12 angry men
12 Angry Men
Adeshola Adewale
Juror #1
Juror number one uses Formal Reasoning. He first uses this when he calls for an initial vote amongst the other jurors to see where the votes stand. This is considered formal reasoning because he used a procedure that would get a guaranteed solution, being everyone’s decision. Juror one also uses mental laziness. He never states a clearly formed opinion about his decision of not guilty or guilty. He relies on other to state their opinions so he can fly under the radar and listen and not participate. This also plays into what he thinks about his position as foreman. He feels as foreman he shouldn’t have a concise clear opinion he is just there to serve as facilitator.
Juror #2
Juror number two uses Intelligent Confusion. He uses this when juror number one asks why everyone decided upon guilty or not guilty. He says I don’t know I need to know more. This is considered Intelligent Confusion because he is not sure on an answer but he knows that there needs to be some evidence to come to a conclusion for this problem. Juror two also uses Heuristics. He uses this when he brings up the angle of the knife when the young boy supposedly stabbed his father. This is considered Heuristics because he takes a gamble with no ensured outcome. The outcome could have gone either way but since there was nothing to lose but time he went on and took the risk.
Juror #3
Juror number three uses Ignorant Certainty. He uses this when he says we can throw all the other evidence out and from that point he just shouts that the boy is guilty with no premise of this conclusion. This is considered Ignorant Certainty because he has a conclusion but no facts to base it on. He always has an opinion but when the other jurors ask him why, that is where he gets stumped. He also uses cognitive dissonance. He uses this at the end of the movie when he switches his vote form guilty to not guilty. This is considered Cognitive Dissonance because he has two
Adeshola Adewale
Juror #1
Juror number one uses Formal Reasoning. He first uses this when he calls for an initial vote amongst the other jurors to see where the votes stand. This is considered formal reasoning because he used a procedure that would get a guaranteed solution, being everyone’s decision. Juror one also uses mental laziness. He never states a clearly formed opinion about his decision of not guilty or guilty. He relies on other to state their opinions so he can fly under the radar and listen and not participate. This also plays into what he thinks about his position as foreman. He feels as foreman he shouldn’t have a concise clear opinion he is just there to serve as facilitator.
Juror #2
Juror number two uses Intelligent Confusion. He uses this when juror number one asks why everyone decided upon guilty or not guilty. He says I don’t know I need to know more. This is considered Intelligent Confusion because he is not sure on an answer but he knows that there needs to be some evidence to come to a conclusion for this problem. Juror two also uses Heuristics. He uses this when he brings up the angle of the knife when the young boy supposedly stabbed his father. This is considered Heuristics because he takes a gamble with no ensured outcome. The outcome could have gone either way but since there was nothing to lose but time he went on and took the risk.
Juror #3
Juror number three uses Ignorant Certainty. He uses this when he says we can throw all the other evidence out and from that point he just shouts that the boy is guilty with no premise of this conclusion. This is considered Ignorant Certainty because he has a conclusion but no facts to base it on. He always has an opinion but when the other jurors ask him why, that is where he gets stumped. He also uses cognitive dissonance. He uses this at the end of the movie when he switches his vote form guilty to not guilty. This is considered Cognitive Dissonance because he has two