Based on recent events, I propose that we should all be aware of a new meta in psy-op strategies…

Obviously, no sensible person believes that JD Vance had sex with a couch. The humour of this claim, fair or not, is about whether one can argue that “he seems like the kind of guy that would fuck a couch”. This is enhanced if the target of the joke claim is uptight and humorless about their self-image, squirming in situations that normal people would laugh off. Normally, that should have been the end of this amusing moment.

However, the nearly immediate follow-up of the RFK bear carcass story, verified via multiple sources and fully admitted by the primary character himself, means that the window of plausibility is much larger.

A mere week before, it seemed ridiculous that a US presidential candidate had upholstery relations, but now you’re like, I don’t know, crazier things have happened.

Let’s talk strategy. The standard approach to slander someone’s reputation is to plant a bunch of (fake) embarrassing rumours. The planted rumours should be chosen so they are hard to prove, or disprove. Enough of these may overwhelm people, who can’t take the time to verify each one. The goal is to generate the vibe of “wow a lot of bad stuff is being said about that guy”.

But now we observe a new, advanced approach: To slander a person, find a peer of theirs. Then, have this peer admit a more ridiculous accusation about themselves. Now, this reveal changes the plausibility assessment market economics of the whole situation. Occam’s Razor could have formerly rejected the fake accusations you planted on your target, but now they’re in the realm of plausibility. While the Overton Window can move in either direction, the plausibility window is not symmetric: the proof of one formerly implausible hypothesis means all hypotheses previously rejected as implausible must be re-examined.

The hardest part of executing this new strategy is to find someone that is peer-like to your target, but is ridiculous enough to attract an implausible occurrence. Fortunately, your target of slander may not be well-equipped to defend against this. In many situations where people compete for reputation, they seek to surround themselves with peers who are worse than them, to make themselves appear more attractive in comparison. By the time this your strategy has succeeded, it will be too late for your target to reject the ridiculous peer that they have been keeping close.

The name “Phoebe Strategy” is credited to Raph D’amico. Phoebe, played by Lisa Kudrow on the TV show Friends, is the most ridiculous (not largest) friend, yet still considered their peer. While the friends may be bothered by Phoebe’s eccentricity, keeping her around allows them to appear less ridiculous. However, if a rumour came to light that one of the friends had been faking their nationality professionally for years, instead of this absurdity being quickly rejected, it would instead be given a fair chance, since among this friend peer group is someone who legally changed her name to Princess Consuela Banana-Hammock.

The takeaway is: to defend against this kind reputational attack, allow your peers to be ridiculous only in moderation.