0:00 [Music]
0:02 12 Angry Men is a film about a jury
0:06 deciding the guilt of an 18 year old boy
0:09 on trial for murdering his father their
0:11 verdict whether guilty or not guilty
0:14 must be unanimous and if they find the
0:16 defendant guilty he will be given the
0:18 death penalty in the beginning of this
0:20 film all members of the jury vote guilty
0:22 all but one by the end of this film all
0:25 11 jurors who voted guilty have changed
0:28 their vote to not guilty what happens
0:31 between these two moments is one of the
0:33 greatest cinematic exhibitions of human
0:36 psychology if you've ever wanted to
0:38 learn how to argue effectively how to
0:40 communicate your reasoning question the
0:42 reasoning of others and win them over to
0:44 your way of thinking 1957 12 Angry Men
0:48 is something to be studied
0:50 [Music]
0:56 what makes 12 Angry Men a great film to
0:59 study regarding argumentation is the
1:01 fact that these characters by virtue of
1:03 being on a jury do not have the luxury
1:06 of agreeing to disagree they must agree
1:09 on the matter at hand unanimously also
1:12 by virtue of them being on a jury none
1:14 of them know each other personally and
1:16 nothing personal is meant to be at stake
1:18 they are simply tasked with determining
1:20 the truth for all intents and purposes
1:23 the protagonist in this picture is juror
1:26 number 8 he is the strongest advocate of
1:28 acquittal and the first man to vote not
1:30 guilty the antagonist in this picture is
1:33 juror number 3 he is the strongest
1:36 advocate of a guilty verdict and the
1:38 last man to vote not guilty in the
1:40 beginning number 8 is alone everyone
1:43 else seems to be convinced that the boy
1:45 on trial is guilty and not only does he
1:47 appear to have no arguments even he
1:50 isn't sure that the boy is not guilty
1:52 and yet this is the man responsible for
1:55 changing the jury's verdict in the end
1:57 number 3 stands alone everyone else has
2:00 been convinced that the boy is not
2:02 guilty how does this happen
2:04 how is this one man able to convince the
2:06 other 11 to change their minds
2:09 especially given the fact that he
2:10 initially claimed he wasn't trying to
2:12 change anybody's mind couldn't change my
2:14 mind if you talk for a hundred years I'm
2:17 not trying to change your mind it's just
2:18 it we're talking about somebody's life
2:20 here we can't decide in five minutes
2:23 supposing we're wrong supposing were
2:24 wrong supposing this whole building
2:26 should fall out of my head you can
2:27 suppose anything that's right a good
2:30 place to start in analyzing juror number
2:32 eight is with his relatively passive
2:35 personality while there are rare moments
2:38 in which he is confrontational number
2:40 eight is typically soft-spoken and non
2:43 aggressive he admits when he is not sure
2:45 about what he thinks he does not contest
2:48 every single rebuttal that's given to
2:50 him what's more he virtually never
2:52 States his disagreement with somebody
2:55 and in fact he often states his
2:57 agreement with one of the other jurors
2:59 voting guilty this is what makes number
3:01 eight the ideal rival for number three
3:04 number three states in
3:06 that he is certain about what he thinks
3:09 he does contest every single rebuttal
3:11 that's given to him he reliably states
3:13 his disagreement directly to whomever he
3:16 disagrees with and he virtually never
3:19 concedes a good point when it's made by
3:21 a member of the jury voting not guilty
3:23 to understand how number eight
3:25 ultimately wins the jury to his way of
3:27 thinking and how number three gradually
3:30 loses the jury let's begin with the
3:32 first characteristic of expressing
3:34 uncertainty the very first exchange
3:37 between these two men happens when
3:39 number three asks number eight a simple
3:41 question you really think he's innocent
3:43 I don't know when number ten asks him a
3:48 question he gets a similar answer I ask
3:52 you something do you believe his story
3:56 shortly thereafter number ten asks him
3:59 another question and gets another
4:01 similar answer what are we sitting here
4:04 for I don't know maybe no reason at face
4:08 value this does not seem like a winning
4:11 strategy in a debate how can you change
4:14 somebody else's mind if you don't seem
4:16 to have your own mind made up well
4:18 consider the impression that this gives
4:20 the other people in the room if somebody
4:22 who arrives at a different conclusion
4:23 than you is positive about it you're
4:26 probably not going to see any sense in
4:28 trying to argue with them in the first
4:30 place and even if you do you'll likely
4:32 just be playing defense the whole time
4:34 but if somebody who arrives at a
4:36 different conclusion than you admits
4:38 that they're not quite sure what they
4:40 think then there's no need to feel so
4:42 defensive about what you think as
4:45 backwards as it seems convincing
4:47 somebody that your mind can change is
4:49 necessary for allowing their mind to
4:52 change if your opponent suspects that
4:54 your mind cannot change they will not
4:56 allow theirs to change either because
4:59 number eight expressed uncertainty not
5:02 only do the other jurors want to hear
5:04 what he thinks everybody makes an effort
5:06 to reason with him perhaps the gentleman
5:09 down there who's disagreeing with us
5:12 perhaps you could tell us why you know
5:14 it let us know what you're thinking and
5:15 we might be able to show you where
5:17 you're mixed up compare this or rather
5:20 contrast this with juror number three
5:22 when he stands alone near the end of the
5:24 film rather than expressing even an
5:27 ounce of uncertainty he maintains
5:30 absolute certainty every single thing
5:34 that took place in that courtroom but I
5:35 mean everything says he's guilty what do
5:37 you think I'm an idiot or something the
5:39 reaction is what you might expect nobody
5:42 makes an effort to reason with him well
