YouTube Transcript:
How To Change One's Mind {Episode 01}
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Available languages:
View:
[Music]
12 Angry Men is a film about a jury
deciding the guilt of an 18 year old boy
on trial for murdering his father their
verdict whether guilty or not guilty
must be unanimous and if they find the
defendant guilty he will be given the
death penalty in the beginning of this
film all members of the jury vote guilty
all but one by the end of this film all
11 jurors who voted guilty have changed
their vote to not guilty what happens
between these two moments is one of the
greatest cinematic exhibitions of human
psychology if you've ever wanted to
learn how to argue effectively how to
communicate your reasoning question the
reasoning of others and win them over to
your way of thinking 1957 12 Angry Men
is something to be studied
[Music]
what makes 12 Angry Men a great film to
study regarding argumentation is the
fact that these characters by virtue of
being on a jury do not have the luxury
of agreeing to disagree they must agree
on the matter at hand unanimously also
by virtue of them being on a jury none
of them know each other personally and
nothing personal is meant to be at stake
they are simply tasked with determining
the truth for all intents and purposes
the protagonist in this picture is juror
number 8 he is the strongest advocate of
acquittal and the first man to vote not
guilty the antagonist in this picture is
juror number 3 he is the strongest
advocate of a guilty verdict and the
last man to vote not guilty in the
beginning number 8 is alone everyone
else seems to be convinced that the boy
on trial is guilty and not only does he
appear to have no arguments even he
isn't sure that the boy is not guilty
and yet this is the man responsible for
changing the jury's verdict in the end
number 3 stands alone everyone else has
been convinced that the boy is not
guilty how does this happen
how is this one man able to convince the
other 11 to change their minds
especially given the fact that he
initially claimed he wasn't trying to
change anybody's mind couldn't change my
mind if you talk for a hundred years I'm
not trying to change your mind it's just
it we're talking about somebody's life
here we can't decide in five minutes
supposing we're wrong supposing were
wrong supposing this whole building
should fall out of my head you can
suppose anything that's right a good
place to start in analyzing juror number
eight is with his relatively passive
personality while there are rare moments
in which he is confrontational number
eight is typically soft-spoken and non
aggressive he admits when he is not sure
about what he thinks he does not contest
every single rebuttal that's given to
him what's more he virtually never
States his disagreement with somebody
and in fact he often states his
agreement with one of the other jurors
voting guilty this is what makes number
eight the ideal rival for number three
number three states in
that he is certain about what he thinks
he does contest every single rebuttal
that's given to him he reliably states
his disagreement directly to whomever he
disagrees with and he virtually never
concedes a good point when it's made by
a member of the jury voting not guilty
to understand how number eight
ultimately wins the jury to his way of
thinking and how number three gradually
loses the jury let's begin with the
first characteristic of expressing
uncertainty the very first exchange
between these two men happens when
number three asks number eight a simple
question you really think he's innocent
I don't know when number ten asks him a
question he gets a similar answer I ask
you something do you believe his story
shortly thereafter number ten asks him
another question and gets another
similar answer what are we sitting here
for I don't know maybe no reason at face
value this does not seem like a winning
strategy in a debate how can you change
somebody else's mind if you don't seem
to have your own mind made up well
consider the impression that this gives
the other people in the room if somebody
who arrives at a different conclusion
than you is positive about it you're
probably not going to see any sense in
trying to argue with them in the first
place and even if you do you'll likely
just be playing defense the whole time
but if somebody who arrives at a
different conclusion than you admits
that they're not quite sure what they
think then there's no need to feel so
defensive about what you think as
backwards as it seems convincing
somebody that your mind can change is
necessary for allowing their mind to
change if your opponent suspects that
your mind cannot change they will not
allow theirs to change either because
number eight expressed uncertainty not
only do the other jurors want to hear
what he thinks everybody makes an effort
to reason with him perhaps the gentleman
down there who's disagreeing with us
perhaps you could tell us why you know
it let us know what you're thinking and
we might be able to show you where
you're mixed up compare this or rather
contrast this with juror number three
when he stands alone near the end of the
film rather than expressing even an
ounce of uncertainty he maintains
absolute certainty every single thing
that took place in that courtroom but I
mean everything says he's guilty what do
you think I'm an idiot or something the
reaction is what you might expect nobody
makes an effort to reason with him well
