Re: I must have INTP for my bunghole!

January 20, 2000

At 08:52 20/01/00 -0800, you wrote:

>On a more serious note, there was also a link to a site plugging a book

>that I believe was titled " Just Say No to Addicts. " The authors purport

>to have developed a test that the readers can use to screen addicts out

>of their lives and workplaces. I took the test, and, even when I gave

>myself a break on questions like " should they have been convicted of a

>felony? " I still scored an 86 percent probability of being an addict.

>Boy that sucks!

Hmmm. I wonder what they mean by an addict. Someone who has a current

addictive behaviour, or someone who once had one, or someone like the

" alcoholic babies " who has yet to manifest one but " has all the character

defects " ?

Joe B.

January 20, 2000

-----Original Message-----

>I finally got around to taking that Meyer-Briggs test and discovered

>I'm one of the INTP models, just like a bunch of you other jokers. The

>Keirsey site says we're the " Architect " type. If I'm an architect I

>wonder why I always end up in jobs more analogous to building inspector

>or painter. The site had an extended passage from " The Fountainhead "

>that made me glad I've never read anything by Ayn Rand.

Ah, but in The Fountainhead the hero winds up working in a quarry... He

refuses to compromise his principles, you see, and can't put up with all the

bullshit that goes along with working for a normal architectural firm.

Actually I would have made Roark more of an INTJ than an INTP. It's kind of

moot -- Ayn Rand characters don't have the psychological characteristics of

human beings.

--wally

>

>On a more serious note, there was also a link to a site plugging a book

>that I believe was titled " Just Say No to Addicts. " The authors purport

>to have developed a test that the readers can use to screen addicts out

>of their lives and workplaces. I took the test, and, even when I gave

>myself a break on questions like " should they have been convicted of a

>felony? " I still scored an 86 percent probability of being an addict.

>Boy that sucks!

>

January 20, 2000

What's the URL for the addict site?

" jim hankins " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11901

> I finally got around to taking that Meyer-Briggs test and discovered

> I'm one of the INTP models, just like a bunch of you other jokers. The

> Keirsey site says we're the " Architect " type. If I'm an architect I

> wonder why I always end up in jobs more analogous to building

inspector

> or painter. The site had an extended passage from " The Fountainhead "

> that made me glad I've never read anything by Ayn Rand.

>

> On a more serious note, there was also a link to a site plugging a

book

> that I believe was titled " Just Say No to Addicts. " The authors

purport

> to have developed a test that the readers can use to screen addicts

out

> of their lives and workplaces. I took the test, and, even when I gave

> myself a break on questions like " should they have been convicted of a

> felony? " I still scored an 86 percent probability of being an addict.

> Boy that sucks!

>

January 20, 2000

-----Original Message-----

>What's the URL for the addict site?

Would you believe... http://justsaynotoaddicts.com/

--wally

>

> " jim hankins " wrote:

>original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11901

>> I finally got around to taking that Meyer-Briggs test and discovered

>> I'm one of the INTP models, just like a bunch of you other jokers. The

>> Keirsey site says we're the " Architect " type. If I'm an architect I

>> wonder why I always end up in jobs more analogous to building

>inspector

>> or painter. The site had an extended passage from " The Fountainhead "

>> that made me glad I've never read anything by Ayn Rand.

>>

>> On a more serious note, there was also a link to a site plugging a

>book

>> that I believe was titled " Just Say No to Addicts. " The authors

>purport

>> to have developed a test that the readers can use to screen addicts

>out

>> of their lives and workplaces. I took the test, and, even when I gave

>> myself a break on questions like " should they have been convicted of a

>> felony? " I still scored an 86 percent probability of being an addict.

>> Boy that sucks!

>>

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them from

>anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance to win a

>digital camera.

>http://click./1/337/1/_/4324/_/948404508/

>

>-- Check out your group's private Chat room

>-- /ChatPage?listName=12-step-free & m=1

>

January 20, 2000

" wally t. " wrote:

> >> I took the test, and, even when I gave

> >> myself a break on questions like " should they have been convicted

of a

> >> felony? " I still scored an 86 percent probability of being an

addict.

> >> Boy that sucks!

I didnt give myself a break on that one and came up 80%. Not bad for a

guy who hardly drinks, has smoked hash abt 6 times in his life and

crack once.

Pete

January 20, 2000

This test is inane. One " yes " on the whole thing, for " s/he frequently

urges others to drink " rates a 90% chance of addiction. One " yes " for

" frequently gulps " gets you a 50%. One " yes " on " found paraphernalia

s/he insists was others' " gets a 75%. Even though the answers are

obviously weighted in some fashion, the " chances " go up exponentially

with each " yes. " Based on this, any good host/ess is 90% likely to be

an addict.

" pete watts " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11919

> " wally t. " wrote:

> > >> I took the test, and, even when I gave

> > >> myself a break on questions like " should they have been convicted

> of a

> > >> felony? " I still scored an 86 percent probability of being an

> addict.

> > >> Boy that sucks!

