I’ve learnt about this new concept ‘survivorship bias’. It’s very interesting thing to be aware of so I thought I’ll share it here. This could also be very useful in your day-to-day life. It’s a simple but great concept about the human perception and thinking and how they impact statistics and their interpretations. Survivorship bias is well . . our bias towards the survivors. Here is the wikipedia definition:

Survivorship bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that “survived” some process and ignoring those that didn’t. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. The survivors may literally be people, as in a medical study, or could be companies or research subjects or applicants for a job, or anything that must make it past some selection process to be considered further.

Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than being just lucky.

Wiki also goes to explain this with a lovely example.

If the three of the five students with the best college grades went to the same high school, that can lead one to believe that the high school must offer an excellent education. This could be true, but the question cannot be answered without looking at the grades of all the other students from that high school, not just the ones who “survived” the top-five selection process.

I thought this is a great concept for us to be aware. The fundamental point here is about how well the sample that we consider represents the overall population. It is a general tendency to ignore the failures and consider only the ‘survivors’ as our sample. Imagine a company opening about 100 funds of which over a period of time they close down about 30 of their worst performing funds. Now the balance 70 funds, which are the ‘survivors’ would certainly have good returns. Now the company can brag how their funds are outperforming the market. What we might miss to see is that these funds are the survivors who would naturally have a higher skewed average.

During World War II the English sent daily bombing raids into Germany. Many planes never returned; those that did were often riddled with bullet holes from anti-air machine guns and German fighters. Wanting to improve the odds of getting a crew home alive, English engineers studied the locations of the bullet holes. Where the planes were hit most, they reasoned, is where they should attach heavy armor plating. Sure enough, a pattern emerged: Bullets clustered on the wings, tail, and rear gunner’s station. Few bullets were found in the main cockpit or fuel tanks. The logical conclusion is that they should add armor plating to the spots that get hit most often by bullets. But that’s wrong. Planes with bullets in the cockpit or fuel tanks didn’t make it home; the bullet holes in returning planes were “found” in places that were by definition relatively benign. The real data is in the planes that were shot down, not the ones that survived.

In this fantastic example, the sample data for the research must have been what happened to the planes that were shot down. That’s what would help them in bringing back more people alive. The research on the returned planes and in particular, the decision to install heavy armour plates in the areas with maximum hit, is a classic display of survivorship bias.

While statistics is about interpreting the data available, what’s also important is to know about the data that is not available and the significance of the unknown data in the projections based on statistical methods. Also, the fact that there are failures which are being removed out of the system, makes any comparison to the past data potentially meaningless.

As you’re aware, in large organisations, on a periodic basis, there would employee feedback surveys. Assume that the survey shows that about 20% are terribly unhappy. Suppose these 20% staff leave the organisation, the newer survey tends to show a better result than last year’s one. The latest survey results are better because it considers the feedback of only the survivors and hence the result could be skewed.

Why does this survivorship bias exist? Can we avoid it? Traditionally, we are biased towards survivors or winners. We read stories, biographies and autobiographies of the winners and survivors to learn how they did it. There’s more to be learnt from the ones who did not survive. Studying the survivors alone could produce a skewed result. The population cannot be complete without taking into account the ones who did not survive.

The other day at lunch, one colleague of mine was saying that there are almost no bad actors in Hollywood (when compared to Indian movies), only for another colleague to quickly point out that ‘probably only those kind of movies don’t get released here’. That’s classic case of survivorship bias and subsequent realisation. Despite our understanding of statistical sampling, we tend to think that the sample of movies that’s released in India is the whole population of Hollywood movies made.

So how does this help us? Why would we have to be aware about this concept? Learning about the survivorship bias makes you less vulnerable to be fooled by this phenomenon. It helps you to ask the right questions. It helps you to put things in perspective. It helps you to read beyond the numbers and also remind you about the significance of the unknown data.

I’m very impressed with this concept. If we are not careful, this bias or a pitfall that we could fall into, very easily in our day to day life. As soon as I read this as a concept, I’m able to see this bias exists almost everywhere and that’s being exploited. Hope it helps you too, if not, at least this is a new thought to debate.

This is not an excuse for a post. I’ve been thinking about writing a post about the personalities I like and admire. So this is purely based on my scale of admiration for these. Also these are people that have entertained me, have taught me quite a lot in life. There is not even one female in this list. I didn’t realise that until I finished writing. Now, don’t pick me on that! The below list is not certainly in any order. Here we go now!

