Principia Discordia

Browser based questionnaire that calculates it for you, but doesn't allow for multiple incidences of a category: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTCS_82.htm

Wikipedia page with essentially the same questionnaire that you have to calculate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes_and_Rahe_stress_scale


It takes events in your life and estimates the combined amount of stress it causes and whether that level of stress is a supposed health risk.

I'm curious whether the result lines up with your own gauge of the stress you're under, do you find this questionnaire to be relevant (since it was designed in the late 60's), what could be added or changed to make it more accurate, or whatever ideas this stirs up for you.

I came up with 785 which seems somewhat too high but roughly accurate.

What do you think? Are there better ways to quantify or evaluate your stress levels (without fancy equipment)?

Below 150.  :lulz:

386 ... Although I think it's probably best to evaluate the number on healthy ways you deal with stress.  I'd like to see an addendum of questions that subtract numbers based on activities like, meditation, massage, etc..

edit: removed a 'don't' that changed the entire meaning of my point :lulz:

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 25, 2014, 01:26:57 AM
Below 150.  :lulz:

:argh!:

STRESSLESS BASTARD!

Quote from: Bu☆ns on April 25, 2014, 01:30:24 AM
386 ... Although I think it's probably best to evaluate the number on healthy ways you deal with stress.  I'd like to see an addendum of questions that subtract numbers based on activities like, meditation, massage, etc..

Definitely. Something like:

Strong social support: -100 for each person
Vigorous exercise several times a week: -90
Weekly massage: -75
Healthy diet: -60
Daily meditation routine: -50

Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 25, 2014, 03:00:07 AM

Quote from: Bu☆ns on April 25, 2014, 01:30:24 AM
386 ... Although I think it's probably best to evaluate the number on healthy ways you deal with stress.  I'd like to see an addendum of questions that subtract numbers based on activities like, meditation, massage, etc..

Definitely. Something like:

Strong social support: -100 for each person
Vigorous exercise several times a week: -90
Weekly massage: -75
Healthy diet: -60
Daily meditation routine: -50

I'd up that exercise bit.  the post exercise relief i get is incredible.

146.

That list omitted a large number of significant stressors.

I scored over 1350. It didn't cover family disputes or abuse much except spousal crap and illnesses. The test definitely feels dated.

There wasn't one gender/sexuality question!!!111 :P

Anyway. I agree there should be the inclusions for healthy things. Exercise, diet, sleep, stress or anger management activities, etc.

I scored 95 but kind of doubt the validity of this. As Nigel points out - they've barely scratched the surface :roll:

228. Yeah, this is pretty worthless.

Also absolutely no accounting for stress tolerance which is not a constant. No doubt there's punters out there who would laugh off six or seven hundred and others who'd blow a gasket if it hit double figures.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 25, 2014, 08:59:00 AM
Also absolutely no accounting for stress tolerance which is not a constant. No doubt there's punters out there who would laugh off six or seven hundred and others who'd blow a gasket if it hit double figures.

That's a good point.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on April 25, 2014, 03:01:46 AM

Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 25, 2014, 03:00:07 AM

Quote from: Bu☆ns on April 25, 2014, 01:30:24 AM
386 ... Although I think it's probably best to evaluate the number on healthy ways you deal with stress.  I'd like to see an addendum of questions that subtract numbers based on activities like, meditation, massage, etc..

Definitely. Something like:

Strong social support: -100 for each person
Vigorous exercise several times a week: -90
Weekly massage: -75
Healthy diet: -60
Daily meditation routine: -50

I'd up that exercise bit.  the post exercise relief i get is incredible.

Granted, I did just pull them out of my ass. ;)

Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on April 25, 2014, 03:20:00 AM
I scored over 1350. It didn't cover family disputes or abuse much except spousal crap and illnesses. The test definitely feels dated.