>

> I didnt give myself a break on that one and came up 80%. Not bad for a

> guy who hardly drinks, has smoked hash abt 6 times in his life and

> crack once.

>

> Pete

>

January 20, 2000

At 14:59 20/01/00 -0800, you wrote:

> " wally t. " wrote:

> > >> I took the test, and, even when I gave

> > >> myself a break on questions like " should they have been convicted

>of a

> > >> felony? " I still scored an 86 percent probability of being an

>addict.

> > >> Boy that sucks!

>

>I didnt give myself a break on that one and came up 80%. Not bad for a

>guy who hardly drinks, has smoked hash abt 6 times in his life and

>crack once.

>

>Pete

I answered no to every single question apart from one- I said yes only to

" should have been convicted of a felony " and came up 75%.

I get the feeling their test doesn't really discriminate well between past

behaviour patterns and current behaviour.

Joe B.

January 20, 2000

I came out as 99.986% addict on all of my past bechaviour and a lot of my

present. I'm proud of most of my present behaviour, and getting prouder by

the day as my compulsions turn into pleasures. I don't drink, but now know

from experience that I can if I want to.

Krakatoa

Re: I must have INTP for my bunghole!

> At 14:59 20/01/00 -0800, you wrote:

>

> > " wally t. " wrote:

> > > >> I took the test, and, even when I gave

> > > >> myself a break on questions like " should they have been convicted

> >of a

> > > >> felony? " I still scored an 86 percent probability of being an

> >addict.

> > > >> Boy that sucks!

> >

> >I didnt give myself a break on that one and came up 80%. Not bad for a

> >guy who hardly drinks, has smoked hash abt 6 times in his life and

> >crack once.

> >

> >Pete

>

> I answered no to every single question apart from one- I said yes only to

> " should have been convicted of a felony " and came up 75%.

>

> I get the feeling their test doesn't really discriminate well between past

> behaviour patterns and current behaviour.

>

> Joe B.

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them from

> anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance to win a

> digital camera.

> http://click./1/337/1/_/4324/_/948410675/

>

> -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!

> -- /cal?listname=12-step-free & m=1

>

January 20, 2000

At 14:59 20/01/00 -0800, you wrote:

> " wally t. " wrote:

> > >> I took the test, and, even when I gave

> > >> myself a break on questions like " should they have been convicted

>of a

> > >> felony? " I still scored an 86 percent probability of being an

>addict.

> > >> Boy that sucks!

>

>I didnt give myself a break on that one and came up 80%. Not bad for a

>guy who hardly drinks, has smoked hash abt 6 times in his life and

>crack once.

>

>Pete

If you look down at the bottom of the main page you'll see

>This work has been endorsed by addiction experts Terence Gorski, Forest

>Tennant and Dr. Talbott

but Talbott was recently convicted of something, wasn't he? Can anyone tell

me if he is a " felon " ? I don't understand the US legal terms too well.

Joe B.

January 20, 2000

I came out 97.7 and answered yes to only 4 questions in the whole thing!

The questionaire is BS. Answering " no " to all of them gives you only 25%.

Carol

----------

>

> To: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: I must have INTP for my bunghole!

> Date: Thursday, January 20, 2000 6:52 PM

>

> I came out as 99.986% addict on all of my past bechaviour and a lot of my

> present. I'm proud of most of my present behaviour, and getting prouder

by

> the day as my compulsions turn into pleasures. I don't drink, but now

know

> from experience that I can if I want to.

>

> Krakatoa

>

> Re: I must have INTP for my bunghole!

>

> > At 14:59 20/01/00 -0800, you wrote:

> >

> > > " wally t. " wrote:

> > > > >> I took the test, and, even when I gave

> > > > >> myself a break on questions like " should they have been

convicted

> > >of a

> > > > >> felony? " I still scored an 86 percent probability of being an

> > >addict.

> > > > >> Boy that sucks!

> > >

> > >I didnt give myself a break on that one and came up 80%. Not bad for a

> > >guy who hardly drinks, has smoked hash abt 6 times in his life and

> > >crack once.

> > >

> > >Pete

> >

> > I answered no to every single question apart from one- I said yes only

to

> > " should have been convicted of a felony " and came up 75%.

> >

> > I get the feeling their test doesn't really discriminate well between

past

> > behaviour patterns and current behaviour.

> >

> > Joe B.

> >

------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them

from

> > anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance to win

a

> > digital camera.

> > http://click./1/337/1/_/4324/_/948410675/

> >

> > -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!

> > -- /cal?listname=12-step-free & m=1

> >

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Save 50% at MotherNature.com! See site for details.

> http://click./1/766/1/_/4324/_/948412454/

>

> -- Talk to your group with your own voice!

> -- /VoiceChatPage?listName=12-step-free & m=1

>

January 20, 2000

I don't think Talbott was convicted of anything at all, I think he was

sued for damages and lost because he misdiagnosed a patient. This is a

civil, not a criminal, wrong, what is called a tort. (I don't think US

legal terms are much different from UK legal terms, every state's law

except Louisiana's is based on the English common law, codified.)

