Who's read Power vs Force?

[RT Wolf]

Power vs Force is where Pavlina got the Levels of Consciousness scale.

It's an interesting book, but I feel the applied kinesiology stuff is a bit iffy. Any thoughts or experiences with that?

I was able to find an apparently double blind study which disproved the ideas set forth in Power Vs Force. I'll try to locate the link later.

[RandomJohn]

I've read it, and buy the basic premise as a framework for thinking about emotions and consciousness.

I'm curious about the muscle testing idea, which I've heard from several sources now. My wife and I tried a double-blind test of it last night, and it bombed seriously. The setup was pretty sound scientifically (I consult on clinical trial designs by vocation):

• I chose several DVDs from our collection and placed them in envelopes so that neither one could identify
• She shuffled the DVDs
• I muscle tested her, wrote an ID number on the flap on the inside so you would have to lift the flap to see it
• I wrote the ID number along with the result of the test on a result paper
• When we were done, she took the envelopes from me, we shuffled them, and then she presented me with the envelope
• We would do the test
• She would get the ID from the flap and write the ID down with the result (new page -- she didn't see her results)
• We compared results and then identified the DVD

Result: we disagreed on nearly every DVD, except one!

So as I see it, there were a couple of reasons for this result:

1. The muscle test is invalid
2. We didn't know what we were doing (this is the first time we did any muscle testing)
3. We resonate with different things (after all, we don't really know what's going on with muscle testing)

I hear that other double-blind tests have had dramatically different results, so I'm not too quick to accept #1. #2 is possible, and we did have a little trouble knowing what was "weak" and "strong." #3 is plausible as well, but would be a very confusing and unsatisfying explanation in light of the identity of the DVDs.

However, I'm not sure that you can do a double-blind test to disprove the framework. I treat it as Buddha's raft: use it as a wonderful framework for the purposes it works, and use something else that works better in other situations.

[taylor]

Applied Kinesiology has been disproven several times through double blind studies. Hawkins response to this was that the intention behind such experiments affected the results. In Power vs. Force Hawkins states that everyone can do it so long as they are above 200. Actually, you need to be around 415 to get reliable results from the folks I talk to. I know someone who uses it frequently and gets consistent results in line with Hawkins. Unfortunately, testimonials are not a valid source of scientific information. I have used it once during a test, my intentions were scientific and clinical. I was detached from the outcome and AK gave me the right answer. This was using a one person method that is very difficult to do reliably. I couldn't tell what was strong or weak in subsequent attempts.

For some people, goodness and love make them go weak. For some people, nothing makes them go weak. The results are also dependent on what is held in mind... are you thinking of the DVD Title, the movie as a whole, a particular scene that you think of when you see the movie, the DVD box, the disc itself? All of these things are probably going to calibrate differently.

I believe Hawkins is genuine, but AK has yet to be conclusively proven true. This leads me to use Hawkins scale and system as a general guideline without being dogmatic about it, not particularly because of AK, but because of how honest and true the context of his work is. When I observe the ideas Hawkins talks about, I can't help but see the truth of what he says.

[RandomJohn]

I'm there with you taylor.

There seems to be two different types of muscle testing (or, rather, applications). One is how ones energy is running or how their body is doing. This has to do with energy meridians from traditional Chinese medicine, chakras, or other subtle energy practices. The other has to do with how an object relates or resonates.

And measuring detachment from an outcome is very hard. Perhaps doing this in a triple blind manner, where we can grab someone off the street and do muscle testing on them, may be a way to get around this, though it will still be hard to measure the effect of the intention behind the experiment on this.

[wheelie]

I finished Power vs. Force about a month ago. This book is bound to be a challenge to whoever sits down to read it, and well worth the time.

Personally, I was very excited about the first few chapters; the integration of nonlinear mathematics into the study of consciousness and macro social systems touched on my own desire to make fractal art useful, the effort to separate and qualify levels of consciousness is fascinating and his eventual distinction of Power vs. Force is an elegant way to describe the outcomes of several cited historical conflicts as well as realtions between individuals.

Dr. Hawkins is a compassionate, brilliant, driven man who has put forth writings that are packed with value, insight and inspiration. Dr. Hawkins is also a crazy person.

