One example that comes to mind would be the phenomenon of scapegoating. The practice of scapegoating is very much something that can be examined and understood using the questions I posed in my 15 Jul 05 - 12:55 PM post, and it is something that can happen only in groups.

And scapegoating is a tool that is and has been used by governments and other powerful entities as a means of controling behavior. I would go so far as to say that it is a big part of the problem we see now.

In smaller groups, like families for instance, the practice of scapegoating creates a schism between the ones who are designated as "good" or some other term denoting acceptability, and the one(s) who are designated as "bad" or some other term denoting unacceptability. When this is the pattern, it's as though there are two sets of score cards. Only good marks go on the scorcards of the ones designated as "good" (and no bad marks, no matter how badly they behave), and only bad marks are put on the score card of the "bad" ones (no matter how "good" they behave).

And what we see when that happens is that the ones who are designated as "bad", usually end up rebelling against the group dynamic, sometimes in the form of addictions, sometimes in the form of the scapegoated one removing him or herself from the group (or family), or by exhibiting hostile behavior within the group. Such people can often function perfectly well outside the group without engaging in any of those behaviors, but when placed back in the group context, those behaviors emerge again.

In a scapegoating group dynamic, using the questions I posed earlier, it is possible to understand why people are behaving the way they are, and sometimes even to correct the situation (dynamic). For instance, the ones who are designated as "good" have something to gain from someone in the group being designated as "bad". While they criticize the ones who are designated as "bad", they actually need someone to be designated as "bad" in order to be able to identify themselves as "good". So they have to make a decision... would they prefer to let go of the need to elevate themelves at the expense of someone else, and to eliminate whatever disfunctional behaviors result from that dynamic, or would they prefer to maintain that dynamic and take the consequences.

In this particular context, if we ask the question; since the beginning of the "war on terror" have we seen an increase or a decrease in the kinds of people who engage in terrorist acts, or an increase in the kinds of terrorist acts being engaged in (or old kinds showing up in new places), the answer is "yes". If we ask, who gains (benefits) from this increase, we find that the most extreme elements of both sides of the conflict are the ones who gain (the gains for the US government, of course, being money and increased power). The people in the middle (the vast majority of people) lose.

So, since the people who are waging the "war on terror" are one of the groups who gain from the results of an increase of terrorist activities, we can extrapolate the possibility that this is, in fact, what they want. And we can look at any actions they may take or any behaviors they engage in as possibly being designed to produce this specific result.

This is a vastly oversimplified example. Obviously there are many other factors to consider. But it does give you an idea about how these questions can be used as a part of the total picture to help understand why people behave the way they do.