Andre Agassi: I’m a big fan of Andre Agassi. I liked his style before I learned that he had substance too. In 1992, I was watching and cheering him all the way to the finals of the Wimbledon. He was unique. He was a crowd puller and an entertainer than a tennis player and athlete. He was much more human when you compared him with others in his league. His Wimbledon win against Ivanisevic in the finals was a victory of mankind over machines. Was he the first male tennis player to cry in the court? Surely must be one of the rarest. I loved his pony hairstyle and wished I had something like that. Did try that too!

Jose Mourinho: He could very well be the odd one out in the list. He is special because he can be the odd one out in any group. People would describe him as successful, intelligent, objective, sharp-tongued and down-to-earth. That’s what he is. Even his biggest fans would also admit that he is brash, arrogant, cheeky and cunning at times. You just don’t mess with Jose. For me, he is a symbol of confidence. He is very good and he knows that he is very good. He walks as much as he talks. He is the most successful young manager in the world of football management dominated by older pros. His success was built primarily on his people management and his analytical methods. He was the reason why I started following Chelsea FC. Legend.

Mahatma Gandhi: Unbelievable. To live his life the way he did, is just impossible. He must be one of the best leaders ever to have lived. It’s not very easy to lead a mass of 300 million with a principles of non-violence and truth. With masses, the psychology that easily works is that of violence and revenge, not non-violence, truth and patience. I have the highest regards for his principles and the way he united people for one common cause. I wonder how he made millions believe that ’satyagraha’ is the right way to achieve independence. Do you know that he had once listed down seven social sins – politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice. Albert Einstein once said that generations to come will find it hard to believe that such a man lived ever in flesh and blood and walked upon this earth. There is no better summary of Gandhi’s life than that one.

Sachin Tendulkar: I think I was his cousin or a brother in my previous birth. I love this guy so much. He’s a genius. He’s gifted. He’s supremely talented. I feel privileged to have been a contemporary of Sachin Tendulkar. No one has entertained me like Sachin Tendulkar has. I was not alone in turning up, tuning up and waking up only because he was playing. For the kind of adulation he receives in India, it’s hard to play and live like he has. Incredibly level headed, humble and mature, he is a symbol of consistency. He is a phenomenon. He is an era. He is a great role model. That quote of Einstein on Gandhi holds good for Sachin Tendulkar too.

A.R.Rahman: Genius. Consistent. Mature. Level headed. Humble. Sounds like the paragraph on Sachin Tendulkar, isn’t it? I love Rahman for the same reasons that I mentioned for Sachin. The thing I’m very highly impressed is the way he keeps on bettering himself even though he is the best in his league. Every time I listen to a great album from Rahman, ‘I’d be thinking this is his best yet’ and I’ve thought this way more than a dozen times. He is just unbelievable. The era in which he is making music is entirely different than the one where some of our greats had made music. He has already revolutionised music in India and he has a long way to go. I feel privileged to realise that I could still be listening to Rahman’s new smashing music even after 10 years!

Frank Lampard: When he ends his footballing career, he could very well be the best Chelsea player in the club’s history. That’s no mean feat. He is pretty similar to A R Rahman in his personality. He has achieved so much and has many more years left in him to achieve more. The dedication and professonalism that he still shows is incredible. He must have been one of the most underrated and jeered/abused player of his league. He doesn’t care about the criticisms and just goes on to prove them wrong, season after season. I’m sure he won’t stop until the whole football world accepts his genius. Another fantastic role model.

Vijayakrishna: Yup, it’s me. I think I’ve been an inspiration for myself and I thoroughly enjoy being myself. Nobody knows me as much as I know. So I’m the most capable and competent person to talk about how inspiring I have been for myself. No matter how expressive you are, you’re not even going to express half of what you actually are and that’s that half that other people would understand, mistake, like, hate, admire, despise, adore, ignore you. No one will ever know what’s their in the other unexpressed half in me. I’m very proud about how I have lived my 30 years. I admire myself. I’m sure you do that to yourself. It’s a different matter if you want to admit that or not!

If you don’t know any of these names (except mine . . .), just help yourself with google/wiki. I’ll do a bit of analysis for you. Out of these 7 personalities, four are sports personalities, one was a spiritual/political leader, one musician and myself. I think that pretty much respresents me.

Here I go again. Another visit to a shopping mall and I’m returning with a bag of toys. The range and variety of toys to choose from keeps improving with time. As a girl of three and a half years, my daughter can do many things that she could not do a year back. She is now more interested about certain things than she was a year back. More dexterity, more immunity, more intellect, more curiosity mean lots of choices when it comes to toys. The toys that are just eye catchy or just make some stupid sound are just simply not good enough. Now I need to look for those toys that will also improve her intellect, memory and knowledge but satisfies the most important need: fun.

