Reaction (Relationship) Profiles
This is going to be a deeply dorky entry, full of my infamous ochem-relationship analogies. I think that I could write a nice book of relationship advice for emotionally/socially inept scientists and engineers, using terminology that they will appreciate, so this can be a trial run. Consider yourself warned.
This week marks my first as a tutor for Chem 3B (which, for you non-Berkeley kids, is the second semester of organic chemistry), and today was the first shift during which people actually asked me questions. It was very alarming; personally, I feel that the first chapter or so of 3B is conceptually the worst, even though most people find the barrage of mechanisms they bombard you with later on more difficult to deal with. So when the coordinator sent us an e-mail warning us to be ready for questions about molecular orbital theory and the stability of conjugated systems, I was understandably nervous.
However, one point she emphasized that I felt not only comfortable, but also eager to explain was the distinction between the thermodynamic and kinetic products. Last semester, when we were learning this stuff, I got questioned about my (lack of) relationship status, and I used this concept as an analogy; I figure if anyone asks me about the concept now, I'l use the same analogy in reverse!
So here goes: I AM A THERMODYNAMIC PRODUCT! (Acceptance is the first step. If you were wondering, "thermodynamic product" is the new politically correct term for "cold, prudish bitch.") I have a high activation energy, but once that barrier is overcome, I am assured that the final product (the Revati-boyfriend complex) will be very stable. On the other hand, kinetic people get into relationships quickly (they have a low activation energy), but the reaction is highly reversible and hence, they also get OUT of relationships quickly.
What's my point? Well, it has a dual nature.
(1) Your relationship is likely an unstable product that no one will be sorry to see dismantled, because its bonds are cleaving as we speak. (Yes, I know that being a marriage counselor is my calling. Don't even let me get started on long-distance relationships, and how EVERYONE CAN SEE THAT IT'S OVER EXCEPT YOU! That's another rant for another time.)
(2) While the thermodynamic product is clearly the preferred state, one concern to keep in mind on this reaction pathway is the fear of being a noble gas. You want to be stable, not inert. I don't think this is a problem for me: I don't feel stable enough on my own to be in possession of a full octet; I could certainly use a nice exothermic reaction to stabilize my life. Of course, I don't want to be one of those desperate alkali metal cations or halide ions, either, snatching at anything just to "complete myself." Molecules (and people) like that are just pathetic.
Okay, class over for today. Don't worry: I'll be back one of these days with that advice book on... "ochem."
Comments
on the molecule analogy: we're sooo benzenes...takes something special to bond with us, you can't just throw some H2/Pd our way and expect us to CHANGE ourselves for you!
haha
Posted by: kiran | January 31, 2007 09:12 PM
Looping alkali metals (and to a certain extent, alkaline ones as well) with halides is a chemical (and sociological) faux pas that I cannot let stand. These two groups of individuals are entirely different: halide ions maybe promiscuous, but since their octets are nearly full, by "completing" themselves, they remain in their same social class (# of orbitals?). On the contrary, alkali/alkaline cations actually seek to give up something to achieve purported "happiness"; thus, these individuals are by far the most idiotic of all, because they actually reduce their social standing in order to "be with someone."
Really, though. Kind of an unacceptable failure to be precise on your part. I'm rather disappointed.
Posted by: Rohit | February 1, 2007 10:55 AM
In my defense, in grouping the alkali metals and halides together, I was simply referring to their common willingness (you might say need) to engage in reactions. I do agree with you, however: if you're going to be an over-zealous reactant, at least steal someone else's electrons. After all, if you're not accepting electrons, you're donating, which is a fancy way of saying someone else is stealing yours!
Posted by: Revati | February 1, 2007 01:44 PM
Your analogy puts a whole new spin on interpersonal "chemistry." But isn't it a little close to the skin to actually use with tutorees (is that even a word?)? Knowing you, I totally agree with what you're saying, but I would excise the "Revati-boyfriend complex" out of the explanations of chemistry. :-) Best of luck tutoring!
Posted by: Alisa | February 1, 2007 07:02 PM