There is plenty of information out there about Dr. Hawkins that supports this assertion. Applied kinesiology is, in fact, a pseudoscience. Dr. Hawkins's Ph.D. was issued by a college that has since been shut down as a diploma mill. Most of the 'calibrating' data was collected from experiments with his wife and/or the loose estimations of a lecture hall hand count. The numbers that are arrived at from the 'calibrations and calculations' he asserts lay upon a logarithmic scale which is actually an exponential scale based on his own description. Nonetheless, he gives no evidence of the methodology of arriving at this scale or even the numbers themselves.

I am not a skeptical person by nature and my intention going into this book was to be open-minded and to extract as much truth as could be had. I have no doubt that I honored that intention and I am satisfied. But I arrived at some unexpected conclusions also. Dr. Hawkins is not a scientist. He is a visionary and mystic, shooting from the hip, who is undoubtedly going to be tragically ignored by many smart people who would benefit from his insights. The flip side of that coin is that he will enrapture many who lack the sense of self to not attach to his philosophical identity. It is certainly debatable whether either of these groups would be better or worse off as a result.

[RT Wolf]

Interesting replies. So, I'd say we've determined (by concensus--the best way to do science) that while what Hawkins has written is interesting and the conclusions makes sense, the actual "science" behind is his work is debatable at best and simply pseudoscience at worst. There are still, however, lessons to be gleaned from his work (the levels of consciousness appears accurate to me).

Thanks for the thoughts, folks.

[impaul99]

When I read Power vs Force the first time and got to the Muscle Testing section I thought it was BS, but I decided to test it out anyways. Using two small envelopes and two pieces of paper inside containing different historical leaders I tested my girlfriend to see if she could test weak/strong on the right envelopes. It didn't work. I also tested using sugar vs. an artificial sweetener. Also didn't work. I wasn't really sold on the idea.

Then about 6 months ago, because of my studies on Nutrition I went to see a nutritionist with my girlfriend and unknown to me at the time when we booked the appointment, they used Muscle Testing to identify food sensitivities and recommended diet changes based on the muscle testing they did on her. She had no idea what they were doing was called muscle testing or what they were actually doing.

The problem that this caused for me is that the method seemed to work! Everything they were telling her was true, just as if her body was telling them exactly what it needed for optimal health. After that appointment I was kind of confused, because my previous belief with Muscle Testing was so strong against it and this kind of fried my brain a bit because it actually looked like it was working. Right now I'm not sure either way, whether it works or not as I haven't had it done to me yet, but I plan on doing that in the near future.

My only suggestion to the strongly logical minded people like myself is not to discredit Muscle Testing because it doesn't make sense that it would really work. I think our fear of the consequences of *IF* it actually works might be causing us to not see the proof that it does.

Just my two bits.

-Paul

[Nneka]

I have a friend who is an empathologist. She uses applied kinesiology and muscle testing to do nutritional and emotional "balances". I've known her for about 3 years now. When I first heard of it, I thought it was all whooey. However, I did a couple sessions with her and she was on.

We had a session in which I just kept going around in circles. In this one I think it was because neither of us were centered (above 200 or whatever the necessary level is).

I read the book about 4 months ago. I like his explanation about levels of consciousness and resonance at the different levels. But my take on AK is that IF it can be done successfully both parties have to be at a certain level of consciousness and that is a big IF.

[ReallyGoodIdeas]

Yeah - I read Power vs Force recently, and can find agreement with all the comments on one level or another!

My experience with muscletesting is that I visited a muscle testing chiropractor regularly for 20 years. It was always accurate in the context he used it. The early EFT pioneers used muscle testing, but would test themselves not the client. It's been largely replaced in modern EFT by using your intuition directly. I can see that it's a way of reading your intuition. As someone there said, the intent behind the test is vital. If subconsciously, you are not aligned with the purpose or the actual test, you'll test wrongly. I've been experimenting with the self-muscle testing myself, and find it useful, but I have to be very careful about my intent. I've caught myself out a few times.

My daughter is able to mess with my tests by deciding to be strong and to ignore what i say, when testing her. But when i've tested friends without giving them any background information, just tell them what to do, it works quite accurately.

I loved the book, it seemed to provide a context to understand how other people think. Certainly explains politics well!! And I've used self-muscle testing to work out other people's levels of consciousness according to the guide.