Buying toys for a three-and-a-half year old can be quite difficult. Today, I went to this mall with an intention of ‘let’s buy her some new toys’. As I entered the floor the first thing I saw was loads and loads of board games. Anything that comes with a ‘rules of play’ is not going to be of any use for her. Rules mean nothing to her. We are only talking about this thing called discipline. I think it will take some time to introduce the word ‘rules’. There were train sets. She is absolutely fascinated by trains. But she already has train sets of various sizes and shapes.

And then there were cars. She has cars, trucks – manually operated, battery operated, remote controlled etc. Almost everything except the ones that run on petrol and diesel. There were kitchen sets. Least interested. I’m talking about myself. Not sure about her. Guns? Same kitchen set feeling here too. How about soft toys? Well the whole of Disney family is at home. There are also their underwater friends and technology cousins. Block building? I won’t be forgiven if I buy another one of that kind. I was not planning to return empy handed anyways.

I was trying to recollect what kind of toys I used to play with. My brain said ‘your search returned 0 results’. Yup, Did I have a lot of toys? No. Was there any favourite toy of mine? No, because I cannot recollect having played with any toys or games when I was a kid. We were a struggling family back then. We had to look after our survival and needs primarily before thinking about comforts and luxuries. I guess toys would have come under the luxuries category back then. So how exactly did I spend my childhood? I think much of our time as a kid was spent in the outdoors, with the other kids, doing stuff and exploring stuff. We had probably lots of freedom which led to adventure. May be, we didn’t need toys as much as kids of these days do (that’s one sign of me growing old).

But my daughter certainly does. She needs toys, games, television, movies, music etc. She can get to see a lot of experiences but she would not have the freedom of experiencing them herself. That’s because she is always under our radar. It’s not just because she is a three-and-a-half year old but also because we’re like that. In particular I am like that. I’d buy her whatever toys and games that she wants if it means she won’t have to go out of sight. In a way, I have created this need for toys and such stuff for her. That’s sad but that’s the way it is. Nowadays (that’s another sign of me growing old), kids don’t grow up learning and experiencing by themselves. They are now left with abundance of nicely packaged second hand experiences.

I was still struggling with my choices in the toys section. My daughter was happily playing in the play area of that mall with complete confidence that I’d buy what she’d like. I did finally pick up a jigsaw puzzle, a time teller book and something else. I truly wonder what I’d be buying in the next round of purchases, whenever it comes!

I’m not a white-bearded philosopher but I have a philosophy. I’m sure you have one for yourself. So we are all philosophers in one way or the other. It’s just that our philosophy may not be sound enough that it gets shot down a few rounds of logical reasoning. Then it would turn into beliefs. Anyway, you can’t question my beliefs because they are mine and they need not be logical because they are beliefs. What I’m going to write today is all about my philosophy or belief or whatever you’d like to call it.

Do you know what gives you happiness? I hope you do. Otherwise, think about it today. To talk about what gives us happiness, let’s first talk about needs and wants. We all have needs and wants. Needs are what I would call as essentials for my basic existence and social status. Money is a need. Job is a need. A house or a car can also be a need. Satisfying the needs may not really give us true happiness. Needs follow Maslow’s theory of hierarchy. Once you satisfy yourself of a need, the other need is created or you create it. Needs are not wants. Wants are the expectations and desires that you as a person have for yourself. Unless you know what you want, you can never be happy.

The richest man is not the happiest man. The strongest man is not the happiest man. The most handsome man is not the happiest man. The most powerful man is not the happiest man. Even if one man happens to be the richest, the strongest, the most handsome and the most powerful, he may still not be the happiest man. Being rich, strong, handsome and powerful are all needs, temporary needs. These are needs that one may not realise as temporary needs when he has not achieved them.

Needs are those that you want ‘for your life’. Wants are those that you want ‘from your life’. Now that we have separated needs and wants, what are your wants? As we realise, needs never end. They only grow. While they are growing, think of your wants as well. What do you want from your life? How do you want to lead your life? Now compare the answers for this question with the list of needs that you have. You’ll realise that it is highly possible to satisfy your wants without satisfying your needs. Bed is a need and sleep is a want. If you keep upgrading beds without sleeping enough or realising that sleep is what you want more than the bed, it would be a sad life. For the society, you could be a grand success for only you know that you’ve wasted your life.

