The practical solution that medieval courts arrived at, and later the British and American admiralty, was the ship itself does.
This is not false, but unhelpfully misleading when compared to corporations. The medieval reference is presumably referring to deodand law, which has little to do legal personhood in the sense most people are interested in.
The description of the legal personification of the vessel is accurate, but it can hardly be said that ships are 'accorded the rank of person' analogously to a corporation.
That said, if we are going with the broad, non-technical use of the word 'person', an interesting case is the trial of animals.
If it is of interest, I carried out a highly informal reddit survey on the birthrate in the context of Scotland's TFR being below that of Japan (with a summary here).
A common reason for not having children was the cost in terms of health, time, stress, freedom to travel, plan holidays, and move house. These are mostly invariant with income (unless you can afford a full-time nanny) and are the natural product of "good parenting" norms/obligations.
(which, it should be noted, are often reasonable: I think being a good parent does require spending a lot - more than any usual lifestyle activity - of time on your children; the kind of emotional investment which can lead to stress or pain; and a degree of stability/commitment which precludes the free-wheeling lifestyle of a single or DINK).
I am guessing that many modern people rate these intangible costs quite highly and the amount needed to pay them to accept the tradeoffs is therefore very high.
This is fun (although endless, especially if we include things related to deliberate/semi-deliberate signalling), here are a few:
(1) Hobby-related examples. Callouses on the palm in the spot where fingers connect to hand (e.g. like weightlifting callouses) , and on the thumb (on the side facing towards the other fingers), is quite commonly due to rowing. E.g., the friction of the oar rotating around the fingers and thumb holding it. Crooked nose sometimes indicates repeated breaking - high contact sports or plain fighting most common. From experience, boxing is quite common due to the artificially frequent number of blows to the face. Can combine this with scars on the knuckles, or slightly puffy knuckles & poor motor control from repeated mini-fractures to indicate a serious fighter. But how useful is knowing someone's hobby? Often they'll just tell you right away...
(2) How about health conditions? This one is pretty useful and seems reasonably study-able (ofc not to become some unofficial doctor, just to make informed guesses). E.g., a CGM (Continuous Glucose Monitoring) in the arm for type-1 & II diabetics, ridges in the nails indicating possible zinc or iron deficiency, eye-bags for sleep deprivation; serious sun ageing on one side of the face for a possible long-haul driver; yellowing of skin for liver failure etc. And then all the obvious prosthetics, glasses, hearing aids, support dogs, dark glasses &c.
Notably, health conditions (if correctly diagnosed) often indicate lifestyle and occupation, and this is likely behind many of the observations of the real-life inspiration for Sherlock Holmes, surgeon Joseph Bell.
(3) Similarly what about nationality? Again, often informative and extremely useful in countries with...er... history. Paying attention to different accents would be a simple method, as would accumulating basic knowledge of geography and typical travel patterns. Knowing, for instance, that Russians travel to Turkey in large numbers, or Kurds to Nashville, means you could probably make pretty good guesses as to a person's nationality even if you were not confident on different slavic/middle eastern languages.
(4) You mention clothing (red-bottomed shoes?) but this seems like a bottomless pit of data. You can gather lots of information from attire about: nationality (how easy is it to spot a tourist?) and religion (knowing the difference between the burkha, hijab, niqab, chador; happening to know most protestants rarely carry crosses on a chain; rastafarians; orthodox jews in various stages of training); occupation (looking at you, painter decorators); health (orthopedic shoes); class (in the UK traditionally, the flatcap, now, the shellsuit; quite a subtle exercise, and often region-dependent); age.
I suspect since the 19th century clothing is now less useful due to the slow breakdown of class and gender markers (and general trend towards bland causalwear internationally). The stratification and diversity of clothing was notably far more noticeable in Holmes's time (as was, perhaps, national differences). Note how many of his deductions use general patterns from a 'social role.'
Side-note: I am also not sure if I believe that learning more facts 'pushes out' others (the 'cluttered mind' idea), the main issue is opportunity cost. Watching lots of sitcoms hasn't made it hard to learn new things because I can't stop thinking of 'the one where Ross murders a child', but watcing tv was certainly time not-studying...
A sensible point, though dating yin to the advent of 'modern civilization' is too extreme. The 'spiritual' or 'yin-like' aspects of green have a long history pre-dating modern civilization.
The level of material security required before one can 'indulge in yin' is probably extremely low (though of course strongly dependent on local environmental conditions).
Under this definition of 'manipulation', telling someone about a new brand of toothpaste is manipulation, which suggests to me that this framing is overly broad.
