ах, осъзнах че цялото това с къндишънинга не е вярно - баща ми каза, че хората не протестират с идеята да постигнат нещо, а само за да изразят гнева си... а и съм сбъркал фактите си много много лошо, направо изтрих абзаца

ето новата версия - няма редакции, само добавих още текст. не мисля да добавям още текст

In 2013, a series of protests happened in Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Bulgarian_protests ). At first, the protesters asked for the resignation of the government which ruled at a time (which eventually resigned). After that, a new government was assigned, and there are currently protests against that government.

Obviously, there is a lot of psychology going on. Conformity is always at work with group decisions, such as protests. One of the ways it works is that most people are probably going to find the thought of protesting much more acceptable if they see other people speaking of it, than if it were a private lonely thought in their heads. Perhaps before protests existed, the idea of protesting would seem like a bad idea to a random person who just happens to think of it.

Another psychological principle in action is an external outlook of how things are in Bulgaria. It is very often spoken between Bulgarians that there are many wrong things with the country, and that they originate from the government. An often mentioned accusation for that is corruption and greed. While people in Bulgaria tend to have many problems because of very low average wages and high crime rate (according to a poll, Bulgarians are one of the unhappiest nation), some of them may blame themselves for them. The existence of protesters and protests proves that a lot of them blame external factors (i.e. the government) for their troubles.

The current government (which people still protest against) has proposed to have Turkish language taught in schools, which angered a lot of Bulgarians. As 89% of the people in Bulgaria are Bulgarians, and 10% are Turkish, there is some ethnical pressure between the groups. While stereotypes might be in action, this scenario can be better explained by in-group and out-group thinking. Bulgarians see other Bulgarians as their ‘tribe’, and likewise for Turkish people. This perspective discourages seeing the perspective things of the ‘enemy tribe’ and typically, a lot of people attribute immoral motives to the other group, while they believe their own motives for opposing the other group are moral and right. Even if someone sees that and tries to open the eyes of his own group, he will be seen as a “traitor” for saying something positive about the other group. Even if some people are sane enough to see that he makes sense, they will be under the effect of conformity, and only few of them will manage to actually believe their words.

A great problem with the political system, and the whole community, is the whole rules around political ideas. Parties have many positions and ideas which are incompatible with those of other parties. It is extremely unlikely that a single political party gets them all right. Most of the time, your side will be right about some (hopefully a lot) things and wrong about some. However, it is unacceptable to claim that some other party's idea on a subject is better than your own party's - not just publically, but even in a meeting amongst fellow party members. Most people will see that as a sort of betrayal, because group thinking is, very unfortunately, also in parties.

Everything would be much better if people were cooperative and pointed out the positive and negative sides of their ideas - the negative side would be equally relevant as the positive side, but would also encourage thought and discourage blind following of ideas. While this won't cure all the problems, it will improve things a lot.

Ideally, the scientific method will be employed. Hypotheses must be empirically tested whenever possible, with all the appropriate blinding. Relying on people's gut feelings rather than an experimental test leads to ideas which will be more persuasive, rather than effective.