from the world's big
Decades ago, ecstasy — yes, MDMA — was used in marriage counseling
A revival is occurring, and we sure can use it.
- For the first decade after it was synthesized, MDMA was used in individual and couples therapy.
- Many therapists spoke against the criminalization of MDMA in 1985 due to the drug's therapeutic potential.
- A revival has occurred in recent years, with the government allowing clinical trials to move forward.
Before the second "M" was affixed to "MDA," researchers spent decades searching for a utility for the mescaline derivative. Patented as "methylsafrylamin" in 1914 by Merck, the drug was shelved because no one could quite figure out what to do with it — similar to the incredible story of LSD.
That was until California pharmacologist Gordon A. Alles realized that MDA was rather interesting, indeed. He partnered with Chilean psychiatrist Claudio Naranjo to test out this "psychotherapeutic" substance. Naranjo's partner, Alexander Shulgin, synthesized the more commonly known MDMA, which proved to be less hallucinogenic and less toxic than its original formation.
An early enthusiast was psychotherapist Leo Zeff, who began using psychedelics such as LSD in his practice in 1961. A few years later he discovered MDA through an associate of Shulgin. In 1977, Shulgin introduced Zeff to his new synthesis, which the therapist immediately took to. He trained more than 150 therapists in its usage over the next 12 years, administering it to over 4,000 clients.
This changed in 1985 when the U.S. government labelled MDMA a Schedule 1 drug, claiming it has no therapeutic utility. Many therapists offered testimony to the contrary, to no avail. Zeff, along with many others, went underground. This wasn't the government's first foray into an MDA derivative: in the 1950s the U.S. Army declared it to have no military use since the only feeling it seemed to invoke was compassion. In a country that spends more on defense than any other nation in history, this simply would not do.
As with many other victims of the "war on drugs," both Nixon's and Reagan's, MDMA got itself in trouble by becoming popular outside of therapy, namely on dance floors. Teenagers enjoying themselves dancing to club music was apparently a social burden. Granted, as with virtually every substance, MDMA has a toxicity level that must be recognized; not every club night ended happily. To declare it useless, however, points more to the mindset of the administration than the therapist's couch.
Rick Doblin On Using MDMA In Couples Therapy
Especially when that couch is a bed. While MDMA is now being shown to help alleviate PTSD, and many therapists used it in individual counseling in the 1970s and '80s, couples received immense benefits from ingesting this "love drug" in its early days. Rick Ingrasci, who used LSD in therapy until it was banned, turned to MDMA next. Between 1980–85, he treated 100 patients in over 150 sessions; a third of his sessions were with couples.
To be clear, MDMA is not a "sexual" drug. When Ann Shulgin, Alexander's therapist wife, administered it to patients, she made them consent to the "four agreements," one of which was "no sexual activity." Confusing boundaries could easily be breached when one is in such an open, transparent state.
That does not mean there is no sensual element. Sensuality in this context requires a redefinition, such as the way your favorite food enlivens your senses and a song embeds itself deeply into your consciousness. A strong bonding element is possible with MDMA, which applies to one's mindset as easily as relationship challenges faced by couples.
Professionals have always realized this. While Friederike Meckel Fisher was imprisoned for using psychedelics, including MDMA and LSD, in her therapy practice after a spurned client retaliated, she now advocates for their usage in couples therapy. MDMA alleviates fear, she says, which allows individuals to access parts of their minds they might normally suppress. When you feel safe being vulnerable with your partner the potential for healing and growth becomes possible.
MDMA’s impact on romantic relationships - Katie Anderson
Others are stepping forward despite the law. Katie Anderson, in the Psychology Department at London South Bank University, recruited participants in a 2016 study called "MDMA: The Love Drug." She coined the term, "MDMA bubble," to describe the "protective casing" a couple enters as the substance takes hold. The sense of connectivity it offers serves as a powerful mechanism for dealing with past traumas and moving forward with confidence and clarity.
While the legislative focus has been on the dangers of drugs, deaths related to MDMA (and psychedelics generally) often occur in unstructured environments with unreliable doses and quality. In a clinical setting this is rarely the case. MDMA has been observed to "increase heart rate, blood pressure, and body temperatures," though for healthy individuals this is not a big problem, especially when the benefits include emotional clarity, navigating intimacy, bonding, self-awareness, authenticity, expanded sensitivity, and the ability to discuss sexual fantasies in a safe environment.
