September 17, 2024 • 39 mins
What if science could create a drug that made you connect with people more deeply, let your emotions flow more openly, and sparked love and attachment in you for other people? Would you take it? Better hurry and decide because they might be on their way.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a production of iHeartRadio. Hey,
and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh, and there's Chuck
and Jerry's here too, and this is stuff you should know.
I got no little MOONI joke for this to start.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Right, let's dive into love drugs.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Okay, well, Chuck, would you ever take a love drug
if they were available? No?
Speaker 3 (00:32):
But based on the couple of people that were sort
of highlighting on who have been researching this kind of thing,
it's definitely something I think has more merit than when
you just think about quote unquote love drug.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Yeah, I saw. I think it was a new scientist,
even some very legitimate science magazine source was saying like,
these things are going to be around in ten years.
So there's a group of philosophers, especially an ethicist named
Julian Savilesque from oh I think he's from Oxford, and
(01:08):
then another guy named Brian Erp who I also believe
is from Oxford. They have kind of been hitting this
hard and actually came out with the book called Love Drugs,
colon the Chemical Future of Relationships. I think in Europe
it's called Love is the Drug, which is a roxy
music reference. If I'm not mistaken, and they're at the
(01:28):
center of this whole talk. But one of the cool
things about when a philosopher puts a book out there's
other philosophers that critique it and interesting like alternative thoughts
and explanations and stuff like that. And this is no
different from anything else. But what Sevillesque and Erp are
basically saying is these things are coming and here's how
(01:51):
they could work, and here's what to look out for
and how they can help. And that's essentially the basis
of this episode.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Yeah, for sure, this comes with some caveats at the beginning,
chiefly because they use the word love drug, and that's
a that's a term that means a lot of things
to everybody that you might ask across different cultures, even
within the same culture Situationally, love can mean something different
to to to anybody. So the first thing to kind
(02:23):
of know is that there's not anyone out there saying like, hey,
love is just a phenomenon. That's because of the chemicals
in your brain. Like I think even the most hard
hearted philosopher will say, or chemists will say, like, yeah,
there are chemicals that work in the brain that that
you know, release all kinds of hormones and things that
(02:43):
make us feel certain ways, and it factors in, but
like there's also this indefinable thing that will never be
able to like understand and control through a medication.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Yeah, I think what they're what they're getting at. Then,
from that point on, so they're saying, yes, we agreed,
love is not just biochemical, but there are a lot
of biochemicals involved in the feeling of love, and whatever
love is, it's associated with these chemicals. So if we
can manipulate these chemicals, perhaps we can jack the feelings
(03:15):
of love up or create love, or strengthen love. That's
kind of like the position they're coming from. And so
from that point on, just accepting that love has some
sort of biochemical basis to it or signature to it.
They then moved on to the work of an anthropologist
named Helen Fisher, who had dedicated essentially her career to
(03:38):
love basically, and she divided love into essentially three parts.
And this sounds really familiar to me. There's no way
we haven't talked about this before, have we did? It
seem familiar to you.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
Just feeling that way about you and Jerry and my
wife and my daughter.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Okay, well let's get to it. Lust. Oh well, never mind,
clearly you felt about me and Jerry. Romantic attraction sometimes
and then attachment, I think is the one you're talking about.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
For sure, those are the three stages. A lot of
people will say that those occur in that order. Fisher
is like, no, it can occur in really any order
and then fall back out of order and back into order, which,
you know, I kind of agree with that notion, but
she does say that, you know, these are the things
(04:29):
that package together as what we would look around the
world at and agree on as romantic love, like a
long term love relationship.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Yeah, and when you look around the world, it's expressed
in different ways, sometimes very privately, sometimes there's PDA, like
it's just different culturally. But if you strip all that
stuff away, you're going to find those three stages essentially,
or those three parts of that package. Not everybody agrees
with that. A psychologist named Lisa Diamond from the UNI
(05:00):
University of Utah, which by the way, if you're ever
bored and you want to learn about epigenetics, go to
the University of Utah site. I think I've mentioned this before.
They have a world class, user friendly epigenetics website. It's amazing.
But anyway, Lisa Diamond believes in more of a split
attraction model, and she says sex and romantic attraction they
(05:23):
are independent biologically, they're functionally independent. They don't depend on
one another, and therefore Helen Fisher's wrong about this whole
thing being a single package.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Yeah, and she's got some points, and she can point
to some studies that seem to back this up. One
of which that she cites on the RAG is that
sixty one percent of women and thirty five percent of
men have reported that they've experienced infatuation without a need
for sex. So that certainly makes sense. But if you
(05:54):
look at sex and romance and love in the way
that the culture of a lot of the world looks
at it, at least that three part chemical formula from
Fisher carries a lot of common sense weight, I think.
And we're going to look at some of these chemicals now,
including at first testosterone and estrogen, of course, which drive
(06:17):
the libido.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
That's sort of the first bucket.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Yeah, that's the last part right right. The next one, Chuck,
would be the attraction part, or the romantic attraction and
that that's associated with a bunch of different ones, dopamine, nouropenephrine,
which increases arousal and attention, cortisol, which is interesting, but
it totally makes sense when you think about it. Cortisol
(06:41):
stress symptoms include things like racing heart and sweating palms.
Another one serotonin. Serotonin regulates mood and keeps out intrusive thoughts.
So when there's a dysregulation of serotonin, those things can
kind of weep in and you can feel intense, intense
(07:03):
feelings and think about nothing else but the person you're
romantically attracted to. And you put all those things together,
and you've got the chemistry, the brain chemistry essentially of
romantic attraction, the thing that's beyond just lost the thing
or you want to be with that person.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
And when you have that initial attraction and then it
settles in to just sort of normal relationship status, I
guess that puppy love sort of wears off. Those are
chemical reactions as well. That cortisol that shot up and
the lack of serotonin, those kind of level off, and
that's why you level off.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
It's very sad, but it happens.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
So what about attachment.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Attachment is oxytocin. That is one that we've talked about
a lot on the show. Also one of this very
closely related vasopressin, which is the one that males and
male mammals at least is most important for bonding. And
this is you know, when you have sexual intercourse or
(08:04):
maybe some other kind of intimate contact. Hugs, even a
good hug, can release some oxytocin, so well other things
that you can do like hugging kissing other people, and
that's when your empathy and your trust and your feelings
of safety are really going to ramp up.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
And that's a big deal. That's how you become attached.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Right And so evolutionarily speaking, caring for offspring is facilitated
by oxytocin in a lot of ways. There's a tremendous amount. Remember,
oxytocin is like in part responsible for breast milk production,
Like there's a huge increase of it during labor and delivery.
(08:46):
It's a big deal. But it also has to do
with pair bonding with mates, the people who come together
and reproduce to create that offspring. To put it really biologically,
so there's a question it's not just granted science that
humans are pair bonding mammals like say prairie boles, which
(09:07):
we'll talk about in a minute, but as insofar as
we are, the oxytocin has a lot to do with that,
I think, is what I'm trying to say. So much
so that people call that the love drug.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
Yeah, for sure, Like if you google love drug, you'll
probably run across that pretty quickly.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
That or ecstasy, yeah, which we'll also get to. So
one of the other big caveats.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
And I imagine like every lecture that Sabilesque and Erp
probably give start off with them saying, by the way,
when we're talking about a love drug or a love potion,
we're not talking about what you've seen in movies and
stories and fairy tales. When like some losers attracted to
(09:51):
like the hottest person in their class and so they
spike their drink and all of a sudden that person
thinks they're gorgeous and that you have a winning person sonality.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
They were like, we're not talking about that at all.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
There's not a way to do that, and even if
there was, that's ethically not it's dangerous to even talk
about something like that. But what we're talking about is
people that are in relationships, who are in long term
partnerships or marriages to use, potentially use these drugs to
(10:25):
give them some boosts when they need it to and
increase those feelings, not necessarily take them back to like
the puppy love stage, but not not do that, right.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
I say, we take a break and we'll come back
and talk a little more about that. How about that.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Yes, it's great, We'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Okay, Chuck. So where we left off, we're basically saying
that savillsqu and ERP and all of them are like,
we're not. You can't create love out of nothing at all,
as air supply would have put it for these love drugs.
