A red herring is an irrelevant point introduced to pull attention away from the issue under discussion. Logicians class it with the fallacies of relevance, close to ignoratio elenchi (missing the point). The figurative sense is traced to the English journalist William Cobbett, who in his Political Register of 14 February 1807 told an apparently made-up story about using a red herring to draw hounds off a hare’s trail, as a jibe at a press distracted by false news of Napoleon’s defeat.
The best red herrings feel related: same theme, same people, or the same emotions as the real issue.
02
Make it vivid
A story, a scandal or a striking claim draws more attention than the dull original question.
03
Let the clock run
Once the discussion has moved on, few people return to the question that started it.
Where you see it today
Language models take the bait
Researchers added irrelevant sentences to grade-school maths problems and found that model accuracy fell sharply; telling the model to ignore irrelevant information helped (Shi et al., 2023). Machines, like people, can be thrown off by detail that sounds relevant.
One clause is enough
A later benchmark added a single clause that seemed relevant but did not affect the answer, and found significant performance drops across leading models (Mirzadeh et al., 2024). The authors argue this points to pattern-matching rather than genuine logical reasoning; that reading is still debated.
Asked whether a tool will cut support costs this year, a team ends up debating when general AI will arrive. The long-term question matters, but it is a red herring in a budget decision.
On earnings calls
An analyst asks about falling margins and gets an answer about the company’s long-term AI vision. Listen for whether the original number was ever addressed.
Red herring and its relatives
Red herring
What it doesIntroduces an unrelated topic to distract
Example"Before we discuss the delay, look at our competitor's outage."
Ignoratio elenchi
What it doesProves a conclusion other than the one at issue
ExampleShowing a city is not the biggest when the claim was about growth
Straw man
What it doesAttacks a distorted version of the argument
Example"So you want to stop all AI projects?"
Tu quoque
What it doesDeflects criticism by accusing the critic
Example"Your team missed its targets too."
Ad hominem
What it doesAttacks the person, not the argument
Example"You would say that, you work in legal."
How to spot and avoid it
Write the question at the top of the agenda or document and check answers against it.
When a new topic appears, ask: "Does this change the answer to our question?" If not, park it.
Keep a parking list so good but irrelevant points are not lost, just moved.
When testing AI tools, include irrelevant details in your test prompts to see whether answers change.
If you are asked something hard, answer it first, then add context, not the other way round.
The Business Engineer lens
AI strategy debates attract red herrings because the long-term questions are more exciting than the near-term ones. The Business Engineer’s FRED test pulls the discussion back to whether a use case fits the business today.
Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the issue being discussed, so the original question goes unanswered.
Where does the term come from?
The figurative sense is traced to William Cobbett's Political Register of 14 February 1807, where he told a story, probably invented, about using a red herring to divert hounds.
How is a red herring different from a straw man?
A straw man distorts the opponent's argument and attacks the distortion; a red herring changes the subject altogether.
Can AI models be distracted by red herrings?
Yes. Studies show language models solve maths problems less accurately when irrelevant information is added to the question.
The complete explainer, cleaned up and reformatted for mobile.
The Red Herring Fallacy is a type of informal fallacy characterized by the introduction of irrelevant or distracting information into an argument to divert attention away from the main issue. The term “red herring” originated from the practice of using a strong-smelling fish to mislead hunting dogs from following a scent trail. In arguments, a red herring is used to lead the audience away from the central point or to confuse the issue. It is a deceptive tactic that doesn’t address the argument’s substance.
Characteristics of the Red Herring Fallacy
Distraction Technique
The Red Herring fallacy involves introducing irrelevant information or arguments to divert attention away from the central issue or argument being discussed. By introducing a seemingly related but ultimately tangential topic, the arguer attempts to sidetrack the audience and shift the focus away from the main point.
Lack of Relevance
A key characteristic of the Red Herring fallacy is the lack of relevance between the introduced argument or information and the original topic under discussion. The introduced topic may appear superficially related, but upon closer examination, it becomes clear that it does not address the central question or issue at hand.
Emotional Appeal
In some cases, the Red Herring fallacy may rely on emotional appeals or sensationalism to distract or manipulate the audience. By introducing emotionally charged or controversial topics, the arguer seeks to evoke strong reactions and override logical reasoning.
Implications of the Red Herring Fallacy
Derailment of Discourse
The primary implication of the Red Herring fallacy is the derailment of discourse and logical reasoning. By shifting the focus away from the main issue, the arguer undermines the integrity of the discussion and prevents meaningful progress or resolution.
