In “Power Vs. Force” we are taught a test to get answers from the body, using the body as a truth-telling device of sorts. This is all so interesting to me, I am sharing this part of the book where the testing procedure is described. Dr. Hawkins believes that there are far-reaching positive changes in society that can happen because of this scientific way of testing.
I look forward to a world of wiser “wise men” than we have today! Amen.
-----
The testing technique
To begin the testing procedure, two people are required. One acts as test subject by holding out one arm laterally, parallel to the ground. The second person then presses down with two fingers on the wrist of the extended arm and says, "Resist." The subject then resists the downward pressure with all his strength. That's all there is to it.
A statement may be made by either party. While the subject holds it in mind, his arm's strength is tested by the tester's downward pressure. If the statement is negative, false, or reflects a calibration below 200 (see "Map of Consciousness," Chapter 3), the test subject will "go weak." If the answer is yes or calibrates over 200, he will "go strong."
To demonstrate the procedure, one might have the subiect hold an image of Abraham Lincoln in mind while being tested, and then, for contrast, an image of Adolf Hitler. The same effect can be demonstrated by holding in mind someone who is loved in contrast to someone who is feared, hated, or about whom there is some strong regret.
Once a numeric scale is elicited (see below) calibrations can be arrived at by stating, "This item" (such as this book, organization, this person's motive, and so on) is "over 100," then "over 200," then "over 300," until a negative response is obtained. The calibration can then be refined: "It is over 220? 225? 230?," and so on. Tester and testee can trade places, and the same results will be obtained. Once one is familiar with the technique, it can be used to evaluate companies, movies, individuals, or events in history; it can also be used to diagnose current life problems.
Please note that the procedure is to use the muscle test to verify the truth or falsity of a declarative statement. If the question has not been put into this form, unreliable responses will be obtained. Nor can any reliable result be obtained from inquiry into the future; only statements regarding existent conditions or events will produce consistent answers.
It's necessary to be impersonal during the procedure to avoid transmitting positive or negative feelings. Accuracy is increased by having the test subject close his eyes, and there should be no music in the background.
Because the test is so deceptively simple, an inquirer should first verify its accuracy to his own satisfaction. Responses can be checked by cross-questioning, and everyone who becomes acquainted with the technique thinks of tricks to satisfy himself that it's reliable. It will soon be found that the same response is observed in all subiects, that it isn't necessary for the subject to have any knowledge of the matter in question, and that the response will always be independent of the test subject's personal opinions about the question.
Before presenting an inquiry, we have found it instrumental to first test the statement, "I may ask this question." This is analogous to an entry on a computer terminal, and will occasionally return a "no" answer. This indicates that one should leave that question alone or inquire into the reason for the "no." Perhaps the questioner might have experienced psychological distress from the answer or its implications at that time.
In this study, test subjects were asked to focus on a specified thought, feeling, attitude, memory, relationship, or life circumstance. The test was frequently done in large groups of people; for demonstration purposes, we first established a baseline by asking the subjects, eyes closed, to hold in mind the memory of a time when they were angry, upset, jealous, depressed, guilty, or fearful--at that point, everyone universally went weak. We would then ask them to hold in mind a loving person or life situation, and all would go strong--as a murmur of surprise typically would ripple through the audience at the implications of what they had just discovered.
The next phenomenon demonstrated was that a mere image of a substance held in the mind produced the same response as if the substance were in physical contact with the body. As an example, we would hold up an apple grown with pesticides and ask the audience to look directly at it while being tested; all would go weak. We would then hold up an organically grown apple, free of contaminants, and as the audience focused on it, they would instantly go strong. Inasmuch as no one in the audience knew which apple was which, nor, for that matter, had any anticipation of the test, the reliability of the method was demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction.
Keep in mind that people process experience differently--some primarily adopt a feeling mode, others are more auditory, and still others are more visual. Therefore, test questions should avoid such phrasing as "How do you feel?” about a person, situation, or experience; or "How does it look?"or "How does it sound?" Customarily, if one says, "Hold the situation (or person, place, thing, or feeling) in mind," the subject will instinctively select his appropriate mode.
Occasionally, in an effort, perhaps even unconscious, to disguise their response, subjects will select a mode that is not their customary mode of processing and give a false response. When the tester elicits such a response, the question should be rephrased. For example, a patient who feels guilty about his anger toward his mother may hold in mind a photograph of her and test strong. However, if the tester were to rephrase the question by asking this subject to hold in mind his present attitude toward his mother, the subiect would instantly go weak.
Other precautions to maintain the accuracy of the test include removing eyeglasses, especially if they have metal frames, and hats (synthetic materials on top of the head make everyone go weak). The testing arm should also be free of jewelry, especially quartz wristwatches. When an irregular response does occur, further investigation should eventually reveal the cause--the tester, for instance, might be wearing a perfume to which the patient has an adverse reaction, producing false negative responses. If a tester experiences repeated failures while attempting to elicit an accurate response, the effect of his voice on other subjects should be evaluated, for some testers, at least at certain times, may express sufficient negative emotion in their voices to affect test results.
Another factor to be considered in the face of a paradoxical response is the time frame of the memory or image involved. If a test subject is holding in mind a given person and their relationship, the response will depend on the period the memory or image represents. If he's remembering his relationship with his brother from childhood, he may have a different response than if he's holding in mind an image of the relationship as it is today. Questioning always has to be narrowed down quite specifically.
One other cause for paradoxical test results is a physical condition of the test subiect resulting from stress, or depression of the thymus gland function from encountering a very negative energy field. The thymus gland is located directly behind the top of the breastbone and is the central controller of the body's acupuncture energy system. When its energy is low, test results are unpredictable; this can be easily remedied in a few seconds by a simple technique discovered by Dr. John Diamond, which he called the "thymus thump." With clenched fist, pound over this area rhythmically several times while smiling and thinking of someone you love. At each thump, say, "Ha-ha-ha." Retesting will now show the resumption of thymic dominance, and test results will return to normal.
The testing technique just described is that recommended by Dr. Diamond in “Behavioral Kinesiology”. The ~ only variation introduced in our study was the correlation of responses with a logarithmic scale to calibrate the relative power of the energy of different attitudes, thoughts, feelings, situations, and relationships. Since the test is rapid, actually taking less than ten seconds, it's possible to process an enormous amount of information about these matters in a short time.
The numerical scale elicited spontaneously from test subjects--it ranges from the value of mere physical existence at 1, to 600, which is the apex of ordinary consciousness, and then on to 1,000, comprehending advanced states of enlightenment. Responses in the form of simple yes-or-no answers determine the calibration of the subiect. For example, "If just being alive is one, then the power of love is over 200." (Subject goes strong, indicating a yes.) "Love is over 300? (Subject still goes strong.) "Love is over 400?" (Subject stays strong.) "Love is 500 or over?" (Subject still strong.) In this case, love calibrated at 500, and this figure proved reproducible regardless of how many subjects were tested. With repeated testing--using individuals or groups of testers with individuals or groups of subjects--a consistent scale emerged, which correlates well with human experience, history, and common opinion, as well as the findings of psychology, sociology, psychoanalysis, philosophy, and medicine. It also correlates quite precisely with the perennial philosophy's strata of consciousness.
The tester must be cautious..
-----
“Power Vs. Force” by David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. pp60-65
You can't force peace, only show it.
Original Post
and try again. 
