"Like Dissolves Like" - An Insight into Attraction

The golden rule of solutions chemistry is "like dissolves like". These three words provide the guide for predicting solubility when dealing with "polar" and "non-polar" solvents (substances capable of dissolving other substances) and solutes (substances that are dissolved by solvents). One common example of this rule can be seen when trying to mix oil (non-polar) and water (polar). No matter how hard you try, water simply will not dissolve oil but if you put table salt (polar) in water, it dissolves very easily. This phenomenon is not only useful in predicting the solubility of solvents and solutes but also provide insight into human attraction.

Attraction, many may argue, is a function of our experiences and social definitions but Dion (1973) found that children as young as three years old exhibit the ability to perceive attractiveness. Across cultures, there are strong "universal correlates of beauty" (Wikipedia - physical attractiveness):

• Physically Attractive Males have:
  
• Slim waists and broad shoulders (V shaped torso)
• Strong brow, high forehead and broad jaw (masculine features)
• Heights taller than their mates (1.1 times their height is preferred) and erect posture
  

• Physically Attractive Females have:
• Youthful appearances - full lips, clear, smooth skin, clear eyes, lustrous hair and good muscle tone
• Hour-glass figure - a waist circumference 70% of the hip circumference
• Heights shorter than their mates
• Symmetrical faces and high cheek bones, big eyes and a thin jaw
  

Most of these universal traits of attraction have underlying procreational explanations. The hour-glass figure symbolizes female fertility and a symmetrical face is a sign of good genes that are free from disease. Taller heights and masculine features in men are a symbol of strength and protection for the family.

In psychology, there have been many experiments dealing with human attraction. One prevailing conclusion that resonates with the "like dissolves like" theme is that individuals find those who are genetically unrelated but have similar facial features more attractive than those with dissimilar facial features. According to Sappenfield and Balogh (1970), perceived attractiveness towards another person was highly correlated to the perceived similarity to oneself. Murstein (1972) conducted several studies showing that people find others in their same "level" of attractiveness attractive. These conclusions were supported by other studies conducted by Cavior and Boblett (1972), Curran and Lippold (1975) and Chambers et al. (1983). Hinsz (1989) found that people tend to marry people who look like themselves.

These findings should not come as a surprise since it is very reasonable that people are attracted to those who are similar to them. Aside from physical appearances, Byrne et al (1986) suggests that people are attracted to homogamous characteristics such as age, race, education, beliefs and values and this in turn will enhance attraction. Knox (1997) came to a similar conclusion that people prefer homogamous traits when dating and considering a spouse. Parents want their children to reflect their values and religious beliefs but if the parents have different value systems, it can become very confusing for children who usually emulate their parents' beliefs.

Many people including Paula Abdul believe that "opposites attract". Experimental research (check bibliography below) has shown that this catch phrase is best saved to describe magnets. Most people who use the phrase "opposites attract" to describe their relationship, don't realize that they probably have more things in common than they thought. Most of the time, couples may be superficially opposites (different hobbies and interests) but have very similar personalities and values. "Opposites attract" may apply to infatuations and relationships spawned from rebellion but as one matures and seek meaningful relationships, similarities dominate as "like dissolves like". As with all situations, it is possible to have a long term relationship with someone who is truly your opposite but it is probably ill-advised since it's almost always an invitation for trouble. Long term relationships are hard as it is, why make it even more difficult.

Another reason why "likes" attract is that they are familiar and thus more memorable. Psychologist David Perrett (2002) found that young men and women were attracted to faces of those most resembling their mothers and fathers, respectively. This basically means that a sense of familiarity is enough to cause attraction. This is further supported by anatomical research on the fusiform, special part of the human brain needed to recognize faces of family, friends and people we are familiar with. Those with a damaged fusiform cannot recognize anyone and in experiments, they are unable to discriminate between photographs of plain and beautiful faces! This attraction for the familiar goes to explain why most couples tend to favor their own ethnicities.

Just like non-polar solvents can undergo chemical substitutions/transformations to become miscible with polar solvents. People can and normally do change (article on Change) to become more similar to their significant others. Couples that have been together for a good amount of time will usually begin to adopt each other's mannerisms and demeanor causing them both to become more akin. It is almost as if they "dissolve" into each other with both having properties of the other person.

This "like dissolves like" attraction phenomenon is a good reason for the success of online dating websites who require its members to complete detailed personality profiles that is used for finding a "suitable" match. There are still many other layers, such as the "groupie effect" and the "sexy son hypothesis", to human bonding and attraction. Look forward to future articles dealing with these topics. In the interim, feel free to give your own insights into attraction and whether you think "opposites attract" or "birds of a feather flock together" in the comments section.