" joe b. " wrote:

<snip>

>

> If you look down at the bottom of the main page you'll see

>

> >This work has been endorsed by addiction experts Terence Gorski,

Forest

> >Tennant and Dr. Talbott

>

> but Talbott was recently convicted of something, wasn't he? Can

anyone tell

> me if he is a " felon " ? I don't understand the US legal terms too well.

>

> Joe B.

>

January 20, 2000

Hi All,

Is this test available on-line?. I'd like to check it out. If anyone

knows of a link I could use, I'd appreciate your help.

Thanks, Bob Warner.

carol wrote:

>

> I came out 97.7 and answered yes to only 4 questions in the whole thing!

> The questionaire is BS. Answering " no " to all of them gives you only 25%.

January 20, 2000

" carol " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11926

> I came out 97.7 and answered yes to only 4 questions in the whole

thing!

> The questionaire is BS. Answering " no " to all of them gives you only

25%.

LOL - thats hysterical! out of sight.

Talbott was found guilty of malpractice for wrongful dx of alcoholism

of a doc and preventing him from practising as he went thru Talbott's

steppermill.

P.

January 22, 2000

" joe b. " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11922

>

> I answered no to every single question apart from one- I said yes

only to

> " should have been convicted of a felony " and came up 75%.

>

> I get the feeling their test doesn't really discriminate well between

past

> behaviour patterns and current behaviour.

>

----------------------------

The test is total ca-ca. When I answered " no " to everything I

came out 0%. When I decided to change my answer to " do you have any

drinking buddies? " to " Yes " I jumped up to 50%.

So if you drink with friends, you're more likely to be an " addict "

or a problem drinker than if you drink alone? How weird.

But then again, the test is endorsed by the nutcase Terence

Gorski, who invented the phony (but Very Serious!) condition he calls

" Post-Acute Withdrawal Syndrome " whose symptoms include feeling

anxious, feeling as though you don't want/need to be " in recovery " , and

all sorts of other goodies. The man is an expert at devising

" foolproof " tests that " prove " just about everyone has the condition

he's looking for.

~Rita

January 22, 2000

At 06:41 22/01/00 -0800, you wrote:

> The test is total ca-ca. When I answered " no " to everything I

>came out 0%. When I decided to change my answer to " do you have any

>drinking buddies? " to " Yes " I jumped up to 50%.

>

> So if you drink with friends, you're more likely to be an " addict "

>or a problem drinker than if you drink alone? How weird.

>

> But then again, the test is endorsed by the nutcase Terence

>Gorski, who invented the phony (but Very Serious!) condition he calls

> " Post-Acute Withdrawal Syndrome " whose symptoms include feeling

>anxious, feeling as though you don't want/need to be " in recovery " , and

>all sorts of other goodies. The man is an expert at devising

> " foolproof " tests that " prove " just about everyone has the condition

>he's looking for.

>

>~Rita

I have read one, maybe two of Gorski's books and it did seem to me that

some of what he was describing did happen- people got clean/sober and then

after getting used to it, started to self-destruct. Maybe this is really

some form of PTSD that doesn't really manifest until the anaesthetic is

removed for a while.

Joe B.

January 22, 2000

how come the 12 step free chat is always empty?

January 22, 2000

the test is BS and heres why. first of all it's results in survey dont

claim to be diagnoising your subject an addict as the disclaimer

states. it mearly say the people who reponded yes to those same anwers

in thier treatment center were indeed addicts that percentage of time

<wink wink..nudge..nudge> so take these results and decide for

yourself.

the thing about the test, its fundamentaly flawed. all the questions

are designed to come to designed end. its like a maze which goes around

a spiral to center, every turn takes you closer to thier goal. if one

of questons was do you breathe air, you would fall into 100% catagory

because all people there also breathed air. if you were to take non

addicts and have them anwser the same questions, how many of them would

respond yes? wouldnt that be just as compelling your subject is a

non-addict based on those results?

how many people on test were truthful? under what condtions were they

taking test? were they being complelled to take it? were they

volunatrily in treatment?

had they already undergone 12-step indoctrination? (this is relevenant.

there was a case here in land 15 years ago which was recently

solved. a litle girl was missing and for a year they thought the father

did it. twice under police pressure he admited he had killed her. he

belived he had killed her. he had no idea where he put the body. later

a shrink said that the father was under so much pressure with his child

missing, he snapped and admitted his guilt. this month the crime was

finally solved when the real killer lead police to where he had hid the

body. i think 12-step indoctrination could similarly pressure some

individuals with its heavy handed " defects of character " crap)

January 22, 2000

Because it only works with Windows, and us COOOOOOOOOOL Mac people

can't get on.

That's why.

Apple

javajen-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11982

> how come the 12 step free chat is always empty?

January 22, 2000

I may not be cool, Apple (and I do luv ya') but at least I can work the

chat room! Ha Ha Ha!!!

appledtp@... wrote:

>

> Because it only works with Windows, and us COOOOOOOOOOL Mac people

> can't get on.

> That's why.

> Apple

>

Sign In

Re: I must have INTP for my bunghole!

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity