Making Research Fun and Relatable 🌟
*Pictured alongside the brilliant Thiago Scarelli
Embedded Files
Hello dear visitors!
Here, I just would like to share some fun connections between various art forms, personal tales, sports, games, or whatever with my own research.
Enjoy exploring!
When Prejudice Blinds Us: A Look at "12 Angry Men" and Modern Bias (Watch out! Spoilers ahead)
Diving deep into my research, I often find myself drawing parallels with some iconic films that dissect the human psyche. One such cinematic masterpiece is "12 Angry Men," which beautifully lays out how prejudices can skew our views. So, let's explore this classic together.
"12 Angry Men" is a 1957 American film directed by Sidney Lumet. The plot? Twelve jurors must decide the fate of a teenager charged with murder. While the majority are quick to pronounce him guilty, Juror #8, portrayed by the legendary Henry Fonda, isn't convinced.
Through the course of the film, our doubting Juror #8 peels back the layers of the case, highlighting inconsistencies in testimonies and questioning evidence. The movie, in essence, is a journey from quick judgment (blurred by bias) to a more deliberate, unbiased deliberation.
One key takeaway? This profound statement by Juror #8:
“It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. Wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.”
Much like in the film, our choices, swayed by our biases, can have grave implications, not just for us, but for others as well.
For instance, take the debate on progressive taxation schemes, where higher earners pay more taxes. Despite its economic reasoning, such policies often lack political support. Why? Julia Cagé (2018) posits that the uber-rich, being major political donors, play a significant role in policy-making. The underlying popular notion is that the affluent are wealthy because they've earned it, perhaps by working harder.
In recent research, Emmanuel Chavez and I examined the income sources of the wealthiest in France. Turns out, a whopping 65% of earnings of the richest top 1 percent stem from capital gains, not hard labor. In stark contrast, about 90% of the income for the bottom 90% is earned through hard work. The question then arises: when presented with this information, do people still think the richest groups truly deserve what they get? And more importantly, in the light of such evidence should redistributive policies gain more popular support?
Interestingly, when we align our research findings with the cinematic narrative of "12 Angry Men", we notice a striking resemblance. Our study showcased that while on average voters became skeptical of the wealthy and more supportive of pro-redistributive policies after being informed about the income sources of the richest groups, those with right-wing inclinations or libertarian and utilitarian views seemed to remain unaffected. This observation seamlessly ties back to the sage wisdom imparted by Juror #8 in the film. Remember his insightful line?
“It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this...”
This sentiment serves as a sharp nudge, provoking us to look within. It compels us to question: How much are our perspectives shaped by our background, faith, financial standing, our parents, or political beliefs?
"12 Angry Men" invites us to reflect, challenge our biases, and strive for impartiality in our decisions. After all, recognizing our prejudices is the first step to objective, clear thinking.
While I'm still figuring out the best way to set up a comment section here, feel free to drop your thoughts and comments in my email:
oscar.barrerarodriguez@ucd.ie
Google Sites
Report abuse