Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior

Features

• Cover Type: Paperback with 300 pages
• Published by: Hay House
• Edition: 1st Edition April 2002
• Written in: English
• ISBN 10 Number: 1561709336
• ISBN 13 Number: 978-1561709335
• Book Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.2 x 0.9 inches
• Weighs: 1.2 pounds

Lee Iacocca
particularly timely.a significant contribution to understanding and dealing with the problems we face today. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Sam Walton
I especially appreciate [the] research and presentation on the attractor patterns of business. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Reader Reviews
"Power vs. Force" comes with book jacket recommendations from high places: no less illuminaries than Wayne Dyer, Lee Iacocca, and even Mother Teresa endorse Hawkins' book. Thus I approached it with a good deal of open-minded interest. However, I was not able to finish the book, and certain of its claims disturbed me. Hawkins' main thesis is that you can use kinesiological testing to test the objective truth of a statement. In the form of testing he uses, the subject stretches out his arm. The querent makes a statement such as "artificial sweeteners are good for you." If the subject can maintain his arm outstretched under a firm push from the querent, the statement is accepted as true. If the subject's arm can be pushed down, the statement is false. Hawkins maintains that he used this testing on the statements and ideas presented in the book, and concluded that "the level of truth of this edition of the work has been calibrated at 810, which is unusually high for this time in our culture." Perhaps using his own method was the only way to test the objective truth of the book, however, it is unscientific to test a method of inquiry using the method itself. It's a circular dynamic, much like having the Los Angeles Police Department make an inquiry into how well the LAPD is doing its job. Another reservation I had about the book concerned the belief that the Truth is out there floating around, just waiting to be nailed down by some perfect method of apprehension. Whether or not this is true is a philosophical question that ultimately has no answer. However, I have noticed that in regards to many questions one may find as many truths out there as there are people viewing whatever for them is the truth. For instance, in the case of the artificial sweetener test, such sweeteners may indeed be bad for some people, and have no harmful effects on others. People can live to ripe old ages on a steady diet of saccharine, caffeine, cigarettes, and hostess twinkies. Even if some cosmic force declares those items "bad," are they really bad for the people who live, and even seem to thrive in some cases, on a steady diet of those items? My third and final reservation had to do with the fact that I tried this method of testing on several people, using the artificial sweetener example. It didn't work. When I stated that sweeteners are good for you, all of my test subjects held their arms up. Then I tested them using other, more personal, statements, trying to get their arm strength to weaken. It never did. I am willing to concede that just maybe I carried out the test inappropriately, but at this point I'm bored with the whole exercise. I don't really want to live in a world where Ultimate Truth can be acquired, catalogued, and used in battles for hearts, minds, and bodies. Comments (6) | | (Report this)