9 is my hero in many ways. The first to support 8. The only one to closely observe the body language, appearance, and emotional signals of the witnesses. And of the jury.
While Juror #8's strategies are great to look at, I also should say that Juror #4 deserves a lot of credit. He picked his battles, admitted defeat in certain arguments (what were you doing 3 days ago), admitted other points that the other juror had. I wish that Jurors 4 and 8 were viewed in the same light, because from the beginning Juror #4 was always rational and reasonable. He had legitimate reasons to think that the boy was guilty, and just because in the end he turned out to be wrong doesn't mean that he fell into the "trap" of assuming guilt. Now, Juror #8 was the one that changed everyone's mind and undertook a much greater feat than #4 due to his patience and open mind, but #4 needs to be spoken about in my opinion.
While we don't find out for certain whether or not the boy did it, we are actually given a hint as to another suspect (or should I say group of suspects) who could have committed the murder. In the boys story he says he bought the knife, afterwards he went to the movies. On the way there he says that the knife fell out of his pocket without him noticing. These are all the events the jury look at however there is one more event which occurs after the boy buys the knife and before he goes to the movies. He shows the knife off to his friends. Several boys the same age as the accused, who would know that the boy is going to the movies and would thus know that his apartment would be empty save for potentially his father. Now the boy doesn't know the knife fell out of his pocket, he assumes that based on the fact that it is no longer there. It is entirely possible that one of his friends saw this exotic knife and decided to procure it for themselves, afterwards using it to commit the crime. Such a criminal would be smart to leave the knife behind after clearing it of fingerprints such that the boy would come back and be framed for his fathers murder. The witnesses in the movie both have their ability to directly see the murderer questioned, so it is not unlikely that they assumed they saw the accused when in actuality they simply saw a boy of similar age. However as this detail is never explored further in the movie, there is never any particularly special motive given to this potential suspect beyond the fact that the victim was an utterly horrible person and wanton criminal himself. It would seem that he simply intended to rob the apartment he assumed was empty, taking the knife as protection should he be wrong, got into an altercation with the father and then fled the scene of the murder after wiping the knife of fingerprints.
This video wasn't about their intial conclusions though. It was more about the tactics they used. #4 ultimately failed because he was forceful with his arguments and unwilling to move, which puts people on the defensive. #8 on the otherhand was more passive and open-minded, which welcomed people into considering his point of view.
You present a really interesting idea, but I think there is a factor you are not considering: The objective of juror #8 was not to convince them that the boy was innocent, but that there was reasonable doubt about his guilt. His thesis is not "the boy did not do it" but rather "we cannot know with certainty". It is not accurate to say that "everyone else has been convinced that the boy is not guilty" since what happened instead was that everyone was convinced that there was reasonable doubt and therefore they should not convict him. He was successful at driving them to reevaluate their own understanding of the situation, which was enough to achieve the goal of a not guilty verdict, but if his goal had been convincing them to reach a different conclusion instead of demonstrating the existence of reasonable doubt, then chances are that this strategy would not have been as effective.
@Drinker_Of_Milk Exactly. So while the points mentioned in this video are useful, all it generally will get you is creating uncertainty in whoever you're talking to, rather than certain agreement with you.
Great point. Typically, the goal of a debate is to get the other person to agree with you. I think this can be put in two steps: 1) convenice the other person to have doubt in the truth their position, and 2) get them to agree with you. Here, it was just to get everyone to have some level of doubt regarding their positions (step 1 only). The tactics covered here are great for step 1. But, they are not going to do much good for step 2. That usually requires more force and charisma.
Also worth mentioning that others in the room can be convinced by your presentation, demeanor, and argument. So while you may direct your point at one person, your impact may be greater on those who you are not directly addressing.
Yes, there's a difference between changing someone's mind and getting them to reach a certain conclusion. As a life coach, it is my job to change my clients' minds about their problems and I employ strategies. The conclusions they reach are always their own and often brilliant, and that's why I love my side hustle.
@evaadams4243 "12 Angry Men literally changed my temperament whenever I find myself in the middle of an argument. Mr. Fonda's character's strategy does work!" Then you're a dishonest person.
@@nstix2009xitsn Im not gonna ask why you think that. instead Im gonna ask you why you wrote ""12 Angry Men literally changed my temperament whenever I find myself in the middle of an argument. Mr. Fonda's character's strategy does work!" Then you're a dishonest person." rather than "Then you're a dishonest person.". it's really annoying when people do that. this isn't an english exam where you have to quote the source material. just write your response like a sane person
@@revengance4149 "it's really annoying when people do that. this isn't an english exam where you have to quote the source material. just write your response like a sane person" It's called courtesy, with which you are apparently unfamiliar, and which you evidently equate with insanity.
Obviously, the film is [in black-and-white], but the fact that the usual colors the Counter Arguments channel is also channeled into the style of their film [12 Angry Men (1957) ] would be the most likely cause for praise-- the video and the film share an artistic style.
@Delta 029 That is a probable conclusion, but I am not sure in this case. Now i could be wrong, but shouldn't we at least take the time to figure out, before some channel ends up in the dumps because of our choices?
Actually I thought there was only a few truly angry men haha. Although each character gets angry expressing their argument at least once in the film so the title stands true to the film.
@@diapysik Ah, I see your a man of culture as well. fun fact: on my google account my profile pic is the actual gif. you can have a gif on your google account profile
@@omi691 The point here that is people who are simply having a discussion, -- whether sharing their views or knowledge about a particular subject, _on a public forum -- are in no one way portray themselves as an authority or an expert in the video's topic at hand. I don't get why people (like the o.p.), posts comments like these.
It's a shame considering the relevance between 12 Angry Men's narrative and what is going on currently in the United States. So many differences are failing to be resolved simply because both sides involved fail to empathize and debate, rather than argue.
0:00 12 Angry Men: A tale of argument and human psychology. 0:50 Title Card 1:24 Juror 8 vs Juror 3 (Innocent vs Guilty) 2:10 He says he is not trying to change anyone's mind Juror 8 Analysis 2:30 Passive Personality 3:31 Expressing Uncertainty 5:56 Does not contest every rebuttal (Chooses his battles, does not reason against reasonable points) 8:41 Rarely states his disagreement. Often states his agreement. Juror 3 is the opposite. The FOIL to Juror 8 5:13 Expressing Certainty 7:13 Impulsively fights every battle 9:32 Shout down any disagreement. Never states any agreement 4:12 How can you change someone's mind if your not sure of yourself? Well, it provides an opening to have a dialogue and allows everyone else the chance of changing their own mind. 11:09 Conclusion
I'm not going to say this is a bad post. It's a great post. Timestamp comments are great. I will ask you; why did you feel the need to make one for a ten minute long essay?
I took away the idea of not building a clash in a dialogue, if I say they're wrong, they'll just think of a way to prove themselve right just more His passive unsure, open minded position is really what I remembered to try through the my life since, even if with time I began to forget the picture of a jury film in my head, I still abstractly remembered the idea floating around in my head, as an unobvious strategy in a debatte
It is important to note that this method will not work in a contest or debating against a person's long-held belief, or in politics. Certainly, juror #3 has the best method there. That is what's effective since your aim is to not change your opponent's mind but to move the audience to your side. Expressing uncertainty there is a huge mistake. But if your aim is to change the mind of your opponent(s) specifically, like changing short term opinions, arguing with your family members to change their view etc, juror #8's method is the way to go about doing it. To sum it up, both the methods should be used and are effective in different situations and it is up to us to choose the best way.
Akhil Babu Muraleedharan that’s very insightful. If you show passion in what you believe you can persuade a majority, but if your brashly against a personal opponent it fails as you can’t compromise when your purely against someone, understanding the others point of view and showing why you believe what you believe neutrally is most affective if you need to talk to one
Yes, the method of number 8 is specifically geared towards changing a debater's mind. Its also strong in that elements of it can convince an audience. The reason why one would not want to use his method is due to time restrictions and the lack of a forced agreement at the end of a debate. You can take a lot from 8's methods and apply it to debates: not contesting useless points, presenting new arguments for the audience instead of reiterating old ones for the opponent, and showing that you have a mindset that could be changed is great for audiences to agree with you. Furthermore, while 3 is passionate, he isnt smart about his passion. He is often rude, angry, and dismissive; this doesnt create a connection with the audience because observers will contrast the angry one with the rational one. He disagrees with valid points, which opens up weaknesses in his arguments. Juror 3 is not suitable for any debate. If someone relies on an obstinate auduence who is already in agreement, that person is not doing anything to change minds.
