic suddenly grows much larger or smaller than where you started.

Takeaway

Red herrings enter through three main doors: emotional appeals that bypass logic, attacks on people instead of arguments, and gradual topic expansion that loses the original question.

Here's a simple test: ask yourself, 'If this new information were completely different, would it change my conclusion?' If someone argues against a medical treatment by mentioning the pharmaceutical company's stock price, ask: would the treatment work better or worse if the stock price were different? No—so the stock price is irrelevant to whether the treatment is effective.

Another useful check is the connection question: 'What logical step connects this information to the conclusion?' You should be able to articulate a clear path. 'The CEO made political statements, therefore...' Therefore what, exactly? If you can't complete that sentence with a logical connection to the actual decision, you've found a red herring.

Finally, try the topic sentence test. Mentally complete this phrase: 'We are trying to determine whether...' Then ask if the new information directly helps answer that specific question. 'We are trying to determine whether this software meets our needs. Information about the CEO's politics does not help answer that question.' This simple reframing cuts through the noise.

Takeaway

Test relevance by asking three questions: Would different information change the conclusion? What logical step connects this to my decision? Does this directly answer the question I'm actually trying to resolve?

When you notice a red herring, resist the urge to argue about it—that only feeds the distraction. Instead, use a gentle redirect: 'That's an interesting point. For now, let's focus on whether the software handles our inventory needs.' You acknowledge the comment without letting it hijack the conversation.

Before important discussions, write down the core question you need to answer. Keep it visible. When conversation drifts, you have an anchor to return to. 'Our question today is: Should we renew this contract?' This simple practice prevents the gradual topic creep that makes red herrings so effective.

In your own thinking, practice the parking lot technique. When tangential thoughts arise, mentally 'park' them for later rather than following them immediately. You might note 'Consider CEO's background' and set it aside while you complete your evaluation of the actual evidence. Not every piece of information deserves attention right now—even if it might matter eventually.

Takeaway

Combat red herrings by writing down your core question before discussions, redirecting without engaging the distraction, and parking tangential thoughts for later rather than following them immediately.

Red herrings succeed because they feel relevant in the moment. They connect to the topic just enough to seem like they belong, while actually leading you away from sound reasoning. The skill isn't in never encountering them—they're everywhere—but in recognizing when information doesn't actually serve your thinking.

Keep your core question visible. Test new information for genuine relevance. Redirect without engaging. These simple habits will help you stay on the trail that matters.