What is Love? A Complex Contagion

Mar 6, 2019 · Replicate

Perhaps an unusual answer to the question. Love is indescribably complex. Hundreds upon thousands of poets, writers, thinkers, lovers, dreamers, hopefuls and haters have tried, in their own ways, to define this most human of experiences. Valentine's Day passed last month and sacralises the experience of love in a cathartic annual ritual, dedicated to the one thing more or less everybody deeply desires as a macro life goal.

Love is perhaps one of the most important things we will all experience. It's also something we seem to have an inbuilt misunderstanding of from our youngest days onward. It's why the divorce rate (though currently lower than it's been for a long time) remains high. It's why we often iterate with a few partners before we make a final decision on our specific partner. It's perhaps why cultures or societies in which young men and women are expected to practice abstinence, rely so heavily upon their parents to thoroughly vet and agree a prospective partner and their family.

We're designed to love and procreate. So, coming to some workable understanding of the process and mechanism is vital. Even if actually understanding it as a complex phenomenon is difficult.

In the culmination of my experiences in University (or College for my most valuable American friends) I found interactions with the opposite sex to sometimes be fraught with an unusual tension, unnecessary stress, misunderstanding and politics. This was a shame. And not uncommon, per my friends both male and female. Perhaps the times we're in have changed expectations, mutual understanding and the ability to relate to one another. Hence I've been thinking about this for a while. And about the different ways in which we can understand love.

NetLogo: Visualizing Networks

I recently completed a class entitled "Network Dynamics of Social Behaviour" online. Some good ideas, interesting models visualized on NetLogo. NetLogo is a handy piece of software which allows the user to observe diffusion processes occurring across networks. One such model of a diffusion process which was taught, was the complex contagion. Complex contagions are contagions which only spread to a node (a single unit in a network), when a threshold number of adjacent nodes are also infected. Simply, this means a virus will only spread to a node, when for instance, 50%+ of neighbouring nodes are also infected. That 50% threshold for spreading isn't fixed. The actual threshold for infection will vary depending on the issue. I'm just using 50% to help illustrate the situation.

For example, perhaps you hear about a great book from 1 friend, but you're not yet convinced if it's worth your time. However, if about 50% of your friends, or best friends, or some other subsection suggest it then you become infected with the desire to purchase this book. For convenience, I've provided a basic visual explainer as follows. The nodes are the round things, the lines are the ties between them representing relationships (you can skip this part if you're already familiar with complex contagions):

A Complex Contagion with a 50% Infection Threshold

I hope this clarifies the mechanism behind the spread of a complex contagion. This is just one such process of the spread of social and other phenomena. I have also provided a link to the NetLogo model accessible here if you'd like to try an interactive visualization of the process, or need more clarity. Just click Setup Network then Go to visualize the contagion spreading.

What is Love?

Now why am I talking about Network Theory on an essay about love? Love isn't something you can break down into a technical process, surely? Granted, trying to technically explicate the process of love in any form which isn't experiential, is bound to be met with scepticism of the author's proclivity for overthinking or hyperrationalizing a nonrational process. In other words, stop trying to be a machine, is a valid critique.

Nonetheless, I think there's some similarity in the mechanism of complex contagions spreading and the process of falling in and sustaining love. Allow me to therefore explain with the caveat that this is purely a little experiment of mine, a form of idea mashing to see if this is a model of the world which has any cohesive meaning.

I think love can be understood as a complex contagion with a variable threshold for infection. The threshold for infection corresponds to the tipping point at which point one feels an embracing sense of romantic love for another human being. This isn't a clear cut tipping point, more a heuristic to suggest that with some components, one is more likely to feel and sustain romantic love than in the absence of those components.

This diagram visualizes the current state of Person A's relationship to their partner. I've noted a range of components which might matter to Person A's ability to feel love for a prospective partner and how they affect other factors. This is by no means exhaustive, nor comprehensive. It's a crude model and there are definitely more links (for example, 'Keep in touch regularly' may also affect 'Trust'). This is a completely hypothetical list of the things which matter to Person A's ability to feel romantic love.

Iteration 1: Initial Specific Observations

Refer back to the images as you read the points – they should make everything much clearer!

