斑馬為什么不得胃潰瘍

用戶評(píng)論 (總計(jì)5條)

•   　　問：人為什么會(huì)生病？
  　　答：不知道，至少科學(xué)界還沒有定論。第一推動(dòng)叢書有一本《我們?yōu)槭裁瓷?-達(dá)爾文醫(yī)學(xué)的新科學(xué)》，專門講這個(gè)，不過也是一家之言。
  　　因此，當(dāng)前生病的最大作用在于提醒功能。你的身體用生病來告訴你：你出問題了！再這么搞就要出大問題了！讓你生個(gè)（?。┎?，給你提個(gè)醒。這告訴我們，帶病堅(jiān)持工作實(shí)在是找死的快捷方式。
  　　
  　　問：為什么人會(huì)得胃潰瘍？
  　　答：最新發(fā)現(xiàn)證明胃潰瘍并非純粹壓力使然，還有幽門桿菌等細(xì)菌的大力“協(xié)助”。壓力加細(xì)菌感染約等于胃潰瘍。展開來說，一點(diǎn)壓力加大量細(xì)菌感染會(huì)導(dǎo)致胃潰瘍，大量壓力加一點(diǎn)細(xì)菌感染也會(huì)導(dǎo)致胃潰瘍，總之，只要兩證齊全，得胃潰瘍大獎(jiǎng)的幾率就會(huì)大增。
  　　
  　　問：為什么人受到驚嚇時(shí)，經(jīng)常會(huì)拉肚子？為什么人受到極度驚嚇時(shí)，還可能會(huì)大小便失禁？
  　　答：原因并不復(fù)雜，就跟戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)進(jìn)入戰(zhàn)斗或逃命狀態(tài)時(shí)一樣，先丟掉“多余”的燃料箱，人也一樣。緊急狀態(tài)下的應(yīng)急反應(yīng)而已。
  　　
  　　問：面對(duì)壓力的人有哪些解壓策略？
  　　答：粗略整理了幾個(gè)。
  　　
  　　解壓策略之一，找出生活中焦慮的發(fā)泄途徑，定期挪出時(shí)間來做這件事。不要把舒解壓力的工作積攢到周末，不要讓你的發(fā)泄之道對(duì)你周遭的人造成壓力。
  　　
  　　解壓策略之二，學(xué)習(xí)新出現(xiàn)的解壓方法，但對(duì)任何流行的說法要抱有懷疑的態(tài)度。對(duì)任何新的嘗試，要仔細(xì)傾聽自身的反應(yīng)，并相信自己的感覺。
  　　
  　　解壓策略之三，凡事盡量往好處想，同時(shí)內(nèi)心還有一小部分，做最壞的打算，努力去把握這種微妙的平衡。
  　　
  　　解壓策略之四，對(duì)超乎控制、無法避免、難以彌補(bǔ)的壞消息，想方法逃避。
  　　
  　　解壓策略之五，要學(xué)會(huì)逐步突圍壓力之墻。面對(duì)一整面的壓力之墻時(shí)，不應(yīng)該希冀會(huì)有突破發(fā)生，有所謂單一可操控的解決之道，會(huì)讓那面墻消失。反之，我們要假定這面墻可通過一系列實(shí)用的控制方法，給一層層剝?nèi)ィ恳徊降目刂泼骐m小，但卻能夠掌握。
  　　
  　　解壓策略之六，尋求可供預(yù)測(cè)的正確資訊，一般來說是有用的，但要是這種資訊來得太早或太晚，沒有必要性，資訊多到本身就具有壓力，或是資訊所帶來的消息比我們想要知道的更糟等，就沒有好處。
  　　
  　　解壓策略之七，尋求人際關(guān)系及支援是重要的，就算在現(xiàn)今極度個(gè)人主義的社會(huì)中，我們之中多數(shù)人也渴望屬于更大的團(tuán)體。但我們不要將普通的社交，誤以為是真正的關(guān)系和支援。
  　　
•   　　網(wǎng)易公開課未能發(fā)布的敏感話題。
  　　
  　　簡(jiǎn)單來講，兩種與宗教有關(guān)的疾病，神經(jīng)分裂和強(qiáng)迫癥。
  　　
  　　薩滿巫師是一種溫和的神經(jīng)分裂，他們能夠在合適的時(shí)候滿嘴胡話，聽見所謂的神祗或是通靈。人類社會(huì)大概需要1%這樣的人。
  　　
  　　強(qiáng)迫癥是可以看成是一種儀式，每天不停的重復(fù)一些事情。宗教祭祀這個(gè)職位正好為強(qiáng)迫癥找到了一個(gè)很好的謀生途徑。
  　　
  　　One of them has to do with one of the great puzzles when people think about the evolution of psychiatric disorders. Ever deal with anybody with one of the most horrendous of all psychiatric diseases, schizophrenia, and you come away just appalled at how a life can be demolished by some biological storm in the brain. Schizophrenia: a disease of disordered thought, disconnected socialization, hallucinations, paranoia, delusions, a 50% rate of attempted suicide. This is a totally disastrous disease, and it's one that we're very, very slowly beginning to understand the neurochemistry of.