Well, both these methods are useful in case you want to impress the audience or win your opponent to your way of thinking, but none of them actually sets you on the path to the truth, which I suppose could seem to be the initial goal of a debate. There is a third way, supposing the other people in the room are also looking for the truth: - for each possibility, assess what you think its probability is and why, - then see if the other people have new information that could update these probabilities, - state your reasons to the others so that they update their own probabilites and maybe come up with new argumentations that can emerge from the pooling of ideas; - finally if a unanimous decision must be reached, organise a vote while assigning a slightly higher weight to more knowledgeable people on the matter. Obviously that's an ideal method, in practice it's probably never going to happen like I described (e.g. human beings are not rational), but you can at least tend toward that, and _you_ - and every participant in the debate - should come closer to the _truth_, rather than making _other people_ - be it an audience or other debaters - closer to _your opinion_…
A debate isn't a fight at all, but many people, even politicians (i've seen some debates between politicians in my country) seem to see it that way. For two arguments to conflict each other there has to be one definitive truth and if you are interested in the truth you are gonna help each other find that truth by sharing your knowledge. If you are not interested in the truth and just want to 'share' your beliefs you'll get defensive and stubborn
It depends on the purpose of the debate. In a jury room you are trying to convince your interlocutors to change their minds. In a candidates debate you are not trying to change your opponent's mind and have them go "you're right, everyone should vote for you". Instead you are trying to convince the audience. This also occurs in parts of 12 angry men, for example when juror 8 makes juror 3 look bad in front of the other jurors who aren't involved at that particular moment. These two call for very different strategies.
The short version is "They have to arrive at the conclusion themselves, but you can gently guide them there. They have to think they did it on their own, though."
This video honestly just helped me a lot. I’ve been arguing with my ex for months trying to save the relationship and get back together but this video right here just helped me realize I can’t change her mind. Thanks a lot I really needed this. Update: she broke up with me a couple days ago. I figured it would happen I just wish I knew why she stopped loving me.
This is the kind of content that I was hoping you would release after your announcement video. Part of why I subbed to you originally was to see new and better ways to argue with people. I often find myself in a #3 situation, and I never really understood why I was so bad at it. I have facts, figures, proof, and the gumption to say it, why would there be any disagreement? Obviously that hasn't really worked out for me in the past, but I've never really known specifics about what to do to change it, or even really had my problems explained to me. Videos like this really help me take a step back and look at my situation with a much more critical eye, thank you.
I'm a mix of the two. I often agree with the opposition because I know it's important to sound rational, but I also straight up disagree and feel the need to confront every opposing point. The biggest thing for me from this vid is that your opponent has to believe your mind can be changed before they can change their own.
Mudak The Multiplier yes. I also notice that most people dehumanize their opponent (a type of ad hominem) and if you’re that misanthropic towards your opponent in your language then it puts your whole position into question, in my opinion. A little empathy goes a long way too
Maybe for its time, but just from the clips shown, the characters feel very one-dimensional. #3 is just an amalgamation of that angry person everyone knows - always fighting verbally but never convincing anyone. While the main character just goes around planting doubt on a topic that almost ALWAYS leads to a not-guilty verdict IRL. (No one wants the responsibility of putting people to death if there is even a slightest doubt) The movie's big point is to mislead the audience that its 11-1 and is a David vs Goliath tale but it is very much the opposite IRL, the accused must have done a crime beyond redemption and even then it doesn't always end up successful on the first attempt - because "i just don't want blood on my hands" mentality.
@@UnbreakableRukawa You clearly live in a more moral area than I do! Where I live, people would brag about being able to put a murderer in prison. Also, Does a movie have to be perfectly realistic to be a masterpiece? Art is much more than simply realism, and some of the best stories use characters as vessels for particular perspectives on philosophy or even as incarnations for certain emotions or States of mind. From Shakespeare (a LOT of Shakespeare) to inside out, this is a way in which film makers have been expressing their view on reality using a format that most audiences enjoy. 12 Angry Men is just about the best form of that you can get. No fat to trim, no unnecessary backstory, no pointless over characterization that only goes to muddle the overarching plot, just... well... 12 Angry Men!
@Zephyrus Auron its just statistically averages of the american jury and their reasoning to why there are so few executions despite having so many convicted criminals. Murder is committed often in emotional rage, which if you have to sit on jury and listen to every perspective, will make it hard to kill because we are all capable of emotional rage. Personally, I myself come from a place without a jury system so I am pretty much on the other side of the camp, but i did have to write a paper on it. Art is important but I don't believe in putting art on a pedestal. There are many masterpieces of different times, and each reflect the sentiment of its time and importance. What art is - is culture. They teach a younger generation their backstory to their identity - which everyone seeks in their formative years. That's why Shakespeare is still alive, it is required reading for many countries when you are young. Just like Charlotte's web and Animal farm. All have political agenda for why they were selected over other stories regardless of the artist's original intent, and that is what becomes education - which both unites us and enlightens us but dyes most of us in a specific mindset before we are old enough for cognitive thought. That's why religious education start young, before you understand your world and political studies target late teens to early 20s, when you are seeking your identity/purpose. Art at the end of the day requires both skill and more importantly, heavy financial+influential support to be constantly reinforced and immortalized - which for Shakespeare's time was Queen Elizabeth I. Does 12 Angry men check off the skill category for me? It makes a point and did teach some interesting values for its time, but they are pretty common traits now. The angry man that people ignore is a common troupe. Which is my biggest critic with film. Replace the poor antagonist with anyone mild competent in that scenario and it would be probably in reverse. The negotiation is also weak by today's standard and can be negated by even a minor character who uses "expressed uncertainty" but against the protagonist. Your story's hero is only as strong as its antagonist, that's why the dark knight is considered a modern classic today and has spawn endless copycats with bigger budgets that failed to emulate its essence, while giving Nolan the golden "i can do what the fuck i want" ticket to creative movie production. (hint: no more cartoon heroes for him) 12 Angry men has a terrible antagonist and tries to hide it by making the illusion of 11v1. Its lesson is good but fleshed out as realistically as it has been done today. Is it an ageless masterpiece? Well no, it is too specific in it's purpose to be ageless, but it works as a casestudy of both history and a few specific negotiation ideas.
@@UnbreakableRukawa Well obviously I disagree with most of that, and I'm not sure why you went political... But 90% of what I already wrote works as a counter to that. I mostly just think you don't know a lot about art in general, so you've put it all in one box, so I'm not going to argue that point. I do think that your main problem with the story, that countless others have since ripped it off or have been inspired by it and so it's not original, is kinda stupid. No offense. Literally every masterful art piece will be ruthlessly copied, that's kinda how you know it's a success. Calling it a cliche and throwing it away for that is weird, but whatever.
Hi CA, I've been waiting for you to give an opinion about this! And thank you for your last video, introspection is important when it's just you making videos
This is a perfect film. Brilliant screenplay, superb actors, splendid directing, excellent lighting and camerawork with a memorable music track as the cherry on top. A classic!
Great great video essay. This deserves more attention, as does the movie in today's age! Pride in our own stance and wanting to be a winner gets in the way. Making ourselves vulnerable opens other people up. Side note, great editing. Loved the moment at 7:44 when you show how #3 forced himself to contest, and as you turn up Giant Steps with Coltrane's chops going at full, #3 explodes. Subbed.
Well, to be honest, it was not on "how to win them over to your way of thinking", it was on how to convince others to THINK and RATIONALLY ANALYSE in the situation, when someone's life is at stake. It was also sooo relieving to see the free world where rationality won, without any gender, racial, personal, emotional ("feelings"!) arguments being raised! Thank you very much for a great material! You make many people THINK! :)
@marcelklimczak4841 10 months ago (edited) "Well, to be honest, it was not on 'how to win them over to your way of thinking,' it was on how to convince others to THINK and RATIONALLY ANALYSE in the situation, when someone's life is at stake." Garbage. It was on how to deceive people into submitting to your own evil position, in order to aid and abet murderers "of color."
Well, not really. One of the reasons #8 gives for voting "not guilty" is his sympathy for the boy, which is more emotional than rational. Rationally speaking, the boy was more guilty than not. But #8 made a convincing argument that one should not assume that all the evidence is accurate and one should always question themselves before coming to conclusions, which can be affected by personal prejudices. If anything, #8's moral feelings towards the case and the gravity of it were the start. Then he used rationality to explain his reasoning. Morals and feelings will always be there, but they should not be the whole basis for your thinking or argument.
Saw this movie in my 8th grade Civics class. Quickly became one of the hypest movies I’d ever seen, and I actually love it. And I refuse to watch black and white movies still. Best movie I was ever forced to watch.
You're denying yourself many other great experiences. Films were commonly produced in black and white until the 1970s. Many of the greatest films of all time are black and white. Try watching Citizen Kane, City Lights, King Kong, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, Harakiri, Seven Samurai, etc. Some excellent modern films have even been made in black and white on purpose, like Ed Wood and The Artist, and they wouldn't be better in color. Don't choose to be close-minded or you will stay ignorant.
Boulder7685 By that token you're probably also averse to watch foreign flicks. Nevertheless I'm gonna suggest one to you, of comparable quality to 12 Angry Men in my opinion: Ugly, Dirty And Bad. An Italian film from the 70s.
