The scar tissue model sounds convincing and there’s something to it. But when I reflect on my very long term relationships, it doesn’t seem to get at the core of why we’ve stayed together. Instead, for these relationships there is a deeper alignment of interests / alignment of values / alignment of outlooks (whatever you want to call it) that allows us to get past the annoying stuff. Put differently, a model that resonates more with my experience is that there are two baskets of conflicts: core stuff and peripheral stuff. As long as the peripheral conflicts don’t get too egregious, they don’t actually matter if the core stuff is still working.
Scar tissue is a reason the bank account goes negative, it's easy to forget that it also needs reasons to go positive. No credits mean the debits make the account go red very quickly.
Thank you for sharing your view, you put words when I couldn't. Shared values is precisely the best explanation to my relationships that wore out in the past, I don't think scar tissue was the reason.
The analogy of scar tissue could work for symptoms, though: the presence of scar tissues in a relationship may/could indicate that conflicts never get fully resolved because deep in the relationship, there is a fundamental misalignment of values, and that's what creates scar tissues when conflicts emerge.
For me, the real thing that tends to explain my long relationships is the authenticity of someone to her/his own values. Which is not to be confused with sharing the same opinions, I can easily be friends with people who vote differently than me, but what I can't stand is dishonesty (e.g., inventing theories or excuses to put the blame on the "others").
The reason I think it works that way is in part due to my own character: I don't hesitate getting into conflict with other people and more particularly with those dear to me when I disagree or when I feel disturbed by something. I can have intense arguments with some of my friends, my wife, my parents, my boss, but it never damaged our relationship because I think deep under, our values are aligned.
Now, what do I mean by "values"? Those are things I characterize as values:
- how you negotiate internal conflict
- how you respond to being wrong / corrected by someone else that presents a good argument to you
- how you treat people of lower socioeconomic level (e.g., disdain, disrespect,neglect vs. empathy/consideration, etc.)
- how you treat people of higher socioeconomic level (e.g., jealousy, envy, ass-licking vs. admiration, respect, inspiration, etc.)
- whether you behave differently with co-workers situated "below" you vs. "above" you vs. those who can affect your career advancement
- whether you are faithful to yourself and your opinions (aka, whether you can stand the cost or implications of your opinions, or if you change your mind and invent yourself another stance just to avoid any discomfort)
- whether your respect everyone's right to privacy or assume you can invade your spouse or child's personal space
- etc.
So, in summary, yes a very interesting article but I can only disagree with the premise: I don't think that scar tissues make relationships wear out, I think values misalignment does.
I don't think that scar tissues make relationships wear out, I think values misalignment does.
Sometimes it can also be a character flaw.
While I believe our values were aligned, my partner was very critical about almost everything I did. She was not supportive of my goals. She dismissed my interests, and she often criticized how I did things. We were from two different cultures, but we strongly agreed on many important points (including how to raise children). It was the little things that bothered her. This was bad enough that even friends who visited us noticed and admonished her for treating me like that. A therapist friend also noticed and tried to help her. Probably due to how I was raised, it took me years to realize myself that there was a problem, and it took a few more years for her to acknowledge the problem herself. It was when she realized that her mother treated her the same way. Unfortunately she felt that she was unable to change. I credit it to our shared values that I stayed with her as long as I did. This issue would have almost destroyed our relationship if it hadn't been ended by cancer instead.
> As long as the peripheral conflicts don’t get too egregious
From a scar model perspective this is like a papercut/superficial injury which isn’t leaving you with a scar (or at least a very minor one).
> they don’t actually matter if the core stuff is still working.
Being stabbed in the heart (literally and metaphorically) will leave bigger and deeper scars that can impair core function and your heart will never pump blood as effectively again.
I guess, but reflecting further, the scar tissue/injury model is a little odd in that it focuses only on the negative, not on what the two parties actually get out of the relationship.
People remember and hold onto negative things. This is about unblocking/unclogging the system regularly to maintain proper function. It builds up over time so it needs to be regularly flushed.
Ha, no, I'm old(ish) and long term means 30 years for me too :)
Notice, I did not use the phrase "common interests"; my use of "interests" is in the sense of exchange: you get something and I get something in return. Equivalently, this same exchange can be described as an "alignment of values" or "alignment of outlooks" since sharing a value or a lens on the world with someone is a special pleasure and is something you get out of a relationship.
I think two people committing to each other and valuing their commitment certainly qualifies as "alignment of values" contributing to the positive side of the relationship ledger.