Do I know it's accurate?

If I start questioning it, I'll get inaccurate results. It's like Steve's million dollar experiment isn't it? Maybe a bit like faith as well. Maybe some things you CAN'T prove and you just have to KNOW they're true.

[Alvin]

During the seminars I used to help out with, we did muscle testing using many different methods, on hundreds (I kid you not) of participants.

Using the word 'try' vs. 'do' - most of the times 'try' makes people weak while 'do' makes them strong.

Heavy metal music vs. classical - this was fun, heavy metal makes people weak while classical makes them strong too.

Fruits vs. a can of coke - fruits also make you stronger while coke (instant coffee too) makes you weak.

The caveat here is that these tests didn't always work, there'd always be people on whom it didn't work on but in my experience it worked on the majority of our participants.

What was more interesting were the ones on which it did work, but refused to believe it; they'd come up with a hundred and one crazy reasons why something that was happening to them couldn't be possible

[impaul99]

Very interesting. I just finished reading Gary Renard's new book "Your Immortal Reality" which is the second part of "The Disappearance of the Universe". Your Imortal Reality talks about Power vs Force and explains how why it works/doesn't work. It also talks about books like "The Power of Now".

Finally it's clear to me.

[songwriter]

I think AK works but is a very complex stuff.

When I first read of it, I thought it was an almost impossible thing... but I gave it a try.

There was a paper near me that I haven't read. And I tried to guess if the first letter on the page was a vowel or a consonant. I was right. I did it again with other page (without looking at the text, of course...). I was right.
I did it 6 times, and I was right all of them.

But sometimes I've had wrong results, basically because of two things:

-Not doing the technique right. (Wrong hand position because I forgot the exact way...)
-Doing a "confusing" statement, not asking "permission", etc.

It only will work if you follow the instructions. If you just figure how it works it won't work... this ain't like a remote control.

Plus not everyone can do it and you won't have access to all the information you ask.

[impaul99]

There is a very specific and real reason why AK works when it does and doesn't work when it doesn't. I didn't really understand it until after I read "The Dissapearance of the Universe" and "Your Immortal Reality". Now I understand why it works/doesn't work and also understand that it is not special. What makes it work can be applied to anything like changing the speed of light or making your pancakes taste good.

Unfortunately, only by reading the two books does it start to make sense so I couldn't explain it in here, but for anyone who this AK thing has been driving nuts like me it's worth the time to read the books.

[Megan]

Like so many things I read, at first blush, I dug it.

Then the niggling little thoughts started bubbling up from below the "Gee Whiz, Isn't This Cool!" surface of my mind.

When a person self-rates his own books in the spiritual stratosphere, I have to ask, "What's wrong with this picture?"

Worse, when a person rates his detractors in the lowest strata, I have to ask, "How self-serving is that?" Also, "How self-referential is that?"

Then there are the pseudoscience claims (which I can neither verify nor disprove):

Numerous people have pointed out to me that Hawkins completely abuses the mathematics and physics in his book. He consistently refers to his calibration scale as "logarithmic" when it is in fact "exponential"; he uses the term "critical point" when referring to his exponential scales, when an exponential graph by definition cannot have a critical or "flat" point; and he uses leading-edge scientific terminology such as "chaos theory" and "attractors" in contexts that only demonstrate undeniable scientific and mathematical ignorance… which is rather strange considering that he calibrates his own books as the most "truthful" ever published.

David Hawkins - Power vs Force - A Critique

Amazon.com reader: The mathematics in this book is a joke

If a doctor were to tell you that your backache was caused by "halitosis of the femural artery located in the sternum", you would know that he doesn't know what he is talking about. This is exactly what Dr. Hawkins does with mathematical terms.

Dr. Hawkins rates everything in the universe on a scale of 1 to 1000 based on how good or bad it is. To explain this scale he uses a lot of technical-sounding mathematical terms, but he uses those terms incorrectly- to the point of being gibberish. Since he knows his discussion would be above most readers' heads Dr. Hawkins can get away with it.

He claims that the scale is "logarithmic" and base 10, but in his explanation of what a logarithm is, he confuses logarithmic functions with exponential functions and repeats this mistake throughout the book. Essentially, someone at level 201 has ten times the power of someone at 200, someone at 202 has 10 times the power of someone at 201 and so on.