These again generally hypothetical theoretical love drugs, but you could
use them to help people who want to stay together
but for one reason or another have lost the attachment
(11:33):
that they once had that could help people a lot.
And that's kind of what they're pointing to, is like
the main use of something like a love drug if
we ever come up with one.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Yeah, And they'll also say things like, hey, if you
think we sound like human monsters for trying to sort
of regulate or increase these good time feelings by the
use of drugs. Like, what do you think happens when
a married couple this been married for twenty five years
and are a little sick of each other they go
on a sweet, awesome vacation or go out and have
(12:06):
a couple of drinks together and at a nice dinner.
It's basically the same thing that we're talking about, is like,
those are things that people are accepting as a way
to do that in your marriage, and we're just talking
about doing it in a way that's just a little
more dialed in and scientific.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Exactly. You can take a love drug or you can
go to PF Chang's your choice, but the result's gonna
be the same. You're gonna fall right back in love,
right Yeah, sure, so yeah, that is a question. Though
it's kind of like, Okay, well wait a minute, what
if we're not if humans aren't actually pair bonded, if
we're not evolutionarily meant to be monogamous, then it does
(12:45):
kind of seem to be at least counter evolutionary to
take a drug to stay together. I mean, what if
that's like, you know, that's a signal that boredom is
a signal that you need to find a different relationship
or move on from the other one. I mean that
might be true in some cases, but there's also plenty
of cases too where people are not functionally able to
(13:11):
be attached as they want to be to their mates
in a relationship, say people with autism, people with ADHD.
They might want to be in that relationship, but they're
not bringing it like they need to. That's a good
example of how of supporting a monogamous relationship essentially, rather
than just forcing somebody to stay in by drugging them.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
And also like, even though this might fly in the
face of evolution, because I think they even say that,
you know, it seems like evolutionarily, we're supposed to get together,
have a kid, and stick around together for about four
years to get that kid going in life, and then
that's it, evolutionarily speaking. But they're quick to point out like,
(13:55):
there are a lot of benefits to long term coupling.
You know, it's good for your mental health. You know
that studies have shown that it can be good for
your mental health and physical health and overall well being.
So and people are doing it anyway, you know, they're
not like trying to rewrite this. People are staying married anyway,
(14:16):
So they're saying, why don't we give people better tools
in a clinical setting is like part of couple's therapy,
so they can connect on a level that they haven't
in a while.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Yeah, you can make a case like, evolutionarily speaking, we
should be beating up people who have different hair color
than us, but we don't do that because we've agreed
as modern society that's in the past. Evolutionarily speaking, you
can make the same thing for monogamous relationships even if
we didn't evolve to. Socially speaking, we've decided as humans
we're kind of into that kind of thing, So why
(14:48):
not use a drug to support that when needed? That's
what they're saying. That's what they're saying.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
And also they're pointing out things. These guys make a
lot of good points, Yeah, have to say.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
And also so does Livia by the way, who helped
us out with this one.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Yeah, Lyvia weight in on some stuff and I thought
it was all like super valid and smart. But they
also point out things like, hey, you know, we're on
a bunch of anti love drugs, Like a lot of
these SSRIs that people are taking are lowering their sex drive,
maybe dampening their feelings and sort of dulling their feelings,
which is going to affect their partner. And the medical
(15:24):
community is like prescribing this stuff to individuals when people
aren't just individuals. They're in partnerships and marriages where the
whole family needs to be considered with stuff like this,
and the medical community doesn't look at it that way,
and they should.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Yeah, And they're using the opportunity and discussing love drugs
to point out that we should be doing this with
other drugs that are already in wide use, like you said, SSRIs,
like drugs that impact the way that you interact with
other people for good or ill. This has to be
considered and it should be considered as part of the
love drug too, right. I think that's essentially what they're saying.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
Yeah, Yeah, as well as like, hey, you don't just
have to use these drugs to treat a disease, Like
why not use these drugs for people that don't have
any disease to actually enhance their life in their romantic life.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
That's a huge one too, because what they're essentially saying.
I watched a couple of lectures by Brian Erp and
he kind of really hit on this in one of them.
He was basically saying, like, we have this a society,
at least American society, we have this really weird dichotomous
view of drugs. Right, drugs that are made by pharmaceutical companies,
(16:47):
that are prescribed by doctors aoka, but we only use
those to treat maladies. When you start to use those
same drugs that are pharmaceuticals and prescribed to improve something
that we've already agreed is a good enough baseline, now
you're entering into the realm of recreational drugs, and we
(17:08):
as a society are basically like, we're not cool with
recreational drugs. And that's what Sevillski and one of the
other points they're taking the opportunity to point. I was like,
that doesn't make any sense morally ethically. Why would you
not use something that can improve something that to make
you happier, to make you feel closer to your mate,
even if you're already doing good enough. And I think
(17:29):
that's a really good point too. But the other part
of that point is there's a concern that we would
if we start creating love drugs. Then, as a society,
we would expect pharmaceutical companies to come up with some
malady that these need to treat or else they're not
going to go anywhere, So we need to come up
(17:51):
with something like hypo lovia or something like that, where
we're just not that good at loving, so we need
these pills. And now all of a sudden we have
late like you're not very good at loving. There's a
new label for somebody, just because we can't be like
this in and of itself is a good thing. We
don't have to medicalize it.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
Yeah, don't take love a cell if you have a
bad reaction to love a cell.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
That's a little inside joke for our live show fans, right.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Yeah, for sure, which we'll be releasing that not too
far from now, I would guess.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Right, Yeah, probably end of the year ish fall, late.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Fall, let's see, let's see yeah, late fall.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
All right, So you know what kind of drugs are
we talking about? You know, who knows what's coming down
the line. If we're looking at what's in front of
us right now, we can talk about a few things
we've already talked about. Booze alcohol is a drug, and
alcohol is a drug that has already used for this.
They use this, Sabelescu and you know, and use this
(18:52):
as an example of like the potential, like, hey, someone,
it's fine if someone goes out and has a couple
of drinks on a first date to sort of relax
them and make them a little more socially maybe less awkward,
if that's how they might feel. And you know, again
they're saying, like this is what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
We're already doing it with booze.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Yeah, I mean that. Yeah, that's a great smart thing
to point out, because it's like, oh, okay, well you
just disarmed me, savillsqu that's a point to you. They
also point out that we have sex drugs in rock
and roll, like viagra is a sex drug taking testosterone
low t Ask Frank what's his name, He'll tell you
(19:34):
the ladies are gonna like it too. These are libido
boosting chemicals or erection producing chemicals, and the point of
them is to have more or better sex. Right, And
so Savillsque and ERP and their ilk aren't saying like
that's a love drug. They're saying these drugs can help
facilitate the things that produce feelings of love, say, like
(19:55):
the release of oxytocin that comes from sex, so indirectly tho,
those are already love drugs that are on the market.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Wait, who's Frank so and so.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Frank he's a Hall of Fame MLB slugger from the
nineties maybe early two thousands.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Oh oh, Frank Thomas.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Yes, he does those ads with Doug Flutie.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Yeah, yeah, I've seen those. I forgot about those.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
And he does that creepy like she's gonna love it too.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Yeah, it's a little creepy, but also like, well they
got paid for those.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Never mind. Yeah, I was gonna say good for them
for like, you know, for taking the mantle of men
with low TI, but uh.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
So, good for them. So you mentioned prairie vols earlier.
