A question of social chemistry
June 6th, 2007What exactly is chemistry between two people? Few people actually seem to be able to define it. For the most part, the majority of us have never given it a deeper thought, or if we have, we came to the highly logical definition of “that intangible something”… But does that really explain anything?
When I was first brought with this question of human chemistry, I was both completely mystified and very curious. Like most people, I’d never really stopped to think about it. But if chemistry in the social world is anything like chemistry is in the physical world, there has to be a logical, tangible definition.
Unsurprisingly, there is: In the physical world, “chemistry” explains how elements combine, behave, and relate to one another. In the social world, “chemistry” explains how individuals combine, behave, and relate to one another. With that technical definition of social chemistry, it brings up another question: What creates chemistry? I have a theory.
“We just clicked.”
When I first starting thinking of this question, I thought of a combination lock. You turn the dial a number of times to certain numbers in a special sequence, and then the lock pops open.
When we date, we look for people we ‘click’ with. Whether we know it or not, we’re measuring them up against ourselves. This is why most people never date outside their true playing field—you look for compatibility. If you want to have kids, you look for someone who does too. If you’re very career-orientated, you’ll look for someone who is, even if you’re not aware of it conscious level. This is often known as the law of attraction, or simply put, “like attracts like”. When you ‘click’ with someone, the elements match (the numbers on the lock) and timing is right (the sequence of the dial). It’s almost like drawing by the numbers.
You could also think of it from a reactant + reactant = product chemistry point of view. Chemistry is a result of all the elements between any two people—character, personality traits, timing, goals, dreams, priorities, lifestyle, etc and how the ‘react’ with the other person’s elements. Some elements might be like the noble gases from physical chemistry - they have no combining capacity. Some elements have one combining capacity. Some elements have more than one combining capacity, and therefore can combine with a more wider selection of elements.
For example, for me physical appearance is one of those elements that has several combining capacities. I don’t have a “type”, and therefore my ’significant other’ could have black hair/brown eyes, brown hair/green eyes, blond hair/blue eyes, or any mix of those six. On the flip side, my leadership element has only one combining capacity: with another leader of equal or stronger leadership.
Somewhat off topic, but still worth noting: This would explain the whole “is there one person out there specifically perfect for me?” question. Elements can reacts with a number of different elements, but of those only a few will result in filled energy levels. An example of this: NaCl has a filled energy level because the Sodium (Na) has a charge (combining capacity) of +1 and an electron arrangement of 2, 8, 1 and Chloride (Cl) has a charge (combining capacity) of -1 and an electron arrangement of 2, 8, 7. Together they make the element Sodium Chloride (NaCl) with an electron arrangement of 2, 8, 8 - A stable compound with filled energy levels.
“He completes me.”
On the flip side, Na and Cl can combine with other elements and create compounds that do not have filled energy levels. So if this could apply to social chemistry in any way, it would prove that there are a number of people in the world you could combine with, but a smaller select few who would “complete” you (and vice versa). This examples the differences in compatibility. It also proves that some people are like noble gases - they have no combining capacity and do not easily combine with other people.
Perhaps this may be pushing it, but I would venture to say that in ideal circumstances social chemistry could perhaps be 3/4s of the way ‘created’ on paper or in vitro much like physical chemistry (the last 1/4 being the physical attraction.)
This is not a new concept. Eharmony.com, a dating website, has already come up with something quite similar. You fill out yourself in amazing detail (from what I gather; i’ve never done/seen this for myself) and they match you up with someone who ‘clicks’ or ‘combines’ with your elements.
However, the critical flaw in this concept lies in the very act of allowing the users to provide the information about themselves—sad but true, most people really truly don’t actually know themselves well enough to pick a suitable mate.
Whether you can actually create it in vitro or not, I say the answer to the questions of social chemistry is most definitely not as intangible as some may think.
Interesting theory! I can’t say I’ve ever really thought about the exact science behind chemistry between two people. I’ve heard a few people say that there’s no such thing as an immediate “click” or chemistry, that the way you develop your relationships (friendship and otherwise) is based entirely on the circumstances and timing when you meet. For example, you could be at a party with the flu and meet someone new, but dismiss the idea of creating a relationship with them and go home early, because you feel shitty - that person could have the potential to be your best friend, but you miss out because of the circumstances under which you met them. The opposite scenario would be meeting someone new when you’re having a ton of fun and becoming infatuated with that person simply because of how awesome the circumstances were the first time you met them, and mistakenly thinking you have chemistry when you don’t.
I think both scenarios certainly do happen, but I find that if I really listen to my gut instinct when it comes to people, I’m rarely wrong. I’ve met people multiple times in shitty situations and still come out feeling like we have a connection; and everyone I’ve met that I do feel that way about, comes back into my life in some way or another when the timing and circumstances are more ideal. Same goes with people I have negative feelings towards as soon as I meet them; that gut instinct has never been wrong.