This "logarithmic progression" is then completely contradicted by his chart which states how many people at one level counterbalance someone at another level.

One of the statements on this chart is that "12 people at level 700 equals one avatar at 1000". On his "logarithmic" (actually exponential) scale it would take 10^300 people at level 700 (that's a one with 300 zeros in front of it) to equal the power of one person at level 1000. Since when does 12= 10^300?

He uses the calculus term "critical point" and claims that his scale has a critical point at 200. In mathematics a critical point is the point where the derivative of a function equals zero. On a graph, it is the point where the tangent line is flat-the point where you are neither rising nor falling. What Dr. Hawkins didn't realize was that neither logarithmic functions nor exponential functions have critical points. Their derivatives are always positive. In this case, he just threw in a mathematical term without bothering to find out what it means.

He discusses chaos theory, because it is new and trendy, but he misses the point entirely. He seems to think that chaos theory implies that the world is more orderly and easily explained than previously thought, when in fact chaos theory implies just the opposite. He does this because he likes the word "attractor" which he overuses throughout the rest of the book.

In other cases, bad math like this could be overlooked. He is after all a psychiatrist, not a mathematician. In this book, however, the technical terms are used to impress the readers with how scientific the system is, and the claim is that it is based on research.

If you can understand what these mathematical terms actually mean, it becomes clear by the gibberish that he is just making this stuff up.

If his "mathematical" system was revealed to him through muscle-testing (as opposed to outright fiction), then it shows just how unreliable this system is.

Perhaps the most blatently incompetent statement he makes is that a loving thought has the energy of " 10^-35 million megawatts" (I'm using the symbol ^ because this this font won't allow superscripts) and claims that the quantity is "so enormous as to be beyond the capacity of the human imagination to comprehend."

The truth is that this quantity is so miniscule as to be beyond our capacity to comprehend.

10^35 million is a one with 35 million zeros in front of it- a huge number indeed, but 10^-35 million is 1/10^35 million -- a mind-bogglingly tiny fraction.

If you were to multiply the mass of the entire galaxy by a fraction that tiny, you wouldn't even have enough mass for a single electron. If the minus sign was a typo, without it the energy level described would be great indeed--probably be along the order of the big bang and our heads would have exploded (and caused a supernova) a long time ago.

In this case, he just threw together the most confusing notation he could think of, without a clue as to what it meant. He did this to make it appear scientific. He figured that his readers would be too dumb to know the difference. I don't think this can be written off as a mere honest mistake

Other laughable statements are that organically grown tobacco is actually healthy, and that taking one gram of vitamin C per day will counter all of the harmful effects of smoking.

He also states that adrenaline causes the muscles to go weak. Adrenaline is the stimulant hormone associated with the fight/flight response and its entire purpose is to give you EXTRA strength and energy in an emergency. As a doctor, he should know this

Amazon.ca: Power Versus Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior: Books: David R. Hawkins

Dr. Hawkins refers to the "absolute replicability of test results," yet makes no mention that kinesiology has never been verified by double-blind studies....

I tried his kinesiological method, but did not have consistant results. Perhaps I'm at some moronic level of consciousness....

David Hawkins

I don't doubt that there are levels of consciousness, but I object to spiritual teachers trying to validate their personal beliefs with pseudoscientific claims (if such they truly are), and blowing smoke in our faces for dubious reasons of their own, while hoping we don't notice.

Any mathematicians out there?

Megan

[Megan]

The Truth can be known in seconds

For Dr Hawkins, humanity has a basic defect. It lacks the capacity to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

Kinesiological testing (see ‘The Testing Technique’ above), is the ‘tool’ that can, in the right hands, assess value and motive, and distinguish truth from falsehood.

‘We’ve found a new tool; it’s almost like finding a telescope for the first time. We use this consciousness technique to explore human evolution and all its expressions.’

There are a few key rules, as Dr Hawkins explains: ‘To get correct answers, both people doing it have to calibrate over 200, which is the level of integrity.

They have to have integrity to begin with - which excludes 85% of the population! You might say that those who are devoted to the truth are karmically entitled to discover the truth.

Those who are devoted to falsehood have not qualified.