Prairie vols are are great little rascals. They're good comps
for human behaviors when it comes to mating and bonding
and stuff like that. They bond in ways that are
(20:57):
kind of like us in our marriages. So they bond
initially too because of sex, because that oxytocin is released,
kind of like we do. When they're bonded, they like
to spend time with one another. They nest and make
homes together, they care for their offspring together, they work together.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
They go to the farmers market together.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Yeah, they go to the farmer's market.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
They buy those light up roses at traffic stops, people
buy those.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Sure, I thought it was just some sort of ploy
for something else.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
Like there's you know, a kilo of cocaine in the
bottom of that bucket, right, or.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
They want you to like come meet their friend the leader.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Right, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
Well maybe this I've never bought them, but they've done
lab experiments where they have been ministered oxytocin to females
and then the vasopressin for the males, and it caused
them to bond just like they would if they had mate.
It without mating, and if they block those chemicals, they
don't form the bonds. So it's kind of you know,
(21:59):
it's not direct, but it's kind of like sitting right
there saying hello, this works.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Yeah, And I mean again, prairie rolls are definitely pair
bonded species, and humans aren't necessarily, But the fact that
all of those brain chemicals do the same things to
them that they appear to do to us, that's pretty
it is a useful model for sure. And oxytocin again,
we're going to keep hitting that because there's a good
(22:24):
reason why people call it the love drug. And there's
already available on the market intra nasally taken like one
of those nasal sprays that you squeeze. It's oxytocin. It's
available in that form, and it shouldn't cross the blood
brain barrier, but it does something. It actually does have
an effect. Studies have shown like this actually has an
(22:47):
oxytocin like effect on the people who use it. They
think maybe if it doesn't actually cross the blood brain barrier,
just raises the general level of the oxytocin in your system.
Who knows. But from that people have proposed uses of
this stuff that's already on the market in ways that
are not quite love but more kind of tap into
(23:09):
the idea that you can build trust with somebody through
oxytocin and that if you dose them with that, they
will have to trust you.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
And here's the other thing about oxytocin is there have
been a lot of studies on this stuff, kind of
like the early two thousands is when all this got
heavily researched. You know, the early beginning of it, and
a lot of those results were, you know, pretty astounding,
but a lot of those studies also can't be replicated now,
so you know, experts are now saying, like, hey, all
(23:39):
those all those early studies about oxytocin, we really need
to kind of pump our brakes a little bit, not
saying completely discount it, but like let's just do more research.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Yeah, and like some of those some of those uses
that were proposed that go beyond love. There was an
Air Force major named David Dethiths who in two thousand
and seven roe to Master's thesis on using oxytocin spray
for things like hostage negotiation and riot control to establish
immediate like trust with the police or the military or whatever.
(24:11):
And of course all of this is theoretical, but that's
exactly what Savelesque and ERP and the people that are
with them are trying to do. They're saying, like, this
stuff could be coming and we need to talk about
like how it's fraught and how it could be useful.
And that's a good example of how it's fraught. You
don't want people controlling you or making you trust them,
even though you probably shouldn't just because they've dosed you
(24:33):
with oxytocin, if that ever really becomes possible.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
Yeah, And you know, sablesco will also say, like, you know,
it seems to help out in some positive ways, but
also some negative ways, and experts will chime in and say, well, yeah,
but in a very limited way, like introducing this, you know,
(24:57):
in a not a fake way. But I guess what
would it be called x genous way to your body.
Just go out and take a hike and do some exercising,
or give someone a hug. And that's about the same
effect that you're you're going to be getting by introducing it,
you know, exogenous genously.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Yeah, exogynously.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
I like that. I like it the first time.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
I kind of do too, actually, But the great thing
about a intrannasal oxytocin sprays you don't have to give somebody.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
A hug, right exactly.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
And then also MDMA we said, is something that comes
up a lot when you search love drug and for
good reason too. I mean, it does some wacky stuff
to your brain chemistry, including massive releases of oxytocin, dopamine, neuropinephrine, cortisol, serotonin,
all the stuff that Helen Fisher was hammering, create lust,
(25:51):
romantic love, attachment, all that stuff gets released to varying
degrees when you take MDMA. It also makes you grow
your teeth like crazy. And so people have said, okay,
this could conceivably be used therapeutically in some form, and
especially before it was outlawed in nineteen eighty five, people
were already studying it like that. They were using it
(26:13):
in therapeutic settings like couple's therapy.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
And then when studies come out to say, you know,
when you take MDNA, you're more connected, you're more loving
to people, There's a greater bond when it comes to
even like casual conversations. They it seemed like everything seems
more meaningful. Someone might also say, yeah, but the same
thing happens when you take methmphetamine. It's just impacting instead
(26:41):
of oxytocin, it's impacting dopamine and nora epinephrine. And like
you said, since eighty five, DNA MDMA sorry, has been
banned for study in therapeutics, but it is It is
still used in different countries a lot of times with
people at PTSD diagnoses and in couple's therapy to pretty
(27:06):
great effect.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Yeah, I was reading there's some couple's therapists, kind of
rogue couples therapists who are like, I can't tell you
to go buy MDMA, and I certainly can't tell you
where to go buy it, but I can tell you
that if you have it on you and you show
up to this particular place, we're going to be having
a retreat where you and your wife would be able
to take this in a therapeutic setting. So people are
(27:28):
still trying it, and anecdotally they report, especially compared to methamphetamine,
there's a lasting effect of like the attachment that can
be produced by MDMA that lasts beyond, you know, the
experience of being on MDMA. So it could conceivably be
used as such. But I think if there's you know,
if we can isolate oxytocin and you can use that,
(27:50):
I would guess we were probably going to go more
in that direction than MDMA.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
And if you have cash, you might see my office
manager in the parking lot.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
Yeah, I don't know anything about it.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
Right, Sharky was that the office manager? Yeah, with loads
of m d m A. Let's take our second break
and we'll come back and talk about the opposite of this.
How about that?
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Let's do it all right?
Speaker 3 (28:40):
So back to Sabelescu and herb It's fun to say,
what kind of singing do are they?
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Oh, let's see.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
I think one of them plays the organ and the
other one plays the saxophone. Really low key, mellow stuff.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
Okay, that sounds pretty good. Okay, all right.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
So another thing that they propose, like you mentioned before,
the break is the opposite of that. Maybe some drugs
that help you get away from the feeling of love.
Let's say you're in a relationship that is toxic or complicated,
or even abusive, and you have a hard time leaving
(29:23):
because you have this attachment that you just can't let
go of to your abuser or to your toxic friend
or loved one. And maybe if you are stuck in
that loop, we can design drugs to give you the.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Courage to get out of that.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
Yeah. I also saw in one of those lectures that
gave some other examples of how this could be useful
anti love drug. Essentially, if you're a pedophile seeking help achievement,
it could be useful for that. If you are involved
in an incestuous relationship, you don't want to be it
could be helpful for that. If you're committing adultery and
(30:01):
you love the person, but you really love your spouse
even more, it could be useful for that. And then lastly,
if you are selling those electric roses on the side
of the road, it can help you stop loving your
cult leader as well. So there's a lot of other
uses for it too that you just wouldn't think of,
But when you do think of it, you're like, actually,
(30:22):
it would be great to have a drug for those
people that need that kind of help. And one of
the other great things about this is that there's no
real downside to that. Like there's a there's a lot
of objections as we'll see to the idea of creating love,
but how can you object to breaking harmful love? There's
really no problem with that. That's kind of like, that's
(30:45):
probably the best or least objectionable use of a drug
that has to do with an effect on love, you.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
Know, Yeah, for sure, it's probably no surprise that there's
been a lot of criticism about all of this stuff.
