Question: Why is it easier to join the group than to stand alone?
In my opinion, it’s easier to agree with the bigger and superior group than to stand alone with little or no support. Even if you don’t agree with the views the group has, it’s easier than being alone. Maybe it's a person's fear of being disregarded that causes anxiety around others, and rather than be scorned at, they follow beliefs of others.
Does this mean that some people are very agreeable in general? Or, that they are easily influenced? Maybe they are just lazy, or overly political? Or, they simply don't have an opinion of their own? Or, they just really, truly, agree with everything that people say. People who aren't that curious are taking the easy road by praising sunshine on what they already know as opposed to challenging their usual conventions. And, if one is being straightforward, honest, and critical, it is often interpreted as being a "hater" or, being "mean" or, being "angry".
The jurors that are portrayed in Reginald Rose's play, Twelve Angry Men, play an integral part in the United States' take on justice. It is their job, based on the evidence and testimony brought forth by the prosecution and defense lawyers, to decide upon the guilt of the accused. When pride, jealousy, frustration and prejudice all emerge we see irrational and rational decision making methods. As the jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the part to make the decision, guilty or not guilty, which was hard especially when you have jurors that are over shadowed by prejudice that influence their decision. Eleven jurors said guilty, and only one said innocent. But, it is only when prejudice is set aside that the jurors’ are able to make a more logical decision on the case.
It is very obvious that most of the battle that Juror #8 fought were the prejudices of the other jurors. Instead of a verdict being based on the facts and logic, everyone just went with majority rule and did not think of the...