BTW I was surprised earlier to see you agree with the ‘relational’ piece of this comment because Duncan’s grandparent comment seems like it’s a pretty central example of that. (I view you as having more of a “visitor-commons” orientation towards LW, and Duncan has more of an orientation where this is a place where people inhabit their pairwise relationships, as well as more one-to-many relationships.)
Sorry, I’m not quite sure I follow the references here. You’re saying that… this comment… is a central example of… what, exactly?
(I view you as having more of a “visitor-commons” orientation towards LW, and Duncan has more of an orientation where this is a place where people inhabit their pairwise relationships, as well as more one-to-many relationships.)
That… seems like it’s probably accurate… I think? I think I’d have to more clearly understand what you’re getting at in your comment, in order to judge whether this part makes sense to me.
Sorry, my previous comment wasn’t very clear. Earlier I said:
Duncan is trying to suggest what is permissible or impermissible is more relational and deals with people’s attitudes towards each other (as suggested by gjm here).
and you responded with:
I also—and, perhaps, more importantly—think that the interactions in question are not only fine, but good, in a “relational” sense.
(and a few related comments) which made me think “hmm, I don’t think we mean the same thing by ‘relational’. Then Duncan’s comment had a frame that I would have described as ‘relational’—as in focusing on the relationships between the people saying and hearing the words—which you then described as transactional.
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…)
BTW I was surprised earlier to see you agree with the ‘relational’ piece of this comment because Duncan’s grandparent comment seems like it’s a pretty central example of that. (I view you as having more of a “visitor-commons” orientation towards LW, and Duncan has more of an orientation where this is a place where people inhabit their pairwise relationships, as well as more one-to-many relationships.)
Sorry, I’m not quite sure I follow the references here. You’re saying that… this comment… is a central example of… what, exactly?
That… seems like it’s probably accurate… I think? I think I’d have to more clearly understand what you’re getting at in your comment, in order to judge whether this part makes sense to me.
Sorry, my previous comment wasn’t very clear. Earlier I said:
and you responded with:
(and a few related comments) which made me think “hmm, I don’t think we mean the same thing by ‘relational’. Then Duncan’s comment had a frame that I would have described as ‘relational’—as in focusing on the relationships between the people saying and hearing the words—which you then described as transactional.
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…)