小眼睛的健康世界

Do you love your customers?

There are two ways people think about this:

We love our customers because they pay us money. (Inherent here is customers = money = love.)
We love our customers, and sometimes there's a transaction.
The second is very different indeed from the first.

In the first case, customers are the means to an end, profit. In the second, the organization exists to serve customers, and profit is both an enabler and a possible side effect.

It's easy to argue that without compensation, there can be no service. Taking that to an extreme, though, working to maximize the short-term value of each transaction rarely scales. If you hoard information, for example, today your prospects will simply click and find it somewhere else. If you seek to charge above average prices for below average products, your customers will discover this, and let the world know. In a free market with plenty of information, it's very hard to succeed merely by loving the money your customers pay you.

I think it's fascinating to note that some of the most successful organizations of our time got there by focusing obsessively on service, viewing compensation as an afterthought or a side effect. As marketing gets more and more expensive, it turns out that caring for people is a useful shortcut to trust, which leads to all the other things that a growing organization seeks.

Your customers can tell.

Groundhog day and the Super Bowl

One way the tribe identifies is through the observance of a holiday, of a group custom, of the thing we all do together that proves we are in sync. People thrive on mass celebration, but as our culture has fragmented, these universal observances are harder to find. We used to watch the same TV shows at the same time, eat the same foods, drive the same car. Given a choice, though, many people take the choice—and so, as the culture fragments, we move away from the center and to the edges.

Halloween and the Super Bowl are the new secular holidays, the group-mania events that prove we're able to stay in sync. Every year, signed up for it or not, each of us is expected to survive the relentless hype. We see almost a month's worth of never-ending media about the Super Bowl—business articles, travel articles, legal articles, cooking articles—a huge onslaught of content-free noise.

And every year, the commercials disappoint, while the game includes eleven minutes of action over the course of four hours of not so much.

And yet we do it again and again. Because the corporate hoopla is beside the real point, which is a chance for all of us to talk about the same thing at the same time. This is part of what it means to belong.

While the Super Bowl is a large-scale example of this happening across a huge swath of people, these occurences happen often in much smaller tribes as well. The buzz about Fashion Week or CES or the latest from Sundance are micro varieties of the same desire to be in sync. Your customers and your employees want to feel what it feels to do what other people are doing. Not everyone, just the people they identify with.

It's easy to be persuaded that this event is somehow about the game, or the coverage or the hype, but it's not. Like Groundhog day, it's a pointless thing we do over and over again, because hanging out with people you care about (even if it's just to eat junk food and talk about how bad the commercials are) is almost always worth doing.

Bat boy syndrome

Here's a common fantasy: Your team wins the pennant. It goes on to the World Series. It wins! And you're there for it, all along, the bat boy, helping out the sluggers, doing your job, proximity to greatness.

The line to get a job at Disney and Google and Pixar is long indeed. Countless people eager to get picked to join a winning team. Not as the person who is going to have to step up and cause success, no, the opportunity sought is to be on the team, to bask without being asked for heroics (which of course, carry risk).

The industrial culture, the resume-building mindset—it's no wonder so many have bat boy syndrome. The alternative, the alternative of picking yourself, is frightening because we've been hoodwinked and brainwashed into believing that it's not up to us. But it is.

Are you looking for a project? (a live event in New York in March)

Six years ago, I wrote about a job of the future, the (online) community organizer.

And for a long time, I've been talking about the advantage of picking yourself.

It recently occured to me that there's an increasing overlap between the two, and I'll be doing a live event in New York to explore this. Here's a quick overview:

A hundred years ago, Mark Twain, like many authors of his time, made a living traveling to various cities and giving lectures. Today, of course, we've come full circle, and everyone from Amanda Palmer to Cyrille Aimée are making an impact (and making a living) by performing at house parties, conferences and local events. Authors, speakers, performers, musical troupes—there's increasing demand (and need) for artists to get out in front of people.

At the same time, there's ever more demand for individuals to meet each other, to connect face to face. We've gone from giant shows like Comdex to a long tail of local and international events, all designed to bring tribes together and make an impact.