  　　
  　　One of the keys about schizophrenia is that it's a disorder with a genetic component. That doesn't mean it is genetically guaranteed. It is not genetically determined. There is a genetic risk for this disease, as is the case with most psychiatric disorders.
  　　
  　　he minute you see there's any genetics on the scene, you've got to ask an evolutionary question, which is: "Where did these genes evolve from?" Why do we have schizophrenia in every culture on this planet? From an evolutionary perspective, schizophrenia is not a cool thing to have.
  　　
  　　What's evolution about? Evolution is the process by which adaptive traits become more common. Schizophrenia is not an adaptive trait. You can show this formally: schizophrenics have a lower rate of leaving copies of their genes in the next generation than unaffected siblings. By the rules, by the economics of evolution, this is a maladaptive trait. Yet, it chugs along at a one to two percent rate in every culture on this planet.
  　　
  　　So what's the adaptive advantage of schizophrenia? It has to do with a classic truism--this business that sometimes you have a genetic trait which in the full-blown version is a disaster, but the partial version is good news.
  　　
  　　What's the example we all learned in the textbook case? Sickle-cell anemia: full-blown version, fatal hematological disorder; partial version, you don't get malaria. Tay Sachs disease: full-blown version, your nervous system is destroyed within a couple of months of life; partial version, you're resistant to tuberculosis. Cystic fibrosis: full-blown version, you're typically dead by 20; partial version, you're resistant to cholera. This turns out to be a theme with a lot of human genetics. As long as there's enough folks with the advantageous partial version, you can afford the occasional cousin with the full-blown version.
  　　
  　　Evidence suggests this is what the genetics of schizophrenia is about. What's the partial version? It's the disease that got identified about 30 years ago. The first study that found genetic evidence for schizophrenics looked at about 20,000 people adopted in Denmark, looking at patterns of inheritability of schizophrenia; were you likely to share schizophrenic traits with your adopted parents, or your biological parents?
  　　
  　　This was a massive multi-year study. Psychiatrists talked to more relatives of schizophrenics than any psychiatrists had ever done before in a career. What they noticed was, there's something kind of weird about relatives of schizophrenics--not every single one of them, but at higher than expected rates. This "kinda weirdness" is now called "schizotypal personality."
  　　
  　　What is schizotypal? It's a more subtle version of schizophrenia. This is not somebody who's completely socially crippled; they're just solitary, detached: these are the lighthouse keepers, the projectionists in the movie theaters. These are not people who are thought-disordered to the point of being completely nonfunctional; these are people who just believe in kinda strange stuff. They are into their Star Trek conventions. They're into their astrology, they're into their telepathy and their paranormal beliefs, they're into--and you can see now where I'm heading [laughter]--very, very literal, concrete interpretations of religious events.