To be fair, I’m not big on most movies. Will frequently choose to work on my gaming backlog instead. However, should I find myself particularly interested at any given time, I’m putting all those recommendations on a list for later.
@@Boulder7685 Cool bro, and I get it. I game way more than watch movies. To entice you though, I'll give you a small spoiler that might motivate you a little extra reason to see Ugly, Dirty And Bad (Bruti, Sporchi e Cattivi, by Ettore Scola 1976). So this family, living in a total slum, decides to off the padre de familia, the father, by poisoning his spaghetti, and as soon as he notices something's off, he's eaten something bad, he jumps on his bicycle, manages to reach the shoreline and with his last efforts, pumps salt water into his stomach with his little bicycle air pump! A hilarious and gruesome scene, and utterly brilliant. Ok, that's it. No pressure, lol.
Very good points there. Echoes a lot of the things I've learned over time on this: 1- Before telling someone everything you think they got wrong, first start by telling them what you think they got right. 2- Refrain from any kind of show of exasperation or condescention. If anything in your demeanor suggests that you feel superior to the other person, the discussion will turn into a battle of ego. The person will never concede because they cannot concede without feeling humiliated. 3- As a corollary to point 2, remaining respectful will also preserve your own open-mindedness: if you've talked down to someone who was disagreeing with you, you put yourself in this same defensive position. 4- Admit when you're wrong about details of the case. Reconsider your position and assess whether this one element changes your final conclusion. If it doesn't, explain why you remain unconvinced. Don't brush it off. People need to understand the landscape of your opposition. If they feel like you're going "whatever" every time something about your argument proves incorrect, they'll assume you're closed to changing and they will be too. It's all a matter of perception. People change their mind only when they have space to do so. We are often, maybe unconsciously, more worried about protecting our ego than about being right. If someone has ignored the points above and painted themselves into a corner, where you see that conceding would exact too high a cost on them, you need to realize that fact and find a way to give them an out in some way. A way for them to agree with you while saving face.
Except the second you allow him any common ground he'll take it and act as if your entire argument is renounced. I agree with him on many fronts, but his "Change my mind" segments are little more than cheap fun. I've actually always wanted CA to make a video on his argument style!
@K4nler Well no one had ever given him reasons to change his mind, there are people that give good opinion, but they sometimes get so offensive that every dialogue gets lost and it turns into fallacies and not "change my mind". People want to prove him wrong, when they can't... since it is a subjetive point of view. Lets take "socialism is evil" he had a guy talk to him. And he gave excellent points. But instead of changing his mind, he started attacking capitalism and the people that support capitalism. Socialism can still be evil even if capitalism is evil. In the end he failed to change his mind... because he was not even trying to do so. He even stated that he was winning the debate .-. When it is not even a debate
@@KhepriemI think he gives people allot rope , even the ones insulting him to his face. But when someone says something crazy like 8-9 months old abortions are ok, what do you expect the response to be?.
In conclusion, Be seen as open minded and Don’t have your pride or stubbornness get to you or It will make you be seen as a bad guy. Because even if you are logically correct in the argument, the way you act will convince people the most. I learned this the hard way. Feel free to Correct me if I’m wrong ;)
Feta cheese Although it might not help you win a debate, in general it will also be useful to actually BE open minded instead of just being seen as open minded. None of us will always be right
I started this video (thanks youtube recommended) and from the get-go, I thought I would like this movie. So I stopped the video, watched the movie and now came back! Thank you for this explanation, which was great, but also for introducing me to a great movie I might have otherwise not seen :)
I've subbed to you around 4 months ago and I respected your ability to not only logic your way through others words but explain both your and their point in a comprehensive way. When you made the "Dear Subscribers" video a month ago I didn't really know what kind of videos you were aiming for, as I had little to no comparison and I liked your videos anyways. But now I know what you meant and I must say that the new content is even better than I expected! Wow.
@Havla Fitta so? He constantly talks about not getting offended by offhand remarks like that when it comes to rape etc (which i agree with). Came across as massively hypocritical.
What surprised me the most was which juror I disliked the most. It wasn’t the one who had polarising views on underclass people or the one who’s agenda was heavily obstructed by his own personal life. It was the one that didn’t care. There was a bit in there where he was called out for it and it was my favourite part of the film. It showed that regardless if your opinion is right or wrong, in a case where someone’s life is in jeopardy you must have one
That moment you can't watch counter arguements new video because there might be spoilers for a movie you want to watch... Moral: -12 Patience: -5 Will to live: still nonexistent
12 Angry Men is a great film but let's not forget the fellow behind it all, Sidney Lumet. He directed movies like Network, Dog Day Afternoon, Murder on the Orient Express and Serpico; why do we never talk about him?!
I was going to say the same. Glad I read the comments first. Dog day afternoon and this are such great films. Lumet was a master and actors loved him as well.
There is a problem with this. Often reality is not as we think it is, and stuff that works in fiction does not necessary work in reality. There is even a term "It looks good on paper". So, where is the proof that this strategy would work in real life just like in the movie?
@@blackearl7891 I'm sorry, but this is not a proof. Proof must be a burden of the accuser. Otherwise I could tell "Somewhere in the universe unicorns exist, prove me wrong!", and you would not, because it would be impossible to prove me wrong.
@@abicus3502 well yeah if you take it too its absurd value the argument loses any sort of meaning. However, one shouldn't led one's own adamant view in the way of actual conversation. As long as its maintained with the realm of possibilities concessions can be made. However, this technique becomes also difficult because of our own biases and idealism.
@@abicus3502 I am arguing that one shouldn't allow for absurdist arguments, and try and keep it grounded. Also in case someone does bring up unicorns you could argue for a mistaken perception of that animal having a cutaneous horn which is why they may have mistaken it for a mythical unicorn. It's a possibility (aside from them being crazy, or gullible) and it causes them to doubt its claim.
CA - I wanted to ask - do you have any recommendations on interesting books to read or things to watch about argumentation or persuasion? After watching the movie and then your video I'm really interested in looking into argumentation and persuasion techniques, methods, etc a bit further than your channel, but I'm not sure where to start. If you have any recommendations I'd love to know! By the way, as a long time fan, I really think you should look into making more videos analyzing debates/arguments between people and characters because I feel it's where your best content comes from.
I'll definitely need to watch this film, and you have a very interesting idea, here. But I'd like to see some real world demonstrations of this technique working. It's easy enough to propose passive disagreement and uncertainty as means of persuasion in a work of fiction, but is there some reason to think it's really so effective in practice?
Probably the most relevant real life comparision to these points I can find is Jordan petersons stuff, still being completley neutral is rather impossible but the other points stand up in the arguments I've seen him in
You just made me watch this film and it was an incredible display of social dynamics. I do not watch films often and this is the first black-and-white film I ever sat through. Thank you for this.
Do you have any sources for your points in this video. While what you are saying is how argument should work and how reasonable people would like it to work, I've yet to see this born out in reality. In debate, the appearance of confidence matters more than being earnest
I'm not a psychology buff or anything like, but I feel like if somebody confidently states a point that is outright false and is called out on it they will be more reluctant to add more points to the argument, which would be a loss for both sides since there wouldn't be a healthy back and forth. Confidence can be useful, sure, but I don't think the entirety of a debate or argument should be the two sides butting heads at each other with no real problem solving or compromise.
@@ghans2305 Again, that's how we would like to think it works, but look at literally any public speaker or policy maker in the recent history. Calling people out on outright lying doesnt slow them down at all. They cry fake news and move on. No one cares about facts anymore, and the more I learn the more I would be hard pressed to find a period of time where anyone did care about facts. Persuasion is about narrative. Tell people a story that can fit their world view and they buy your argument. Tell someone a better story that fits more of their world view, theyll "change their mind."
If you have not yet i would love too see your argument for morality whether it be subjective or objective and to see if there are any middle grounds. Such as murder being objectively wrong but killing can be moral such as defense of one's life.
Thing is, it would have to be someone's particular argument. There are many arguments for objective morality (which I would consider the positive claim out of the two), and the counter argument would entirely depend on which one to address. Imagine Sam Harris and William Lane Craig's different arguments for objective morality, and how you probably can't make a counter argument to both at the same time without having to actively argue for subjective morality.
@@DashSlashDash Exactly what I was thinking lol. Plus the topic of objective morality is almost without exception linked to the existence of a higher power... And CA knows that's one place he should probably be careful around. There are a lotta people who can be great at arguing and critical thinking but somehow have never faced that one particular delusion and will snap if you bring it up!
@@SheevPalpatine66420 there is a case that is based on pure logic for objective morality. But it's very unpopular and dismissed because of the person associated with those ideas. I'm talking about Objectivism and Ayn Rand. I can make an objective argument on why God or a parallel universe cannot exist for example, but most people are close minded and think I'm just full of myself
@@SiMeGamer make the case then. Also you just missed his point. The point of argumentation is start out saying you're not sure about your position and are willing to question it. Yet you give off a hint of trying to show superiority about your view of objectivism.
Very interesting video. You see 12 Angry Men as an exercise in how to debate well. I see it as a condemnation of humanity as well as trial by jury. A jury made up of 12 men assumes that 12 is a sufficient sample size to get at least one reasonable person into the mix, in reality number 8 is one-in-a-million and most juries just assume everyone is guilty because "the police arrested him, so he must be guilty" - which is doubly atrocious because the police are at best lazy and at worst terrorist scum who just throw anyone they can to court to keep their numbers up. We like to think they have punishments in place to keep the police from doing their job poorly, but they really don't.
+Zephyrus Auron Well no, his fanbase is really mature I would presume, just like Lemmino's, and Lemmino has some mature people on his Discord server and they debate and what not because they are mature.
Essentially, he was able to establish reasonable doubt. Which is fitting considering that it's a movie about courtroom proceedings, and done so in a brilliant manner from the perspective of the jury. This is a great video and does well illustrating how not to be an all around jerk when discussing things. Very important tool to have when you want to get a refund or just want people to really really like you. Maybe.
Cool, but how do you know that this way of arguing actually works? It's just a movie. EDIT: I'm not hating on the video. I really liked the video, I just don't see any proof that this technique works.
Not only that, but a movie from a particular time known for its naiveté. I can't see myself falling for this. I don't care if the person arguing is being a dick, they just have to make good points. I argue to reveal truths, not to make friends.
It shouldn't work. The only way an argument should ever be taken is if the "opponent" is reasonable and you have reasonable arguments. The way addressed in the video is based on emotionalism rather than reason.
Livid Imp sure, that may be the case for you, but most people respond far more to emotion than you seem to think. When arguing, if it looks like you’re working against them, rather than trying to help them, people are far more likely to resist change as it feels like they’ve been defeated if they do. This video is basically saying you need a softer approach in order to make people change _their own_ mind. That way it appears to them that they came to the conclusion themselves, you just helped them, and not spat in their face.
SiMe expect most people follow their emotions a lot. If you fight every battle and make wrong points, people see it as you being unreasonable, and nobody wants to think “I agree with this unreasonable person”. When was the last time someone changed your mind, whether IRL or online, because they were shouting at you, or called you an idiot? Possibly never, even if all their points were right. It’s because when they appear to be unreasonable, your brain automatically assumes that their points are unreasonable as well, and so you won’t change your mind to an “unreasonable point” (even if it is right). Of course there are some people who won’t change their mind no matter what you say or how reasonable you are, and with those people don’t waste your time.
You make several good points here. But you have to remember this is a work of fiction. In real life there would probably be more than one "number 3" in that room. I seriously doubt that in all of human history anything like this has ever _really_ happened in a jury room, where one juror changed the already-made-up minds of the other 11. It would be an impressive thing to see if anyone ever managed to pull something like that off... which is why somebody wrote (a play and then) a movie about that happening. But... yeah. Real humans don't work like one-dimensional characters (who are all controlled by an author's whims) do.
It's something to be studied, and it's also just a freaking amazing movie. I watched it recently for the second time, and it's... well, it's hard to describe, but I think it should be required viewing for all kids in grade and high school. How often is another question, but at least once in each category of school, definitely. The scene that most sticks in my head... no. I don't want to spoil it. There's one scene that sticks with me, however. It needs no words. The scene speaks for itself, both inside and outside the film. It cuts you like a knife. To a far lesser extent, I like seeing what it was like living in 1957. You don't get to see much, since it all takes place in a single room, but there are a lot of details in that room that quietly describe the era. I took the liberty of checking. It's on UA-cam, for 4$ Canadian. You could buy far, *FAR* less fascinating things for that price.
Going to watch 12 Angry Men now
While you're at it, maybe upload... possibly?
It's a great movie ! Enjoy.
Me too! xD
Hey, it's nice to see you here.
Same here...
The best line was given by the first person to change their vote: "It's hard for one man to stand alone."
A leader is nothing without brave first followers.
The line exactly is:” Is not easy stand alone.” But in the same way, the meaning is the same and powerful!
ua-cam.com/video/HI3L1ap3Ti8/v-deo.html
9 is my hero in many ways. The first to support 8. The only one to closely observe the body language, appearance, and emotional signals of the witnesses. And of the jury.
While Juror #8's strategies are great to look at, I also should say that Juror #4 deserves a lot of credit. He picked his battles, admitted defeat in certain arguments (what were you doing 3 days ago), admitted other points that the other juror had. I wish that Jurors 4 and 8 were viewed in the same light, because from the beginning Juror #4 was always rational and reasonable. He had legitimate reasons to think that the boy was guilty, and just because in the end he turned out to be wrong doesn't mean that he fell into the "trap" of assuming guilt. Now, Juror #8 was the one that changed everyone's mind and undertook a much greater feat than #4 due to his patience and open mind, but #4 needs to be spoken about in my opinion.
The description of the video says it's the first of a series on that movie, so maybe he'll focus on #4 in a later video.
While we don't find out for certain whether or not the boy did it, we are actually given a hint as to another suspect (or should I say group of suspects) who could have committed the murder.
In the boys story he says he bought the knife, afterwards he went to the movies. On the way there he says that the knife fell out of his pocket without him noticing. These are all the events the jury look at however there is one more event which occurs after the boy buys the knife and before he goes to the movies. He shows the knife off to his friends. Several boys the same age as the accused, who would know that the boy is going to the movies and would thus know that his apartment would be empty save for potentially his father. Now the boy doesn't know the knife fell out of his pocket, he assumes that based on the fact that it is no longer there. It is entirely possible that one of his friends saw this exotic knife and decided to procure it for themselves, afterwards using it to commit the crime. Such a criminal would be smart to leave the knife behind after clearing it of fingerprints such that the boy would come back and be framed for his fathers murder.
The witnesses in the movie both have their ability to directly see the murderer questioned, so it is not unlikely that they assumed they saw the accused when in actuality they simply saw a boy of similar age.
However as this detail is never explored further in the movie, there is never any particularly special motive given to this potential suspect beyond the fact that the victim was an utterly horrible person and wanton criminal himself. It would seem that he simply intended to rob the apartment he assumed was empty, taking the knife as protection should he be wrong, got into an altercation with the father and then fled the scene of the murder after wiping the knife of fingerprints.
This video wasn't about their intial conclusions though. It was more about the tactics they used. #4 ultimately failed because he was forceful with his arguments and unwilling to move, which puts people on the defensive. #8 on the otherhand was more passive and open-minded, which welcomed people into considering his point of view.
Hmm,fair point.I've always thought he was a solid character.
#4 and #5 were always my favorite jurors. Excluding the main character ofc.
You present a really interesting idea, but I think there is a factor you are not considering: The objective of juror #8 was not to convince them that the boy was innocent, but that there was reasonable doubt about his guilt. His thesis is not "the boy did not do it" but rather "we cannot know with certainty". It is not accurate to say that "everyone else has been convinced that the boy is not guilty" since what happened instead was that everyone was convinced that there was reasonable doubt and therefore they should not convict him. He was successful at driving them to reevaluate their own understanding of the situation, which was enough to achieve the goal of a not guilty verdict, but if his goal had been convincing them to reach a different conclusion instead of demonstrating the existence of reasonable doubt, then chances are that this strategy would not have been as effective.
@Drinker_Of_Milk Exactly. So while the points mentioned in this video are useful, all it generally will get you is creating uncertainty in whoever you're talking to, rather than certain agreement with you.
@@LordVader1094 I like to call 12 Angry Men "Reasonable Doubt, The Movie"
Great point. Typically, the goal of a debate is to get the other person to agree with you. I think this can be put in two steps: 1) convenice the other person to have doubt in the truth their position, and 2) get them to agree with you. Here, it was just to get everyone to have some level of doubt regarding their positions (step 1 only). The tactics covered here are great for step 1. But, they are not going to do much good for step 2. That usually requires more force and charisma.
Also worth mentioning that others in the room can be convinced by your presentation, demeanor, and argument. So while you may direct your point at one person, your impact may be greater on those who you are not directly addressing.
Yes, there's a difference between changing someone's mind and getting them to reach a certain conclusion. As a life coach, it is my job to change my clients' minds about their problems and I employ strategies. The conclusions they reach are always their own and often brilliant, and that's why I love my side hustle.
12 Angry Men literally changed my temperament whenever I find myself in the middle of an argument. Mr. Fonda's character's strategy does work!
200th like ;)
It only works with gentlemens and there are different people
@evaadams4243 "12 Angry Men literally changed my temperament whenever I find myself in the middle of an argument. Mr. Fonda's character's strategy does work!" Then you're a dishonest person.