Recommended Readings: Looks: Why They Matter More Than You Ever Imagined by Gordon Patzer and Survival of the Prettiest by Nancy Etcoff

Bibliography

1. Dion, K.K., (1973). Young children's stereotyping of facial attractiveness. Developmental Psychology, 9, 183-188.
2. Knox, D., M. E. Zusman, and W. Nieves. (1997) College students' homogamous preferences for a date and a mate. College Student Journal, 31, 445-448
3. Sappenfield, B. R. & Balogh B. (1970). Perceived attractiveness of social stimuli as related to their perceived similarity to self. The Journal of Psychology, 74, 105-111.
4. Byrne, D., Clore, G., & Smeaton, G. (1986). The Attraction Hypothesis: Do Similar Attitudes Affect Anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51, 1167-1170.
5. Cavior, N. & Boblett, P. J. (1972). Physical attractiveness of dating versus married couples. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of American Psychological Association, 7, 201-202.
6. Chambers, V. J., Christiansen, J. R., & Kunz, P. R. (1983). Physiognomic homogamy: a test of physical similarity as a factor in mate selection process. Social Biology, 30, 151-157.
7. Curran, J. P., & Lippold, S. (1975). The effects of physical attraction and attitude similarity on attraction in dating dyads. Journal of Personality, 43, 528-539.
8. Hinsz, V. B. (1989). Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 223-229.
9. Murstein, B. I. (1972). Physical attractiveness and marital choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 8-12.
10. Perrett, D. I., Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Tiddeman, B. P, Burt, D. M., Schmidt N., Oxley, R., & Barrett, L. (2002). Facial attractiveness judgments reflect learning of parental age characteristics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 873-880.

Change - A Study of Dynamic Equilibrium and Le Chatelier's Principle

"Nothing endures but change" - Heraclitus (Ancient Greek Philosopher)

"Change before you have to" - Jack Welch (Corporate CEO)

"There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction" - Winston Churchill (British Prime Minister during World War II)

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." - Niccolo Machiavelli (Italian Diplomat and Political Philosopher)

Above are several famous quotes, each touching upon a different characteristic of change. Change is described by Wikipedia as "the transition that occurs between one state to another". Heraclitus was very insightful when he observed 2500 years ago that the world is ever changing. To this day, people, society, languages, television shows, etc. are constantly changing. This happens because change not only provides an escape of the mundane but is necessary for innovation and growth. Jack Welch's words of wisdom, in addition to echoing Heraclitus' observation of the perdurability of change, also insinuates that change has an internal and external component. People can choose to change or be forced by the external environment to change. Churchill touches upon the "direction" of change, which can be good or bad. A person's value system will determine how they view change and whether they will support or fight it. Machiavelli states eloquently the common experience that change is hard. Change is so difficult because it requires you to step out of your comfort zone with no promise of desired results.

Change is one of those amorphous topics that is difficult to study because it is far easier to focus on the result of change rather than on the process of change. It is important to understand how the process of change works so one can effectively initiate change or recognize when change is occurring around or to them. Interestingly, a study of chemistry has provided me with some insights into the process of change.

In chemistry, an important recurring concept is dynamic equilibrium which occurs when two opposing processes proceed at the same rate. The word "dynamic" is used to emphasize the constant motion during equilibrium even though it may seem to be at a standstill. The main principle associated with predicting effects of a change during equilibrium was one founded by Henry Louis Le Chatelier. Le Chatelier's principle basically states that if any system at equilibrium is disturbed by a change, then the equilibrium shifts to partially counter-act the imposed change. A common example would be in a chemical reaction at dynamic equilibrium and if more reactants are added, then the equilibrium would shift to reduce the reactants by producing more products. The reverse also holds true so if more products are added to the equilibrium, then the equilibrium would shift to reduce products by producing more reactants.

This idea of dynamic equilibrium occurs often outside the world of chemistry. The stock market, like all free markets, is governed by the economic law of supply and demand. Stock prices rise when demand exceeds supply and drops when supply exceeds demand. When the supply (people selling) is equal to demand (people buying), dynamic equilibrium exists as the stock price enters into a tight range and seemingly stops moving. Homeostasis, the body's stable and constant condition is maintained by using several dynamic equilibrium adjustments and mechanisms. Muscle strength, unless you are actively exercising, is usually in a state dynamic equilibrium. When using your muscles for everyday activities, muscle mass is neither gained nor lost. It is not until you vary your daily muscle usage that this equilibrium begins to shift.

