A New Way of Viewing This World

When I finish reading this play script, what impressed me most is not the power of the American jury system or the discussion over whether empathy is inherited in human nature or not, but the number8’s incredible persuading skills. The dramatic switch from the 1-11 result at the beginning to the 11-1 situation in the end really shocked me and caught me in the wonder of whether we can reach the truth or not. One man’s reasoning logic and argumentative remarks can easily influence other’s opinion and even establish a new truth. And our viewpoints of the world are mainly developed from stimulations of the 5 senses. It seems that different people have different reactions to these stimulations and the world itself is always changing. It drew my curiosity on the skepticism and relativism.

Being immersed in the theory of Marx’s dialectical materialism, I blindly think the skepticism “exaggerates the absoluteness of change and bypass the relative static therefore is wrong”. And the truth can be drawn out by men’s mental power. So I never look into the other view point. But this time I try to observe the skepticism’s thoughts without the former mindset.

The first thing I encounter with is an experiment carried out by Hillary Putnam called “Brain in a vat”. It gives a situation that a mad scientist removes a person's brain from the body, keeps it alive in a vat, and provides it with electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives. The brain would continue to have conscious experiences without being related to real objects. Since stimulation is the only way of interacting with the environment, it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of the brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat. So how can we tell that we are not brains in a vat? And our world is just an illusion consists of consciousness? Then we can’t know whether most of our beliefs are completely false. For the first time, I can feel ZhuangZi’s feeling when he wondered whether he lived in a butterfly’s dream or he just dreamed about a butterfly and the confusions over consciousness and reality depicted in the movie Inception. I can feel the skepticism of one’s own actual being.

So naturally, I can understand why there’re people who are constantly skeptical about almost everything in the world, like Pyrrhon who are even skeptical about his skepticism. It can really arouse a strong feeling of uncertainty and meaninglessness. It’s an obvious paradox if you say everything is skeptical, for you accept your conclusion without skepticism. And you can’t be skeptical about the premise of your ability to think. So it’s possible for Decare to draw the conclusion that “I think, therefore I am”.

Although this theory has several logical loopholes, it’s another way to see this world. The reason why most of us refuse or are encouraged to resist this way is probably that if one believes the external world is not real, it follows that other beings do not exist, and therefore cannot be helped or harmed by one's actions. Thus his selfish decisions

can cause harm to the happiness of other people. As the utilitarianism or some positivist ethics are the mainstream belief of the modern world, the cost-benefit analysis favors a clear line between the internal and the external and put an emphasis on the external world's existence.

One thing the skepticism might lead to is relativism which thinks that nothing is absolute. Things are reasonable under their own circumstances. So it’s unfair to set up certain standards over different situations, like Boas’ arguments for the relativism in cultural anthropology---different cultures developed to different shapes coordinating with their unique natural environments and historical conditions. There are even findings that deception is considered to be a merit in a unique ethnic group. So it’s easy for people with such believe think that there isn’t a truth that fits all the circumstances and there shouldn’t be any steady principles or rules. There may be no common moral ground. Just like skepticism, this belief may cause chaos in the society. So it’s not recommended to the citizens.

But at the same time it gives a good reason for differences and avoidance of severe conflicts among ethnic groups. And in the case of this play script it’s the skepticism and relativism in the number8’s mind that gives the boy another chance.

The whole perspective of the skepticism and relativism has a long history and is very complicated. It has attracted many attentions and been depicted in a way or two in many art works, especially scientific movies like The Matrix and Source Code. It opens a new world with uncertainty, confusion as also as beauty. I can’t be quite familiar with it in such a short time. And I might have already formed some misunderstanding of it. But this article aroused my interest and I may pay more attention to it in the future.

第二篇：十二怒汉读后感

从组织行为学看《十二怒汉》

08国双

邹宇晴（40802080）

炎热的夏日午后，影片从始至终是十二个男人在狭窄闷热的房间里展开的一张博弈，从十一对一压倒性的局势，到最后结局的逆转，那位陪审员用自己的坚持、慎密的逻辑推理和引导与辩论技巧，为自己的观点赢得了所有人的赞同。

面对十一个与自己意见相左的陪审员，男主角运用了各种技巧和策略，对不同的人施与不同的方法，十一个人里面有人是坚决反对立场坚定的，也有人是并无深入思考随大流者，对那些坚决反对的、情绪化的，就以柔克刚避其锋芒，让他的情绪化和偏执更显无理取闹；而对那些非坚决反对的，一方面是用自己慎密的逻辑论据尽力说服他们，一方面要给予他们压力、鼓励他们深入思考，积极认真参与进来，并最终赢得他们的支持。

男主角十分懂得群众压力对于人们的心理和进行客观判断的消极影响，并且擅于规避，他多次建议采用无记名投票的方法，争取到了那些迫于压力不愿意公开表明自己立场而实际上已经倒戈的人的支持，这也为他最后的成功奠定了基础。

同时，“离间法”也起到了关键作用，对于十一人反对群体中意见中的不一致的地方，进行放大，加以利用，使他们“自相残杀”，然后静观其变，收集有利信息，赢得支持者，“坐收渔利”。

冷静，思维慎密，逻辑清楚，坚定不移，擅用谋略是男主角之所以最后能赢得成功的筹码，他始终保持冷静而不是被情绪所左右，用逻辑和充分的论据去有力的说服人，对不同的人施加不同的策略，从论据上到心理上无不一点点攻破对手的防线。

值得注意的是，他还擅于从情感上拉近与对手的距离，赢得好感的信任，进而更为有利的为自己的观点赢得支持，对其他人一直很尊重，照顾他人情绪，与他意见相左的他也求同存异，努力寻找共同点，赢得信任和支持。

影片到后来他已赢得大多数人的赞成，这个时候他又反过来运用人们的从众心理，通过强调自己这方的绝对优势，来无形中给其余的反对者以压力，使他们的防线进一步瓦解。影片中一直情绪最激动的顽固的反对者最后哭着把头埋在手臂里终于说出了“not guilty”，这一幕无疑让人印象深刻，他其实心里早已被说服，只是可笑的情绪化和自尊心让他不肯承认对手才是对的，最终大势已去，十一双眼睛齐刷刷的看向他的时候，咆哮过后，他终于降了，终是没有男主角面对压倒性反对意见时的冷静坚韧和理性思考。

影片中男孩究竟有没有杀死自己的亲生父亲，或许事实上只有男孩自己能知道真相，然而这不是影片的关键，关键是一个人是怎扬凭借一己之力扭转了局势，关键是这个十二个的组织中的冲突与协调，人性与心理，团结与分裂等等的关系和变化，这部电影的确是部探讨组织行为学的经典案例，从中我们能领悟到很多，有些技巧和原理，希望我们也可以在将来的工作学习中得到更深的理解和应用。