The basis of this work is research done over a 20-year period, involving millions of calibrations on thousands of test subjects of all ages and personality types, and from all walks of life. By design, the study is clinical in method and thus has widespread, pragmatic implications. Because this testing method is valid in application to all forms of human expression, calibrations have successfully been taken for literature, architecture, art, science, world events, and the complexities of human relationships. The test space for the determination of the data is the totality of the human experience throughout all time.
Mentally, test subjects ranged from what the world calls “normal” to severely ill psychiatric patients. Subjects were tested in Canada, the United States, and Mexico and throughout South America and Northern Europe. They were of all nationalities, ethnic backgrounds, and religions, ranging in age from children to elders in their 90s, and covered a wide spectrum of physical and emotional health. Subjects were tested individually and in groups by many different testers and groups of testers. In general, the results were identical and reproducible, fulfilling the fundamental requirement of the scientific method: perfect experimental replicability.
Subjects were selected at random and tested in a wide array of physical and behavioral settings: on top of mountains and at the seashore, at holiday parties and during the course of everyday work, in moments of joy and moments of sorrow. None of these circumstances affected the test results, which were found to be universally consistent irrespective of extraneous factors, with the singular exception of the methodology of the testing procedure itself. Because of the significance of this factor, the testing method will be described in detail below.
Two persons 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 is 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 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 subject 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 or 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] calibrates 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.
The test procedure, the reader will note, is to use the muscle test to verify the truth or falsity of a declarative statement. Unreliable responses will be obtained if the question has not been put into this form. Nor can a reliable result be obtained from inquiry into the future; only statements regarding existent conditions or events in the past or present will produce consistent answers.
It is 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 or distractions in the background.
Because the test is so deceptively simple, inquirers do well to first verify its accuracy to their own satisfaction. Responses can be checked by cross-questioning, and everyone who becomes acquainted with the technique thinks of tricks to satisfy themselves that it is reliable. It will soon be found that the same response is observed in all subjects, that it is not 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 useful to first test the statement “I have permission to ask this question.” This is analogous to an entry requisite on a computer terminal, and will occasionally return a “no” answer. This indicates that one should leave that question alone or inquire carefully into the reason for the “no.” Perhaps the questioner might have experienced psychological distress from the answer or its implications at that time, or for other unknown reasons.
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 everyone would go strong; typically a murmur of surprise would ripple through the audience at the implications of what they had just discovered.
The next phenomenon demonstrated was that the mere image of a substance held in the mind produced the same response as if the substance itself 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 at all—the reliability of the method was demonstrated to everyone’s satisfaction.
For reliable results, it should be remembered that people process experience differently: some people 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 subjects will instinctively select their own 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 a paradoxical 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 subject 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 anomalous response does occur, further investigation will 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; some testers, at least at certain times, may express sufficient negative energy 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 is remembering his relationship with his brother from childhood, he may have a different response than if he is holding in mind an image of the relationship as it is today. Questioning always has to be narrowed down specifically.
One other cause for paradoxical test results is a physical condition of the test subject resulting from stress, or depression of the thymus-gland function, which occurs from encountering a very negative energy field. The thymus gland is the central controller of the body’s acupuncture energy system, and 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 “thymic thump.” The thymus gland is located directly behind the top of the breastbone. 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 normal test results will occur.
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. Because the test is rapid, actually taking less than 10 seconds, it is possible to process an enormous amount of information about a variety of matters in a very short time.
The numerical scale elicited spontaneously from test subjects ranges from the value of mere physical existence at 1; up to 600 in the ordinary worldly realm, which is the apex of ordinary consciousness; and then from 600 on up to 1,000, which includes advanced states of Enlightenment. Responses in the form of simple yes-or-no answers determine the calibration of the subject. 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 either individuals or groups—a consistent scale emerged, which correlates well with human experience, history, and common opinion, as well as the findings of psychology, sociology, psychoanalysis, philosophy, medicine, and the famous Great Chain of Being. It also correlates quite precisely with perennial philosophy’s strata of consciousness.
The tester must be cautious, however, realizing that the answers to some questions may be quite disturbing to the subject. The technique must not be used irresponsibly, and the tester must always respect the subject’s willingness to participate; it should never be used as a confrontational technique. In clinical situations, a personal question is never posed to the test subject unless it is pertinent to a therapeutic purpose. It is possible, though, to pose a question that precludes personal involvement on the part of the test subject, who then functions merely as an indicator for the purposes of calibration research.