@@nstix2009xitsn Im not gonna ask why you think that. instead Im gonna ask you why you wrote ""12 Angry Men literally changed my temperament whenever I find myself in the middle of an argument. Mr. Fonda's character's strategy does work!" Then you're a dishonest person." rather than "Then you're a dishonest person.". it's really annoying when people do that. this isn't an english exam where you have to quote the source material. just write your response like a sane person
@@revengance4149 "it's really annoying when people do that. this isn't an english exam where you have to quote the source material. just write your response like a sane person"
It's called courtesy, with which you are apparently unfamiliar, and which you evidently equate with insanity.
i like that the video is in black and white
Why?
Oh you meant the counter arguments video or the movie?
Obviously, the film is [in black-and-white], but the fact that the usual colors the Counter Arguments channel is also channeled into the style of their film [12 Angry Men (1957) ] would be the most likely cause for praise-- the video and the film share an artistic style.
damn I didn't even realise before this comment
@Delta 029 That is a probable conclusion, but I am not sure in this case. Now i could be wrong, but shouldn't we at least take the time to figure out, before some channel ends up in the dumps because of our choices?
*_I'm gonna take over the world passively._*
The one punch man of debate
Welcome to Undertale.
...u might
@@SideBurns I would say please don't guilt trip me again but I set myself up
Plz don't anime pfp
I like how the video is 12 minutes, and the video involves a movie named "12 Angry Men"
You like, I love.
11:59 u frick.
SAVVY!I like it
Seems somewhat intentional
In Australia time this was also uploaded at noon...
Wasn’t it technically 11 angry men then?
Noodleboy12 oof
Noodleboy12 11 aggressive men and 1 passive-aggressive man
Harvard would like to know your location.
No. It is correct the way it is.
Actually I thought there was only a few truly angry men haha. Although each character gets angry expressing their argument at least once in the film so the title stands true to the film.
I used to think this was a courtroom drama. It is actually 12 character studies rolled into one film.
Starting the new year with a new kind of video you haven't done before?
I like it.
I liked it too
I agree.
This may or may not have been a good video.
Probably
@R M But the possibility is improbable.
You're right.
I'm not saying it was or it wasn't. I'm just saying it's possible!
I don't know
Girls at my high school:
“Shut up no ones talking to you!”
“W-we were having an argument”
ua-cam.com/video/HI3L1ap3Ti8/v-deo.html
this video is exactly 12 minutes long...
Nice hot dog girl pic
@@diapysik Ah, I see your a man of culture as well.
fun fact: on my google account my profile pic is the actual gif. you can have a gif on your google account profile
@@turevedin9968 Lindsay Ellis being called just "hot dog girl" hurts a little, but is funny af
Ture Vedin
Coincidence ? I think NOT !!!
All of his video’s are X minutes long
i love how everyone in the comment section has a masters degree in psychology
Like you? Seems like you shot yourself in the foot
@@herokiryu2652, no, it doesn't.
Sooo, People are not allowed to have a discussion?
@@omi691 I just like calling people out on their bullshit.
@@omi691 The point here that is people who are simply having a discussion, -- whether sharing their views or knowledge about a particular subject, _on a public forum -- are in no one way portray themselves as an authority or an expert in the video's topic at hand.
I don't get why people (like the o.p.), posts comments like these.
I watched this for a film class in college. You might not be surprised to hear that seemingly none of my class mates learned anything.
you could have changed their mind. missed opportunity
@@Nobody-pv9jt
Actually, it is only them who can change their minds. Probably. Possibly.
@@s.k.8263 you're right. probably
It's a shame considering the relevance between 12 Angry Men's narrative and what is going on currently in the United States.
So many differences are failing to be resolved simply because both sides involved fail to empathize and debate, rather than argue.
@@ssheeessh Best post here man! Great comments and analysis!
0:00 12 Angry Men: A tale of argument and human psychology.
0:50 Title Card
1:24 Juror 8 vs Juror 3 (Innocent vs Guilty)
2:10 He says he is not trying to change anyone's mind
Juror 8 Analysis
2:30 Passive Personality
3:31 Expressing Uncertainty
5:56 Does not contest every rebuttal (Chooses his battles, does not reason against reasonable points)
8:41 Rarely states his disagreement. Often states his agreement.
Juror 3 is the opposite. The FOIL to Juror 8
5:13 Expressing Certainty
7:13 Impulsively fights every battle
9:32 Shout down any disagreement. Never states any agreement
4:12 How can you change someone's mind if your not sure of yourself? Well, it provides an opening to have a dialogue and allows everyone else the chance of changing their own mind.
11:09 Conclusion
Excellent post
This is great, thanks
Number 3 represents the far left in the modern decade on social media platforms.
Perhaps.
I'm not going to say this is a bad post. It's a great post. Timestamp comments are great. I will ask you; why did you feel the need to make one for a ten minute long essay?
you actually think the far left is unique in being stubborn? have you seen alex jones' fans?
This series of videos changed me as a person a few years back
I can't be not greatful
I loled the film, and had a lot of moments with a close friend of mine over this film
I took away the idea of not building a clash in a dialogue, if I say they're wrong, they'll just think of a way to prove themselve right just more
His passive unsure, open minded position is really what I remembered to try through the my life since, even if with time I began to forget the picture of a jury film in my head, I still abstractly remembered the idea floating around in my head, as an unobvious strategy in a debatte
I love this series, more people should see this
It is important to note that this method will not work in a contest or debating against a person's long-held belief, or in politics. Certainly, juror #3 has the best method there. That is what's effective since your aim is to not change your opponent's mind but to move the audience to your side. Expressing uncertainty there is a huge mistake.
But if your aim is to change the mind of your opponent(s) specifically, like changing short term opinions, arguing with your family members to change their view etc, juror #8's method is the way to go about doing it.
To sum it up, both the methods should be used and are effective in different situations and it is up to us to choose the best way.
Akhil Babu Muraleedharan that’s very insightful. If you show passion in what you believe you can persuade a majority, but if your brashly against a personal opponent it fails as you can’t compromise when your purely against someone, understanding the others point of view and showing why you believe what you believe neutrally is most affective if you need to talk to one
Yes, the method of number 8 is specifically geared towards changing a debater's mind. Its also strong in that elements of it can convince an audience. The reason why one would not want to use his method is due to time restrictions and the lack of a forced agreement at the end of a debate. You can take a lot from 8's methods and apply it to debates: not contesting useless points, presenting new arguments for the audience instead of reiterating old ones for the opponent, and showing that you have a mindset that could be changed is great for audiences to agree with you.
Furthermore, while 3 is passionate, he isnt smart about his passion. He is often rude, angry, and dismissive; this doesnt create a connection with the audience because observers will contrast the angry one with the rational one. He disagrees with valid points, which opens up weaknesses in his arguments.
Juror 3 is not suitable for any debate. If someone relies on an obstinate auduence who is already in agreement, that person is not doing anything to change minds.
Well, both these methods are useful in case you want to impress the audience or win your opponent to your way of thinking, but none of them actually sets you on the path to the truth, which I suppose could seem to be the initial goal of a debate.
There is a third way, supposing the other people in the room are also looking for the truth:
- for each possibility, assess what you think its probability is and why,
- then see if the other people have new information that could update these probabilities,
- state your reasons to the others so that they update their own probabilites and maybe come up with new argumentations that can emerge from the pooling of ideas;
- finally if a unanimous decision must be reached, organise a vote while assigning a slightly higher weight to more knowledgeable people on the matter.
Obviously that's an ideal method, in practice it's probably never going to happen like I described (e.g. human beings are not rational), but you can at least tend toward that, and _you_ - and every participant in the debate - should come closer to the _truth_, rather than making _other people_ - be it an audience or other debaters - closer to _your opinion_…
@@MindcraftMax 8 actually tried to tend towards the path you're describing though, finding the truth, but like you said he wasn't flawless
Yup, i agree. They are just tools that you can you use for different scenarios.
People sympathize with someone they find agreeable. People on your good side tends away with more. Is what I learned
Thank you
I love how juror #3 screams at the exact same time John Coltranes solo starts at 7:44 😂
A debate isn't a fight at all, but many people, even politicians (i've seen some debates between politicians in my country) seem to see it that way.
For two arguments to conflict each other there has to be one definitive truth and if you are interested in the truth you are gonna help each other find that truth by sharing your knowledge.
If you are not interested in the truth and just want to 'share' your beliefs you'll get defensive and stubborn
ua-cam.com/video/HI3L1ap3Ti8/v-deo.html
It depends on the purpose of the debate. In a jury room you are trying to convince your interlocutors to change their minds. In a candidates debate you are not trying to change your opponent's mind and have them go "you're right, everyone should vote for you". Instead you are trying to convince the audience. This also occurs in parts of 12 angry men, for example when juror 8 makes juror 3 look bad in front of the other jurors who aren't involved at that particular moment. These two call for very different strategies.
Your series on 12 Angry Men is one of my favorites on UA-cam period.