Many people live their lives trapped in dynamic equilibrium. Things are moving (everyday routines and even busy lifestyles) but they aren't really going anywhere, they feel bored or they don't make self improvements (mind, body or soul). From my observations and experiences, I believe that the reason why this occurs is because changing is uncomfortable. Having to leave the shelter of one's "security blanket" can foster feelings of vulnerability and uncertainty. The magnitude of change is directly proportional to the discomfort experienced. Just think about the chaos, violence and uncertainty during the French Revolution (Reign of Terror) or how you felt when you were going through puberty.

In addition to being uncomfortable, breaking out of dynamic equilibrium/consolidation, as any trader or investor will attest, requires significant energy. This is due to the natural tendency for things to gravitate towards the mean. Stock prices, during consolidation (people buying = people selling), will always regress towards the mean unless there is considerable momentum one way or the other to break out of the range. During this breakout, there is a period of volatility and uncertainty as investors cannot yet discern if this is a false breakout or not. Like stock breakouts, people implementing changes (career change, relocating to a new city, starting or ending a relationship) in their life will always feel a degree of uncertainty and doubt until they are again able to establish a dynamic equilibrium in their lives.

If it is so difficult to change, why bother? Because change is inevitable and if you know change is coming, it is always better to preempt it by choosing to change rather than being forced to change. Change is also the conduit for people to grow and improve themselves. If you want to be stronger, smarter and less bored, then you need to shift your dynamic equilibrium to the next level. Change, as aforementioned, is directional. It can be good or bad. For future examples, assume that an upward shift in equilibrium is a desirable change and a downward shift is an undesirable change.

Keeping in mind Le Chatelier's principle and that change can be initiated internally or caused externally (out of your control), here are some ways to help you change for the better:

• Challenge Yourself: A challenge is the disturbance that will shift your equilibrium in the direction to make the challenge less of a challenge (Le Chatelier's principle). Imagine lifting weights, if you increase the amount of weight you normally use, your body will automatically grow your muscles so as to make that weight seem lighter the next time you try to lift it. The harder the challenge (greater the disturbance) the greater the shift in equilibrium. Since breaking out of equilibrium already requires significant energy, it is possible to "over-challenge" yourself and not have the required energy to break out of the equilibrium (lifting weights that are too heavy).
  

• Discomfort is a State of Mind: How you view discomfort will go a long way in terms of how you change. Sticking with the weight training analogy, those who adopt a "No Pain, No Gain" mentality will usually fare better than those who complain about muscle soreness and fatigue. Stepping out of your comfort zone risks failure (thoughts on failure discussed in the Chemistry of Learning article) since you are entering a realm of uncertainty. The only way to be comfortable with discomfort is to practice stepping out of your comfort zone (Le Chatelier's principle). Learn a new sport, language, musical instrument, dance, etc. and go out and do things you would not normally do (safe and legal things like singing karaoke in front of strangers).
  

• Change is a Two Way Street: Be wary that Le Chatelier's principle also applies to the reverse direction of change. If a musician or athlete stops practicing, the dynamic equilibrium will shift to a state where the musician or athlete will need more practice to achieve the same results thus the musician becomes rusty and the athlete becomes slow and less skillful. So it is not only important to shift your dynamic equilibrium up but also to prevent it from shifting down.
  

This article has looked at change from an unconventional viewpoint so feel free to leave feedback and/or your own personal experiences and advice regarding change in the comments section or at seeminglyuseless@gmail.com.

Remember the words of Robert C. Gallagher: "Change is inevitable - except from a vending machine." --> So Embrace It and Use Exact Change!

Recommended Reading: Leading Change by John P. Kotter The Dance of Change: Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations by Peter M. Senge

Chemistry of Learning

Recently I was reviewing some chemistry concepts for an upcoming exam and I noticed an intriguing parallel between chemical reactions and the process of learning. As an avid learner, the observations discussed in this post have been prevalent throughout my learning experiences. For those of you who don't remember or who never learned any chemistry, here is a quick lesson on chemical reactions:

In order for a chemical reaction (initial state --> final state) to occur, there is an energy barrier that needs to be first overcome. This situation is much like pushing a boulder up from the east side of the hill to the west. Once the boulder reaches the apex of the hill, it will easily roll down to the west side. Although it is possible that someone is strong enough to throw the boulder over the apex of the hill, the most energy efficient way is to roll it from the bottom to the top. This minimum energy required to initiate the reaction is called the activation energy. As you can see from the diagram, usage of a catalyst can significantly lower activation energy.

