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