I have been thinking about "shared history" with people and how we value it. It struck me that the more we get to know a person, the more a lot of things go without being said, the more the dynamics of interaction become implicit rather than explicit, even the explicit things refer to things formerly said or done, you have 'inside jokes' and so on. This perhaps explains a sort of comfort we feel around people we already know because we have already gone through the laborious and emotionally intensive process of dropping our facades (to the extent that the relationship requires), making ourselves known, revealing ourselves so to speak. You don't have to second guess where you are with them or plan your moves because you "know", based on the shared history, how far you can go, what would work, what buttons not to press...

In this context I wonder how memory makes a difference. People generally talk about memory in terms of potential to do tasks or take tests or other such things largely individual oriented (at least that's what I have noticed) but rarely in terms of how it mediates in relationships (at least I haven't come across this). Seems to me that the better one's memory the better one would be able to hold up something like a shared history or better one would be able to draw from this resource to engage with those they know. By better I don't mean the relationship would be better. Might actually be the contrary because, for instance, you might not be able to let go of minor resentment. But better in the sense that you would be developing more of an understanding of that person over a period of time as the memory accumulates, wouldn't you? It's a hypothesis but one could argue understanding could happen at a more subconscious level than conscious memory level? Possible I suppose. I guess why I see the conscious memory playing a role is that when someone appears to forget something I might have told them, the thought occurs to me that had they remembered they would have had a different type of knowledge/understanding of me. But if they forgot, then we don't have the same understanding or the shared history that I thought we had? Not to say that I think people have the same shared history in their heads. Even without the memory aspect, interpretations of events for example could differ. But I am just wondering how different memory capacities make a difference.

Reminds me how in India when we go to any small shop or veg vendor or the like and want to bargain, we tend to say that we have always shopped with that person... as if that automatically qualifies us for a discount. Of course, you could call it the same as loyalty to brand, but I am wondering if it isn't sort of capitalising on shared history? The stuff or veggies are not unique (not a brand really) but you are claiming you know that person, have always bought from them and in this sense have a "relationship". It's an interesting line of thought...