  　　
  　　Schizophrenics have a whole lot of trouble telling the level of abstraction of a story. They're always biased in the direction of interpreting things more concretely than is actually the case. You would take a schizopohrenic and say, "Okay, what do apples, bananas and oranges have in common?" and they would say, "They all are multi-syllabic words." [laughter] You say "Well, that's true. Do they have anything else in common?" and they say, "Yes, they actually all contain letters that form closed loops." [laughter] This is not seeing the trees instead of the forest, this is seeing the bark on the trees, this very concreteness.
  　　
  　　What you find with schizotypals is what is called metamagical thinking, a very strong interest in new-age beliefs, science fiction, fantasy, religion, but in a very concrete, literal form, a very fundamentalist style. Somebody walking on water is not a metaphor. Somebody rising from the dead is not a metaphor; this is reported, literal fact.
  　　
  　　Now we have to ask our evolutionary question: "Who are the schizotypals throughout 99% of human history?" And in the 1930s, decades before the word "schizotypal" even existed, anthropologists already had the answer.
  　　
  　　It's the shamans. It's the medicine men. It's the medicine women. It's the witch doctors. In the 1930s an anthropologist named Paul Radin first described it as "shamans being half mad," shamans being "healed madmen." This fits exactly. It's the shamans who are moving separate from everyone else, living alone, who talk with the dead, who speak in tongues, who go out with the full moon and turn into a hyena overnight, and that sort of stuff. It's the shamans who have all this metamagical thinking. When you look at traditional human society, they all have shamans. What's very clear, though, is they all have a limit on the number of shamans. That is this classic sort of balanced selection of evolution. There is a need for this subtype--but not too many.
  　　
  　　The critical thing with schizotypal shamanism is, it is not uncontrolled the way it is in the schizophrenic. This is not somebody babbling in tongues all the time in the middle of the hunt. This is someone babbling during the right ceremony. This is not somebody hearing voices all the time, this is somebody hearing voices only at the right point. It's a milder, more controlled version.
  　　
  　　Shamans are not evolutionarily unfit. Shamans are not leaving fewer copies of their genes. These are some of the most powerful, honored members of society. This is where the selection is coming from. What this shamanistic theory says is, it's not schizophrenia that's evolved, it's schizotypal shamanism that's evolved. In order to have a couple of shamans on hand in your group, you're willing to put up with the occasional third cousin who's schizophrenic. That's the argument; and it's a very convincing one.
  　　
  　　If you look at all these 1930s and 1940s anthropologists, there's a certain dead-white-male racism that runs through all of this stuff that anthropology still has not recovered from. If you read their writings, what was between the lines--and often not between the lines--was, this is about "them." This is about the folks with the bones in their noses and no clothes who wind up in the National Geographic nudie pictures. These are them and their subjective paranormal beliefs; thank God we live in objective modern societies. [laughter]
  　　
  　　What is perfectly obvious here is that this entire picture applies just as readily to our western cultures. Western religions, all the leading religions, have this schizotypalism shot through them from top to bottom. It's that same exact principle: it's great having one of these guys, but we sure wouldn't want to have three of them in our tribe. Overdo it, and our schizotypalism in the Western religious setting is what we call a "cult," and there you are in the realm of a Charles Manson or a David Koresh or a Jim Jones. You can only do post-hoc forensic psychiatry on Koresh and Jones, but Charles Manson is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. But get it just right, and people are gonna get the day off from work on your birthday for millennia to come. [laughter]
  　　
  　　This is great! I think this is the first time I've ever said that line without somebody getting up and leaving in a huff from the audience. [laughter] It's very nice being here. Thank you! [applause]
  　　
  　　Foundation member Freda von Houten, Ariz., and others line up to get their books autographed by author Robert Sapolsky.
  　　What I've just been considering is the superstructure of religion--the big building blocks: there are multiple deities, there is but one god and he is Allah, "I am who I am," any version of this--is an awful lot like schizotypalism. Who is it that invented the notion that virgins can give birth? Who is it who first came in with the extremely psychiatrically suspect report about hearing a voice in a burning bush? In most of the cases we don't know much about the psychiatric status of these folks. In the more recent historical cases, we certainly do, and schizotypalism is at the heart of non-Western and Westernized large theological systems.