The question is whether you believe in any form of personal autonomy, such that a person can be responsible for their own internal changes, even if stimulated by someone or something else. Day to day life suggests this is a useful concept, and that there is a meaningful distinction between being lied to and being given true information, just as there is between coercive-control and sad movies.
I also believe this autonomy is sensibly treated as varying between people. It is sensible to speak of building up independence; equally, it is sensible to speak of communicating whilst respecting others have substantial control over their own preferences.
All this said, I also believe that this is an illusion made possible by the epistemic black-box of inputs and outputs into a person's basic thought processes. People are sufficiently complex that, whilst we can sometimes predict what they'll say, feel, or do, it is currently impossible to know exactly what inputs will lead to which outputs. This lack of clarity for both others and the person themselves gives the impression of a free-chooser.
As this veil gets peeled back, we may receive an uncomfortable degree of knowledge about ourselves and others.
Like: what happens if you read a book, or watch a documentary, or fall in love, or get some kind of indigestion – and then your heart is never exactly the same ever again, and not because of Reason, and then the only possible vector of non-trivial long-term value in this bleak and godless lightcone has been snuffed out?!
I'm finding it hard to parse this, perhaps someone can clarify for me. At first I assumed this was a problem inherent in the 'naturalist' view Scott Alexander gives:
"This is only a problem for ethical subjectivists like myself, who think that we’re doing something that has to do with what our conception of morality is. If you’re an ethical naturalist, by all means, just do the thing that’s actually ethical."
E.g. Mr. negative utilitarian eats a taco and realises he ought to change his ethical views to something else, say, becoming classical utilitarian. If the later version was foomed, presumably this would be a disaster from the perspective of the earlier version.
But Joe gives broader examples: small, possibly imperceptible, changes as a result of random acts. These might be fully unconscious and non-rational - the indigestion example sticking out to me.
It feels a person whose actions followed from these changes, if foomed, would produce quite unpredictable, random futures unrelated necessarily to any particular ethical theory. This seems to be more like Scott's ethical subjectivist worries - no matter how your messy-spaghetti morality is extrapolated, it will be unsatisfying to you (and everyone?), regardless of whether you were in the 'right state' at foom-time. I think Joe covers something similar in 'On the Limits of Idealised Values.'
Perhaps to summarise the difference: extrapolating the latter 'subjectivist' position is like the influence of starting conditions on a projectile you are inside ('please don't fire!'); conversely, the naturalist view is like choosing a line on Scott's subway route (just make sure you're on the right line!).
Is this a useful framing?
The section on bears reminded me of a short story by Kenji Miyazawa (1896-1933) called 'The Bears of Namotoko.' Here's an internet archive translation with illustrations. To give a quick summary:
Kojuro is a lone hunter who travels through the mountains of Namotoko with his dog, hunting bears for their gall bladders and pelts. Kojuro does not hate the bears. He regrets the circumstances which force him to be a hunter, "If it is fate which caused you to be born as a bear, then it is the same fate that made me make a living as a hunter." The bears themselves have essentially human inner lives albeit cannot communicate in words (a 'secret world of bears'). Eventually, Kojuro is killed by a bear, after which the beats says "Ah Kojuro, I didn't mean to kill you" and Kojuro apologises for trying to kill the bear.
I am not sure what the moral of the story is. Miyazawa (in all his stories) attributes very human features to animals (such as familial dynamics, appreciation for beauty, social hierarchy, and religious feeling). Despite this, animals continue to act in a dangerous, unknowable ways.
I suspect it has to do with the story's roots in old folk tales. In the latter, the Other - whether as a mystical creature, bandit, wild animal, or visitor from a distant land - is often presented as essentially mysterious, much like tsunamis, wars, and famines. The Bears of Namotoko suggests it is not the otherness per se which is the problem; rather, suffering is inevitable becasue of the coil of existence. We must eat to live.
Does your argument also apply to physical sports? If not, what makes table tennis different from monopoly?
Some points:
1. "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter." Brevity & elegance =/= low-effort.
2. Footnotes/endnotes, collapsable boxes, and appendices exist for a reason. Good writing succinctly conveys an idea and withstands deeper scrutiny. The internet is not paper.
3. Often a few in-depth reads > a million skims. Small group dynamics are potent - e.g., NrX and Mencius Moldbug, or early Tumblr. True for both development of ideas & influence.
4. "You will never have any control over what random people find interesting, what the algorithms decide to promote, or anything at all about other people." Literally false:
Arguing specific actors should be accountable for the sanity of online culture is reasonable and realistic. Online writers are allowed to join in too.