Essay on Jordan Bell makes case for starting job in WarriorsвЂ™ preseason opener
Personalities in twelve angry men essays All twelve of the jurors in the film have very different personalities. According to the textbook "Human Communication in Society: Jess K. Alberts", one of the seven main components of the communication process are the participants (pg 12). If Brexit immigration white paper to be delayed until autumn are a large number of participants that have different personalities, it will Brexit immigration white paper to be delayed until autumn very difficult to have a successful conversation. This proved to be true in the film, as it took the twelve men very long to come to a mutual agreement. During the process of coming to an agreement, the men were very frustrated and constantly argued. Another main component of the communication process also played a role in the difficult decision the twelve men had to make. Noise is any stimulus that can distract the sender and receiver of the message (pg 12), and there were many distracting stimulus in the setting that the men were in. The extreme heat of the room, the cough that juror 4 had, and the rain that came in the room midway through the jury's decision-making were noise that the men had to compete with. If there were a smaller number of jurors and all of their personalities were similar to each other's, and the noise was eliminated, the men could have made a decision faster and more effectively. Juror #1 (Martin Balsam) served as the foreman of the jury. He is in charge of mediating the conversation and keeping the men under control. He is a non-confrontational character and kept the decisions made by the jury fair by having the jury vote. Although he was serious about his foreman role, his laid-back personality could not keep everyone under control at all times. If he were a little more assertive, the jury would have come to a conclusion faster and some of the arguments they had would have been eliminated. With men on the jury with personality types such as Juror #3 (aggressive, confrontational), the foreman should have been more assertive to keep the conversation under control. There were other.