I think that the sense in which I would characterize Duncan’s description as “transactional” is… mostly orthogonal to the question of “is this a relational frame”. I don’t think that this has much to do with the “‘visitor commons’ vs. ‘pairwise relationships’” distinction, either (although that distinction is an interesting and possibly important one in its own right, and you’re certainly more right than wrong about where my preferences lie in that regard).
(There’s more that I could say about this, but I don’t know whether anything of importance hinges on this point. It seems like it mostly shouldn’t, but perhaps you are a better judge of that…)
Ah, I see.
I think that the sense in which I would characterize Duncan’s description as “transactional” is… mostly orthogonal to the question of “is this a relational frame”. I don’t think that this has much to do with the “‘visitor commons’ vs. ‘pairwise relationships’” distinction, either (although that distinction is an interesting and possibly important one in its own right, and you’re certainly more right than wrong about where my preferences lie in that regard).
(There’s more that I could say about this, but I don’t know whether anything of importance hinges on this point. It seems like it mostly shouldn’t, but perhaps you are a better judge of that…)