The test response is independent of the subject’s actual physical strength. It is frequently dumbfounding to well-muscled athletes when they go just as weak as anyone else in response to a noxious stimulus. The tester may well be a frail woman who weighs less than 100 pounds, and the subject may be a professional football player who weighs more than 200, but the test results will be the same, as she puts down his powerful arm with a mere two fingers.
Differing calibrations may be obtained over time or by different investigators for a variety of reasons: situations, people, politics, policies, and attitudes change over time.
Unless a specific scale is used as reference, the numbers obtained will be arbitrary. All calibrations in this book were made in reference to the Map of Consciousness. For instance: “On a scale of 1 to 1,000, where 700 represents Enlightenment, this _______ calibrates at _______.” If a specific scale is not specified, testers may get astounding numbers over 1,000 and progressively higher numbers with subsequent tests. On this scale, no person who ever existed on this planet calibrated over 1,000, the calibration of all the great Avatars.
People tend to use different sensory modalities when they hold something in mind—that is, visual, sensory, auditory, or feeling. “Your mother” could therefore be how she looked, felt, sounded, and so on; or “Henry Ford” could be calibrated as a father, as an industrialist, for his impact on America, for his anti-Semitism, and so forth.
One can specify context and stick to a prevailing modality. The same team using the same technique will get results that are internally consistent. Expertise develops with practice.
The best attitude is one of clinical detachment, posing a statement with the prefix statement: “In the name of the highest good, ______________ calibrates as true. Over 100? Over 200?” and so on. The contextualization “in the highest good” increases accuracy, because it transcends self-serving personal interest and motives.
There are some people, however, who are incapable of a scientific, detached attitude and unable to be objective, and for whom the kinesiologic method will therefore not be accurate. Dedication and intention to the truth have to be given priority over personal opinions and trying to prove them as being “right.”
Approximately 10 percent of the population is not able to use the kinesiologic testing technique for as-yet-unknown reasons. The test is accurate only if the test subjects themselves calibrate over 200 and the intention of the use of the test is integrous and also calibrates over 200. The requirement is one of detached objectivity and alignment with truth rather than subjective opinion. Sometimes married couples, also for reasons as yet undiscovered, are unable to use each other as test subjects and may have to find a third person to be a test partner.
Both skepticism (cal. 160) and cynicism calibrate below 200 because they reflect negative prejudgment. In contrast, true inquiry requires an open mind and honesty devoid of intellectual vanity. Negative studies of behavioral kinesiology all calibrate below 200 (usually at 160), as do the investigators themselves.
That even famous professors can and do calibrate below 200 may seem surprising to the average person.
Thus, negative studies are a consequence of negative bias. As an example, Francis Crick’s research design that led to the discovery of the double-helix pattern of DNA calibrated at 440. His last research design, which was intended to prove that consciousness was just a product of neuronal activity, calibrated at only 135.
The failure of investigators who themselves, or by faulty research design, calibrate below 200 confirms the truth of the very methodology they claim to disprove. They “should” get negative results, so they do—which, paradoxically, proves the accuracy of the test to detect the difference between unbiased integrity and nonintegrity.
Any new discovery may upset the apple cart and be viewed as a threat to the status quo of prevailing belief systems. That a clinical science of consciousness has emerged that validates spiritual Reality is, of course, going to precipitate resistance, as it is actually a direct confrontation with the dominion of the narcissistic core of the ego itself, which is innately presumptuous and opinionated.
Below consciousness level 200, comprehension is limited by the dominance of lower mind, which is capable of recognizing facts but not yet able to grasp what is meant by the term truth (it confuses res interna with res externa) and that truth has physiological accompaniments different from those of falsehood. Additionally, truth is intuited, as evidenced by the use of voice analysis, the study of body language, papillary response, EEG changes in the brain, fluctuations in breathing and blood pressure, galvanic skin response, dowsing, and even the Huna technique of measuring the distance that the aura radiates from the body. Some people have a very simple technique that utilizes the standing body like a pendulum (fall forward with truth and backward with falsehood).
From a more advanced contextualization, the principles that prevail are that Truth cannot be disproved by falsehood any more than light can be disproved by darkness. The nonlinear is not subject to the limitations of the linear. Truth is of a different paradigm from logic and thus is not “provable,” as that which is provable calibrates only in the 400s. Consciousness-research kinesiology operates at level 600, which is at the interface of the linear and the nonlinear dimensions.