Here's the opportunity: Mark Twain didn't book his own gigs, and Cyrille Aimée doesn't want to book hers. There's a huge void for impresarios to fill. The impresario invents a new event, finds the venue, the talent and the audience and makes something happen.

Some of the events can be put together small and grow in scale (Startup Weekend has been held in more than 470 cities, and there are more than three TEDx events held every single day worldwide) while others take a long time to pull together and plan but make a singular impact on their industry.

The talent is waiting to get picked. The audience is waiting to get invited. Where are the impresarios? It's something I think you could be really good at if you put your mind to it.

I'd like to share what I know from putting on dozens of events around the world, from being the asked and the asker, the organizer and the attendee. I'd like to open some doors and help you see the opportunity and the challenge of making something happen.

This event, held at the fabulous Helen Mills Theatre in Manhattan on March 1, is open to no more than 100 people. It's a workshop in the best sense of the word, with a focus on organizing impresario projects.

General admission tickets go on sale in a few days (I'll post the link then), but if you'd like an invite for an early-bird guaranteed seat, check out this quick form.

美國科學家聲稱發現了一種特別的基因，不僅能夠確定你能否成為一個早起的人，而且能夠將你可能去世的時間預測到上午還是下午。這種特別基因控制著人體生理節律，或許是當人接近死亡的時候，身體會還原到一種更加自然的生理節律。

意外發現基因變異

據英國《每日郵報》19日報道，美國科學家發現了一種特別的基因，該基因能在很大程度上影響人類的生物鐘，不僅影響心臟病、中風等急性病發病的時間，甚至能預測一個人最可能在一天中的什麼時候死亡。

這一成果發表在2012年11月《神經學年鑒》雜誌上。該發現衍生自另一項關於老年人睡眠週期的研究。15年前，馬薩諸塞州波士頓貝斯以色列女執事醫療中心神經科的安德魯·利姆(Andrew Lim)教授率科研小組研究65歲以上老人的睡眠問題，以及如何辨識帕金森氏症和老年癡呆症。

在分析1200個樣本時，安德魯·利姆教授帶領的小組意外發現了睡眠規律和“第一週期”基因變異之間的關聯，該基因突變在人體生物鐘中起著主要作用。

影響個人覺醒模式

研究人員在名為“第一週期”的基因旁邊，發現了一個以腺嘌呤(A)或鳥嘌呤(G)為核基的分子。由於人類擁有兩組相對的DNA，因此存在三種核苷酸組合(四種核苷酸構建了DNA模組)：腺嘌呤與腺嘌呤組合(AA)、腺嘌呤與鳥嘌呤組合(AG)以及鳥嘌呤與鳥嘌呤組合(GG)。

一個人有36%的可能性是AA型，有16%的幾率是GG型，有48%的幾率是AG型。早上7時之前起床的人更容易有腺嘌呤(AA)核苷酸鹼基，而愛睡懶覺的人則更易有鳥嘌呤(GG)核苷酸鹼基，不早不晚的人則兼而有之(AG)。

波士頓貝斯以色列女執事醫療中心神經科主任克利福德·賽坡(Clifford Saper)博士在聲明中寫道：“這種特別的基因類型幾乎影響每個人的睡覺和覺醒模式，而且它擁有一種相當深遠的效果。擁有AA基因類型的人比擁有GG基因類型的人要早起大約1個小時，而AG類型的人醒來的時間幾乎正好就在中間。”

“不是日期而是時刻”

此外，研究人員發現1200名參與實驗的老年人中，一些人的去世時間與這些核苷酸序列所準確預測的時間相差只有幾個小時。擁有AA和AG基因類型的人在上午11時之前去世，而擁有GG基因類型的人趨向於下午6時左右去世。克利福德·賽坡説：“因此真的有一種基因預測你去世的時間。不是日期，而是一天中的時刻。”

安德魯·利姆教授説，人體內部的生理時鐘管理人類生理和行為的多個層面，同時影響著急性病的發病時間。“一個簡單的基因突變會影響到諸如何時死亡這樣最基本的問題，這有點讓人毛骨悚然。”他還聲稱，17%的GG基因類型的人會比其他人晚死平均6個小時。