I miss you
One off my hobbies of arguing/debating with people on the internet has just been improved.
The short version is "They have to arrive at the conclusion themselves, but you can gently guide them there. They have to think they did it on their own, though."
I liked the giant steps in the background
A man of culture
I feel like Giant Steps is too energetic. Maybe Take Five by Dave Brubeck?
That one vox video
DCJ lol
@@kyyngslyme2807 or nah 11/4
This video honestly just helped me a lot. I’ve been arguing with my ex for months trying to save the relationship and get back together but this video right here just helped me realize I can’t change her mind. Thanks a lot I really needed this.
Update: she broke up with me a couple days ago. I figured it would happen I just wish I knew why she stopped loving me.
I'm proud of you vro
Do what you did in the beginning of the relationship and there will be no end.
Marshall Samford I wish it were that easy
I feel you man
Marshall Samford; That doesn’t really work out because there is a high chance of burnout. People do change and will not enjoy the same things
This is the kind of content that I was hoping you would release after your announcement video. Part of why I subbed to you originally was to see new and better ways to argue with people. I often find myself in a #3 situation, and I never really understood why I was so bad at it. I have facts, figures, proof, and the gumption to say it, why would there be any disagreement? Obviously that hasn't really worked out for me in the past, but I've never really known specifics about what to do to change it, or even really had my problems explained to me. Videos like this really help me take a step back and look at my situation with a much more critical eye, thank you.
I'm a mix of the two. I often agree with the opposition because I know it's important to sound rational, but I also straight up disagree and feel the need to confront every opposing point. The biggest thing for me from this vid is that your opponent has to believe your mind can be changed before they can change their own.
Mudak The Multiplier yes. I also notice that most people dehumanize their opponent (a type of ad hominem) and if you’re that misanthropic towards your opponent in your language then it puts your whole position into question, in my opinion. A little empathy goes a long way too
One of my favorite films of all time.
We had to watch the more recent color version in high school but after I graduated I watched this old black & white version and liked it way more.
12 Angry Men is a perfectly crafted movie, and this video is similar...I'm just trying to say this video is good
Maybe for its time, but just from the clips shown, the characters feel very one-dimensional.
#3 is just an amalgamation of that angry person everyone knows - always fighting verbally but never convincing anyone.
While the main character just goes around planting doubt on a topic that almost ALWAYS leads to a not-guilty verdict IRL. (No one wants the responsibility of putting people to death if there is even a slightest doubt)
The movie's big point is to mislead the audience that its 11-1 and is a David vs Goliath tale but it is very much the opposite IRL, the accused must have done a crime beyond redemption and even then it doesn't always end up successful on the first attempt - because "i just don't want blood on my hands" mentality.
@@UnbreakableRukawa You clearly live in a more moral area than I do! Where I live, people would brag about being able to put a murderer in prison.
Also, Does a movie have to be perfectly realistic to be a masterpiece? Art is much more than simply realism, and some of the best stories use characters as vessels for particular perspectives on philosophy or even as incarnations for certain emotions or States of mind. From Shakespeare (a LOT of Shakespeare) to inside out, this is a way in which film makers have been expressing their view on reality using a format that most audiences enjoy. 12 Angry Men is just about the best form of that you can get. No fat to trim, no unnecessary backstory, no pointless over characterization that only goes to muddle the overarching plot, just... well... 12 Angry Men!
@Zephyrus Auron its just statistically averages of the american jury and their reasoning to why there are so few executions despite having so many convicted criminals. Murder is committed often in emotional rage, which if you have to sit on jury and listen to every perspective, will make it hard to kill because we are all capable of emotional rage. Personally, I myself come from a place without a jury system so I am pretty much on the other side of the camp, but i did have to write a paper on it.
Art is important but I don't believe in putting art on a pedestal. There are many masterpieces of different times, and each reflect the sentiment of its time and importance. What art is - is culture. They teach a younger generation their backstory to their identity - which everyone seeks in their formative years. That's why Shakespeare is still alive, it is required reading for many countries when you are young. Just like Charlotte's web and Animal farm. All have political agenda for why they were selected over other stories regardless of the artist's original intent, and that is what becomes education - which both unites us and enlightens us but dyes most of us in a specific mindset before we are old enough for cognitive thought. That's why religious education start young, before you understand your world and political studies target late teens to early 20s, when you are seeking your identity/purpose.
Art at the end of the day requires both skill and more importantly, heavy financial+influential support to be constantly reinforced and immortalized - which for Shakespeare's time was Queen Elizabeth I.
Does 12 Angry men check off the skill category for me? It makes a point and did teach some interesting values for its time, but they are pretty common traits now. The angry man that people ignore is a common troupe. Which is my biggest critic with film. Replace the poor antagonist with anyone mild competent in that scenario and it would be probably in reverse.
The negotiation is also weak by today's standard and can be negated by even a minor character who uses "expressed uncertainty" but against the protagonist.
Your story's hero is only as strong as its antagonist, that's why the dark knight is considered a modern classic today and has spawn endless copycats with bigger budgets that failed to emulate its essence, while giving Nolan the golden "i can do what the fuck i want" ticket to creative movie production. (hint: no more cartoon heroes for him)
12 Angry men has a terrible antagonist and tries to hide it by making the illusion of 11v1. Its lesson is good but fleshed out as realistically as it has been done today.
Is it an ageless masterpiece? Well no, it is too specific in it's purpose to be ageless, but it works as a casestudy of both history and a few specific negotiation ideas.
@@UnbreakableRukawa Well obviously I disagree with most of that, and I'm not sure why you went political... But 90% of what I already wrote works as a counter to that. I mostly just think you don't know a lot about art in general, so you've put it all in one box, so I'm not going to argue that point. I do think that your main problem with the story, that countless others have since ripped it off or have been inspired by it and so it's not original, is kinda stupid. No offense. Literally every masterful art piece will be ruthlessly copied, that's kinda how you know it's a success. Calling it a cliche and throwing it away for that is weird, but whatever.
@@UnbreakableRukawa You should watch the entire movie and get back to movie
Hi CA, I've been waiting for you to give an opinion about this! And thank you for your last video, introspection is important when it's just you making videos
8=======D ---------
@CreeperManCreeps mostly
This video is quality and so is the information within. Thank you for taking the time to make it.
This is a perfect film. Brilliant screenplay, superb actors, splendid directing, excellent lighting and camerawork with a memorable music track as the cherry on top. A classic!
Great great video essay. This deserves more attention, as does the movie in today's age! Pride in our own stance and wanting to be a winner gets in the way. Making ourselves vulnerable opens other people up.
Side note, great editing. Loved the moment at 7:44 when you show how #3 forced himself to contest, and as you turn up Giant Steps with Coltrane's chops going at full, #3 explodes.
Subbed.
A video on 12 Angry Men being exactly 12 minutes long?
Clever.
12 minutes ago
11:59.
And no one is angry
Well, to be honest, it was not on "how to win them over to your way of thinking", it was on how to convince others to THINK and RATIONALLY ANALYSE in the situation, when someone's life is at stake. It was also sooo relieving to see the free world where rationality won, without any gender, racial, personal, emotional ("feelings"!) arguments being raised!
Thank you very much for a great material! You make many people THINK! :)
@marcelklimczak4841
10 months ago (edited)
"Well, to be honest, it was not on 'how to win them over to your way of thinking,' it was on how to convince others to THINK and RATIONALLY ANALYSE in the situation, when someone's life is at stake."
Garbage. It was on how to deceive people into submitting to your own evil position, in order to aid and abet murderers "of color."
Well, not really.
One of the reasons #8 gives for voting "not guilty" is his sympathy for the boy, which is more emotional than rational. Rationally speaking, the boy was more guilty than not. But #8 made a convincing argument that one should not assume that all the evidence is accurate and one should always question themselves before coming to conclusions, which can be affected by personal prejudices.
If anything, #8's moral feelings towards the case and the gravity of it were the start. Then he used rationality to explain his reasoning. Morals and feelings will always be there, but they should not be the whole basis for your thinking or argument.
Saw this movie in my 8th grade Civics class. Quickly became one of the hypest movies I’d ever seen, and I actually love it. And I refuse to watch black and white movies still. Best movie I was ever forced to watch.
You're denying yourself many other great experiences. Films were commonly produced in black and white until the 1970s. Many of the greatest films of all time are black and white. Try watching Citizen Kane, City Lights, King Kong, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, Harakiri, Seven Samurai, etc. Some excellent modern films have even been made in black and white on purpose, like Ed Wood and The Artist, and they wouldn't be better in color. Don't choose to be close-minded or you will stay ignorant.
Boulder7685 By that token you're probably also averse to watch foreign flicks. Nevertheless I'm gonna suggest one to you, of comparable quality to 12 Angry Men in my opinion: Ugly, Dirty And Bad. An Italian film from the 70s.
To be fair, I’m not big on most movies. Will frequently choose to work on my gaming backlog instead.