From my experiences, in order for learning to occur, there is usually a barrier, similar to the activation energy of chemical reactions that needs to be overcome before any learning can take place. The point of learning is to go from an initial state (for example: non musician) to a final state (musician). Like the aforementioned analogy of pushing a boulder up a hill, unless you reach the apex, real productive learning can not occur. At the apex, effective learning begins and achieving the final state is not only a possibility but an inevitability. Failures to overcome this barrier are evident when you see people who put in good effort but are unable to reach their final states. I believe that anything can be learned, although mastery is another subject all together.

So, how does one overcome this learning barrier in the fastest most effective manner? This is very similar to asking what the fastest method is to pushing a boulder from one side of a hill to the other. One can either use more energy or somehow take a short cut through the actual hill itself. Here are some ways that can help you reach the activation energy needed to initiate effective learning:

1) Lower the Learning Barrier: In chemical reactions, the activation energy can be lowered by introducing a catalyst. Lowering the actual barrier will naturally cause the road to reaching the final state both smoother and faster. Common catalysts for learning are teachers/coaches, instructional books and the internet. These catalysts all act to lower the barrier to effective learning by providing a "shortcut" to reaching the top of "the hill". The quality of the catalyst is very important because poor and questionable instruction (especially on the internet) can prove to be detrimental to achieving your goals. Although it is possible to learn on your own, excellent instruction is usually the more effective method because good teachers have refined their methods from years of trial and error, saving you the trouble of hitting common pitfalls.

2) Use More Energy: Molecules with higher energy tend to react more easily because they overcome the activation energy more readily. Ways to increase energy in learning is to approach the process with a positive attitude coupled with hard work. Motivation, although helpful for the initial push and maybe short bursts during your learning process, is hard to sustain but having discipline will allow you to keep your energy high and at a consistent level. Without hard work and discipline, you will not have enough energy to reach the top of the hill.

3) Persistence: Molecules will constantly bump into each other until the right configuration and energy is achieved for a reaction. It is not enough to only have the energy to push the boulder up the hill; you need the resolve to keep pushing it until you reach the top. Even though mountain climbers cannot see the peak of a mountain until they get near the top, what keeps them going is that they know there is a peak. So for those who have tried but still can not see themselves as musicians, Italian speakers or golfers, just keep pushing to reach that apex and these things will become an eventuality.

From my own experience, here are some important points to keep in mind as you approach learning:

• As with different chemical reactants, different people have different activation energies. Some people may learn certain things faster and other things slower. Due to this natural discrepancy, it is pointless to compare yourself to someone else. Like all scientific experiments, there is a control and a variable. If you want to track your progress you should only make self to self comparisons to keep all other variables constant.
  

• One thing certain is that the more things you learn and the more times you successfully overcome the activation barrier, the easier learning new things will be. The brain is like a muscle that only gets stronger with exercise and use. Although the things you may be learning are completely unrelated, the actual process of learning these things are strikingly similar. For example, someone may be learning how to swim and after they overcome their learning barrier they will begin to be able to manipulate their arms and legs in the form of a swimmer. They may not have the best form yet but they are able to better consciously control and coordinate various aspects of their body, such as the arms, the legs and breathing. This boosted ability to control their body and breathing will strengthen the neural networks of their brain making it easier if they ever wanted to learn other things such as salsa dancing, martial arts, snowboarding, guitar and etc. Also, with each learning barrier conquered, you also build up your discipline and perseverance which will help you in everything you do. Bottom Line: Learn more things.
  

• Another useful method to help reach your desired learning goal is to map out mini goals. Succeeding at mini goals will provide the fuel you need to tackle bigger goals. For example, if you want to learn how to play the guitar, your first mini goal will be to play one chord, your next mini goal may be to play four chords and after that to play a song using the four chords you just learned. Before you know it, you will be playing the guitar and it was all because you were focused on reaching these small checkpoints and not on the taking the entire challenge as a whole. It is like running the marathon one mile at a time as opposed to thinking about running the entire twenty six miles.
  

• The most important attribute that will lead to successful learning is - Don't be scared to fail. People learn much more from failure than they do from success. Here are some good quotes summing up the subject of failure:

"You miss one hundred percent of the shots you never take"
(Wayne Gretzky)

"Success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm"
(Winston Churchill)

"Life's real failure is when you do not realize how close you were to success when you gave up."
(Unknown)

Please feel free to comment with your own learning experiences and tips. Look for future posts concerning self-discipline.

Recommended Reading: Art of Learning by Josh Waitzkin