克利福德·賽坡表示，這一無意中的發現證明了真的有預測人類死亡時間的基因存在，而且預測的準確度精確到了某一天中的幾點。

據《大西洋月刊》報道，研究人員相信，或許是當死亡臨近的時候，人體會還原到一種更加自然的生理節律感應階段，而不是生活習慣所産生的迴圈。

研究人員表示，這有助於判斷患者服藥的最佳時機，也可讓醫院為患者的“危險期”作好準備。

基因因素只佔30%

原美國國立衛生研究院資深研究員杜靜表示，這種基因變異能夠決定人類死亡時間的説法太絕對。

杜靜表示，從遺傳學角度講，人類死亡中基因因素只佔30%，還有70%是客觀因素決定的，包括環境、個人身體狀況等。比如人突然遇到車禍死亡，就完全是客觀因素造成的，而不是基因決定的。

杜靜説，像腺嘌呤或鳥嘌呤這樣的易感基因可以對人體遺傳研究和人類發病提供方向。這些基因也可能跟死亡的某一個特定特質有一定聯繫，但是不同疾病人群有不同特點，不能一概而論。以腺嘌呤或鳥嘌呤為核基的分子能決定人類死亡時間的説法也太絕對了。

相關新聞

　　德科學家發現長壽基因

人類為何會變老？是什麼決定人死亡的時間和原因？美國《每日科學》雜誌日前報道，德國基爾大學的研究人員通過研究水螅，偶然發現了與人類壽命有關的長壽基因。

水螅是一種多細胞無脊椎動物，老化速度極慢，幾乎可以説是“永生”的。目前對此的解釋十分簡單，因為水螅是出芽生殖，而不是通過交配繁殖。這種繁殖方法的前提是擁有能不斷繁殖的幹細胞。

當人類變老的時候，體內的幹細胞便失去了繁殖的能力，因此機體慢慢衰退。該研究第一作者安娜·博姆稱，他們在研究過程中發現了一種名叫FoxO的基因，該基因在動物和人類身上都存在，這是早就被發現的。但是直到現在他們才發現，這種基因正是影響人類幹細胞再生的因素。

研究人員分離出了水螅的幹細胞，將其分為三組：擁有正常FoxO基因、擁有非活性FoxO基因、擁有強化FoxO基因。研究結果發現，沒有該基因的動物幹細胞數量明顯少得多。在老年人的身體中，也發現了這種變化。研究人員由此推測，人類的老化也同這種基因有關。

研究人員托馬斯·博世稱，這是第一次發現FoxO基因和人類老化有關。

　　基因讓女性比男性更快樂

美國科學家近日進行的一項新研究發現，一種特殊的基因能使女性感覺更快樂，但不能使男性感覺更快樂。

美國南佛羅裏達大學、美國國立衛生研究院、美國哥倫比亞大學和紐約州精神病研究所的科學家發表報告稱，人體內一種叫做MAOA的基因會影響大腦中一種讓人感到幸福的化學物質的水準，研究發現擁有低表達型MAOA基因的女性一般比其他人都要快樂。不過奇怪的是，雖然有些男性也有MAOA基因，但是他們並沒有顯示出比其他人更快樂。

南佛羅裏達大學公共衛生學院流行病學與生物統計學系副教授陳和年説：“這是我們發現的第一個易使女性快樂的幸福基因。這一結果讓我感到驚訝，因為低表達的MAOA基因容易導致酗酒、攻擊性和反社會行為，它甚至被一些科學家稱為‘戰士’基因，但是，至少對於女性來説，我們的研究指出，這種基因也有積極的作用。”

MAOA基因能夠調節大腦中一種分解多巴胺和其他神經傳導物質的酶的活性，類似于抗抑鬱藥裏含有的“感覺良好”化學物質。低表達型MAOA基因可以提高單胺的水準，使得大腦中神經傳導物質的數量更多，有助於振奮心情。

研究還發現，雖然許多男性擁有“開心”的MAOA基因，但他們並沒有比其他人更快樂。研究人員解釋，部分原因可能是男性的睪酮激素抑制了MAOA基因的積極作用。