However, should I find myself particularly interested at any given time, I’m putting all those recommendations on a list for later.
@@Boulder7685 Cool bro, and I get it. I game way more than watch movies. To entice you though, I'll give you a small spoiler that might motivate you a little extra reason to see Ugly, Dirty And Bad (Bruti, Sporchi e Cattivi, by Ettore Scola 1976).
So this family, living in a total slum, decides to off the padre de familia, the father, by poisoning his spaghetti, and as soon as he notices something's off, he's eaten something bad, he jumps on his bicycle, manages to reach the shoreline and with his last efforts, pumps salt water into his stomach with his little bicycle air pump! A hilarious and gruesome scene, and utterly brilliant.
Ok, that's it. No pressure, lol.
Boulder7685 who was your civics teacher?
I gotta say: your music selection for this video was a giant step in the right direction
Very good points there. Echoes a lot of the things I've learned over time on this:
1- Before telling someone everything you think they got wrong, first start by telling them what you think they got right.
2- Refrain from any kind of show of exasperation or condescention. If anything in your demeanor suggests that you feel superior to the other person, the discussion will turn into a battle of ego. The person will never concede because they cannot concede without feeling humiliated.
3- As a corollary to point 2, remaining respectful will also preserve your own open-mindedness: if you've talked down to someone who was disagreeing with you, you put yourself in this same defensive position.
4- Admit when you're wrong about details of the case. Reconsider your position and assess whether this one element changes your final conclusion. If it doesn't, explain why you remain unconvinced. Don't brush it off. People need to understand the landscape of your opposition. If they feel like you're going "whatever" every time something about your argument proves incorrect, they'll assume you're closed to changing and they will be too.
It's all a matter of perception. People change their mind only when they have space to do so. We are often, maybe unconsciously, more worried about protecting our ego than about being right. If someone has ignored the points above and painted themselves into a corner, where you see that conceding would exact too high a cost on them, you need to realize that fact and find a way to give them an out in some way. A way for them to agree with you while saving face.
I'll keep this in mind if I ever confront Steven Crowder.
lol, his mind is unchangeable
Ladondorf
I don’t think he’s very interested in having his mind changed.
Except the second you allow him any common ground he'll take it and act as if your entire argument is renounced. I agree with him on many fronts, but his "Change my mind" segments are little more than cheap fun. I've actually always wanted CA to make a video on his argument style!
@K4nler Well no one had ever given him reasons to change his mind, there are people that give good opinion, but they sometimes get so offensive that every dialogue gets lost and it turns into fallacies and not "change my mind". People want to prove him wrong, when they can't... since it is a subjetive point of view.
Lets take "socialism is evil" he had a guy talk to him. And he gave excellent points. But instead of changing his mind, he started attacking capitalism and the people that support capitalism. Socialism can still be evil even if capitalism is evil. In the end he failed to change his mind... because he was not even trying to do so. He even stated that he was winning the debate .-. When it is not even a debate
@@KhepriemI think he gives people allot rope , even the ones insulting him to his face. But when someone says something crazy like 8-9 months old abortions are ok, what do you expect the response to be?.
It's an old favorite movie of mine. Such a classic.
In conclusion,
Be seen as open minded and Don’t have your pride or stubbornness get to you or It will make you be seen as a bad guy.
Because even if you are logically correct in the argument, the way you act will convince people the most. I learned this the hard way.
Feel free to Correct me if I’m wrong ;)
Feta cheese Although it might not help you win a debate, in general it will also be useful to actually BE open minded instead of just being seen as open minded. None of us will always be right
I started this video (thanks youtube recommended) and from the get-go, I thought I would like this movie. So I stopped the video, watched the movie and now came back! Thank you for this explanation, which was great, but also for introducing me to a great movie I might have otherwise not seen :)
I literally was just praying about if I should speak this way, just earlier today. It feels like your video is an answer to a prayer 🙂🙏
This movie has been one of my favorite movies over the last 60 years. It's brilliant. Great topic.
i had to analyse 12 angry men a couple years ago in year 10 as an assessment at school. it was actually extremely thought provoking...
Well done video. Glad the change from character assassination to argument analyze. You stuck to your promise from the last video. Thank you
I've subbed to you around 4 months ago and I respected your ability to not only logic your way through others words but explain both your and their point in a comprehensive way. When you made the "Dear Subscribers" video a month ago I didn't really know what kind of videos you were aiming for, as I had little to no comparison and I liked your videos anyways. But now I know what you meant and I must say that the new content is even better than I expected! Wow.
I can never get bored by this film
Counter Arguments is BACK, baby!!
Man I love this movie ^_^ That was a very well-made point. Awesome video!
*Steven Crowder has left the chat*
Wait, are you saying Crowder isn't the master of changing peoples minds through open minded dialogue?
@@stickmandomination9730 yes, yes he is
Steven- using the word autistic hirts my feelings- crowder
@Havla Fitta so? He constantly talks about not getting offended by offhand remarks like that when it comes to rape etc (which i agree with). Came across as massively hypocritical.
It's impossible to change the mind of Steven Crowder. Change my mind.
Every time i come back to your channel it is like a warm blanket. Your smooth narration and intro jazz reminds me of simpler times. Please come back.
What surprised me the most was which juror I disliked the most. It wasn’t the one who had polarising views on underclass people or the one who’s agenda was heavily obstructed by his own personal life. It was the one that didn’t care. There was a bit in there where he was called out for it and it was my favourite part of the film. It showed that regardless if your opinion is right or wrong, in a case where someone’s life is in jeopardy you must have one
I love this video! I've watched it over and over again.❤️ 12 Angry Men is one of my all-time favorite movies. It really made me think.
That moment you can't watch counter arguements new video because there might be spoilers for a movie you want to watch...
Moral: -12
Patience: -5
Will to live: still nonexistent
I disliked this comment
OP's OC lmao same here.
do you even speak english
@@WileyBoxx いいえ
@@chuck2469 Now I'm double sad.
12 Angry Men is a great film but let's not forget the fellow behind it all, Sidney Lumet. He directed movies like Network, Dog Day Afternoon, Murder on the Orient Express and Serpico; why do we never talk about him?!
I was going to say the same. Glad I read the comments first. Dog day afternoon and this are such great films. Lumet was a master and actors loved him as well.
To this day this channel's greatest work.
I know this series is quite old but I gotta say, this is my favourite analysis of anything ever.
2020: Living in a world where everyone is a #3.
Love Coltrane playing in the background
To win this argument, you might have to take some giant steps.
Vegechops *finger guns*
I honestly have to thank you for introducing me to this movie. I mean HOLY SHIT is it good! The cinematography, the acting, the story!
*Mastapeece*
This series is criminally underviewed.
Giant Steps AND a discussion of 12 Angry Men? Oh YES!
Surely this should be titled "How to Change Somebody Else's Mind".
This is still one of the most beautifully well crafted videos on this whole platform. 👍
There is a problem with this. Often reality is not as we think it is, and stuff that works in fiction does not necessary work in reality. There is even a term "It looks good on paper". So, where is the proof that this strategy would work in real life just like in the movie?
Try it out.
@@blackearl7891 I'm sorry, but this is not a proof. Proof must be a burden of the accuser. Otherwise I could tell "Somewhere in the universe unicorns exist, prove me wrong!", and you would not, because it would be impossible to prove me wrong.
@@abicus3502 well yeah if you take it too its absurd value the argument loses any sort of meaning. However, one shouldn't led one's own adamant view in the way of actual conversation. As long as its maintained with the realm of possibilities concessions can be made. However, this technique becomes also difficult because of our own biases and idealism.
@@blackearl7891 I don't see how this is connected to what I wrote. Sorry, don't wanna blame you, but...
@@abicus3502 I am arguing that one shouldn't allow for absurdist arguments, and try and keep it grounded. Also in case someone does bring up unicorns you could argue for a mistaken perception of that animal having a cutaneous horn which is why they may have mistaken it for a mythical unicorn. It's a possibility (aside from them being crazy, or gullible) and it causes them to doubt its claim.
Argumentation has no place for emotion.
Except when you are wrong.
Exceptional critical analysis of an exceptional piece of cinema.
Thank you.
Beautiful. A simple point about minds but a complex argument for the validity of cinema as art, science and philosophy.
CA - I wanted to ask - do you have any recommendations on interesting books to read or things to watch about argumentation or persuasion? After watching the movie and then your video I'm really interested in looking into argumentation and persuasion techniques, methods, etc a bit further than your channel, but I'm not sure where to start. If you have any recommendations I'd love to know!
By the way, as a long time fan, I really think you should look into making more videos analyzing debates/arguments between people and characters because I feel it's where your best content comes from.
Shocker345 great question
It's the biggest irony that it's almost impossible to change another's mind if you yourself are unable to have your mind changed.
New drinking game idea: Take a shot everytime he said guilty.