MDMA could prove to be a powerful antidote to the loss of the "romance period" of new relationships as it expresses the same chemistry: dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. Considering the DEA gave the thumbs up to clinical testing of MDMA for PTSD in 2015, there is no reason for it to remain a Schedule 1 substance. There is therapeutic utility, as the above and other research shows.
Simply put, we need it. While millennials waiting longer to get married has caused a plummet in the divorce rate, American couples still split roughly half of the time. MDMA is no silver bullet, but ever since it was synthesized many have found success using it. The fact that the DEA is loosening its grip is a step in the right direction. For individuals and couples, more steps are needed.
Join us at 2 pm ET tomorrow!
The origin and phylogeny of the Yaravirus are not yet clear.
- A virus has been found whose DNA is 90% absolutely unfamiliar.
- Scientists have no real idea what it developed from, or how.
- Viruses used to be thought of as simple, jumbles of things — not so much any more.
Not so simple after all<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc2OTYzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMTQ5MDUzMX0.qZskL3RMVC2y1JIBJZx5XLodBpglbXrRDRTsurDncdg/img.jpg?width=980" id="36e18" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5514bc492f0172a324f2b5f17a10ea92" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="size comparison chart of common viruses and bacteria" />
Giant viruses compared in size to to other common viruses and bacteria
Image source: Meletios Verras/Shutterstock<p>The recent discovery of "<a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/new-discovery-adds-an-unexpected-twist-to-the-ongoing-debate-are-viruses-alive" target="_blank">giant viruses</a>" — a group to which Yaravirus doesn't belong — has revealed that the organisms are capable of things previously thought beyond their reach.</p><p>To begin with, the giant variety is roughly 10 times larger than, say, the influenza virus. With that size comes complexity, too — the flu virus has 11 genes, while a giant virus can have as many as <a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130718-viruses-pandoraviruses-science-biology-evolution/" target="_blank">2,500</a>. And that complexity has turned thinking about viruses on its head.</p><p>Conventional wisdom had been that viruses were relatively disorganized agglomerations of stray genetic material incapable of reproduction, and thus dependent on host cells for sustenance. It was previously believed that hijacking their host's metabolisms was the only way that they could survive, and that they were so incredibly simple that they weren't universally considered to be "alive."</p><p>Giant viruses, which derive their name from their oversized protein shell or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsid" target="_blank">capsid</a>, have genomes complex enough to engage in the synthesis of proteins. They are also capable of DNA repair, replications, transcription, and translation, which has changed the way scientists think about these supposedly simple organisms.</p><p>For the scientists who found the Yaravirus, virologists Bernard La Scola from Aix-Marseille University in France and Jônatas S. Abrahão from Brazil's Federal University of Minas Gerais, the discovery is just the latest enigmatic virus they've discovered. Last year, they found a pair of giant viruses (two other viral outliers) which they named as two flavors of <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/giants-viruses-discovered-brazil-among-largest-most-complex-ever-found-tupanvirus-mimivirus" target="_blank">Tupanvirus</a>: Tupanvirus soda lake and Tupanvirus deep ocean, each after the extreme aquatic environments in which they were found. They belong to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimiviridae" target="_blank">Mimiviridae</a> virus family, shown above.</p>
But Yaravirus...<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc2OTYzOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5ODA4MTM3OH0.8R-ICvvfIsefjN5bL6cA_rwwgmI9xA_Nbe4KoWn0TqU/img.jpg?width=980" id="404ca" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3b7d4180b7959398528b4e2f3a960de3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Lake Pampulha, where Yaravirus was found
Image source: Teófilo Baltor<p>Yaravirus represents the latest surprise in viruses, but it's not a giant virus —it's comprised of small particles about 80 nm in size. It's simply that its genome is so novel. </p><p>The paper notes, "Using standard protocols, our very first genetic analysis was unable to find <em>any</em> recognizable sequences of capsid or other classical viral genes in Yaravirus [our emphasis]." This leaves authors LaScola and Abrahão no option but to guess what it is. They suggest that it's likely to be the first found example of some unknown amoeba virus group, or perhaps a much-degraded version of some unknown giant virus. They can only conclude, "The amount of unknown proteins composing the Yaravirus particles reflects the variability existing in the viral world and how much potential of new viral genomes are still to be discovered."</p>
Coronavirus layoffs are a glimpse into our automated future. We need to build better education opportunities now so Americans can find work in the economy of tomorrow.
- Outplacement is an underperforming $5 billion dollar industry. A new non-profit coalition by SkillUp intends to disrupt it.
- More and more Americans will be laid off in years to come due to automation. Those people need to reorient their career paths and reskill in a way that protects their long-term livelihood.
- SkillUp brings together technology and service providers, education and training providers, hiring employers, worker outreach, and philanthropies to help people land in-demand jobs in high-growth industries.
Source: McKinsey Global Institute analysis [PDF]<p>Work in understanding the skills at the heart of the new digital economy is leading to novel assessments that allow individuals to prove mastery to faithfully represent their abilities—but also to give weight and stackability to the emerging ecosystem of micro-credentials that make education more seamless across time and education providers. And we are seeing the beginnings of a renewal in the liberal arts, focused on building human skills in affordable ways that are accessible to many more individuals and far more effective.</p><p>Amidst these dark times, there is much opportunity to refresh the nation's education and training solutions to support the success of individuals and society writ large.</p>
Do we really know what we want in a romantic partner? If so, do our desires actually mean we match up with people who suit them?
- Two separate scientific studies suggest that our "ideals" don't really match what we look for in a romantic partner.
- Results of studies like these can change the way we date, especially in the online world.
- "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there," says Paul Eastwick, co-author of the study and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology.
Do we really know what we want in love or are we just guessing?<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="204859156383d358652fda6f7eadda0f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vQgfx2iYlso?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>More than 700 participants selected their top three qualities in a romantic partner (things like funny, attractive, inquisitive, kind, etc). They then reported their romantic desire for a series of people they knew personally. Some were blind date partners, others were romantic partners and some were simply platonic friends.</p><p>While participants did experience more romantic desire to the extent that these personal connections of theirs (people they knew) had the qualities they listed, there was more to the study. </p><p>Paul Eastwick, co-author and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology <a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-romantic-partner-random-stranger.html" target="_blank">explains</a>: "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there." </p><p>The participants also considered the extent to which their personal acquaintances possessed three attributes nominated by some other random person in the study. For example, if Kris listed "down-to-earth", intelligent and thoughtful as her own top three attributes, Vanessa also experienced more desire for people with those specific traits. </p>
Does what we want really match up with what we find?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0NDA4Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NjM3NzY5OX0.gdUo-UbjYhKUDOL39BDZseRynbwaK2H5dfJtbV0nw8Y/img.jpg?width=980" id="ff376" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7c1e3a1bb9d576872ef5dce39b2e8e80" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="illustration of a man and woman matching on a dating app" />
What we claim to want and what we look for may be two separate things...
Image by GoodStudio on Shutterstock<p>So the question became: are we really listing what we want in an ideal partner or are we just listing vague qualities that people typically consider as positive?</p><p>"So in the end, we want partners who have positive qualities," Sparks explained, "but the qualities you specifically list do not actually have special predictive power for you." </p><p>In other words, the idea that we find certain things attractive in a person does not mean we actively seek out people who have those qualities, despite saying it's what we want in a love interest. The authors of this study suggest these findings could have implications for the way we approach online dating in the digital age. </p><p>This isn't the first study of its kind to suggest that what we find in love isn't really what we were looking for. The evidence suggests that we really are consistent in the abstract of it all: when asked to evaluate what you want on paper, you are more likely to suggest overall attractiveness in accordance with what you've stated are important ideals to you. But real life isn't so similar. </p><p>According to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201506/when-it-comes-love-do-you-really-know-what-you-want" target="_blank">Psychology Today,</a> who covered a 2015 study with similar results, initial face-to-face encounters have very little effect on our romantic desire. "When we initially meet someone, our level of romantic interest in the person is independent of our standards."</p><p>While you might have no immediate interest in John, he may fit your criteria of being kind, loyal, and intelligent. Similarly, someone may be attracted to Elaine even though she doesn't have any of the qualities they originally said were important to them. </p><p><strong>What does this all mean? </strong></p><p>The authors of both the 2015 and 2020 studies say the same thing: give someone a chance before writing them off as a poor match. If your initial attraction is independent of the standards you've set out, the qualities which you've listed as important to you, the first time you meet someone may not give you enough information to make an informed decision.</p><p>"It's really easy to spend time hunting around online for someone who seems to match your ideals," said Sparks, "But our research suggests an alternative approach: Don't be too picky ahead of time about whether a partner matches your ideals on paper. Or, even better, let your friends pick your dates for you." </p>