The Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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.

[The Johnny]

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

[P3nT4gR4m]

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?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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.

[P3nT4gR4m]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.