That was a German ethicist named Savin Niom in twenty
fourteen that got wind of what Sabellascu and urp're doing.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
And they said, you know.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
What, I don't even know if this counts if it's
essentially synthetic, Like, it's not, it's not real. It's not
these innate characteristics that people develop in a natural, organic way.
It's it's a chemically mediated sort of thing that you're designing.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Yeah, and you could see him being like, Okay, that's
a that's a pretty obvious objection, but he laid it
out pretty well and essentially said, like what this focus
is on is you know all of the things that
a loving attachment can produce, like health and lower depression,
and you know, a stable environment for the kids, Like
(31:53):
those are the goods that you guys are focusing on.
What if we stop looking at love like that and
look at it as love is intrance good in and
of itself. It doesn't matter what other great effects it has.
Love itself is good enough. Then if you're producing that chemically,
even though you're creating all of these great side effects
like stability in the house or you know, just good times,
(32:16):
it's still it's not love. You can't say that it's
it's love. That's that's ultimately what his objection is.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
Yeah, there's another guy from cal State, a guy named
Jacob Blair, another philosopher who talk about you know, he
just imagines two people in a relationship, and he's saying, well,
here's the thing, though, is one's love for the other
doesn't depend on the actual true characteristics of that person
and like who they really are. And like, I hear
(32:43):
what you're saying, urb and sablesco about like, yeah, but
you know, romantic dinners it's the same thing, and alcohol
is the same thing. But he argues back that, like, yeah,
but you can't go to romantic dinners every night and
just have three or four drinks every night to keep
that you know, quote unquote genuine love going.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
It's not like a good comp.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Who can afford to go to PF Chang's every single night.
Not me, man, nobody, not even the owner PF Chang
himself couldn't afford that. So there's another objection to what
Jacob Blair and saven Niholm were saying in defense of
Sevillscue and by a Montreal ethicist named Heishim or Heikim
(33:29):
Narr Hichim Narr. Hei Chim Narr argues that even if
you're just producing something that's not actual love, those side
effects that are good are could be enough to keep
you around so that you are still experiencing all the
(33:51):
stuff that that love produces. And so if it's not
actual love, you could still conceivably appreciate the other person
and characteristics that make you love them. And so the
whole thing kind of becomes hurly burley at that point.
And really, what's the problem. Are you guys just being
philosophers being philosophers, I think is what Nar was saying.
Speaker 3 (34:14):
Yeah, there's there's definitely a lot of that for everybody
who is a philosopher, you know.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
Yeah, sure, that's just the nature of the beast.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
So really they love to argue and put up weird
situations to prove their point.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
Yeah, I mean, that's just the deal.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
There's a bioethicist named Peter Harrison Kelly who went about
it and arguing it in a little bit different way,
which is the notion of something like oxytocin being a
love drug. You know, it all depends on this notion
that that attachment is a feeling, like it's a drive
(34:51):
that you have. And he said, I don't think it's
that that that that's the case. Actually, it's not like, Uh,
you don't had this drive to constantly feel this way
toward a person, Like you have these hormones that may
encourage that, but you already have to have that attachment
in place to begin with. But I mean, it seems
(35:13):
like that's kind of what RB and Sabelescu are saying though, right.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Yeah, I didn't one hundred percent understand what the issue
that Harrison Kelly was raising was that Urp and sablesk
you didn't agree with like you were saying, like they're
saying like, yeah, you can't create this out of the blue,
but you can support it. I guess what he was
saying is more he disagrees with Helen Fisher's idea, like
you were saying that it's a drive, like you can't
(35:38):
compare attachment to hunger, Like attachment is its own thing,
it's separate from all that. So you're not boosting attachment.
You're boosting the trappings of attachment. The feelings that you
get from attachment are being boosted, But don't make any
mistake that you're actually boosting attachment itself. Yeah, is what
he's saying, That it's it's more than just some sort
(36:00):
of biochemical dribe so yeah, in a way, he's certainly
arguing and at the same time supporting their point.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
I think, yeah, I think, I think I agree, that's
exactly what you're saying. And then you know, of course
we have to talk finally about the fact that you know,
these kind of things in the wrong hands. You know,
we've talked about spiking a drink or something like that
being just an awful thing to do.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
Conversion therapy.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
I could definitely see this getting into the hands of
people who think they could use it to convert lg
BTQ people like, you know, hey, let's just go put.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Two people in a room.
Speaker 3 (36:37):
Together of you know, put a man and a woman
there together and give them this drug and see if
that cures them.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
That kind of thing exactly. Yeah, there's a lot of
ways that it can be misused, and I think Erp
and Seveleski were criticized as basically saying, like, no, you
just make sure that you regulate them and make sure
that the that they're prescribed correctly, and they were definitely
called out as naive for suggesting that that's the only
way that they would be used. So, yeah, that is
(37:03):
definitely something that makes it fraud for sure, I agree, fraud.
You got anything else about love drugs coming soon? Now?
Speaker 2 (37:12):
It seems like it's coming soon in some way or another.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
Yep, for sure. And if you want to know more
about love drugs, just wait, I guess, and see what
happens and see if you can get your doctor to
prescribe them. And in the meantime, it's time for listener mail.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Yeah, I'm gonna call this.
Speaker 3 (37:30):
I'm glad I got this email because I've been getting
this wrong all these years. What with this song title?
Speaker 1 (37:36):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Or I guess the singer?
Speaker 3 (37:39):
Hey, guys, listen to the episode on Share one of
you mentioned and it was me Chuck working at retail
at Christmas. It was at the gap and repeatedly hearing
the song Santa's Got a brand New Bag by James Taylor,
which you know you corrected me in the moment. Obviously
it's James Brown, he said. James Brown is also incorrect.
(37:59):
The song is clear and homage to James Brown. It
is actually by a bunch of white kids from Detroit
called Bob Seger, and the last heard, Oh wow, yes
that Bob Seger.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
He says.
Speaker 3 (38:11):
The title is socket to me Sanna, and it was
released in nineteen sixty six on the Cameo Parkway Records label,
Probably my favorite Christmas song. In twenty eighteen, in anthology
of Last Heard Singles from sixty six to sixty seven
was released I believe the first time they've been compiled
in one place. This is also an unrelated R and
B funk song. Oh, there is also an unrelated R
(38:32):
and B funk song called Socket to Him Sanna by
Joe Chanal circus sixty eight. That's worth a listen. And
of course James Brown does have a Christmas album with
some pretty great tunes, and he died on Christmas Day.
Speaker 1 (38:43):
I didn't know thousand and six. Yeah, yeah, wow, that
are some deep cuts. Who is that?
Speaker 3 (38:48):
I didn't even bother looking at any of this stuff up,
So I hope Kevin Schneider is right. He certainly comes
across as confidence, so I believed every word.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
Yep, same here, Kevin. Thank you for mesmerizing us with
your musical novel. And if you want to be like
Kevin and mesmerize us, take your best shot. You can
send it off to Stuff Podcast at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 3 (39:11):
Stuff you Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio for
more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a production of iHeartRadio. Hey,
and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh, and there's Chuck
and Jerry's here too, and this is stuff you should know.