Manipulation of Perception
The use of irrelevant or emotionally charged arguments in the Red Herring fallacy can manipulate the perception of the audience and distort their understanding of the issue at hand. By exploiting cognitive biases and emotional responses, the arguer seeks to influence the audience’s opinions and beliefs.
Erosion of Trust
Repeated use of the Red Herring fallacy can erode trust in the integrity of the argument or the arguer. When audience members recognize the use of diversionary tactics, they may become skeptical of the arguer’s motives and credibility, leading to a breakdown in communication and trust.
Examples of the Red Herring Fallacy
Political Debates
In political debates, candidates may use the Red Herring fallacy to deflect attention from difficult questions or criticisms. Instead of addressing the issue directly, they may bring up unrelated topics or personal attacks to distract the audience and avoid scrutiny.
Advertising
Advertisers often use the Red Herring fallacy to manipulate consumer perceptions and emotions. By associating their products with unrelated concepts such as luxury, success, or social status, they attempt to create a diversionary appeal that overrides rational decision-making.
Personal Arguments
In personal arguments or conflicts, individuals may employ the Red Herring fallacy to avoid accountability or responsibility. Rather than addressing the core issue or admitting fault, they may introduce irrelevant details or accusations to deflect blame and shift the focus onto others.
Strategies to Identify and Counteract the Red Herring Fallacy
Stay Focused on the Main Issue
One effective strategy to counteract the Red Herring fallacy is to stay focused on the main issue or argument under discussion. By maintaining clarity and coherence in the discussion, it becomes easier to identify and reject irrelevant distractions.
Question the Relevance
When confronted with a diversionary argument or topic, it is essential to question its relevance to the main issue. By critically evaluating the connection between the introduced topic and the original argument, one can expose the fallacious nature of the Red Herring tactic.
Challenge Emotional Appeals
Be wary of emotional appeals or sensationalism used to distract or manipulate the audience. Instead of reacting emotionally, focus on evaluating the logical coherence and relevance of the arguments presented, and demand evidence to support any claims made.
Conclusion
The Red Herring fallacy represents a deceptive tactic employed to divert attention from the main issue or argument under discussion. By introducing irrelevant or emotionally charged topics, the arguer seeks to manipulate perception, derail discourse, and undermine logical reasoning. However, by staying focused on the main issue, questioning the relevance of diversionary tactics, and challenging emotional appeals, individuals can effectively identify and counteract the Red Herring fallacy, fostering more rational and productive discussions.
Key Characteristics
Explanation– The Red Herring Fallacy typically exhibits the following traits: – Irrelevant Distraction: The arguer introduces a new topic, fact, or issue that is not related to the central argument under discussion. – Distracts from the Main Point: The introduced information is meant to divert attention and shift the focus away from the primary issue or argument. – Misleading: The introduced information may seem relevant or compelling but is ultimately inconsequential to the central argument. – Emotional Appeal: In some cases, the red herring may rely on emotional appeals or provocative topics to grab attention. – Avoidance Tactic: This fallacy is often used when the arguer wishes to evade addressing a challenging or uncomfortable topic directly.
Examples
Explanation– Examples of the Red Herring Fallacy include: – In a political debate about healthcare reform, one candidate avoids discussing the proposed policy by bringing up a completely unrelated issue, such as national security or taxation. The distraction shifts the focus away from the healthcare topic. – During a business meeting about cost-cutting measures, an employee starts discussing the company’s recent charity donations and community involvement. This unrelated topic diverts attention from the budgetary concerns. – In a classroom discussion about climate change, a student introduces a debate about the ethical implications of veganism. While an important topic, it does not address the central issue of climate change.
Purpose and Effects
Explanation– The primary purpose of the Red Herring Fallacy is to distract, confuse, or mislead the audience by introducing irrelevant information. The effects can include: – Misdirection: The audience’s attention is diverted from the main argument or issue, preventing a meaningful discussion. – Confusion: The use of a red herring can create confusion and make it difficult to discern the central point of the argument. – Avoidance: This fallacy can be employed to avoid addressing a challenging or controversial topic directly. – Emotional Manipulation: If the introduced information relies on emotional appeals, it may stir emotions and bias the audience’s judgment. – Ineffectiveness: Ultimately, the red herring does not provide any valid support for the arguer’s position on the central issue.
Counteraction
Explanation– To counteract the Red Herring Fallacy: – Identify the Diversion: Recognize when a diversionary tactic is being used to shift focus away from the main argument. – Bring Focus Back: Politely and firmly steer the discussion back to the central point or issue under consideration. – Ask for Relevance: Request that the person using the red herring explain how the introduced information is directly related to the primary argument. – Maintain Clarity: When presenting your own arguments, be clear and concise to minimize opportunities for distractions. – Stay Informed: Be aware of common diversion tactics and fallacies to avoid being misled.
Real-World Significance
Explanation– The Red Herring Fallacy is encountered in various domains, including politics, advertising, negotiations, debates, and everyday conversations. It is a manipulative technique that can lead to unproductive discussions and hinder effective problem-solving. Being able to recognize and address red herrings is essential for maintaining logical and meaningful discourse and for making well-informed decisions in personal and professional life.
Political Debate
DescriptionIn a political debate, a candidate may dodge a question about their stance on an issue by discussing an unrelated topic, diverting attention from their actual position.
Implications– Misleads voters and hinders informed decision-making. – Distracts from critical issues and policy matters.
How to Recognize and Address ItRecognize when the response doesn’t address the original question and demand a direct answer.
ExamplesA candidate is asked about their stance on healthcare, but instead, they discuss their opponent’s past voting record on a different issue.
Legal Argument
DescriptionDuring a legal argument, an attorney might bring up an emotionally charged but irrelevant story to appeal to the jury’s emotions and distract from the central legal point.
Implications– Clouds the judgment of jurors with irrelevant emotional content. – Shifts the focus away from legal facts and arguments.
How to Recognize and Address ItBe attentive to whether the story or argument is pertinent to the legal case and request that the attorney stick to relevant evidence.
ExamplesIn a murder trial, the defense attorney tells a heart-wrenching story about the defendant’s difficult childhood, which is unrelated to the evidence of the crime.
Sales Pitch
DescriptionA salesperson may avoid addressing a customer’s concerns about a product’s quality by discussing the product’s affordability, shifting the customer’s focus.
Implications– Disguises product shortcomings and misleads consumers. – Prevents customers from making informed purchasing decisions.
How to Recognize and Address ItStay focused on your initial concerns and request relevant information about the product’s quality.
ExamplesA customer inquires about a product’s durability, and the salesperson responds by emphasizing the product’s low price.
Political Campaign
DescriptionIn a political campaign, a candidate might respond to allegations of misconduct by bringing up unrelated accusations against their opponent, diverting attention from their own actions.
Implications– Muddles the discussion and obscures the original allegations. – Makes it challenging to hold candidates accountable for their actions.
How to Recognize and Address ItPay attention to whether the response directly addresses the allegations and press for a clear response.
ExamplesA candidate facing corruption allegations responds by accusing their opponent of similar misconduct, avoiding addressing the specific allegations.
Business Negotiation
DescriptionIn a business negotiation, one party might raise unrelated concerns about market conditions or global economics to divert attention from the main negotiation points.
Implications– Delays progress and makes negotiations more complex. – Obfuscates the core issues and interests at stake.
How to Recognize and Address ItIdentify when unrelated topics are brought up and steer the conversation back to the primary negotiation points.
ExamplesDuring a contract negotiation, one party begins discussing the global economic outlook rather than addressing specific contract terms.
Academic Discussion
DescriptionIn an academic debate, a participant might respond to a challenging question by raising an unrelated, emotionally charged topic, sidetracking the discussion.
Implications– Distracts from the academic inquiry and rational debate. – Creates confusion and hinders the exploration of complex topics.
How to Recognize and Address ItLook for whether the response directly addresses the question or if it introduces an unrelated emotional topic.
ExamplesIn a debate about climate change, a participant, when asked about carbon emissions, brings up a controversial social issue unrelated to the environment.
Personal Argument
DescriptionDuring a personal argument, one party may introduce unrelated grievances or accusations to divert attention from the core issue being discussed.
Implications– Escalates conflicts by introducing unrelated disputes. – Makes it challenging to address the original problem constructively.
How to Recognize and Address ItStay focused on the core issue and address unrelated matters separately if necessary.
ExamplesIn a disagreement about household chores, one person brings up past arguments and unrelated issues, making it difficult to resolve the current problem.
Media Interview
DescriptionIn a media interview, a guest might evade a question about their actions by discussing a different topic or framing it in a way that shifts the focus away from their behavior.
Implications– Misleads the audience and hinders accountability. – Allows guests to control the narrative and avoid addressing tough questions.
How to Recognize and Address ItPay attention to whether the response directly addresses the question and request clarification if necessary.
ExamplesAn interviewee avoids answering questions about their financial practices by discussing their charity work or framing it as a personal attack.
Family Discussion
DescriptionIn a family argument, a family member may deflect from their behavior or actions by bringing up unrelated issues or grievances, derailing the conversation.