I do like the combination lock metaphor, hehe. I know from experience that you can have chemistry with someone for a long time, but until that final piece is in place (such as timing!), the lock won’t pop open until that combination is complete! ;-)
June 6th, 2007 at 3:44 pmOh yes, and … those dating websites creep me out more and more. The way they match you up with people really is an exact science. You’re right though, rarely can people be honest about their true nature and personality even on a subconscious level.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:46 pmThat is indeed very interesting. You seem to have a unique way of thinking, or rather an open way of thinking. Like the above person - I never really thought about the scientific “clicking” of two people either but now that you’ve mentioned it and laid out your own theory you’ve made me curious…
June 11th, 2007 at 11:12 pmSomeone’s been studying chem at school. ;-)
It’s an interesting theory, but I don’t think the whole matter can be metaphorically simplified to combining capacities, noble gases, and free ions (figure that one out! :-P)
People “click” for all sorts of reasons, and you could become great friends with someone simply because they have an odd sense of humour, do something very specific that you yourself do, or whatever else. It doesn’t always have to be deep or have a scientifically-rooted explanation.
I agree with Kaiti about it being very situational. In a different situation, a particular person that you befriended/hated/fell in love with/whatever might have affected you in a completely different fashion.
Take it all in stride, and worry about things too much. :-P Sometimes some coincidences seem too convenient to be coincidences though, and that’s what gets me thinking …
June 12th, 2007 at 12:39 pmGood theory.
An observation of my own:
People rarely love another -
only who they are in front of the other.
***
Your aspiration towards a complementary relationship is admirable Chanel.
At the same time, I hold that a single stable compound with filled energy levels is an impossible outcome for a human ‘reaction.’ From observing others, there seems to always be two reactants and TWO products. As pessimistic as it may sound, I believe only one reactant will reach self-actualization. The other is most often simply consumed (”energy coupling” if your brain is in chem mode!).
We hear about many great men and women in history, but not many great couples. I mean what kind of a person was Einstein’s wife? Or the husband of Mary Ball Washington? I have wondered about Cleopatra and Churchill together. Barring time zone issues, do you think it would have worked between them? As harsh as it might sound, I believe they both needed a ‘lesser half’ to let them shine.
There seems to be a universal pattern: people of the same caliber manage to avoid each other… This is why it is lonely at the top (or the bottom!). :)
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:12 amI actually had thought about this before, never writing lengthy essays on it but pondering the elements that make people connect. I’d basically come up with two things: chemistry (ie personality etc, how comfortable you are with the person, how well you “click” with them and “get” each other) and things in common (ie hobbies, lifestyle, shared experiences, etc, how much you have to talk about).
I’ve clicked with people I never have much of anything at all to talk with, and talked on and on with people I’ve still never clicked with. Hobbies and lifestyles change drastically throughout people’s lives, while personalities and the capacity for “clicking” with certain people rarely do.
I do however think this is something that can’t and probably shouldn’t be broken down into an exact science. It should be less of a thinking issue than it is a feeling issue, should be learned by experience, experimented with personally. Having said that, I’m going to stop thinking about it.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:48 pm[…] question of social chemistry I stumbled upon this blogger’s post on social chemistry at: http://chanelwood.com/life/a-question-of-social-chemistry/ and I thought that it was very cleverly written. In fact, it even tickled my scientific mind enough […]
February 4th, 2008 at 1:11 pmI really do like this theory. But I’m not sure if I really like the “completion” idea. I’d hope I was a complete individual on my own but romance would say, make me happier somehow. I think it’s just so hard to find this right person who seems so compatible in every way. Especially hard since I’m definitely one of those (at least close to) noble gases.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pmChanel,
Pretty cool stuff! I just found your article today via a Google keyword search on “social chemistry”. Good work on your energy level compatibility ideas, you’re pretty close to the right answer: the “free energy” of the reaction, as is the case with all reactions, determines the successfulness, feasibility, or spontaneity of the process.
Anyway, I wrote a two-volume, 824-page textbook Human Chemistry on the subject (human or social chemistry) that published in September of 2007, and took 18-months and 14-days to write:
www.humanchemistry.net
This week I also started the “Human Chemistry 101” channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/HumanChemistry101
Anyway, good article: you are a smart person.
Later,
Libb
Reply: Thank you, Libb! :) I will definitely check out those links… This is a topic that fascinates me greatly.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 pmWow…this was a very deep post.
I wish you would have gone into what happens when “two people stop clicking”.
I have experienced this chemistry many times in the past, but after a few months it is gone. So…..was it “chemistry” as you defined it above, or merely a “perfect storm” of circumstances that lead two people to believe that they are magnetically attracted.
When a certain set of conditions that led to this perceived “chemistry” go away, does the “chemistry” still exist?
Food for thought…
October 28th, 2008 at 9:11 am