It can be, but it can be good for you, too-a fact scientists tend to ignore and regular folks don't appreciate.

    If you aren't already paralyzed with stress from reading the financial news, here's a sure way to achieve that grim state: read a medical-journal article that examines what stress can do to your brain. Stress, you'll learn, is crippling your neurons so that, a few years or decades from now, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease will have an easy time destroying what's left. That's assuming you haven't already died by then of some other stress-related ailment such as heart disease. As we enter what is sure to be a long period of uncertainty-a gantlet of lost jobs, dwindling assets, home foreclosures and two continuing wars-the downside of stress is certainly worth exploring. But what about the upside? It's not something we hear much about.

    In the past several years, a lot of us have convinced ourselves that stress is unequivocally negative for everyone, all the time. We've blamed stress for a wide variety of problems, from slight memory lapses to full-on dementia-and that's just in the brain. We've even come up with a derisive nickname for people who voluntarily plunge into stressful situations: they're "adrenaline junkies."

    Sure, stress can be bad for you, especially if you react to it with anger or depression or by downing five glasses of Scotch. But what's often overlooked is a common-sense counterpoint: in some circumstances, it can be good for you, too. It's right there in basic-psychology textbooks. As Spencer Rathus puts it in "Psychology: Concepts and Connections," "some stress is healthy and necessary to keep us alert and occupied." Yet that's not the theme that's been coming out of science for the past few years. "The public has gotten such a uniform message that stress is always harmful," says Janet DiPietro, a developmental psychologist at Johns Hopkins University. "And that's too bad, because most people do their best under mild to moderate stress."

    The stress response-the body's hormonal reaction to danger, uncertainty or change-evolved to help us survive, and if we learn how to keep it from overrunning our lives, it still can. In the short term, it can energize us, "revving up our systems to handle what we have to handle," says Judith Orloff, a psychiatrist at UCLA. In the long term, stress can motivate us to do better at jobs we care about. A little of it can prepare us for a lot later on, making us more resilient. Even when it's extreme, stress may have some positive effects-which is why, in addition to posttraumatic stress disorder, some psychologists are starting to define a phenomenon called posttraumatic growth. "There's really a biochemical and scientific bias that stress is bad, but anecdotally and clinically, it's quite evident that it can work for some people," says Orloff. "We need a new wave of research with a more balanced approach to how stress can serve us." Otherwise, we're all going to spend far more time than we should stressing ourselves out about the fact that we're stressed out.

    When I started asking researchers about "good stress," many of them said it essentially didn't exist. "We never tell people stress is good for them," one said. Another allowed that it might be, but only in small ways, in the short term, in rats. What about people who thrive on stress, I asked-people who become policemen or ER docs or air-traffic controllers because they like seeking out chaos and putting things back in order? Aren't they using stress to their advantage? No, the researchers said, those people are unhealthy. "This business of people saying they 'thrive on stress'? It's nuts," Bruce Rabin, a distinguished psychoneuroimmunologist, pathologist and psychiatrist at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told me. Some adults who seek out stress and believe they flourish under it may have been abused as children or permanently affected in the womb after exposure to high levels of adrenaline and cortisol, he said. Even if they weren't, he added, they're "trying to satisfy" some psychological need. Was he calling this a pathological state, I asked-saying that people who feel they perform best under pressure actually have a disease? He thought for a minute, and then: "You can absolutely say that. Yes, you can say that."

    如果你不想因?yàn)殚喿x經(jīng)濟(jì)新聞而崩潰，這有條路可以走：去讀一篇醫(yī)學(xué)期刊，看看對(duì)于你什么壓力更適合。你將明白，壓力這東西會(huì)使你的神經(jīng)崩潰，并且使得阿爾茨海默病或者帕金森病更容易在幾年后侵蝕你。由此可以推測(cè)出，你不會(huì)死于其他那些很短時(shí)間致命的疾病。當(dāng)我們確定進(jìn)入不確定的長(zhǎng)時(shí)期（一連串的失業(yè)、資產(chǎn)損失、家庭贖回和長(zhǎng)達(dá)兩年的夫妻之戰(zhàn)）時(shí)，這個(gè)事情值得好好研究下。但是什么是往上走的？沒(méi)有人告訴我們。

    在過(guò)去的幾年里，我們中的大多數(shù)人相信我們自己，壓力總是不公平傾斜到每個(gè)人身上的。在很多問(wèn)題上，無(wú)論是小的記憶丟失還是老年癡呆癥，我們都把黑鍋推給壓力來(lái)背--而這僅僅是在大腦中。我們甚至嘲笑那些人，他們自愿投身到緊張這樣一種狀態(tài)：他們稱為"腎上腺素迷們".

    當(dāng)然，壓力對(duì)你來(lái)講不全是不好的，特別是如果你從生氣或失望或喝下5背蘇格蘭威士忌中反應(yīng)過(guò)來(lái)。但是，一個(gè)普通的感覺(jué)點(diǎn)常常忽視：在某些情況中，壓力同樣對(duì)你來(lái)說(shuō)也可能是好事。在基礎(chǔ)心理學(xué)課本中，這么說(shuō)是正確的。就像Spencer Rathus說(shuō)的那樣："心理學(xué)：概念和連線","有些壓力是健康并且必須的，以此來(lái)使我們警惕和有足夠的注意力。"但是這個(gè)理論在過(guò)去的幾年中并沒(méi)有科學(xué)依據(jù)。"大眾總是收到統(tǒng)一的信息，壓力總是不好的。"Janet DiPietro說(shuō)，他是Johns Hopkins 大學(xué)的發(fā)展心理學(xué)家，"而這非常不好，因?yàn)楦�多的大眾進(jìn)他們?nèi)�力去維持比較溫和的壓力。"

    壓力的反饋--身體荷爾蒙分泌會(huì)很危險(xiǎn)、不定量或者改變--這些都會(huì)幫助我們存活下來(lái)，并且如果我們明白怎樣從我們的生活中遠(yuǎn)離過(guò)度勞累，他仍然可以起作用。短期內(nèi)，壓力可以使我們更有活力，"我們身體系統(tǒng)要來(lái)處理我們不得不處理的東西。"Judith Orloff說(shuō)，他是加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校的精神科醫(yī)生。長(zhǎng)期內(nèi)，壓力可以促使我們?cè)诠ぷ魃献鞯母�好。一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)的壓力可以促使我們制造出來(lái)很多，是我們更富有彈性。既是當(dāng)壓力到了極限，他也可能有默寫(xiě)積極效果--這也是為什么，一些精神科醫(yī)生開(kāi)始定義創(chuàng)傷后應(yīng)激障礙為：創(chuàng)傷后成長(zhǎng)。"真正的生物化學(xué)和科學(xué)偏見(jiàn)說(shuō)壓力總是不好的，但是臨床上說(shuō)，確實(shí)有證據(jù)說(shuō)明壓力對(duì)某些人來(lái)說(shuō)有意義。"Orloff說(shuō)，"我們需要一個(gè)新的研究姿態(tài)來(lái)找出一個(gè)更好的辦法使壓力更好的服務(wù)于我們。"否則，我們會(huì)在讓我們自己跳出壓力這方面浪費(fèi)很多時(shí)間，而事實(shí)是我們強(qiáng)調(diào)了。

    當(dāng)我開(kāi)始告訴研究者們"壓力的益處"時(shí)，他們中的大多數(shù)說(shuō)這個(gè)基本上不存在。"我們從不告訴大眾壓力對(duì)他們有益。"其中一個(gè)說(shuō)。另外一個(gè)允許它存在，但僅僅在某些小方面存在，在很短的時(shí)間里存在。那些飽受壓力摧殘的人怎么樣呢？我問(wèn)--那些是警察、急診室文件管理者、空中協(xié)管員，因?yàn)樗麄兛雌饋?lái)沉溺于混留言之中而使各類事物有序。他們不吧他們經(jīng)歷過(guò)的壓力看做是一種優(yōu)勢(shì)么？不，研究院回答，這類人心里不健康。"這類人說(shuō)他們'沉溺于壓力'中？這是事實(shí)。"Bruce Rabin告訴我。他是Pittsburgh School of Medicine學(xué)校的病理神經(jīng)學(xué)家、病理學(xué)家及精神病學(xué)家。他說(shuō)，那些沉溺于壓力并且相信這樣的狀態(tài)會(huì)使他們成癮的成年人在長(zhǎng)期受到高水平的腎上腺素和皮質(zhì)醇影響下，像孩子一樣或者受到長(zhǎng)期影響。甚至他們以前不這樣，他補(bǔ)充道，他們"試著去滿足"一些生理需求。他是否到達(dá)了一個(gè)病理狀態(tài)？我問(wèn)道--傳說(shuō)那些感覺(jué)到他們做的很好的是否有問(wèn)題呢？他想了一下說(shuō)："你幾乎是在說(shuō)：是的，你可以這么說(shuō)。"