It’s quite important to know if we are driven by wants or needs. Needs are meant to be supporting your wants. Your wants are the purpose of your life. Your needs are supposed to help you further. Your needs don’t exist by themselves. They are there because you have certain wants. While the needs support the wants, they have no reason to exist if you have no wants. In reality, there could be people who have not identified their wants. But they would have identified their needs otherwise the society would help them identify. It is fully possible for someone to spend all their lives running behind the needs and dying without even thinking about what they actually want.

In the normal course of life, we are prepared only to handle our needs. Our education and our careers are all about handling needs. So it’s quite possible to get into this quick sand of needs and believe that’s all life is all about. Needs have no purpose by themselves. Getting rich, attaining power and reaching targets are all supposed to give you something. That’s what one must be aware of.

People who don’t identify their wants will never be happy. Because, having achieved all the needs, they would still experience that emptiness which they can’t explain. That happens when you don’t know what you want from your life. Now think of those things that make you really happy, things that give you sense of satisfaction. Exclude gratifications which are different from happiness. Gratifications arise as you fulfil a need or a desire. Think of only those things that you want from life, only those things you want others to give and you want to give to others. Once you know your wants, and once you realise that they are the very driving force of your life, needs may not even matter, let alone being very important.

For all of us, the want is to be happy. That’s for each one of us. We tend to believe that happiness comes in being more rich, more powerful and all that but the reality is happiness comes in being happy. It’s as simple as that. I want to live my life happily and spread this happiness to as many people as possible. That’s my want. My happiness comes in being happy. And I realise that unhappiness disappears when you create happiness for others. I think life is simple unless you’re bored with it and try complicating it.

That’s my philosophy in a nutshell, or in a blog entry, to be exact. This philosophy of mine is something I have concluded and realised based on understanding and experience of life. Don’t go on to try proving them wrong. Because I’m not open for logic

The Indian independence movement has always fascinated me. I was probably 10 years when I first saw the movie ‘Gandhi’. I’ve seen it many times since then. As a young boy, I never missed a chance to read, see or talk anything about Indian independence movement. As a kid you’d love heroes and the Indian freedom struggle produced so many of them. I used to think ‘if I had lived in the 1930’s or 40’s I’d have surely participated in the independence movement’. I used to like the idea of dedicating one’s life for a noble cause like Indian freedom. I guess I had too much ‘rush of blood’ back then.

Whenever I saw images and pictures of Indian freedom struggle and the attrocities during that period, they used to get my blood boil. I had a strong feeling that I’d have done something worthwhile. I’d not have joined the Indian National Army. Even as a young boy I was not attracted to the Bhagat Singh / Subhash Bose type of independence movement. I think I never believed in violence. I would have certainly joined Gandhi’s movement. I always respected and admired Gandhi. He might have got a few things right and few things wrong but to lead a life he led, is a massive achievement and sacrifice.

So, as a young boy, very naively, I have even thought, ‘why was I not born in that period? i could’ve fought for India’. I’m asking myself now. Do I now think that I’d have played an active role in the Indian independence if I was born, say, in1910?

I guess not. Now, I’m very convinced that I’d not have done anything special. To participate in anything like the Indian freedom movement, you need to have many things. You should have a concern for the people, you should have a desire to convert this concern into actions, you should be willing to make sacrifices, you should not worry about the consequences, you should stop living for yourselves. I don’t think I’d have made it. Probably, I’d have comforted myself into a nice job and family and probably at best, would have been writing in favour of Indian independence.

There are always needs for such movements. Earlier, it was for freedom struggle. Now there could be a new reason. In fact, the present reasons could be much more pressing than the freedom struggle. There might be a need for a movement against corrupt politicians, a movement against inefficient public servants, a movement in favour of education, a movement against communaism – there could be so many and there are so many. Have I shown any intention to change anything that’s happening around me. No. Have I shown any signs of actively engaging myself to bring about change? No. How can I honestly say that ‘I’d have played an active role in the Gandhian movement’? I cannot.

Active role does not even mean playing a leading role. Active role is just actively participating and supporting, which anyone with a genuine desire and passion must be able to do. When someone asked me if I’d like to become a prime minister, my answer was no. I don’t want to. I might be very unpopular with such a statement but I simply don’t think my life should be spent sacrificing for others. There were so many martyrs in the freedom struggle who spent all their lives and got nothing for themselves. So many unsung heroes. I don’t think I can make such sacrifices. And I don’t want to make such sacrifices.