say something so remember in order for
someone else's mind to change they must
believe that your mind can change
another characteristic of juror number
eight is the fact that he does not
contest every single counter-argument
that's given to him obviously he does
contest many of them but there are many
more which he does not it's possible the
boy loss is nothing as somebody else
stabbed his father with a similar knife
it's just possible one of the arguments
that number eight makes is that it is
possible that somebody other than the
accused committed the murder with a
similar-looking weapon however when
number four offers a rebuttal number
eight does not contest it I mean you're
asking us to believe that somebody else
did the stabbing with exactly the same
kind of knife the odds are a million to
one it's possible or not very probable
once again this does not seem like a
winning strategy in a debate isn't the
whole idea of a debate to defend your
position and challenge the other
position at every turn well in fact it
isn't number eights argument was that a
coincidence
is possible which is true number fours
argument was that this particular
coincidence is not very probable which
is also true and number eight knows that
contesting a reasonable point is an
unreasonable thing to do so even though
he might not want to he concedes compare
contrast this with juror number three
who rather than picking his battles
impulsively fights every battle he can
man who drags one foot when he walks
because he had a stroke last year can
from his bedroom to his front door in 15
seconds at 26 he said 15 he said 20
seconds what are you trying to destroy
him now in this moment number 3 has
stated something incorrect and he was
promptly corrected he now has two
choices he can either concede or contest
[Music]
he was an old man half the time he was
confused I gotta be positive about
anything this is what happens when you
try to win every single battle
eventually you're gonna shoot yourself
in your own foot just because you
disagree with somebody's conclusion
doesn't mean you disagree with every
reason they have for reaching it if your
opponent says something reasonable and
you can test it you're going to make
yourself appear unreasonable it's better
to just concede to a good point sure it
won't look like you're winning the
debate in that particular moment but
you'll still seem reasonable and you'll
still appear to have an open mind which
as we've already covered will likely
keep your opponent's mind opened as well
it seems to me that this man has some
very good points to make moving on to
the third characteristic here number 8
rarely if ever States his disagreement
with another juror consider the
following exchange between himself and
number 10 number 8 clearly disagrees
with number 10 and in this moment he
could have easily stated that he could
have easily responded by saying oh come
on what do you mean I did just prove it
weren't you listening but it's more
important that he present his next
argument to the entire jury than it is
to defend his previous argument against
one member of the jury there was no use
in stating his disagreement so he didn't
you really get here number three does
not see the value in this type of
restraint to him if anybody reaches a
different conclusion than the one he has
that person must be confronted that's
nothing but words the kid you just
decided isn't guilty was seen ramming
this into his father this doesn't work
not just that it doesn't change the mind
of the person being confronted it
doesn't change the minds of anybody
who's listening either and what adds
insult to injury is the fact that number
three
hardly ever admits when he agrees with
one of his opponents which stands in
stark contrast with number eight who
regularly states his agreement with his
opponents during the testimony the boy
looks guilty and he is supposing were
wrong supposing supposing this whole
building should fall out of my head you
can suppose anything that's right the
knife and the way it was bought is
pretty strong evidence don't you think I
do good you're not gonna change
anybody's mind so if you want to be
stubborn and hang this jury go ahead the
kid will be tried again and found guilty
sure as he's born even when everyone
else in the room disagrees with number
three number eight still does not state
his disagreement even after all of the
other men have changed their vote to not
guilty number three aggressively
contests and number eight passively
concedes the differences between these
two men could be summarized in two
pieces of dialogue I don't care whether
I'm alone or not it's my right
it's your right so how do you change
another person's mind the short answer
is you don't you can't change somebody
else's mind only they can if you try to
change it they will defend it as is but
if you can manage to express uncertainty
concede to reasonable rebuttals state as
many areas of agreement as you can and
let the other person arrive at their own
conclusion on their own terms then it's
possible to change one's mind just
remember if your opponent's mind does
change
they're the ones who changed it not you
so to speak all that you did was
convince them to change it themselves
[Music]
you
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms
Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!
YouTube
←
→
↻
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc
YoutubeToText
←
→
↻
https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc