When a new topic is introduced in the middle of an unresolved one, acknowledge it, write it down as something to come back to, and return to the original point, so that diversions neither derail the discussion nor go unanswered.

How to do it

1. 1Keep the live question in view. It helps to have it written at the top of your notes: "We are discussing whether the figures in the report are accurate."
2. 2When a different subject arrives (a counter-accusation, an old grievance, a related controversy, a personal remark), acknowledge it in a few words without evaluating it: "That is a separate issue, and a fair one to raise."
3. 3Park it visibly. Say that you are noting it, and actually write it down; in a meeting, put it on a shared list.
4. 4Return in one sentence to the open question, preferably by repeating it in the same words as before.
5. 5Finish the original point: get an answer, an agreement, or an explicit "we disagree on that".
6. 6Then honor the list. Go back to the parked items, or schedule them. If you never return, this becomes a way of dismissing people, and they will be right to stop accepting it.

When to use it

• •Every time you raise a specific concern, the conversation ends up being about something else, often something you did.
• •An interviewee or spokesperson answers a different question from the one asked.
• •A meeting or negotiation drifts across many issues without closing any.
• •An online thread shifts to a new objection each time the previous one is answered.

Counters

Evidence and how strong it is

The logic is from argumentation theory: fallacies of relevance, including red herring and tu quoque, succeed by shifting the issue under discussion, and the standard remedy is to identify the shift and restore the original question (Walton 2008). The "parking lot" for off-topic items is long-established facilitation and meeting practice, and the broken-record element comes from assertiveness training (Smith 1975). There is a supporting cognitive point: unfinished tasks and open questions stay active in memory and compete for attention, and making a concrete plan to deal with them later reduces that interference (Masicampo & Baumeister 2011), which is a reason the explicit note helps both parties let the side issue go for now. The technique has not been evaluated experimentally as a response to diversion. Evidence strength: consensus in argumentation theory and facilitation practice, with indirect experimental support; no direct trials.

1. Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press
   The analysis of fallacies of relevance as illicit shifts of the issue and the remedy of restoring the original question.
2. Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). Consider it done! Plan making can eliminate the cognitive effects of unfulfilled goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 667-683
   Experiments showing that making a specific plan for an unfinished goal reduces its intrusion on attention, the rationale for explicitly noting a parked topic.
3. Smith, M. J. (1975). When I Say No, I Feel Guilty. Dial Press
   The persistence technique of calmly restating one's point without taking up side issues.