Implications– Leads to unresolved conflicts and ongoing family tension. – Prevents effective communication and problem-solving within the family.
How to Recognize and Address ItAcknowledge the diversion and return to addressing the original issue calmly and constructively.
ExamplesIn a family argument about curfew violations, one family member starts discussing unrelated past conflicts within the family.
Social Media Discussion
DescriptionIn a social media discussion, a participant may respond to criticism by bringing up unrelated negative aspects of their critic’s life or making personal attacks, distracting from the initial critique.
Implications– Escalates online conflicts and leads to hostile exchanges. – Hinders constructive discussions and encourages toxic behavior.
How to Recognize and Address ItRecognize when personal attacks or unrelated accusations are made and choose not to engage in personal or off-topic arguments.
ExamplesA person responding to a critique about their political views resorts to personal attacks on the critic’s appearance and lifestyle choices.
Red Herring Fallacy
Description– A logical fallacy that involves introducing an irrelevant topic to divert the audience’s attention away from the original issue. The diversion is a deliberate attempt to redirect the discussion to a different argument that may be easier to defend or attack.
When to Apply– Important to recognize and avoid in debates and discussions to ensure that the conversation remains focused on the original topic and addresses the actual issue at hand.
Straw Man Argument
Description– A fallacy that involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack by exaggerating, distorting, or completely fabricating the argument. This misrepresentation creates an easily defeatable position that diverts attention from the opponent’s actual stance.
When to Apply– Useful to detect and correct in discussions to ensure that debates are fair and accurately represent the viewpoints being discussed.
Ad Hominem
Description– A fallacy that involves attacking the character or traits of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. This tactic undermines the opponentโs position by attacking its source rather than its substance.
When to Apply– Critical to avoid in rational debate to maintain focus on the arguments rather than the personal characteristics of the participants.
Slippery Slope
Description– A fallacy that assumes that a relatively small first step will lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant (usually negative) outcome. This fallacy exaggerates the potential consequences to deter the initial action.
When to Apply– Analyze and challenge in scenarios where a progression of events is presumed to lead to an extreme outcome without sufficient evidence.
Begging the Question
Description– A logical fallacy in which an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it. This form of circular reasoning argues in a circle, taking for granted what it’s supposed to prove.
When to Apply– Important to identify and challenge in discussions where conclusions are assumed within the arguments without proper justification.
False Dilemma
Description– A fallacy that occurs when someone is asked to choose between two options when more options exist. This either/or fallacy limits the possible choices to manipulate the outcome.
When to Apply– Watch for and clarify in situations where complex decisions are oversimplified into two choices, potentially overlooking viable alternatives.
Hasty Generalization
Description– A fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidenceโessentially making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables.
When to Apply– Avoid in analysis and decision-making where broad conclusions are drawn from too small a set of data points, potentially leading to erroneous outcomes.
Appeal to Authority
Description– A fallacy in arguing that a claim must be true just because it is made by someone who is perceived to be an authority on the subject. While not always fallacious, it can be misleading if the authority is not genuinely qualified to speak on the subject.
When to Apply– Evaluate and use cautiously in arguments where the citation of an authority is not a substitute for an actual argument.
Appeal to Ignorance
Description– A fallacy that argues that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, or vice versa. This fallacy misuses an opponent’s inability to disprove a claim as proof of the claim’s correctness.
When to Apply– Recognize and question in claims where the lack of evidence is presented as proof of a statementโs truth or falsehood.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Description– A fallacy that implies that because one thing follows another, the first thing was the cause of the second. It translates to “after this, therefore because of this,” and is a type of false cause fallacy.
When to Apply– Analyze and challenge in scenarios where a cause-and-effect relationship is presumed between consecutive events without sufficient evidence.
Gennaro Cuofano is a CRO and tech executive who has worked in AI since late 2015, starting with bringing NLP, natural-language generation, voice and chatbot products to the marketing industry. His background is in law and finance: he holds a Master's degree in Law and an International MBA with an emphasis on corporate finance (LUISS Business School and the University of San Diego, 2012), and worked as a financial analyst at a real-estate investment firm in San Diego and as an assistant controller. His work focuses on business model strategy, business engineering and, more broadly, structural analysis: how companies make money, read from their own filings. He created FourWeekMBA and leads research there and at The Business Engineer, his newsletter on AI and business strategy, with over 95,000 subscribers and more than 1,000 published analyses. His writing has also appeared on Entrepreneur (for example, How to Digitize a Family Business in Europe) and HackerNoon. Find him on LinkedIn and Substack. See how we source.