I got no little MOONI joke for this to start.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Right, let's dive into love drugs.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Okay, well, Chuck, would you ever take a love drug
if they were available? No?
Speaker 3 (00:32):
But based on the couple of people that were sort
of highlighting on who have been researching this kind of thing,
it's definitely something I think has more merit than when
you just think about quote unquote love drug.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Yeah, I saw. I think it was a new scientist,
even some very legitimate science magazine source was saying like,
these things are going to be around in ten years.
So there's a group of philosophers, especially an ethicist named
Julian Savilesque from oh I think he's from Oxford, and
(01:08):
then another guy named Brian Erp who I also believe
is from Oxford. They have kind of been hitting this
hard and actually came out with the book called Love Drugs,
colon the Chemical Future of Relationships. I think in Europe
it's called Love is the Drug, which is a roxy
music reference. If I'm not mistaken, and they're at the
(01:28):
center of this whole talk. But one of the cool
things about when a philosopher puts a book out there's
other philosophers that critique it and interesting like alternative thoughts
and explanations and stuff like that. And this is no
different from anything else. But what Sevillesque and Erp are
basically saying is these things are coming and here's how
(01:51):
they could work, and here's what to look out for
and how they can help. And that's essentially the basis
of this episode.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Yeah, for sure, this comes with some caveats at the beginning,
chiefly because they use the word love drug, and that's
a that's a term that means a lot of things
to everybody that you might ask across different cultures, even
within the same culture Situationally, love can mean something different
to to to anybody. So the first thing to kind
(02:23):
of know is that there's not anyone out there saying like, hey,
love is just a phenomenon. That's because of the chemicals
in your brain. Like I think even the most hard
hearted philosopher will say, or chemists will say, like, yeah,
there are chemicals that work in the brain that that
you know, release all kinds of hormones and things that
(02:43):
make us feel certain ways, and it factors in, but
like there's also this indefinable thing that will never be
able to like understand and control through a medication.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Yeah, I think what they're what they're getting at. Then,
from that point on, so they're saying, yes, we agreed,
love is not just biochemical, but there are a lot
of biochemicals involved in the feeling of love, and whatever
love is, it's associated with these chemicals. So if we
can manipulate these chemicals, perhaps we can jack the feelings
(03:15):
of love up or create love, or strengthen love. That's
kind of like the position they're coming from. And so
from that point on, just accepting that love has some
sort of biochemical basis to it or signature to it.
They then moved on to the work of an anthropologist
named Helen Fisher, who had dedicated essentially her career to
(03:38):
love basically, and she divided love into essentially three parts.
And this sounds really familiar to me. There's no way
we haven't talked about this before, have we did? It
seem familiar to you.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
Just feeling that way about you and Jerry and my
wife and my daughter.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Okay, well let's get to it. Lust. Oh well, never mind,
clearly you felt about me and Jerry. Romantic attraction sometimes
and then attachment, I think is the one you're talking about.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
For sure, those are the three stages. A lot of
people will say that those occur in that order. Fisher
is like, no, it can occur in really any order
and then fall back out of order and back into order, which,
you know, I kind of agree with that notion, but
she does say that, you know, these are the things
(04:29):
that package together as what we would look around the
world at and agree on as romantic love, like a
long term love relationship.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Yeah, and when you look around the world, it's expressed
in different ways, sometimes very privately, sometimes there's PDA, like
it's just different culturally. But if you strip all that
stuff away, you're going to find those three stages essentially,
or those three parts of that package. Not everybody agrees
with that. A psychologist named Lisa Diamond from the UNI
(05:00):
University of Utah, which by the way, if you're ever
bored and you want to learn about epigenetics, go to
the University of Utah site. I think I've mentioned this before.
They have a world class, user friendly epigenetics website. It's amazing.
But anyway, Lisa Diamond believes in more of a split
attraction model, and she says sex and romantic attraction they
(05:23):
are independent biologically, they're functionally independent. They don't depend on
one another, and therefore Helen Fisher's wrong about this whole
thing being a single package.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Yeah, and she's got some points, and she can point
to some studies that seem to back this up. One
of which that she cites on the RAG is that
sixty one percent of women and thirty five percent of
men have reported that they've experienced infatuation without a need
for sex. So that certainly makes sense. But if you
(05:54):
look at sex and romance and love in the way
that the culture of a lot of the world looks
at it, at least that three part chemical formula from
Fisher carries a lot of common sense weight, I think.
And we're going to look at some of these chemicals now,
including at first testosterone and estrogen, of course, which drive
(06:17):
the libido.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
That's sort of the first bucket.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Yeah, that's the last part right right. The next one, Chuck,
would be the attraction part, or the romantic attraction and
that that's associated with a bunch of different ones, dopamine, nouropenephrine,
which increases arousal and attention, cortisol, which is interesting, but
it totally makes sense when you think about it. Cortisol
(06:41):
stress symptoms include things like racing heart and sweating palms.
Another one serotonin. Serotonin regulates mood and keeps out intrusive thoughts.
So when there's a dysregulation of serotonin, those things can
kind of weep in and you can feel intense, intense
(07:03):
feelings and think about nothing else but the person you're
romantically attracted to. And you put all those things together,
and you've got the chemistry, the brain chemistry essentially of
romantic attraction, the thing that's beyond just lost the thing
or you want to be with that person.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
And when you have that initial attraction and then it
settles in to just sort of normal relationship status, I
guess that puppy love sort of wears off. Those are
chemical reactions as well. That cortisol that shot up and
the lack of serotonin, those kind of level off, and
that's why you level off.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
It's very sad, but it happens.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
So what about attachment.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Attachment is oxytocin. That is one that we've talked about
a lot on the show. Also one of this very
closely related vasopressin, which is the one that males and
male mammals at least is most important for bonding. And
this is you know, when you have sexual intercourse or
(08:04):
maybe some other kind of intimate contact. Hugs, even a
good hug, can release some oxytocin, so well other things
that you can do like hugging kissing other people, and
that's when your empathy and your trust and your feelings
of safety are really going to ramp up.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
And that's a big deal. That's how you become attached.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Right And so evolutionarily speaking, caring for offspring is facilitated
by oxytocin in a lot of ways. There's a tremendous amount. Remember,
oxytocin is like in part responsible for breast milk production,
Like there's a huge increase of it during labor and delivery.
(08:46):
It's a big deal. But it also has to do
with pair bonding with mates, the people who come together
and reproduce to create that offspring. To put it really biologically,
so there's a question it's not just granted science that
humans are pair bonding mammals like say prairie boles, which
(09:07):
we'll talk about in a minute, but as insofar as
we are, the oxytocin has a lot to do with that,
I think, is what I'm trying to say. So much
so that people call that the love drug.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
Yeah, for sure, Like if you google love drug, you'll
probably run across that pretty quickly.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
That or ecstasy, yeah, which we'll also get to. So
one of the other big caveats.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
And I imagine like every lecture that Sabilesque and Erp
probably give start off with them saying, by the way,
when we're talking about a love drug or a love potion,
we're not talking about what you've seen in movies and
stories and fairy tales. When like some losers attracted to
(09:51):
like the hottest person in their class and so they
spike their drink and all of a sudden that person
thinks they're gorgeous and that you have a winning person sonality.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
They were like, we're not talking about that at all.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
There's not a way to do that, and even if
there was, that's ethically not it's dangerous to even talk
about something like that. But what we're talking about is
people that are in relationships, who are in long term
partnerships or marriages to use, potentially use these drugs to
(10:25):
give them some boosts when they need it to and
increase those feelings, not necessarily take them back to like
the puppy love stage, but not not do that, right.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
I say, we take a break and we'll come back
and talk a little more about that. How about that.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Yes, it's great, We'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Okay, Chuck. So where we left off, we're basically saying
that savillsqu and ERP and all of them are like,
we're not. You can't create love out of nothing at all,
as air supply would have put it for these love drugs.