This youtube series changed my life and made me a better man more capable of listening and understanding
Brilliant use of Coltrane’s re-entrance from giant steps into #3’s defence 7:45
refreshed the page, and the video went from 11 views to 118
Cool
I'll definitely need to watch this film, and you have a very interesting idea, here. But I'd like to see some real world demonstrations of this technique working. It's easy enough to propose passive disagreement and uncertainty as means of persuasion in a work of fiction, but is there some reason to think it's really so effective in practice?
Probably the most relevant real life comparision to these points I can find is Jordan petersons stuff, still being completley neutral is rather impossible but the other points stand up in the arguments I've seen him in
You almost ALWAYS argue/debate for the benefit of the audience and not the adversary....
NavyOneKC this video is directly about changing the opponents mind and no one else
No, YOU almost always argue/debate for the benefit of the audience and not the adversary...
there isn't always an audience to benefit, 1 on 1 arguing is very common
12 Angry Men has been a gem of a film I have enjoyed for decades; so glad to see it getting attention it deserves!
Watched it last night. Very effective view of the way a proper jury should function.
Counter arguments OBVIOUSLY has never met my girlfriend.
😂
😂😂
Steven Crowder sponsored this video.
What does _that_ mean?
@@poptropicadude3 I'm an idiot and didn't catch the joke.
Peter Yost this basically sums up Steven Crowders change my mind videos. He always starts with saying he wants people to change his mind
This is an objectively good joke.
Crowder can go fuck himself.
Noah O'Grady
Until he gets triggered by a national socialist and adopts the tactics of the liberal snowflakes he hates so much ;)
Great start into 2019!
Just watched 12 Angry Men again yesterday. One of the best movies ever made.
You just made me watch this film and it was an incredible display of social dynamics. I do not watch films often and this is the first black-and-white film I ever sat through. Thank you for this.
I couldn’t listen to the video because giant steps went on in the background
A video about 12 Angry Men is 12 minutes long.
I see what you did there.
Do you have any sources for your points in this video. While what you are saying is how argument should work and how reasonable people would like it to work, I've yet to see this born out in reality. In debate, the appearance of confidence matters more than being earnest
I'm not a psychology buff or anything like, but I feel like if somebody confidently states a point that is outright false and is called out on it they will be more reluctant to add more points to the argument, which would be a loss for both sides since there wouldn't be a healthy back and forth. Confidence can be useful, sure, but I don't think the entirety of a debate or argument should be the two sides butting heads at each other with no real problem solving or compromise.
@@ghans2305 Again, that's how we would like to think it works, but look at literally any public speaker or policy maker in the recent history. Calling people out on outright lying doesnt slow them down at all. They cry fake news and move on. No one cares about facts anymore, and the more I learn the more I would be hard pressed to find a period of time where anyone did care about facts.
Persuasion is about narrative. Tell people a story that can fit their world view and they buy your argument. Tell someone a better story that fits more of their world view, theyll "change their mind."
I have this movie on VHS and I’ve watched it several times now. It’s really entertaining the whole way through.
Enjoyed the video. Yay for the "soft-sell"! I played juror #2 on stage a few years back. Wonderful show:)
If you have not yet i would love too see your argument for morality whether it be subjective or objective and to see if there are any middle grounds. Such as murder being objectively wrong but killing can be moral such as defense of one's life.
Thing is, it would have to be someone's particular argument. There are many arguments for objective morality (which I would consider the positive claim out of the two), and the counter argument would entirely depend on which one to address.
Imagine Sam Harris and William Lane Craig's different arguments for objective morality, and how you probably can't make a counter argument to both at the same time without having to actively argue for subjective morality.
@@DashSlashDash i completely understand that i just want to see how he would argue or evaluate these arguments with that topic
@@DashSlashDash Exactly what I was thinking lol. Plus the topic of objective morality is almost without exception linked to the existence of a higher power... And CA knows that's one place he should probably be careful around. There are a lotta people who can be great at arguing and critical thinking but somehow have never faced that one particular delusion and will snap if you bring it up!
@@SheevPalpatine66420 there is a case that is based on pure logic for objective morality. But it's very unpopular and dismissed because of the person associated with those ideas. I'm talking about Objectivism and Ayn Rand. I can make an objective argument on why God or a parallel universe cannot exist for example, but most people are close minded and think I'm just full of myself
@@SiMeGamer make the case then. Also you just missed his point. The point of argumentation is start out saying you're not sure about your position and are willing to question it. Yet you give off a hint of trying to show superiority about your view of objectivism.
Very interesting video. You see 12 Angry Men as an exercise in how to debate well. I see it as a condemnation of humanity as well as trial by jury. A jury made up of 12 men assumes that 12 is a sufficient sample size to get at least one reasonable person into the mix, in reality number 8 is one-in-a-million and most juries just assume everyone is guilty because "the police arrested him, so he must be guilty" - which is doubly atrocious because the police are at best lazy and at worst terrorist scum who just throw anyone they can to court to keep their numbers up. We like to think they have punishments in place to keep the police from doing their job poorly, but they really don't.
Will you ever make a Discord server for your UA-cam community?
It would be nice to have, I could only imagine the type of cool people I will meet on a 'Counter Arguements' Discord.
Yeah but sooooo muuuuch arguing would ensue!
Knowing this community it would never get past the:
-We should have a discord
-I disagree because...
+Zephyrus Auron Well no, his fanbase is really mature I would presume, just like Lemmino's, and Lemmino has some mature people on his Discord server and they debate and what not because they are mature.
Essentially, he was able to establish reasonable doubt. Which is fitting considering that it's a movie about courtroom proceedings, and done so in a brilliant manner from the perspective of the jury.
This is a great video and does well illustrating how not to be an all around jerk when discussing things. Very important tool to have when you want to get a refund or just want people to really really like you. Maybe.
love the giant steps in the background. it didn't go unnoticed
Cool, but how do you know that this way of arguing actually works? It's just a movie.
EDIT: I'm not hating on the video. I really liked the video, I just don't see any proof that this technique works.
Not only that, but a movie from a particular time known for its naiveté. I can't see myself falling for this. I don't care if the person arguing is being a dick, they just have to make good points. I argue to reveal truths, not to make friends.
It shouldn't work. The only way an argument should ever be taken is if the "opponent" is reasonable and you have reasonable arguments. The way addressed in the video is based on emotionalism rather than reason.
Livid Imp sure, that may be the case for you, but most people respond far more to emotion than you seem to think. When arguing, if it looks like you’re working against them, rather than trying to help them, people are far more likely to resist change as it feels like they’ve been defeated if they do.
This video is basically saying you need a softer approach in order to make people change _their own_ mind. That way it appears to them that they came to the conclusion themselves, you just helped them, and not spat in their face.
SiMe expect most people follow their emotions a lot. If you fight every battle and make wrong points, people see it as you being unreasonable, and nobody wants to think “I agree with this unreasonable person”.
When was the last time someone changed your mind, whether IRL or online, because they were shouting at you, or called you an idiot? Possibly never, even if all their points were right. It’s because when they appear to be unreasonable, your brain automatically assumes that their points are unreasonable as well, and so you won’t change your mind to an “unreasonable point” (even if it is right).
Of course there are some people who won’t change their mind no matter what you say or how reasonable you are, and with those people don’t waste your time.
It's simple Pyschology. It's really nothing special.
You make several good points here. But you have to remember this is a work of fiction. In real life there would probably be more than one "number 3" in that room. I seriously doubt that in all of human history anything like this has ever _really_ happened in a jury room, where one juror changed the already-made-up minds of the other 11. It would be an impressive thing to see if anyone ever managed to pull something like that off... which is why somebody wrote (a play and then) a movie about that happening. But... yeah. Real humans don't work like one-dimensional characters (who are all controlled by an author's whims) do.
I think 12 angry men copied that one family guy episode
Gee I wonder how a movie from 1957 copied a show from the 2000s
Alexander Albite Woooooosh
@@soygato2722 I didn't miss the joke it just wasn't told correctly
It was family guy that copied the movie not the other way around
@@alexanderalbite674 Rly?
@@telebread1416 ok sorry I'm apparently lost in this comment. I'll just leave it at that.
I played #3 in a classroom reading of this back in 8th grade. The story has stuck with me since.
It's something to be studied, and it's also just a freaking amazing movie. I watched it recently for the second time, and it's... well, it's hard to describe, but I think it should be required viewing for all kids in grade and high school. How often is another question, but at least once in each category of school, definitely.
The scene that most sticks in my head... no. I don't want to spoil it. There's one scene that sticks with me, however. It needs no words. The scene speaks for itself, both inside and outside the film. It cuts you like a knife.
To a far lesser extent, I like seeing what it was like living in 1957. You don't get to see much, since it all takes place in a single room, but there are a lot of details in that room that quietly describe the era.
I took the liberty of checking. It's on UA-cam, for 4$ Canadian. You could buy far, *FAR* less fascinating things for that price.