  　　
  　　Now the second chunk of neuropsychiatry and religion I want to talk about is one that shifts to a different scale of what religion is about. Certainly a big chunk of religion is these big theological bits of superstructure that you build your whole belief system on. But what religion very often really is about is the daily behaviors. The daily rituals. Insofar as the devil is in the details, god is in the details too. It's in that realm where we can get insight into the roots of this aspect of religiosity: another neuropsychiatric disorder.
  　　
  　　Now I will guarantee that just as all of us have those frontal thoughts, fortunately inhibited, probably all of us find ourselves, during some stressful period, not being able to stop from counting the number of steps as you go up a flight of stairs. Or you get some incredibly irritating TV jingle stuck in your head for half the day.
  　　
  　　Or: you've got some really important letter that you need to mail off, so you go to the mailbox, you put it in the mailbox, and you make sure it goes down, because this letter's really important. Then you check again, just to make sure [laughter], and you just want to make really sure, and there's nobody else around, so you look underneath. We all do this . . . actually, maybe we don't all do this so I'm embarrassing myself horribly [laughter]--but my guess is, this sort of ritualism is what we do during times of anxiety. It's creating solid ground when the most fundamental ground is like quicksand underneath us.
  　　
  　　In the last 30 years we've seen a whole new psychiatric disorder, of people whose rituals take over and destroy their lives. OCD: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. These are people who don't merely find themselves counting when they go up a flight of stairs--these are people whose lives are destroyed by this disorder. They wash their hands eight hours a day. They stop eating most foods because of the conviction of contamination, germs. They get very ritualistic and phobic about entering spaces, leaving spaces. They can't enter a building until they've walked a number of steps that's a prime number. Very mathematical numerology comes through this, and it is an utterly paralyzing disease. This is one of these biological disorders that destroyed people's lives back when, up until 30 or 40 years ago, there wasn't even a word that described this. We can describe it now, and we know a lot about the genetics of this disorder, and the neurochemistry.
  　　
  　　Where does this one fit in with religion? There's a remarkable parallelism between religious ritualism and the ritualism of OCD. In OCD, the most common rituals are the rituals of self-cleansing, of food preparation, of entering and leaving holy places of emotional significance, and rituals of numerology. You look in every major religion, and those are the four most common ritual forms that you see.
  　　
  　　You could look at any of these organized religions--though we're very accustomed by now that, when we think of religion, it's often interspersed with good works or a sense of community--and see that religion in its orthodoxy is about rules: how you do every single thing all throughout the day. You look at orthodox versions of any of these religions, and there are rules for which direction you face after you defecate, which hand you wash, how many swallowings of water, which nostril you breathe in with, which nostril you breathe out--these are all rules that Brahmans have in order to get into heaven. Numerological rules: how many times you have to say a certain prayer in a lifetime. Orthodox Judaism has this amazing set of rules: everyday there's a bunch of strictures of things you're supposed to do, a bunch you're not supposed to do, and the number you're supposed to do is the same number as the number of bones in the body. The number that you're not supposed to do is the same number as the number of days in the year. The amazing thing is, nobody knows what the rules are! [laughter] Talmudic rabbis have been scratching each others' eyes out for centuries arguing over which rules go into the 613. The numbers are more important than the content. It is sheer numerology.
  　　
  　　Then, obviously getting closer to home for most people here, there is the realm of the number of rosaries and the number of Hail Mary's. Religious ritualism is shot through with the exact same obsessive qualities.
  　　
  　　Now, when you look at this, what you immediately have to begin to ask is, "Why the similarity?" Outside of the realm of organized religion, shamanism, schizotypalism, is a little bit of a peripheralizing bunch of traits. Outside of the realm of religion, OCD destroys people's lives. It is incompatible with functioning. Not only can you function with those rituals in the religious context: you can make a living doing it. [laughter] People make a living doing rituals ritualistically in the context of religion.
