Very educative

Rating: 8/10 (12 November 2019)

The jurors who failed to be good listeners are portrayed as unreasonable and illogical in the film. From a third person perspective, it is easy for us to see that some of the jurors are clearly affected by their own personal emotions in the film. Juror 3, who still voted for guilty in the last round, had a rebellious son, and he could not help but to relate to his son as the case was about a son murdering his own father. Due to the strong disappointment he had on his son, juror 3 was very firm about the fact that the son was guilty as he adapted the case to his personal experience. Personal experience could be useful when it comes to logical thinking, but should not be referred to if personal emotions were to be brought in as well. By taking the matter too personal, it prevents the negotiators from looking at the matter objectively, which is crucial during a negotiation. Furthermore, negotiators who are affected by personal emotions tend to feel uncomfortable when facing doubts from the opposite position. Negotiators need to be clear that questioning any claim that anyone has made is vital for purely clarification purposes.