Kindred Spirit, Mind body and Spirit Magazine - Yoga, Holistic Health

• Are the scientific/mathematical assertions in Dr. Hawkins' book factual?
• If they are deviations from factual truth, is this done willfully, or from ignorance?
• If they are willful deviations from the truth, what does that say about the ratings he himself gave the book?
• If they are ignorant deviations from the truth, what does that say about the ratings he himself gave the book?
• Into whose hands are you willing to place the assessment of truth?

[Megan]

Here is the offending article Dr. Hawkins objects to:

The Skeptic's Dictionary

Applied Kinesiology

AK has some formidable proponents, such as psychiatrist-cum-guru David Hawkins. He claims, among many other things, that he has proof that AK is a reliable "lie detector" and can be used to determine the truth or falsity of any statement.

Hawkins also has developed a "scale of consciousness" and uses AK to determine how "enlightened" a book or person who wrote the book might be.*

Hawkins claims he's calibrated The Skeptic's Dictionary at level 160, "which is that of sophomoric egotism."*

Only 15% of humanity calibrate at above 200, according to Hawkins, so I'm in good company. By 'consciousness' Hawkins means some sort of developing spirituality. When you score between 700-1,000 you have reached "enlightenment."

George W. Bush calibrates at 460, according to Hawkins, which is in the range of intellectual genius. (Need I add that Hawkins holds spirituality in high regard and has very conservative political values?)

Hawkins goes so far as to claim that the Wikipedia article on him would calibrate at 400, instead of 200, if it removed the links to my criticisms.*

He claims AK is also a reliable way to determine a person's motives. Like many other New Age gurus, Dr. Hawkins believes he has not only found a way to tap into the unconscious mind but that therein dwells an unlimited database full of amazing truths.

One would think that a trained psychiatrist such as Hawkins would give more credit to the power of the unconscious mind to cause muscles to tense or relax (ideomotor action) and would not be buffaloed by the applied kinesiology quackery.

One would also think that a trained M.D. (Medical College of Wisconsin) and Ph.D. (Columbia Pacific University [a diploma mill]) would know that you can't do a proper controlled experiment with an audience of paying customers who are given envelopes containing either Nutrasweet® (bad, bad, bad!) or vitamin C (good! good! good!), a popular technique used by Dr. Hawkins to demonstrate the accuracy of AK.

He and Dr. David Gerston, another psychiatrist, refer to these public exhibitions as double-blind controlled studies.

I would hope that Dr. Hawkins was taught better when he worked on his Ph.D. under the guidance of Dr. Sheldon Deal, one of the world's foremost promoters of AK.

applied kinesiology

The Wikipedia article on Dr. Hawkins has been a sticky wicket, and has generated this page, which includes Hawkins' objection to The Skeptic's Dictionary article above:

#4: Dr. Hawkins voices his personal objections

THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED SPIRITUAL RESEARCH

September 13, 2005

To: 66.69.219.9

Re: Concern for Wikipedia

Dear 66.69.219.9,

It is assumed by its readers that Wikipedia is a handy online version of the equivalent of an encyclopedia, and that the information provided is authoritative and valid (i.e., calibrating in the 450-460 range as does the Encyclopedia Britannica).

This function would thus be of a different category than just the usual run of bloggers. By research, approximately 50 percent of the information on the Internet is fallacious. Presumably, Wikipedia would be of a higher academic standard and not just a rerun and condensation of bloggerism.

To be integrous, the entries in Wikipedia should therefore be reflective of valid sources of information, such as the Britannica demonstrates. Thus, an encyclopedic section on the recent history of Judaism would hardly include, as an authoritative reference, information derived from the fallacious diatribe, The Protocol of the Elders of Zion (calibration level 90), although mention could be made of that hate propaganda as one of the ideology bases of Nazi genocide.

Similarly, as to the entry on me, the belated appearance of a blog site entitled “Skepticism” hardly constitutes an authoritative reference in lieu of the more integrous confirmation of my work (e.g., Dr. Wayne Dyer; nomination for the Templeton Prize; etc.).

