Reflection: Twelve Angry Men In Twelve Angry Men, I observed the traits of an undisciplined mind when two of the jurors started to play tic-tac-toe, or some sort of game, while Mr. Davis was speaking about the trial. They were displaying poor thinking because instead of being open-minded about the things Mr. Davis had to say, they completely shut him out and ignored him. By doing that, they portrayed intellectual arrogance.
They should have tried to put themselves in his shoes and try to figure out the reason for Mr. Davis being sympathetic towards the defendant. Another example of an undisciplined mind is when juror #3 got very angered and he blurted out that the old man, the witness, was old and confused, so he did not know what was he was saying. With that statement, he contradicted himself because he was one of the ones that believed the boy was guilty. He just assumed that the man was senile because he was old; he used the stereotype that old people are senile and do not know what they are saying. When the jurors that believed the boy was guilty changed their decision, that was an example of intellectual fair-mindedness, courage, and humility.
They believed that the boy was guilty but they were willing to reexamine the evidence and critically think about the innocence of the boy. They had to have used some intellectual standards to be able to change their decision of the verdict. When jurors #11 stood up and disprove his belief with the new rationalization of the murder that was intellectual courage. Even though he believed that the boy was guilty, he was willing to look at the evidence against his decision and point it out to his fellow jury members.
The Essay on Henry Fonda Juror Guilty Boy
The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men are locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and ...
The scene when one of the jurors was confronted on the bathroom by another juror was a good example of egocentric thinking. The man approached the other juror and asked him why he wasting his time. This is very egocentric thinking because all he cared about was himself. He did not take into consideration that his verdict will decide if the boy lives or dies. Also, when the juror that was talking to the old juror about baseball, he was displaying egocentric thinking. He was telling the old man how he hoped for the deliberation to end early, so he could go watch the baseball game.
He valued the game and his enjoyment more than the life of the defendant. Mr. Davis displayed intellectual fair-mindedness and courage. He displayed fair-mindedness by not taking the prosecuting attorney’s word as is. He challenged their evidence and tried to theorize another murder scenario that prove the boy innocent. He was open-minded even though many of the evidence made it seem like the boy was definitely guilty.
He displayed intellectual courage by examining why the other jurors think that the boy was guilty. From there, he tried to convince them that there could be another scenario, but he never flagrantly said that they were wrong and he was right. He just gave them his opinion and showed them the fallacies in their theory of the murder. This film was shown to the M 210 class because it is a perfect example of critical and egocentric thinking. Most of the characters did egocentric thinking and manifested poor critical thinking skills at the beginning of the movie, but by the end of the film, they were all critical thinkers. We, the students, can use this film as an example of what to do and not to do when we think..