A is not yet in love with their partner, demonstrated in the unfilled LOVE node.
60% of nodes surrounding LOVE are shaded in. However, this has not hit Person A's threshold for falling in love with their partner. This means the threshold for Person A's ability to fall in love is above 60% of the things which matter most to them.
As you can see here, for Person A, 'shared hobbies' is quite important in directly determining whether they feel love for their partner. Hence there is a direct connection to LOVE.
This may seem a little unusual however I've modelled it in this way to demonstrate how different people value different things to different levels.
'Emotional compatibility' has been achieved by the combination of 'intellectual compatibility', 'sex' and 'similar cultural background', despite the absence of 'shared hobbies'.
'Sex' for Person A is fulfilled by physical attraction. This is effectively Boolean (true or false).
As you can see from this model, 'Physical attraction' directly leads to 'Sex' being activated, which in turn directly affects 'LOVE'.
Hence though there isn't a direct connection, 'Physical attraction' matters to Person A's ability to feel love quite a lot, more so than say, a 'Similar cultural background', as 'Emotional compatibility' can still be activated despite the absence of 'Similar cultural background' (whereas 'Sex' is totally dependent on 'Physical attraction').
Trust is of interest to us here. Let 'Trust' be true if 'Trust' has a 66% threshold exceeded. In this case, 'Trust' has three ties, so 'Trust' would be achieved if Person A fell in LOVE, or if they 'overcame a crisis together' with their partner.

Further General Notes (Iteration 1)

For the purposes of this exercise, I've weighted things in different and overlapping ways, to demonstrate the complexity of this phenomenon.
Proximity to the centre broadly corresponds to how much Person A values each thing. For example, 'Intellectual compatibility' has less of a bearing for Person A's ability to fall in love than 'Emotional compatibility', though the former still affects the latter.
Furthermore, 'LOVE' is also a node which affects the other nodes reciprocally. For example, you might feel romantic love before your hobbies and activities synchronise.
Though 'LOVE' is not present for the initial infection of affection to spread, it will certainly be important in maintenance of affection and the overall relationship.

Let's try another iteration. Now Person A has fallen in love with their partner:

Iteration 2: I'm in Love!

A is now in love with their partner, demonstrated in the filled LOVE node. 80% of nodes surrounding LOVE are shaded in. This has now hit Person A's threshold for falling in love with their partner.
This happened because Person A and his partner 'Overcame a crisis together' which built trust between them.
Hence Person A has gradually fallen in love over a period of time.

Further General Notes (Iteration 2)

Some parameters are sticky, others will wax and wane. Some matter more on the way up, others matter more on the way down.
For example, 'Overcame a crisis together' matters on the way up and will not fade as it's a one-time event.

Let's see what happens next:

Iteration 3: It's Over

Some things changed over time. Let's say Person A and their partner became quite busy at work or moved apart for a while to pursue their ambitions. This meant they no longer 'Keep in touch regularly'.
'Communication is good' is linked to three other nodes. Perhaps LOVE improves communication through mutual understanding leading you to 'Keep in touch regularly' with your partner.
However, 'Keep in touch regularly' might be affected by other factors. In this case, this was due to work pressures (which could be added as another node).
They didn't share any hobbies throughout.
They no longer feel able to 'rely on each other in a crisis' because of the distance. This impacted 'Trust'.
Perhaps there's a further connection to be made now between 'Keep in touch regularly' and 'Can rely on each other in a crisis'.

Further General Notes (Iteration 3)

The above point on a further connection to be made leads to another important observation. Renetworking: New ties or relationships can form or adapt and evolve as this process continues. It's a complex, dynamic process.
I've written in some further lines to demonstrate these new connections (in red). Some are undefined to suggest how they can be connected to any other undefined extrinsic factors. Perhaps one's individual network further changes or evolves as one matures, learns more about themselves, or completes further successful or unsuccessful encounters.
Hence the components and nodes shift, change connections and evolve over time.
Furthermore, when love breaks the model suggests it likely won't break instantly, even if the formal relationship does. Essentially, the infection density of the whole model will gradually reduce.
Even if a major incident happens and the LOVE infection sharply drops, your threshold for maintaining LOVE may also have fallen for this person.
This leads to another important point. It's possible to fall out of love even if everything seems great, because one or two things might be sticking or impediments, or unresolved issues which are enough to have a knock-on effect on the entire network.
For example, you might stop feeling physical attraction, so you stop having sex. This affects LOVE, however the threshold for LOVE on the way down might also have changed as you're willing to tolerate a lot more from the other person.
Perhaps it takes breaking 'Trust' and 'Communication' before LOVE is finally lost, even if 'emotional compatibility' still exists.

Concluding Thoughts

The Complex Contagion model demonstrates how some phenomena only spread through repeated reinforcement. In this case, repeated reinforcement of multiple, interacting components causes LOVE to be triggered or activated, which in turn may help to sustain the other components.

If I can venture one overarching thought derived from the Love Network model, it's as follows: love is a holistic process which necessitates these multiple, interacting components to be maintained and consistently reinforced. Though I certainly don't think a few diagrams do justice to the complexity and difficulties encountered within the experience of love, I think Network Theory may help us visualize, hence better understand and organize this process, which as mentioned, I don't think we're very good at doing.