These again generally hypothetical theoretical love drugs, but you could
use them to help people who want to stay together
but for one reason or another have lost the attachment
(11:33):
that they once had that could help people a lot.
And that's kind of what they're pointing to, is like
the main use of something like a love drug if
we ever come up with one.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Yeah, And they'll also say things like, hey, if you
think we sound like human monsters for trying to sort
of regulate or increase these good time feelings by the
use of drugs. Like, what do you think happens when
a married couple this been married for twenty five years
and are a little sick of each other they go
on a sweet, awesome vacation or go out and have
(12:06):
a couple of drinks together and at a nice dinner.
It's basically the same thing that we're talking about, is like,
those are things that people are accepting as a way
to do that in your marriage, and we're just talking
about doing it in a way that's just a little
more dialed in and scientific.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Exactly. You can take a love drug or you can
go to PF Chang's your choice, but the result's gonna
be the same. You're gonna fall right back in love,
right Yeah, sure, so yeah, that is a question. Though
it's kind of like, Okay, well wait a minute, what
if we're not if humans aren't actually pair bonded, if
we're not evolutionarily meant to be monogamous, then it does
(12:45):
kind of seem to be at least counter evolutionary to
take a drug to stay together. I mean, what if
that's like, you know, that's a signal that boredom is
a signal that you need to find a different relationship
or move on from the other one. I mean that
might be true in some cases, but there's also plenty
of cases too where people are not functionally able to
(13:11):
be attached as they want to be to their mates
in a relationship, say people with autism, people with ADHD.
They might want to be in that relationship, but they're
not bringing it like they need to. That's a good
example of how of supporting a monogamous relationship essentially, rather
than just forcing somebody to stay in by drugging them.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
And also like, even though this might fly in the
face of evolution, because I think they even say that,
you know, it seems like evolutionarily, we're supposed to get together,
have a kid, and stick around together for about four
years to get that kid going in life, and then
that's it, evolutionarily speaking. But they're quick to point out like,
(13:55):
there are a lot of benefits to long term coupling.
You know, it's good for your mental health. You know
that studies have shown that it can be good for
your mental health and physical health and overall well being.
So and people are doing it anyway, you know, they're
not like trying to rewrite this. People are staying married anyway,
(14:16):
So they're saying, why don't we give people better tools
in a clinical setting is like part of couple's therapy,
so they can connect on a level that they haven't
in a while.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Yeah, you can make a case like, evolutionarily speaking, we
should be beating up people who have different hair color
than us, but we don't do that because we've agreed
as modern society that's in the past. Evolutionarily speaking, you
can make the same thing for monogamous relationships even if
we didn't evolve to. Socially speaking, we've decided as humans
we're kind of into that kind of thing, So why
(14:48):
not use a drug to support that when needed? That's
what they're saying. That's what they're saying.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
And also they're pointing out things. These guys make a
lot of good points, Yeah, have to say.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
And also so does Livia by the way, who helped
us out with this one.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Yeah, Lyvia weight in on some stuff and I thought
it was all like super valid and smart. But they
also point out things like, hey, you know, we're on
a bunch of anti love drugs, Like a lot of
these SSRIs that people are taking are lowering their sex drive,
maybe dampening their feelings and sort of dulling their feelings,
which is going to affect their partner. And the medical
(15:24):
community is like prescribing this stuff to individuals when people
aren't just individuals. They're in partnerships and marriages where the
whole family needs to be considered with stuff like this,
and the medical community doesn't look at it that way,
and they should.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Yeah, And they're using the opportunity and discussing love drugs
to point out that we should be doing this with
other drugs that are already in wide use, like you said, SSRIs,
like drugs that impact the way that you interact with
other people for good or ill. This has to be
considered and it should be considered as part of the
love drug too, right. I think that's essentially what they're saying.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
Yeah, Yeah, as well as like, hey, you don't just
have to use these drugs to treat a disease, Like
why not use these drugs for people that don't have
any disease to actually enhance their life in their romantic life.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
That's a huge one too, because what they're essentially saying.
I watched a couple of lectures by Brian Erp and
he kind of really hit on this in one of them.
He was basically saying, like, we have this a society,
at least American society, we have this really weird dichotomous
view of drugs. Right, drugs that are made by pharmaceutical companies,
(16:47):
that are prescribed by doctors aoka, but we only use
those to treat maladies. When you start to use those
same drugs that are pharmaceuticals and prescribed to improve something
that we've already agreed is a good enough baseline, now
you're entering into the realm of recreational drugs, and we
(17:08):
as a society are basically like, we're not cool with
recreational drugs. And that's what Sevillski and one of the
other points they're taking the opportunity to point. I was like,
that doesn't make any sense morally ethically. Why would you
not use something that can improve something that to make
you happier, to make you feel closer to your mate,
even if you're already doing good enough. And I think
(17:29):
that's a really good point too. But the other part
of that point is there's a concern that we would
if we start creating love drugs. Then, as a society,
we would expect pharmaceutical companies to come up with some
malady that these need to treat or else they're not
going to go anywhere, So we need to come up
(17:51):
with something like hypo lovia or something like that, where
we're just not that good at loving, so we need
these pills. And now all of a sudden we have
late like you're not very good at loving. There's a
new label for somebody, just because we can't be like
this in and of itself is a good thing. We
don't have to medicalize it.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
Yeah, don't take love a cell if you have a
bad reaction to love a cell.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
That's a little inside joke for our live show fans, right.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Yeah, for sure, which we'll be releasing that not too
far from now, I would guess.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Right, Yeah, probably end of the year ish fall, late.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Fall, let's see, let's see yeah, late fall.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
All right, So you know what kind of drugs are
we talking about? You know, who knows what's coming down
the line. If we're looking at what's in front of
us right now, we can talk about a few things
we've already talked about. Booze alcohol is a drug, and
alcohol is a drug that has already used for this.
They use this, Sabelescu and you know, and use this
(18:52):
as an example of like the potential, like, hey, someone,
it's fine if someone goes out and has a couple
of drinks on a first date to sort of relax
them and make them a little more socially maybe less awkward,
if that's how they might feel. And you know, again
they're saying, like this is what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
We're already doing it with booze.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Yeah, I mean that. Yeah, that's a great smart thing
to point out, because it's like, oh, okay, well you
just disarmed me, savillsqu that's a point to you. They
also point out that we have sex drugs in rock
and roll, like viagra is a sex drug taking testosterone
low t Ask Frank what's his name, He'll tell you
(19:34):
the ladies are gonna like it too. These are libido
boosting chemicals or erection producing chemicals, and the point of
them is to have more or better sex. Right, And
so Savillsque and ERP and their ilk aren't saying like
that's a love drug. They're saying these drugs can help
facilitate the things that produce feelings of love, say, like
(19:55):
the release of oxytocin that comes from sex, so indirectly tho,
those are already love drugs that are on the market.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Wait, who's Frank so and so.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Frank he's a Hall of Fame MLB slugger from the
nineties maybe early two thousands.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Oh oh, Frank Thomas.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Yes, he does those ads with Doug Flutie.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Yeah, yeah, I've seen those. I forgot about those.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
And he does that creepy like she's gonna love it too.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Yeah, it's a little creepy, but also like, well they
got paid for those.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Never mind. Yeah, I was gonna say good for them
for like, you know, for taking the mantle of men
with low TI, but uh.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
So, good for them. So you mentioned prairie vols earlier.
