It represents a perfect example for applicable of a work group development framework. It also has examples of influence techniques among a groups members. This paper is looking at those specific examples in the movie and focusing in analysis the reasons why juror 8 is so much more effective than others in the meeting. According to Bruce tuckman, healthy work groups need to go through four stages of development: Forming, Storming, show more content, according the five methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said. He then talks about the boys backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used assertiveness to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used coalition building method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was its possible!
"12 Angry men.". M, (December 31, 1969). MegaEssays, "12 Angry men. m, ml (accessed July 07, 2018). 1174 Words nov 7th, 2011 5 Pages. Course: hrmg6200 Organization in New Economy. Assignment: Twelve angry men movie, the movie twelve angry men is about the twelve jurors that could adjust their influence in a decision-making process for conviction an eighteen years-old boy, whether the boy guilty or not guilty in murdering of his father.
Cheap, essay writing Service at 7 Order Custom
Critical thinking skills: developing effective analysis and argument. Critical Thinking, what it is and why it counts, Online available from: Accessed Proctor R (1991) do the ends justify the means, Thinking critically about Twelve angry men. Online available from: Accessed Troyka lq hesse d (2006) Critical Thinking reading and Writing. Online available from: ml Accessed. 12 Angry men Essay examples kibin.
It looks like you've lost connection to our server. Please check your internet connection or reload farming this page. Scroll to top 59 total results, company, follow. Apa, mla, chicago 12 Angry men. Retrieved 22:02, july 07, 2018, from.
Asking us to invoke our values and assumptions, and find the truth amongst the evidence presented. The movie gives us various characters of differing levels in society all bound together for one purpose, to find the truth in the evidence given which may result in a death sentence for the accused. The varying personalities and degrees of moral fortitude is evident from their reactions. One juror talks about how I have three garages going to pot, while youre talking, so lets get down and get outta here, another juror is preoccupied with tickets to a baseball game, and the fear he will miss it should the deliberation drag. Another ethical issue is the use of persuasion by juror 8 who seems intent on turning the jury to find with him, he uses methods that may be ethically unsound to sway other easily pliable members of the jury his way to gain momentum. He along with Juror 3 vie for the rest of the jurors votes, as Adler Rosenfeld and Proctor state in Interplay both use conformity pressure as a persuasive tool; both dole out rewards to jurors who help them and punishments to those who dont (2009).
Twelve angry men is a moral tale, it begs us as an audience to see the dilemma when a mans life is at stake and the decision makers are ordinary men, with their personal values, morals, assumptions and baggage. The burden of proof is the most difficult in law it is beyond a reasonable doubt, and Juror 8 who through reason and logic, who sees through the fallacies and falsehoods created by those in the room, who sows the seeds of doubt through the. We as an audience are also left with the narrative as was unfolded, and it is down to us whether we believe that the truth was uncovered or whether it was just a matter of objective persuasion and therefore whether the ends justify the means. Twelve angry men references; Adler r, rosenfeld. (2009) Interplay (10th ed) Interpersonal Communication Online available from: m/us/companion. Websites/ Accessed Chaffee. (2011) Thinking Critically (10th.) Boston Wadsworth Cottrell,.
Gpa on, your, resume
In Stella cottrells (2005) Barrier to Critical Thinking, she states that Emotional content can add power to an argument, but it can also undermine an argument, especially if emotions seem to take the twist place of the reasoning and evidence that could convince you.(Cottrell 2005 p11). He is not the only juror to erect barriers to Critical Thinking, we see examples in the various members of the jury of people who do not engage in the process of what Facicone (2011) comprehensively calls purposeful, self regulatory judgement which results in interpretation. Juror 10 is an apparent racist who discriminates between people who live in slums and those who dont, but is confronted with his flawed logic when juror 8 shows him that he says he doesnt believe one of them and believes another when it suits. He is shown to be morally conflicted. The question of morals and ethics also run a current theme through the movie. The sketching of the characters interests lead the audience to decide who is morally conflicted or not. Morals as Chaffee puts it are the principles that govern our relationship with other people: the way we ought to behave, the rules and standards that we should employ in the choices we make (Chaffee 2011 p371). Within the characters there are overt moral and ethical issues raised. The subject of the movie is essentially a moral or ethical question, it asks us the audience, what would you do?
Particularly in the case of the old mans evidence, tom where he demonstrated the flaws by physically moving furniture around the room and presenting an alternative version of the provided evidence. He then synthesises the content by pulling together what he had summarized, and analysed and discusses it with the input of the other jurors. Finally he reaches an evaluation, and presents this to his peers on the jury as a reasonable version of events. This process as described in (Troyka, hesse 2006) of Sumarise, analyse, synthesise and evaluate, marks juror 8 out from the rest of the jury as the most effective critical thinker as he engages in this process throughout the movie. The antithesis to juror 8 may be juror 3 as portrayed by lee. Cobb who at the outset presents a biased view of young people who have no respect for their elders In my day, i called my father. Sir, who does that anymore? We get the impression that he has made his mind up and has settled on a verdict of guilty to satisfy some personal feelings.
called premises) as true, then you must necessarily accept the conclusion as true. Juror 3 gives his reasons for reaching the conclusion that Its quite clear that the boy never went to the movies that night, returned home and killed his father with the knife as identified in court Until Juror 8 takes out a similar and knife. He also uses this analysis method to cast aspersions on the second point and third points raised by systematically analysing each component part and as Proctor (1991) writes by calling into question the integrity of the evidence, the testimonies of the witnesses, and the prejudices. Most effective/least effective critical thinker. During the course of the debate within the jury room Juror 8 summarises the evidence presented and the conclusions drawn by his fellow jurors, by asking questions like, what do we know about that? Or what does this show? He analyses the content, by breaking down the component parts and analysing each point through examination of what has been presented.
To improve our thinking, we actually have to think for ourselves, business to explore and make sense of thinking situations by using our thinking abilities. Although it is important to read about thinking and learn how other people think, there is no substitute for actually doing it ourselves.(Chaffee 2011 p47) The movie has a simple premise, that a minority may affect a majority if rational thought and logic are used. There were three points raised in the trial that Juror 8 believed required argument analysis,. The knife that was the murder weapon was unique and the boy was seen with it, although he said he had lost. The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say ill kill you from his apartment below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment after rising from his bedroom. That the old lady saw the boy kill his father through her window, whilst a train was passing. Juror 8 analyses each of these points and makes credible arguments that the conclusion is flawed based on incorrect reasoning, by pointing out inconsistencies in the conclusions reached. The other jurors are content to believe that their reasoning is solid, as they have used examples of deductive reasoning to reach their conclusion.
Human Resource mission Statement Sample Idea upstartHR
The play and subsequent movie twelve angry men is an examination of the dynamics at play in a jury room in the 50s in The United States. The action revolves around the opinions, perceptions, reason and logic of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by henry fonda who played the lead role and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the elements of Critical thinking found within the context of this remarkable movie, and will show that rational movie reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgement that can be prevalent in a population. Those elements will include: Argument Analysis. Most effective/least effective critical thinker, morality (persuasion, obedience within the movie, it can be seen that persuasive argument is employed by one single juror to help sway the majority to believe his analysis of the evidence presented, he sets on a course to reach out.