斑马为什么不得胃溃疡
出版时间：2004-7 出版社：中国社会科学出版社 作者：萨波斯
Tag标签：无
用户评论 (总计5条)
- 问：人为什么会生病？
答：不知道，至少科学界还没有定论。第一推动丛书有一本《我们为什么生病--达尔文医学的新科学》，专门讲这个，不过也是一家之言。
因此，当前生病的最大作用在于提醒功能。你的身体用生病来告诉你：你出问题了！再这么搞就要出大问题了！让你生个（小）病，给你提个醒。这告诉我们，带病坚持工作实在是找死的快捷方式。
问：为什么人会得胃溃疡？
答：最新发现证明胃溃疡并非纯粹压力使然，还有幽门杆菌等细菌的大力“协助”。压力加细菌感染约等于胃溃疡。展开来说，一点压力加大量细菌感染会导致胃溃疡，大量压力加一点细菌感染也会导致胃溃疡，总之，只要两证齐全，得胃溃疡大奖的几率就会大增。
问：为什么人受到惊吓时，经常会拉肚子？为什么人受到极度惊吓时，还可能会大小便失禁？
答：原因并不复杂，就跟战斗机进入战斗或逃命状态时一样，先丢掉“多余”的燃料箱，人也一样。紧急状态下的应急反应而已。
问：面对压力的人有哪些解压策略？
答：粗略整理了几个。
解压策略之一，找出生活中焦虑的发泄途径，定期挪出时间来做这件事。不要把舒解压力的工作积攒到周末，不要让你的发泄之道对你周遭的人造成压力。
解压策略之二，学习新出现的解压方法，但对任何流行的说法要抱有怀疑的态度。对任何新的尝试，要仔细倾听自身的反应，并相信自己的感觉。
解压策略之三，凡事尽量往好处想，同时内心还有一小部分，做最坏的打算，努力去把握这种微妙的平衡。
解压策略之四，对超乎控制、无法避免、难以弥补的坏消息，想方法逃避。
解压策略之五，要学会逐步突围压力之墙。面对一整面的压力之墙时，不应该希冀会有突破发生，有所谓单一可操控的解决之道，会让那面墙消失。反之，我们要假定这面墙可通过一系列实用的控制方法，给一层层剥去，每一步的控制面虽小，但却能够掌握。
解压策略之六，寻求可供预测的正确资讯，一般来说是有用的，但要是这种资讯来得太早或太晚，没有必要性，资讯多到本身就具有压力，或是资讯所带来的消息比我们想要知道的更糟等，就没有好处。
解压策略之七，寻求人际关系及支援是重要的，就算在现今极度个人主义的社会中，我们之中多数人也渴望属于更大的团体。但我们不要将普通的社交，误以为是真正的关系和支援。
- 网易公开课未能发布的敏感话题。
简单来讲，两种与宗教有关的疾病，神经分裂和强迫症。
萨满巫师是一种温和的神经分裂，他们能够在合适的时候满嘴胡话，听见所谓的神祗或是通灵。人类社会大概需要1%这样的人。
强迫症是可以看成是一种仪式，每天不停的重复一些事情。宗教祭祀这个职位正好为强迫症找到了一个很好的谋生途径。
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 - 这本书的大部分篇幅都在说压力对身体健康造成的不良影响，有生物学科普的味道，最有价值的在最后一章。
1.我们不可能接受到完全一样的外在压力，但处于同样的压力源之下，我们的身体和心理反应都有极大的差别。
2.许多放松的方法或“改变意识”的技巧，对于生理有益处。例如，受过训练的超觉静坐者，能降低很多身体代谢的指标，分娩时的疼痛及压力，能部分通过放松技巧而减轻。
3.单纯地重复某些活动，能够改变你的行为与活化压力反应之间的联结。伞兵们第一次跳伞没有不恐惧的，几乎吓个半死，但当重复这些经验并要结束时，他们中大多数人不再惧怕。他们已能将压力反应局限在恰当的时候出现，压力反应的整个心理层面，都已经习惯化了。
4."你要求给止痛药不只是为了止痛，也为了消除你的不确定感。"
5．有越多的控制感、可预期性、发泄途径及人际关系，就越能管理和去除心理压力。
6.找出生活中焦虑的发泄途径，并定期腾出时间来做这件事，是成功的策略之一。
7.面对超乎控制、无法避免、难以弥补的坏消息时，能够想办法逃避的人，是适应最好的人。
8.凡事尽量往好处想，同时内心还要有一小部分，做最坏的打算。
-
斑马为什么不会得胃溃疡？
中风是怎么回事？
针灸止痛有科学依据么？
遇到刺激时，为什么人会怒发冲冠，或者满身鸡皮疙瘩？
紧张的时候，为什么人往往会拉肚子？
情绪低落、焦虑紧张是否会造成性欲减退，甚至阳痿？……
想知道这些有趣而又看似不相关的问题的答案么？那么就看看萨波斯的这本通俗心理学读物《斑马为什么不得胃溃疡》吧。这本只有两百七十页的手册，以深入浅出、轻松诙谐的文笔生动地向我们描绘了压力是如何逐步影响我们身心健康的。虽然标明是解压手册，却绝非只是罗列一些缓解压力的窍门、口诀之类，倒更像是一本关于压力生理学的科普读物。
全书主要分为两大部分，前半部分主要阐述机理，结合诸多身边随处可见的病症，详细解释了压力系统怎样在人体内起作用的，也是本书的精华所在；后半部分着重应对之策，讲述如何处置压力和管理压力。作为医学科班出身的作者，全书都是以探讨、探索的方式展开讲述，由浅入深、由表及里，从一个主题延伸的另一主题，叙述严谨，逻辑清楚，而且文笔生动有趣，读来让人耳目一新，却又心悦诚服。
虽然当今科技高度发达，医学技术也日新月异，但是对于生命的秘密、人体的复杂性等方面的认知，仍犹若管中窥豹、只见一斑。记得以前曾读过《身体的力量：自愈的秘密》，作者是英国的一个全科医生，从自己几十年的行医经历中发现人体其实原本具有很强的自我修复能力。不过书中并没有考虑人的精神心里因素的影响（关于精神因素的阐述有专门的书（精神的力量），而且更多的是在描述现象而非揭示机理。而《斑马》这本书，萨波斯则更注重讲述知识和探索机理，以丰富的科学实验和严密的逻辑推理为基础，知识性和趣味性兼顾，面向读者，娓娓道来，读过之后，颇有收获。
初遇此书，首先被题目吸引，随手翻来竟发觉大有意趣。对比国内某些类似读物，往往难脱俗套，或只偏重知识而类似教科书，或只重实践而若守则规范，往往难以同时兼顾趣味性和知识性。曾想若是国内人来写这本书的话，估计会取《压力致病大揭秘》、《克服压力的七种秘籍》或者《压力让你生病》等等这样俗套的名字吧？！
不过，俗套的也不仅仅是名字吧？
- 这本书在04年的当年卖的很好，是职场流行的书籍，不过好快即沉寂。
职场压力大嘛，都市生活压力大，其实，人人皆不易，人人有压力，有压力嘛，就可以读读看，也许是适合你的哦。
我记得李敖先生多次说过这样的话：哲学家（殷海光）得了胃癌死掉了，这是什么呀！等于是神父得了梅毒！
在没有读这本书前，我就知道郁郁寡欢的人胃总是不好的，总憋着肚子里生闷气，时间久了，不得胃炎就有癌变的可能了！
换言之，心理问题和生理问题的互相转化已经被现代医学所证实了的，作为神经医学（人类学，灵长类科学）的专家--本书的作者：斯坦福大学教授 Dr.Robert Sabolsky ，绝对是著述此类作品的当然之选。
使用谷歌和百度并没有多少“萨波斯”是资料，有些都是写明“萨波斯基”，都是台湾的网页，看来中国社会科学出版社并没有得到Robert Sabolsky 本人的授权。版权来路曲折哦！
此外，Robert Sabolsky 著作多多，可以使用英文搜索来看。