Prairie vols are are great little rascals. They're good comps
for human behaviors when it comes to mating and bonding
and stuff like that. They bond in ways that are
(20:57):
kind of like us in our marriages. So they bond
initially too because of sex, because that oxytocin is released,
kind of like we do. When they're bonded, they like
to spend time with one another. They nest and make
homes together, they care for their offspring together, they work together.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
They go to the farmers market together.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Yeah, they go to the farmer's market.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
They buy those light up roses at traffic stops, people
buy those.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Sure, I thought it was just some sort of ploy
for something else.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
Like there's you know, a kilo of cocaine in the
bottom of that bucket, right, or.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
They want you to like come meet their friend the leader.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
Right, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
Well maybe this I've never bought them, but they've done
lab experiments where they have been ministered oxytocin to females
and then the vasopressin for the males, and it caused
them to bond just like they would if they had mate.
It without mating, and if they block those chemicals, they
don't form the bonds. So it's kind of you know,
(21:59):
it's not direct, but it's kind of like sitting right
there saying hello, this works.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
Yeah, And I mean again, prairie rolls are definitely pair
bonded species, and humans aren't necessarily, But the fact that
all of those brain chemicals do the same things to
them that they appear to do to us, that's pretty
it is a useful model for sure. And oxytocin again,
we're going to keep hitting that because there's a good
(22:24):
reason why people call it the love drug. And there's
already available on the market intra nasally taken like one
of those nasal sprays that you squeeze. It's oxytocin. It's
available in that form, and it shouldn't cross the blood
brain barrier, but it does something. It actually does have
an effect. Studies have shown like this actually has an
(22:47):
oxytocin like effect on the people who use it. They
think maybe if it doesn't actually cross the blood brain barrier,
just raises the general level of the oxytocin in your system.
Who knows. But from that people have proposed uses of
this stuff that's already on the market in ways that
are not quite love but more kind of tap into
(23:09):
the idea that you can build trust with somebody through
oxytocin and that if you dose them with that, they
will have to trust you.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
And here's the other thing about oxytocin is there have
been a lot of studies on this stuff, kind of
like the early two thousands is when all this got
heavily researched. You know, the early beginning of it, and
a lot of those results were, you know, pretty astounding,
but a lot of those studies also can't be replicated now,
so you know, experts are now saying, like, hey, all
(23:39):
those all those early studies about oxytocin, we really need
to kind of pump our brakes a little bit, not
saying completely discount it, but like let's just do more research.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Yeah, and like some of those some of those uses
that were proposed that go beyond love. There was an
Air Force major named David Dethiths who in two thousand
and seven roe to Master's thesis on using oxytocin spray
for things like hostage negotiation and riot control to establish
immediate like trust with the police or the military or whatever.
(24:11):
And of course all of this is theoretical, but that's
exactly what Savelesque and ERP and the people that are
with them are trying to do. They're saying, like, this
stuff could be coming and we need to talk about
like how it's fraught and how it could be useful.
And that's a good example of how it's fraught. You
don't want people controlling you or making you trust them,
even though you probably shouldn't just because they've dosed you
(24:33):
with oxytocin, if that ever really becomes possible.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
Yeah, And you know, sablesco will also say, like, you know,
it seems to help out in some positive ways, but
also some negative ways, and experts will chime in and say, well, yeah,
but in a very limited way, like introducing this, you know,
(24:57):
in a not a fake way. But I guess what
would it be called x genous way to your body.
Just go out and take a hike and do some exercising,
or give someone a hug. And that's about the same
effect that you're you're going to be getting by introducing it,
you know, exogenous genously.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Yeah, exogynously.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
I like that. I like it the first time.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
I kind of do too, actually, But the great thing
about a intrannasal oxytocin sprays you don't have to give somebody.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
A hug, right exactly.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
And then also MDMA we said, is something that comes
up a lot when you search love drug and for
good reason too. I mean, it does some wacky stuff
to your brain chemistry, including massive releases of oxytocin, dopamine, neuropinephrine, cortisol, serotonin,
all the stuff that Helen Fisher was hammering, create lust,
(25:51):
romantic love, attachment, all that stuff gets released to varying
degrees when you take MDMA. It also makes you grow
your teeth like crazy. And so people have said, okay,
this could conceivably be used therapeutically in some form, and
especially before it was outlawed in nineteen eighty five, people
were already studying it like that. They were using it
(26:13):
in therapeutic settings like couple's therapy.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
And then when studies come out to say, you know,
when you take MDNA, you're more connected, you're more loving
to people, There's a greater bond when it comes to
even like casual conversations. They it seemed like everything seems
more meaningful. Someone might also say, yeah, but the same
thing happens when you take methmphetamine. It's just impacting instead
(26:41):
of oxytocin, it's impacting dopamine and nora epinephrine. And like
you said, since eighty five, DNA MDMA sorry, has been
banned for study in therapeutics, but it is It is
still used in different countries a lot of times with
people at PTSD diagnoses and in couple's therapy to pretty
(27:06):
great effect.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Yeah, I was reading there's some couple's therapists, kind of
rogue couples therapists who are like, I can't tell you
to go buy MDMA, and I certainly can't tell you
where to go buy it, but I can tell you
that if you have it on you and you show
up to this particular place, we're going to be having
a retreat where you and your wife would be able
to take this in a therapeutic setting. So people are
(27:28):
still trying it, and anecdotally they report, especially compared to methamphetamine,
there's a lasting effect of like the attachment that can
be produced by MDMA that lasts beyond, you know, the
experience of being on MDMA. So it could conceivably be
used as such. But I think if there's you know,
if we can isolate oxytocin and you can use that,
(27:50):
I would guess we were probably going to go more
in that direction than MDMA.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
And if you have cash, you might see my office
manager in the parking lot.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
Yeah, I don't know anything about it.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
Right, Sharky was that the office manager? Yeah, with loads
of m d m A. Let's take our second break
and we'll come back and talk about the opposite of this.
How about that?
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Let's do it all right?
Speaker 3 (28:40):
So back to Sabelescu and herb It's fun to say,
what kind of singing do are they?
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Oh, let's see.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
I think one of them plays the organ and the
other one plays the saxophone. Really low key, mellow stuff.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
Okay, that sounds pretty good. Okay, all right.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
So another thing that they propose, like you mentioned before,
the break is the opposite of that. Maybe some drugs
that help you get away from the feeling of love.
Let's say you're in a relationship that is toxic or complicated,
or even abusive, and you have a hard time leaving
(29:23):
because you have this attachment that you just can't let
go of to your abuser or to your toxic friend
or loved one. And maybe if you are stuck in
that loop, we can design drugs to give you the.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Courage to get out of that.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
Yeah. I also saw in one of those lectures that
gave some other examples of how this could be useful
anti love drug. Essentially, if you're a pedophile seeking help achievement,
it could be useful for that. If you are involved
in an incestuous relationship, you don't want to be it
could be helpful for that. If you're committing adultery and
(30:01):
you love the person, but you really love your spouse
even more, it could be useful for that. And then lastly,
if you are selling those electric roses on the side
of the road, it can help you stop loving your
cult leader as well. So there's a lot of other
uses for it too that you just wouldn't think of,
But when you do think of it, you're like, actually,
(30:22):
it would be great to have a drug for those
people that need that kind of help. And one of
the other great things about this is that there's no
real downside to that. Like there's a there's a lot
of objections as we'll see to the idea of creating love,
but how can you object to breaking harmful love? There's
really no problem with that. That's kind of like, that's
(30:45):
probably the best or least objectionable use of a drug
that has to do with an effect on love, you.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
Know, Yeah, for sure, it's probably no surprise that there's
been a lot of criticism about all of this stuff.
