February 25, 2020
Irene Ghobriel
Period 9
Sophomores 2020
For today, the lesson was introduced by a prompt on Mentimeter, which asked a poll along the lines of, “would you like to switch teachers after every semester?” A majority of the class had answered no, and many of the students seemed to agree with the notion that rather than change teachers, we would rather have our old teacher, Mrs. Lane, back. Then, another question followed which stated along the lines of “Would you rather have other English teachers instead of Mrs. Peterson?” After this was presented, hardly anyone would respond out fear of disrespecting and insulting a superior who had control of our grades. This segued into our lesson on group polarization, which is the incidence where groups are more inclined to make “riskier” decisions; however the individual is more inclined to be cautious. Ms. Peterson then presented a video going into further detail about group polarization, and then we began reading 12 Angry Men from page 53 to a few pages before the very end. In the final sections of the book, the jury decides to go over more details of the trial, such as how the victim was stabbed to death and how witnesses could have testified against the minor if they did not have a clear view as to what happened. As this occurs, more and more of the men become sways towards “not guilty,” while others, such as Juror 3 and Juror 10, are adamant about their perceptions.
What did I learn? I learned about how groups behave in real life situations. In the concept of group polarization, the support and backing of others prompts more challenging decisions. In other words, it is easy to gain confidence about an insecure choice if others have done the same as you and see eye-to-eye.
Why did I learn it? The “phenomenon” of group polarization explains how people in a group can be swayed by the decisions of others. If an individual strays his/her opinion from the norm, he/she may be too fearful to express his/her ideas. However, if others seem to show the same attitude, it creates a sense of safety for that individual, and thus has no shame in showing his/her beliefs. In this case, group polarization demonstrates why this trend occurs.
How will I use what I learned? Today’s lesson can be applied to 12 Angry Men, where 12 jurors are trying to come to a consensus about an inner-city teenager who is put on trial for the murder of his father. Jurors such as 3 and 10 seem to be narrow-minded and are set on declaring the boy guilty, but Juror 8 and others are more willing to analyze the information presented at the court, which eventually work in the boy’s favor. So, as Juror 8 calls into question the credibility and accuracy of the witness’ testimonies, new information, such as seeing without glasses, the time it takes to run down the stairs, and the movement of the el train, surfaces which render their words unusable, and soon enough, the majority sees the boy as innocent. In the play, the “risk” of calling into question has allowed other jurors to view the trial from another perspective, and reach a new decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment