I read a more recent version of this book, published in 2010.
I was originally searching for a book about narcissistic personality disorder, but I'm gI read a more recent version of this book, published in 2010.
I was originally searching for a book about narcissistic personality disorder, but I'm glad I found this one, as I also have had people with BPD in my life. It didn't give me a clear description of what BPD is, honestly. Others have described it much more distinctly as a disorder on the border between neurosis and psychosis. I didn't even know that that's where the name of the disorder came from, after reading this book. However, I had a much better understanding of it, and a few helpful tips for how to deal with someone in my life who is going through it. It's a little dry at times, and reads more as a tool for psychologists than for sufferers or those around them. It's well written, though. Reading it brought me back to my teens and 20's, when my friends and myself were much less stable. Many of us had some traits resembling BPD (some could have been diagnosed on the spot). This book helped me to understand the underlying emotional processes of those types of behaviors, especially Splitting and the rapid mood swings. I wonder if "Intuitive" people are more prone to this disorder, because of their abstracting minds? Abstracting is a process of simplifying, distilling, and looking for generalization. This could lend itself toward generalizing a person into "good" or "evil," or even into a "True love" or a "monster." I imagine the more "Feeler" types would also be more likely to express the BPD pattern, with its emphasis on attachment and connection. I think I've seen the black and white thinking in both Thinker and Feeler types, though, but I've seen more of an addition of Narcissism in the Thinker personalities, which makes sense, that a relief from anxiety would express itself in a need for superiority and power rather than vulnerability and connection for more tough-minded Thinkers....more
I wouldn't let kids read it. So violent. I'm sure this will be the next Hunger Games-type sensation, though. A tough reluctant-hero teenage girl in aI wouldn't let kids read it. So violent. I'm sure this will be the next Hunger Games-type sensation, though. A tough reluctant-hero teenage girl in a dystopian future rises up against an oppressive and elitist regime and leads a lot of sweet and sexy youths into a bloody massacre/battle and then wins the day in a bittersweet victory. I thank the stars that the lead character doesn't have two hot guys pining after her for no apparent reason, at least. The author is really good at completing plots. It's a highly complex yet skillfully interweaved storyline, and that makes the world she's made deeply immersive....more
Brilliance and Insanity. So, so much of both in this book.
I was looking for a book to help me explain how thoughts affect the nervous and immune systeBrilliance and Insanity. So, so much of both in this book.
I was looking for a book to help me explain how thoughts affect the nervous and immune systems. Here's a synopsis of what I actually found:
Science from the book: - Genes aren't self-emergent, they don't trigger protein coding themselves. - A cell can even live for months without DNA. - Genes are only activated to create proteins when outside stimuli trigger the process, starting with the retraction of regulatory proteins (epigenetics) covering DNA. - Quantum Physics is a thing, it happens. Matter is made of energy.
Conclusions drawn in the book: - Human consciousness is streamed in from the universe and received by antennae on cells which are tuned into that person's immortal and intangible identity wavelength. - People are reincarnated. - Homeless people are like cancer.
This book really does have some fascinating ideas which may very well be based on science (I'm not sure). He makes some excellent points. And then he loses all credibility with his over use and abuse of stretched metaphors, as well as his mystical, hyperbolic "reasoning."
Seriously, just because genes aren't really the brain of the cell doesn't mean that our consciousness lives outside our bodies. Wow.
However, he really does have some fantastic thoughts about biological functions. I'd say he's batting half and half on the fantastic/fantastical range.
One beneficial point that I'm taking away from this: When the body is in stress, the basic maintenance functions shut down. You can't be in a "rest and digest" and a "fight or flight" mode at the same time. So prolonged stress damages the body's repair and maintenance functions.
That was what I was looking for. I wish that it was explained in more scientific detail, instead of just in metaphorical detail (he really, really likes metaphors).
My favorite terrible metaphor from the book:
This is the one that converted me from being angry at Lipton for presenting himself as a scientist to just giggling and thinking that he's probably actually a really nice earth-loving nutty person who was trained in some science. On the last page of the epilogue, he uses the metaphor of a snake eating its tail. Unfortunately, he uses it to illustrate how predators die and are consumed by bacteria and become part of the food chain. Ummm… Any snake that eats its own tail is going to die, quickly. Maybe readers needs a better metaphor for the circle of life and balance of ecosystems than a horrific image of self-cannibalism. In context, unsustainable and destructive consumption of our basic ecological infrastructure seems to be the very thing he is arguing against, and yet he uses this metaphor for an ideal image which we should all "hope" to become a part of.
That last stretched metaphor was the last straw, to add another unnecessary metaphor. It brought the book over the edge into complete silliness. I feel sorry for Dr. Lipton. I think he needs a shrink. However, that doesn't mean that everything he says is nutty. His detachment from conventional reality allows him a unique perspective. And I wish he had let a few scientists screen his writings and filter out the parts that sound crazy or are too stretched, before this book was published. I think at least half of the book would have remained. And then he could have filled the other half with more actual science to better establish the points he made. He really didn't completely prove many of his points. He set them up with logic and fact, and then made huge leaps. Even for the points which seem perfectly plausible, he still needs to go back and fill in the gaps of evidence and logic.
Because of the mysticism, I can't actually quote the good parts of this book to anyone without losing credibility, which is annoying. Now I need to find another book that actually does speak scientifically about the neurological mind-body connection, minus the "spirituality."...more