The work of consciousness research and all the books I have written are to facilitate spiritual understanding and confirm the reality of spiritual truth in the individual as well as society, and to confirm the evolution of consciousness over eons of time via both the linear and the nonlinear expressions, and then to correlate the emergence of spiritual awareness historically as expressed by the great avatars, saints, mystics, and Enlightened Teachers over the millennia.

My books and the lectures I have given worldwide for decades are not about kinesiology (I have written no books about that subject), but instead, they are about consciousness and the road to Enlightenment, of which I am an acknowledged teacher.

The Skeptics Dictionary (I have a copy) does not even have an entry on or about me at all and is therefore not a reference, as was incorrectly cited.

There is solely a negative blog site of very recent origin by an author who has no listed credentials at all and who is critical of all spirituality or religion (he invalidates even the Buddha and other recognized spiritual teachers from an atheistic viewpoint).

I would not list an atheist as a qualified critic of any spiritual or religious literature by any author.

The Skeptic author, web site, and purported “dictionary” are at calibration level 160, which is that of sophomoric egotism.

Even the supposed negative reports on kinesiology itself calibrate at 160, as they are mere polemics derived from false premises in that they violate the requirements for consciousness research validity.

My lifetime spiritual journey began 75 years ago, which includes 50 years of clinical experience and over 25 years of research to confirm spiritual realities. I therefore formally object to the inclusion of a blog-site reference from an avowed atheist who scorns all religion or spirituality.

Talkavid R. Hawkins/archive1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr. Hawkins doesn't address the issue of failed double-blind verifiability of applied kinesiology, which was the thrust of the Skeptic's Dictionary criticism, other than to rate the criticism more 160/sophmoric egoism--which you can call a mere ad hominem attack, for my money.

He is a medical doctor and a PhD [albeit a diploma mill PhD], and yet his defense is that his detractor is an atheist, and he, Dr. Hawkins, is a spiritual teacher and therefore immune to criticism from an atheist. Huh? It was scientific criticism. Shouldn't one also be scientifically, er, integrous?

Or...do the "requirements for consciousness research validity" lie in some rarified spiritual realm beyond the scientific method, known only to Hawkins?

If so, why insist on the "absolute replicability of test results?"

And besides, the, er, integrous Wayne Dyer (nominated for the Templeton Prize) supports him, says Dr. Hawkins.

OK, Wayne Dyer also supports Sai Baba, bigtime--Sai Baba--the Indian guru of large scandal, and interestingly enough, if the following is correct, Hawkins calibrates Sai Baba pretty low:

Dr. Wayne Dyer Inspires You Discussion Forum:

Posted by Cheekykid, Sat 17 Sep, 2005

I attended Wayne Dyer's lecture today and in the break I went up along with other people to talk to him.As you can understand I didn't have much time to talk to him so after greeting him and expressing my gratitude towards him/his work I asked him: For which Sai Baba you speak about.

He took out the pic from his pocket which by the way as he said during the lecture he keeps it in there all the time and guess what the controversial Baba was the person in it.

I then went forward to say:You said during the lecture that Sai Baba calibrates at 970 and that there only 2 people in world that calibrated as high.

As fas as I know according to D.Hawkins calibration test sai baba calibrates below 200 and his a fake guru.

His reply was that Hawkins doesn't believe in guru's and that he has actually met Sai Baba in person therefore he has some grounds on what he says. That was all......

My conclusion:

If Hawkins with his muscles tests calibrates Sai Baba below 200 (see power VS force VHS) then everyone who does the test on his own should find out the same number.

If Wayne endorses Hawkins and Hawkins says that Baba is a fake then how Wayne came up with a 970 calibration?

Hawkins or Dyer is in the wrong here.

I admire a lot Wayne Dyer and I have no intention to critisize him but i can't hide the reality which is that there is a major contradiction here.

Wayne Dyer endorses Sai baba????

Hawkins is a self-styled guru, IMO, whether he admits it or not, and is more than a little crazy.

All the gurus have feet of clay, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to learn from them, if you can manage to hang on to your critical thinking skills.

I've gone to a seminar on dowsing. I have my little pendulum. I know how prone dowsing is to subjective override (and I seriously doubt two-person dowsing is less so), but I don't write it off entirely.

But if you're going to create neologisms like integrous, and describe yourself as Top Integrous Dog, and shoot scientific jargon and dismal calibrations from the hip, you deserve all the skepticism the great unwashed dis-integrous masses throw at you, I would say.

