营销的境界

看到的很认同的一篇书评
 http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/this-is-your-brain-on-gluten/282550/?dt_platform=30a03ad59f9a83c7df4eca372291473f&dt_ref=da99f0d4269610ae&dt_dapp=0135e759cd902d35&from=timeline&isappinstalled=1

翻译了两点结论如下
"Now, he's absolutely right that we eat too much sugar and white bread. The rest of the story, though, is one just completely made up to support a hypothesis. And that's not a good way to do science.”关于糖和白面包的过度消费，他说得一点不错。而故事的其他部分，不过是为了支持一种说法而拼凑材料。这并不科学。
"I also find it sad that because his book is filled with a whole bunch of nonsense, that's why it's a bestseller; that's why we' re talking."很遗憾，我觉得他的书里有很多无稽之谈，所以这本书会畅销，所以我们得谈谈。


这本书在国内的流行可能部分源自于樊登读书会的推荐（见链接），对这些号称帮你读书的真得保持警惕了，哪儿有那么好的事儿啊！
http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzAwNTc3MzYzNw==&mid=2650883604&idx=1&sn=3ceb8ea9518ce5223e8acb5b65935b5f&scene=7#wechat_redirect

补一条Amazon的评论
Testimonials are NOT SCIENCE --and Dr. Perlmutter MUST know this if he has an advanced degree. 实证绝不能和科学划等号，作者拿到的高等学位肯定包括这一点

Only double blind studies that can be repeated are valid evidence. Because people forget what they've eaten, or over/under estimate what they've eaten, the reports of people in scientific studies are the least reliable。只有可重复的双盲测试才能作为确证。人们会忘记他们吃过什么，可能高估或低估摄入量。科学研究中，受试者的描述是可信度最低的。