That was a German ethicist named Savin Niom in twenty
fourteen that got wind of what Sabellascu and urp're doing.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
And they said, you know.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
What, I don't even know if this counts if it's
essentially synthetic, Like, it's not, it's not real. It's not
these innate characteristics that people develop in a natural, organic way.
It's it's a chemically mediated sort of thing that you're designing.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Yeah, and you could see him being like, Okay, that's
a that's a pretty obvious objection, but he laid it
out pretty well and essentially said, like what this focus
is on is you know all of the things that
a loving attachment can produce, like health and lower depression,
and you know, a stable environment for the kids, Like
(31:53):
those are the goods that you guys are focusing on.
What if we stop looking at love like that and
look at it as love is intrance good in and
of itself. It doesn't matter what other great effects it has.
Love itself is good enough. Then if you're producing that chemically,
even though you're creating all of these great side effects
like stability in the house or you know, just good times,
(32:16):
it's still it's not love. You can't say that it's
it's love. That's that's ultimately what his objection is.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
Yeah, there's another guy from cal State, a guy named
Jacob Blair, another philosopher who talk about you know, he
just imagines two people in a relationship, and he's saying, well,
here's the thing, though, is one's love for the other
doesn't depend on the actual true characteristics of that person
and like who they really are. And like, I hear
(32:43):
what you're saying, urb and sablesco about like, yeah, but
you know, romantic dinners it's the same thing, and alcohol
is the same thing. But he argues back that, like, yeah,
but you can't go to romantic dinners every night and
just have three or four drinks every night to keep
that you know, quote unquote genuine love going.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
It's not like a good comp.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Who can afford to go to PF Chang's every single night.
Not me, man, nobody, not even the owner PF Chang
himself couldn't afford that. So there's another objection to what
Jacob Blair and saven Niholm were saying in defense of
Sevillscue and by a Montreal ethicist named Heishim or Heikim
(33:29):
Narr Hichim Narr. Hei Chim Narr argues that even if
you're just producing something that's not actual love, those side
effects that are good are could be enough to keep
you around so that you are still experiencing all the
(33:51):
stuff that that love produces. And so if it's not
actual love, you could still conceivably appreciate the other person
and characteristics that make you love them. And so the
whole thing kind of becomes hurly burley at that point.
And really, what's the problem. Are you guys just being
philosophers being philosophers, I think is what Nar was saying.
Speaker 3 (34:14):
Yeah, there's there's definitely a lot of that for everybody
who is a philosopher, you know.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
Yeah, sure, that's just the nature of the beast.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
So really they love to argue and put up weird
situations to prove their point.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
Yeah, I mean, that's just the deal.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
There's a bioethicist named Peter Harrison Kelly who went about
it and arguing it in a little bit different way,
which is the notion of something like oxytocin being a
love drug. You know, it all depends on this notion
that that attachment is a feeling, like it's a drive
(34:51):
that you have. And he said, I don't think it's
that that that that's the case. Actually, it's not like, Uh,
you don't had this drive to constantly feel this way
toward a person, Like you have these hormones that may
encourage that, but you already have to have that attachment
in place to begin with. But I mean, it seems
(35:13):
like that's kind of what RB and Sabelescu are saying though, right.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Yeah, I didn't one hundred percent understand what the issue
that Harrison Kelly was raising was that Urp and sablesk
you didn't agree with like you were saying, like they're
saying like, yeah, you can't create this out of the blue,
but you can support it. I guess what he was
saying is more he disagrees with Helen Fisher's idea, like
you were saying that it's a drive, like you can't
(35:38):
compare attachment to hunger, Like attachment is its own thing,
it's separate from all that. So you're not boosting attachment.
You're boosting the trappings of attachment. The feelings that you
get from attachment are being boosted, But don't make any
mistake that you're actually boosting attachment itself. Yeah, is what
he's saying, That it's it's more than just some sort
(36:00):
of biochemical dribe so yeah, in a way, he's certainly
arguing and at the same time supporting their point.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
I think, yeah, I think, I think I agree, that's
exactly what you're saying. And then you know, of course
we have to talk finally about the fact that you know,
these kind of things in the wrong hands. You know,
we've talked about spiking a drink or something like that
being just an awful thing to do.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
Conversion therapy.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
I could definitely see this getting into the hands of
people who think they could use it to convert lg
BTQ people like, you know, hey, let's just go put.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Two people in a room.
Speaker 3 (36:37):
Together of you know, put a man and a woman
there together and give them this drug and see if
that cures them.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
That kind of thing exactly. Yeah, there's a lot of
ways that it can be misused, and I think Erp
and Seveleski were criticized as basically saying, like, no, you
just make sure that you regulate them and make sure
that the that they're prescribed correctly, and they were definitely
called out as naive for suggesting that that's the only
way that they would be used. So, yeah, that is
(37:03):
definitely something that makes it fraud for sure, I agree, fraud.
You got anything else about love drugs coming soon? Now?
Speaker 2 (37:12):
It seems like it's coming soon in some way or another.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
Yep, for sure. And if you want to know more
about love drugs, just wait, I guess, and see what
happens and see if you can get your doctor to
prescribe them. And in the meantime, it's time for listener mail.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Yeah, I'm gonna call this.
Speaker 3 (37:30):
I'm glad I got this email because I've been getting
this wrong all these years. What with this song title?
Speaker 1 (37:36):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Or I guess the singer?
Speaker 3 (37:39):
Hey, guys, listen to the episode on Share one of
you mentioned and it was me Chuck working at retail
at Christmas. It was at the gap and repeatedly hearing
the song Santa's Got a brand New Bag by James Taylor,
which you know you corrected me in the moment. Obviously
it's James Brown, he said. James Brown is also incorrect.
(37:59):
The song is clear and homage to James Brown. It
is actually by a bunch of white kids from Detroit
called Bob Seger, and the last heard, Oh wow, yes
that Bob Seger.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
He says.
Speaker 3 (38:11):
The title is socket to me Sanna, and it was
released in nineteen sixty six on the Cameo Parkway Records label,
Probably my favorite Christmas song. In twenty eighteen, in anthology
of Last Heard Singles from sixty six to sixty seven
was released I believe the first time they've been compiled
in one place. This is also an unrelated R and
B funk song. Oh, there is also an unrelated R
(38:32):
and B funk song called Socket to Him Sanna by
Joe Chanal circus sixty eight. That's worth a listen. And
of course James Brown does have a Christmas album with
some pretty great tunes, and he died on Christmas Day.
Speaker 1 (38:43):
I didn't know thousand and six. Yeah, yeah, wow, that
are some deep cuts. Who is that?
Speaker 3 (38:48):
I didn't even bother looking at any of this stuff up,
So I hope Kevin Schneider is right. He certainly comes
across as confidence, so I believed every word.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
Yep, same here, Kevin. Thank you for mesmerizing us with
your musical novel. And if you want to be like
Kevin and mesmerize us, take your best shot. You can
send it off to Stuff Podcast at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 3 (39:11):
Stuff you Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio for
more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff You Should Know News
Hosts And Creators
Josh Clark
Chuck Bryant
Show Links
Order Our BookStoreSYSK ArmyAboutRSSPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
3. Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.