Humanity has mapped the earth, so you can’t discover any new continents, mountains, oceans, or rivers. We’ve mapped the stars, and though we haven’t named every single asteroid, the major planets and comets are already taken. 

We’ve filled in the periodic table, so you can’t discover any new elements. No chance to name Nobelium or Curium after one of your heroes, no chance to get your name on the Wikipedia page for Ytterbium. But you can still discover the drives.

Being sleepy, hungry, and horny are all different from each other, different kinds of motivation that point towards different behaviors and are satisfied by different things. They are different drives. We have drives for food, water, sex, safety, status, and more.

Maybe a lot more. Because that’s the thing. We don’t know how many drives we have, and we certainly don’t know what each drive is for. Every single thing you do, from eating an omelette to renting a jetski, is backed by some kind of motivation. At minimum we should have a list, but we don’t, which seems like a glaring omission.

Worse, some of the drives that come to mind are probably more than one drive. Everyone agrees that hunger is distinct from other drives like fatigue or pain. But it’s hard to explain things like cravings for specific foods without admitting more than one kind of hunger. It’s hard to explain why you might crave chocolate one day and cheese the next, and ramen the day after that, if there aren’t separate drives for multiple different nutrients. 

If you had just a single hunger drive for calories, you would just eat whatever the highest-calorie food available was, maybe literally handfuls of sugar. Instead, people eat and crave a wide variety of foods, suggesting a variety of distinct hunger drives for different nutrients. It’s hard to explain the “dessert stomach” — where, after a filling dinner, you unexpectedly find room for dessert — without accepting that you might satisfy your drive for savory foods and still have an unsatisfied drive for sweets. 

At minimum, there’s a drive for salt. We like salty food, to the point where there’s a shaker of pure salt sitting on most kitchen tables around most of the world. No one remarks on this because it’s so common; but if hunger were just about calories, we wouldn’t prefer salty food, and we certainly wouldn’t sprinkle pure salt over our scrambled eggs. But we do, so it looks like we have a dedicated drive for salt. 

So we probably have more than one kind of hunger drive, maybe dozens. The same is probably true for other drives. People clearly have a drive for safety, which is expressed as fear. But is the fear of social exclusion you feel when you worry about getting kicked out of your pickleball league the same as the fear you would feel if you were dropped into a cage with a hungry tiger? We know that people are motivated by status, but is there exactly one drive for one kind of status, or do you get different kinds of status from being a rock star vs. a reliable pillar of your community? Are these supported by different drives? No one knows.

This is basically the same situation we faced at the start of chemistry. Everyone agreed on the existence of some elements, usually earth, air, water, and fire. But closer inspection usually pushed people to accept there were more elements, like mercury or sulphur. Without these extra elements, it was hard to explain why some kinds of “earth” would melt when exposed to heat, and others would burn. 

This came to a head when careful examination of combustion began to show that there were many different “airs” with totally different properties, leading Van Helmont to coin the term “gas”. It became hard not to suspect that maybe these different gases might themselves be different elements. Finally Lavoisier comes out and says, we clearly don’t know how many elements there are, but maybe there are a lot of them. Like, ten or more! And from that point, chemistry as we know it was born. 

It would be hard to take care of yourself in a society that doesn’t distinguish between being hungry and being thirsty. You’d be pretty blind, sometimes you’d be like “what’s wrong with me” and have a hard time figuring it out. You might eke it out in day-to-day life, but you might also pack lots of granola bars and zero water for your three-day hike in the desert. Imagine if we didn’t know that being afraid was different from being tired, or that being too warm was different from being pissed off. Imagine how fucked you would be.  

But that’s the situation we’re in right now. Right now! There are lots of drives that we haven’t discovered, and the distinctions we have are totally informal. There’s no process or set of criteria that helps us establish whether two drives are different, or link a drive to a behavior. The distinctions we use just cropped up in our language and culture and now we’re like, yeah fear and desire seem different. But we still have pointless debates about things like “is love different from lust”. This is because these distinctions are unexamined and unstudied — but this is something we can fix.   