Megan

[grazia]

hi all,
i've come across Dr. Hawkins in summer 2005, when listening to a Wayne Dyer speech (f.o.c.) on Caroline Myss' website. i was in fact searching for a more detailed step model of consciousness than Myss, Beck/Cowan/Wilber and other teachers had to offer. and did indeed find it in the MoC.

(later i found out how sloppy W. Dyer was in his naming off calibration results and historical facts. - still, his speech sparked me off plus a speech of John Chilton Pearce, wherein he also mentioned D. Hawkins - DH.
examples:
∞ 575 – Amazing Grace (hymn) – (Dyer mentions loc of 520 .)
∞ 300 – Mother Meera (from India, lives in Germany since more than 20 years.) – (Dyer said, she lives in India and gives her a way higher loc.)
∞ 710 – Mother Teresa – (Dyer gives a loc of 600.)

from then on i searched the net for more information on DH, listened to web radio interviews with him. many of his referrals made perfect sense to reconfirm or fill the gaps of other models of reality.

i had had some prior experience with kinesiology teachers. I've translated John F. Thie (a fine man †) and Daniel Whitside (3 in 1) who met greeted me in the morning with with a stink of alcohol and suffered a minor stroke in the afternoon while lecturing in front of the class.
a friend of mine listened to Dr. john diamond's lecture a few years ago and came to the conclusion, that he has gone awry.
i myself witnessed feng shui masters applying kinesiological tests for their own sake in front of audiences. one was caught and pointed out publicly. he then admitted his transgression.

i was informed about some of the power games among kinesiologists building up schools.
my sister (a adult educator) found much benefit in AK applied on her by her dentist. she went out to do courses in edukinesiology. found that the techniques work for better learning results and that she was criminalized (therotically) by the school law of her respective state. in other states of Germany, however, edukinesiology was not forbidden and downtrodden as so-called pseudoscience.

i compiled a long list of calibrations and many different items and mailed it to a friend of mine without much explanation. unbeknowst to me she was trained in a dowsing method using an instrument called the biotensor. she is not an intellectual as i am, however a pretty right brained person. without me knowing she went of the list with the biotensor in one hand and her finger of the other hand on top of the calibration she was testing. she did not have any background knowledge of how Hawkins AK-method instructions are. and she confirmed with her kind of "blind" testing all the figures which i had noted (Hawkins calibrations). in some cases i had 2 differing figures written down, which he had mentioned on the same item in two different dates. when my friend tested both of them, she found one of both was correct.

i had wondered if i would meet somebody in Germany who had also read Hawkins books. sure enough i did. she is a therapist versed in many methods. she saw me with a bundle of papers in my arm. the blue cover (without writing) of Hawkins 2nd book Eye of the trilogy (German version) sticked out under the papers on top. and she had a hunch which this book was. the same one than she was reading herself. i was enjoyed about this recognition - in a group of 100 people.
she is also versed with the biotensor and without me or my other friend knowing she did the same testing of the same list with calibrations - also confirming these results. these 2 syncs did it for me.

i knew i could influence a pendulum easily, that is why i did not use it for my own sake.
with these 2 friends and another healing practitioner who also uses the biotensor in his practice we formed a group of 4. after a series of strenous arm tests we found this method time consuming and impractical. instead we used either the biotensor or the pendulum instead and could prolong our testing session. we started with a prayer, asking permission, and tested in a group the main items (locs) on the Map of Consciousness acc. Hawkins to see if we could come up with the same results. in 95% of the cases we did. few others differed 5-15 points.

then we dared to do tests of our own. only when all of our instruments rested at the same loc (maximally 5 degrees apart) we noted down the results.

in some cases i had other singular AK testers reconfirm it. my plan is to establish/meet another group which could confirm the more iffy results, wherein some member of the group has a vested interest and could have overridden the group result.

i do not meet very often with the group of 4. other group members at other occasions did not work all that well. we once were a group of 8, 4 curious people on top. the core members of our original testing group each came to the same conclusion afterwards: not again with them. the positionalities and curiosity were just too overwhelming. and the calm energy in the room was gone.

that's where i am with k-testing. it works, given the right frame of mind and clinical attitude.

DH says that on