There wasn't one gender/sexuality question!!!111 :P

Anyway. I agree there should be the inclusions for healthy things. Exercise, diet, sleep, stress or anger management activities, etc.

:eek:

Are you sure you haven't died and went to Tuscon?

I agree that the test is clearly flawed in a lot of respects, sexuality and gender being very notable absences.

Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 03:16:46 AM
146.

That list omitted a large number of significant stressors.

I'm starting to get the sense that it's just too flawed to get much out of, especially in the 35 years since it was designed.

There has to be a more sophisticated and accurate questionnaire for stress, no? Or do you think attempts to quantify stress like this are misguided in general?

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 25, 2014, 08:59:00 AM
Also absolutely no accounting for stress tolerance which is not a constant. No doubt there's punters out there who would laugh off six or seven hundred and others who'd blow a gasket if it hit double figures.

Another good point.  And to illustrate, CPD is the punter, and I just about blew a gasket not even at 800.

319, and im figuratively dying here, doesnt take into account many things.

Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 25, 2014, 06:44:51 PM

Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 03:16:46 AM
146.

That list omitted a large number of significant stressors.

I'm starting to get the sense that it's just too flawed to get much out of, especially in the 35 years since it was designed.

There has to be a more sophisticated and accurate questionnaire for stress, no? Or do you think attempts to quantify stress like this are misguided in general?

I think stressors are a red herring/blind alley. All they're going to prove is stressful shit causes varying levels of stress. I see more profit in measuring biological impact (eg. blood pressure), figuring out neuro-psychological components and then working out what helps reduce detrimental impact. There's a fuckton of shit coming out almost weekly on this as we speak.

You wanna measure how miserable you are or you wanna fix it?

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 25, 2014, 10:16:01 PM

Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 25, 2014, 06:44:51 PM

Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 03:16:46 AM
146.

That list omitted a large number of significant stressors.

I'm starting to get the sense that it's just too flawed to get much out of, especially in the 35 years since it was designed.

There has to be a more sophisticated and accurate questionnaire for stress, no? Or do you think attempts to quantify stress like this are misguided in general?

I think stressors are a red herring/blind alley. All they're going to prove is stressful shit causes varying levels of stress. I see more profit in measuring biological impact (eg. blood pressure), figuring out neuro-psychological components and then working out what helps reduce detrimental impact. There's a fuckton of shit coming out almost weekly on this as we speak.

You wanna measure how miserable you are or you wanna fix it?

I want to monitor my stress levels over time to have some level of redundancy there to compare to my own internal "self-check". However, I can't afford to buy any equipment or what have you so I'm interested in ways to quantify it and track it without spending any money.

The idea is to better identify when I'm getting close to the meltdown zone before I actually get there, because when I'm in the midst of an irrational, hyper vigilant episode, I'm already fucked.

Sure, makes perfect sense. All I'm saying is, while you're at it, why not try to raise the baseline? I've done a lot of work on this and there's a lot of other stuff I haven't tried, out there still waiting to be discovered. Moved me further away from "meltdown zone" for any given value of input. I'm not saying I can never meltdown but, comparatively, it happens a lot less often nowadays. Increased tolerance.

Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on April 25, 2014, 06:44:51 PM

Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2014, 03:16:46 AM
146.

That list omitted a large number of significant stressors.

I'm starting to get the sense that it's just too flawed to get much out of, especially in the 35 years since it was designed.

There has to be a more sophisticated and accurate questionnaire for stress, no? Or do you think attempts to quantify stress like this are misguided in general?

I think that while general "stress checklists" can be useful for a clinician in assessing the stress levels of a patient, generic checklists, even fairly comprehensive ones, aren't going to be very useful for calculating the stress levels of a broad audience. Really what's needed is a clinician who is familiar with stress and has a history and rapport with the patient, who can assess the patient on an individual level. If you have a good GP this often happens at annual checkups. Some things really stress one person but are stress-relieving for another; parents visiting, for instance.