We agree that there’s a sex drive, but how much do we know about it? Is there just one sex drive, or might there be more than one? People don’t just fuck, they also cuddle. Sometimes a lot. Seems like there might be a separate cuddle drive.  

We come up with informal language around the psychological drives all the time — this is where we get terms like “touch starved” or “hangry”. It’s hard to live in a body and not notice some of this stuff, notice that it’s obviously true. But our ontology hasn’t caught up. Again, this is a lot like the situation we were in before we started looking for the elements. Imagine how far you could go in chemistry without knowing about oxygen. We want to discover the cuddle drive, and we want to document it rigorously. They say a double-blind cuddle puddle is impossible, but how can they be so sure? We want to know, what does it mean to be hangry? 

Born Too Late to Explore the Earth, Born too Early to Explore the Galaxy, Born Just in Time to Discover the Drives

The list of human psychological drives is just as fundamental as “how many continents are there on Earth” or “what is the genetic code made of, how many letters” or “how many chemical elements are there”. There are a finite list of drives, and with some work we can discover and name them all. But unlike the continents and the elements, which people already got to in the 19th century, the list of drives is basically undiscovered.

Like the 18th century chemists, we will have to invent new research methods for our new questions. But we already have a rough sense of how that would work. 

As one example: in issue 1 of THE LOOP, Chandler Garret writes about how he craved “gimme^®” brand roasted seaweed snacks, but noticed that they contained almost no nutritional value — just a tiny amount of salt, fiber, and fat, which he could equally well get from any other food. So why did he crave them? 

Well, they do contain a pretty good dose of iodine, 55 mcg or 35% of the FDA daily value. He thought this might be good evidence for an iodine drive — without an iodine drive, it’s not clear why he would be interested in these snacks at all, since they barely contain anything else! To test this,  he supplemented high doses of iodine solution for 27 days. The result? “I found that seaweed snacks now tasted like dry plastic,” he wrote on day 18. “Almost no appeal at all.” 

This is a sample size of just one, but it’s already pretty strong evidence that at least this one person has a drive for iodine; and if one human has that drive, other humans probably have it too. It’s not clear why he would crave seaweed snacks if he didn’t have a drive for something in the snacks. Seaweed snacks contain very little nutrition, so it’s hard to imagine what that nutrient could be if it wasn’t iodine. And it’s hard to explain why supplementing iodine for a couple weeks would make the seaweed snacks repulsive, unless he finally satisfied his iodine drive and quieted the only part of his mind that wanted to put sheets of dried algae in his mouth in the first place. Who thought that was a good idea? Well, the iodine drive did. 

Institute for Drive Studies

We’ll level with you: this is a funding proposal, to do the first step in the work that we described in The Mind in the Wheel. 

We think that the list of psychological drives is one of the most important open questions in science, and if we got a no-strings-attached budget, this is one of the main things we would work on. If you’re disappointed that you missed out on astronomy, physics, and chemistry, this is another bite at the apple.

People think about discovering chemistry and they imagine things like atomic number or isotopes or atomic weight. Those are all pretty important. But before you can discover this information for each element, you need a list of the elements in the first place!

Imagine it’s 1789 and you’re an early chemist. Starting from 1789, it will take 150 years and untold resources to discover the periodic table and fill it in. But you have no idea how long the whole process will take, let alone how long it will take to discover the next element, because no one has ever done this before.

It won’t take us as long to discover the drives as it did for chemists to discover the elements, because we have their example to guide us, and we also have computers. We think that some big discoveries might happen very, very fast. But it will still take a long time and it’s kind of hard to scope. This is a pretty big project. 

But the fact that it’s such a huge fundamental question is part of the appeal. If you had the chance to go back and fund the discovery of Carbon and Oxygen, and maybe get them named after yourself — wouldn’t you?