5:48 say something so remember in order for
5:52 someone else's mind to change they must
5:54 believe that your mind can change
5:56 another characteristic of juror number
5:58 eight is the fact that he does not
6:00 contest every single counter-argument
6:02 that's given to him obviously he does
6:05 contest many of them but there are many
6:07 more which he does not it's possible the
6:09 boy loss is nothing as somebody else
6:11 stabbed his father with a similar knife
6:12 it's just possible one of the arguments
6:14 that number eight makes is that it is
6:17 possible that somebody other than the
6:19 accused committed the murder with a
6:20 similar-looking weapon however when
6:23 number four offers a rebuttal number
6:25 eight does not contest it I mean you're
6:27 asking us to believe that somebody else
6:29 did the stabbing with exactly the same
6:30 kind of knife the odds are a million to
6:32 one it's possible or not very probable
6:36 once again this does not seem like a
6:39 winning strategy in a debate isn't the
6:42 whole idea of a debate to defend your
6:44 position and challenge the other
6:46 position at every turn well in fact it
6:49 isn't number eights argument was that a
6:51 coincidence
6:52 is possible which is true number fours
6:55 argument was that this particular
6:57 coincidence is not very probable which
7:00 is also true and number eight knows that
7:03 contesting a reasonable point is an
7:05 unreasonable thing to do so even though
7:08 he might not want to he concedes compare
7:11 contrast this with juror number three
7:14 who rather than picking his battles
7:16 impulsively fights every battle he can
7:20 man who drags one foot when he walks
7:22 because he had a stroke last year can
7:24 from his bedroom to his front door in 15
7:25 seconds at 26 he said 15 he said 20
7:28 seconds what are you trying to destroy
7:30 him now in this moment number 3 has
7:34 stated something incorrect and he was
7:36 promptly corrected he now has two
7:39 choices he can either concede or contest
7:43 [Music]
7:49 he was an old man half the time he was
7:52 confused I gotta be positive about
7:53 anything this is what happens when you
8:00 try to win every single battle
8:03 eventually you're gonna shoot yourself
8:05 in your own foot just because you
8:07 disagree with somebody's conclusion
8:09 doesn't mean you disagree with every
8:12 reason they have for reaching it if your
8:14 opponent says something reasonable and
8:16 you can test it you're going to make
8:19 yourself appear unreasonable it's better
8:21 to just concede to a good point sure it
8:24 won't look like you're winning the
8:25 debate in that particular moment but
8:28 you'll still seem reasonable and you'll
8:30 still appear to have an open mind which
8:32 as we've already covered will likely
8:34 keep your opponent's mind opened as well
8:36 it seems to me that this man has some
8:39 very good points to make moving on to
8:41 the third characteristic here number 8
8:43 rarely if ever States his disagreement
8:46 with another juror consider the
8:48 following exchange between himself and
8:50 number 10 number 8 clearly disagrees
9:01 with number 10 and in this moment he
9:04 could have easily stated that he could
9:06 have easily responded by saying oh come
9:09 on what do you mean I did just prove it
9:12 weren't you listening but it's more
9:14 important that he present his next
9:16 argument to the entire jury than it is
9:19 to defend his previous argument against
9:21 one member of the jury there was no use
9:24 in stating his disagreement so he didn't
9:30 you really get here number three does
9:31 not see the value in this type of
9:33 restraint to him if anybody reaches a
9:36 different conclusion than the one he has
9:38 that person must be confronted that's
9:44 nothing but words the kid you just
9:47 decided isn't guilty was seen ramming
9:49 this into his father this doesn't work
9:53 not just that it doesn't change the mind
9:55 of the person being confronted it
9:57 doesn't change the minds of anybody
9:59 who's listening either and what adds
10:01 insult to injury is the fact that number
10:03 three
10:03 hardly ever admits when he agrees with
10:06 one of his opponents which stands in
10:09 stark contrast with number eight who
10:12 regularly states his agreement with his
10:14 opponents during the testimony the boy
10:16 looks guilty and he is supposing were
10:18 wrong supposing supposing this whole
10:20 building should fall out of my head you
10:22 can suppose anything that's right the
10:24 knife and the way it was bought is
10:25 pretty strong evidence don't you think I
10:27 do good you're not gonna change
10:29 anybody's mind so if you want to be
10:31 stubborn and hang this jury go ahead the
10:32 kid will be tried again and found guilty
10:34 sure as he's born even when everyone
10:39 else in the room disagrees with number
10:42 three number eight still does not state
10:45 his disagreement even after all of the
10:48 other men have changed their vote to not
10:50 guilty number three aggressively
10:52 contests and number eight passively
10:55 concedes the differences between these
10:57 two men could be summarized in two
10:59 pieces of dialogue I don't care whether
11:02 I'm alone or not it's my right
11:07 it's your right so how do you change
11:11 another person's mind the short answer
11:14 is you don't you can't change somebody
11:17 else's mind only they can if you try to
11:20 change it they will defend it as is but
11:22 if you can manage to express uncertainty
11:25 concede to reasonable rebuttals state as
11:27 many areas of agreement as you can and
11:30 let the other person arrive at their own
11:33 conclusion on their own terms then it's
11:36 possible to change one's mind just
11:39 remember if your opponent's mind does
11:41 change
11:42 they're the ones who changed it not you
11:44 so to speak all that you did was
11:46 convince them to change it themselves
11:49 [Music]
11:56 you
Chrome Extension