  　　
  　　If you are an aged Brahman, and you feel the shadow lengthening, and you haven't done the 2,400,000 versions of a certain mantra you need to do in your lifetime, you can hire a whole bunch of other Brahmans who will come and have this whole big numerology blowout for you [laughter], and they will come and count for you, and you pay them.
  　　
  　　Or you can be an orthodox rabbi who spends your time in a slaughterhouse. You don't ritualistically slaughter the animals. Your job is to make sure everybody else is doing it. Your job is to ritualistically make sure they follow the rituals. And you get paid, and you get your health insurance. In the crudest sort of anthopological terms of economics, while the peasants are sweating to produce the bread that they need to consume, they're sweating to produce the bread that the clergy is consuming as well. We are paying, thoughout history, for people who are the best, most avid, psychiatrically-driven performers of ritual.
  　　
  　　To get a real insight into this, we have to come back to that question, "Why is there this similarity between religious ritualism and OCD rituals?"
  　　
  　　You could say, "It's just by chance."
  　　
  　　Or you could say, "There's a biological convergence going on there." It's not random that we're most concerned with rituals about keeping our bodies healthy, our food clean, that sort of stuff.
  　　
  　　But another answer in there has got to be, "People with OCD invented a lot of these religious rituals."
  　　
  　　Let me give you one example of this. A 16th-century Augustinian monk named Luder for some reason left a very detailed diary. This is a man who grew up with an extremely brutal father, had a very anxious relationship with him, was very psychosomatic-illness-oriented. One day he was out walking in the field. There was a thunderstorm, and he got a panic attack, and vowed, "If I'm allowed to survive this, I will become a monk and devote the rest of my life to God." He survives, becomes a monk, and throws himself into this ritualism with a frenzy. This was an order of monks that was silent 20-some hours a day. Nonetheless, he had four hours worth of confessions to make every day: "I didn't say this prayer as devoutly as I should have. My mind wandered when I was doing this, doing that." The first time he ran a mass, he had to do it over and over because he got the details wrong. He would drive his Father Superior crazy with his hours and hours of confession every day: "God is going to be angry at me for doing this, because I said this, and I didn't think this much, and I didn't do this the right way, and I . . ." until the Father Superior got exasperated with him and came up with a statement that is shockingly modern in its insight. He said, "The problem isn't that God is angry with you. The problem is that you're angry with God." The most telling detail about this monk was, he washed and washed and washed. As he put it in his diary: "The more you wash, the dirtier you get." Classic OCD.
  　　
  　　The reason why we know about this man Luder is because we know him by the Anglicized version of his name: Martin Luther. [laughter]
  　　
  　　Schizotypalism and OCD are but two examples. There are aspects of brain damage you can get with a certain type of epilepsy, making you fascinated with religious subjects. There's another part of the brain which, when damaged, creates trouble seeing the connections between cause and effect. The formal behaviorist term for it is, you are more subject to superstitious conditioning.
  　　
  　　What is it that one winds up concluding from this? Am I saying you gotta be crazy to be religious? No. [laughter]
  　　
  　　Am I saying most people who are religious have to be neuropsychiatrically suspect? Not even saying that, either.
  　　
  　　It is absolutely fascinating if these hiccups of biological abnormality explain even one single person in all of history who has reached their religious beliefs for those reasons.
  　　
  　　Am I saying that the undercurrent of this is trying to pathologize how to think about religion? On a certain level. But as a scientist, what one should find absolutely equally fascinating is how it works in the opposite direction.
  　　
  　　I was raised in an Orthodox household, and I was raised devoutly religious up until around age 13 or so. In my adolescent years, one of the defining actions in my life was breaking away from all religious belief whatsoever. What does it say if, in all of history, there was even one religious person whose religiosity was due to some neurotransmitter hiccup, and in all of history there was even one person whose atheism was due to a different type of neurotransmitter hiccup?
  　　
  　　http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2003/april/index.php?ft=sapolsky
•   　　這本書的大部分篇幅都在說壓力對(duì)身體健康造成的不良影響，有生物學(xué)科普的味道，最有價(jià)值的在最后一章。
  　　
  　　1.我們不可能接受到完全一樣的外在壓力，但處于同樣的壓力源之下，我們的身體和心理反應(yīng)都有極大的差別。
  　　
  　　2.許多放松的方法或“改變意識(shí)”的技巧，對(duì)于生理有益處。例如，受過訓(xùn)練的超覺靜坐者，能降低很多身體代謝的指標(biāo)，分娩時(shí)的疼痛及壓力，能部分通過放松技巧而減輕。
  　　
  　　3.單純地重復(fù)某些活動(dòng)，能夠改變你的行為與活化壓力反應(yīng)之間的聯(lián)結(jié)。傘兵們第一次跳傘沒有不恐懼的，幾乎嚇個(gè)半死，但當(dāng)重復(fù)這些經(jīng)驗(yàn)并要結(jié)束時(shí)，他們中大多數(shù)人不再懼怕。他們已能將壓力反應(yīng)局限在恰當(dāng)?shù)臅r(shí)候出現(xiàn)，壓力反應(yīng)的整個(gè)心理層面，都已經(jīng)習(xí)慣化了。
  　　
  　　4."你要求給止痛藥不只是為了止痛，也為了消除你的不確定感。"
  　　
  　　5．有越多的控制感、可預(yù)期性、發(fā)泄途徑及人際關(guān)系，就越能管理和去除心理壓力。
  　　
  　　6.找出生活中焦慮的發(fā)泄途徑，并定期騰出時(shí)間來做這件事，是成功的策略之一。
  　　
  　　7.面對(duì)超乎控制、無法避免、難以彌補(bǔ)的壞消息時(shí)，能夠想辦法逃避的人，是適應(yīng)最好的人。
  　　
  　　8.凡事盡量往好處想，同時(shí)內(nèi)心還要有一小部分，做最壞的打算。
  　　
•   　　
  　　
  　　斑馬為什么不會(huì)得胃潰瘍？
  　　
  　　中風(fēng)是怎么回事？
  　　
  　　針灸止痛有科學(xué)依據(jù)么？
  　　
  　　遇到刺激時(shí)，為什么人會(huì)怒發(fā)沖冠，或者滿身雞皮疙瘩？
  　　
  　　緊張的時(shí)候，為什么人往往會(huì)拉肚子？
  　　
  　　情緒低落、焦慮緊張是否會(huì)造成性欲減退，甚至陽痿？……
  　　
  　　想知道這些有趣而又看似不相關(guān)的問題的答案么？那么就看看薩波斯的這本通俗心理學(xué)讀物《斑馬為什么不得胃潰瘍》吧。這本只有兩百七十頁的手冊(cè)，以深入淺出、輕松詼諧的文筆生動(dòng)地向我們描繪了壓力是如何逐步影響我們身心健康的。雖然標(biāo)明是解壓手冊(cè)，卻絕非只是羅列一些緩解壓力的竅門、口訣之類，倒更像是一本關(guān)于壓力生理學(xué)的科普讀物。
  　　
  　　全書主要分為兩大部分，前半部分主要闡述機(jī)理，結(jié)合諸多身邊隨處可見的病癥，詳細(xì)解釋了壓力系統(tǒng)怎樣在人體內(nèi)起作用的，也是本書的精華所在；后半部分著重應(yīng)對(duì)之策，講述如何處置壓力和管理壓力。作為醫(yī)學(xué)科班出身的作者，全書都是以探討、探索的方式展開講述，由淺入深、由表及里，從一個(gè)主題延伸的另一主題，敘述嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)，邏輯清楚，而且文筆生動(dòng)有趣，讀來讓人耳目一新，卻又心悅誠(chéng)服。
  　　
  　　雖然當(dāng)今科技高度發(fā)達(dá)，醫(yī)學(xué)技術(shù)也日新月異，但是對(duì)于生命的秘密、人體的復(fù)雜性等方面的認(rèn)知，仍猶若管中窺豹、只見一斑。記得以前曾讀過《身體的力量：自愈的秘密》，作者是英國(guó)的一個(gè)全科醫(yī)生，從自己幾十年的行醫(yī)經(jīng)歷中發(fā)現(xiàn)人體其實(shí)原本具有很強(qiáng)的自我修復(fù)能力。不過書中并沒有考慮人的精神心里因素的影響（關(guān)于精神因素的闡述有專門的書（精神的力量），而且更多的是在描述現(xiàn)象而非揭示機(jī)理。而《斑馬》這本書，薩波斯則更注重講述知識(shí)和探索機(jī)理，以豐富的科學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)和嚴(yán)密的邏輯推理為基礎(chǔ)，知識(shí)性和趣味性兼顧，面向讀者，娓娓道來，讀過之后，頗有收獲。
  　　
  　　初遇此書，首先被題目吸引，隨手翻來竟發(fā)覺大有意趣。對(duì)比國(guó)內(nèi)某些類似讀物，往往難脫俗套，或只偏重知識(shí)而類似教科書，或只重實(shí)踐而若守則規(guī)范，往往難以同時(shí)兼顧趣味性和知識(shí)性。曾想若是國(guó)內(nèi)人來寫這本書的話，估計(jì)會(huì)取《壓力致病大揭秘》、《克服壓力的七種秘籍》或者《壓力讓你生病》等等這樣俗套的名字吧？！
  　　
  　　不過，俗套的也不僅僅是名字吧？
  　　
  　　
  　　
•   　　這本書在04年的當(dāng)年賣的很好，是職場(chǎng)流行的書籍，不過好快即沉寂。
  　　職場(chǎng)壓力大嘛，都市生活壓力大，其實(shí)，人人皆不易，人人有壓力，有壓力嘛，就可以讀讀看，也許是適合你的哦。
  　　我記得李敖先生多次說過這樣的話：哲學(xué)家（殷海光）得了胃癌死掉了，這是什么呀！等于是神父得了梅毒！
  　　在沒有讀這本書前，我就知道郁郁寡歡的人胃總是不好的，總憋著肚子里生悶氣，時(shí)間久了，不得胃炎就有癌變的可能了！
  　　換言之，心理問題和生理問題的互相轉(zhuǎn)化已經(jīng)被現(xiàn)代醫(yī)學(xué)所證實(shí)了的，作為神經(jīng)醫(yī)學(xué)（人類學(xué)，靈長(zhǎng)類科學(xué)）的專家--本書的作者：斯坦福大學(xué)教授 Dr.Robert Sabolsky ，絕對(duì)是著述此類作品的當(dāng)然之選。
  　　使用谷歌和百度并沒有多少“薩波斯”是資料，有些都是寫明“薩波斯基”，都是臺(tái)灣的網(wǎng)頁，看來中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)出版社并沒有得到Robert Sabolsky 本人的授權(quán)。版權(quán)來路曲折哦！
  　　此外，Robert Sabolsky 著作多多，可以使用英文搜索來看。

相關(guān)圖書

• 沒有任何借口II――提升執(zhí)行力
• 自驅(qū)力
• 湖邊有棵許愿樹(靠近失去)
• 2004.1-2007.6-最新大學(xué)英語考試全真試題名師講解-4級(jí)全真試題
• 考研英語閱讀2007精選120篇
• 考研英語聽力
• 大學(xué)英語規(guī)范閱讀-2007新題型四級(jí)考試
• 2006大學(xué)英語六級(jí)考試規(guī)范閱讀160篇
• 大學(xué)英語六級(jí)考試全真試卷
• 世界上最偉大的推銷員
• 拉莫茨維小姐
• 漂亮女孩的美德
• 長(zhǎng)頸鹿的眼淚
• 永不道別的愛戀
• 時(shí)尚人物
• 時(shí)尚明星BIG
• 時(shí)尚情愛話本
• 時(shí)尚搜店地圖
• 時(shí)尚玩家
• 時(shí)尚健康護(hù)照
• 關(guān)于策略我有看法
• 世界500強(qiáng)堅(jiān)決不用的13種人
• 欲望咖啡
• 秘密藏在行囊里
• 吉檀迦利獻(xiàn)歌