How many of us have the courage to quit our fine careers for the common cause? How many of us prefer IAS and IPS over CA and MBA? How many of us can spend our lives for others? How many of us can take the plunge? How many of us will stop thinking ‘what’s in it for me’? Now, how many of us would say ‘I’d have done this and that in our independence movement’?

So many suicides. We all just read about a horrific suicide a week back. There are suicides because of ragging, financial troubles, job losses, failed romances, exam results, you name it. This post is not about why suicides happen or why they should not happen or how to prevent them. This post is about suicides but from a different angle. It’s certainly not the social angle, you can possibly call it the legal angle. Go on. Come up with your critical thoughts.

Buddy: Did you see that news about that Indian techie in US who killed himself and his family too?
Mate: Yeah sad. Let him commit suicide but why did he kill his family?

Pal: What do you mean by ‘let him commit suicide’?
Mate: I meant it’s his life and he ended it but he had no right to take others’ lives.
Buddy: Not exactly, mate! Attempt to suicide is an offence as per the Indian laws.

Mate: That’s bad. I wonder why an attempt to suicide is an offence?
Pal: In this case this guy has killed his family too. Think about this. Lone breadwinner in the family commits suicide leaving his dependants stranded. Sounds like a crime?
Mate: No. It doesn’t.

Buddy: See if one commits suicide you can’t do anything. If he was caught attempting, he must be certainly punished.
Pal: Exactly. Such a cowardly thing to do for someone responsible for his family.

Mate: Why would you punish someone who was already going to end his life?
Buddy: Punish him because he was cruel enough to escape while leaving his family carry his baggage.
Mate: Ok, see it from this perspective. Everyone has a right to end his/her own life. Who has more right than yourself on your life? If you talk about responsibility, why just talk about attempt to suicide, while there are so many other irresponsible acts?

Buddy: Well, I kinda agree. I don’t think someone can insist me to live when I don’t want.
Pal: Then it’s kinda easy isn’t it? I live my life the way I want. I drown into loans, drink and enjoy myself and end my life when I’m stuck. Irresponsible!

Mate: See, if you talk about responsbility, is there a law that says one cannot take sanyas which also involves abandoning the family?
Pal: That’s different.
Mate: In what way? Sanyas has an absolute disregard for the family the same way suicide has.

Buddy: Okay, if I’m single and I have no dependants, will I still be caught for attempting to commit suicide?
Mate: Plus, if I have a right to live, I must have the right to die.

Pal: I got an answer. Anyone who attempts to commit suicide may not be in a state of mental balance. They can be a danger to society until they are rehabilitated.
Mate: That’s a good one. You got me there.

Buddy: Still you don’t have to charge him with a crime. Just take this guy to a doctor or a psychiatrist, why charge him under the Indian Penal Code?
Pal: But you admit that someone who has had a failed suicide attempt can be a danger to society?
Mate: I’d say they would be depressed like hell. So the most dominant feeling must be that of depression and not anger or frustration or revenge which normally result in fatal criminal acts.

Pal: Technically, the police will have to arrest someone to admit this guy into a hospital. Without an arrest, they don’t have a mandate.
Buddy: Oh then arrest is just a legal vehicle for a medical destination
Pal: I think so! But I’ve also heard of one-year imprisonment for some of them who have attempted suicide.

Mate: My stance is very simple. Irrespective of the situation, anyone has the right to end his/her life and that’s it.
Pal: I don’t agree. Attempt to suicide is a punishable offence.
Buddy: I’m not sure!

A teenage slum boy is accused of murdering his father. The hearings in the court are over. The judge leaves the decision to a panel of 12 jurors. The decision is to conclude guilty or not guilty. A ‘guilty verdict’ would result in a death sentence for the murderer. Whatever the decision is, it must be a unanimous decision by all 12 jurors. All the 12 jurors gather in a room to discuss and conclude their verdict on the case. It looks very much like a formality. They expect that this meeting would not take much time as the case is very clear. All evidence and witnesses are pointing towards one conclusion. It appears that the boy is guilty.

As a matter of procedure, they begin the proceedings by a vote to just reconfirm that they all agree about the guilty verdict. When the voting happens, by voice and by raise of hands, all but one vote guilty. That’s 11 voting guilty and 1 voting not guilty. As the verdict has to be unanimous, they all try to achieve that by further discussion. The whole movie is about how the jury arrives at an unanimous verdict. If you think that the 11 jurors would try and convince that one dissenting juror to arrive at a unanimous decision, read on.

The beauty is, it is not the 1 man (juror #8) that changes his vote to guilty, it is the other 11 men who finally change their vote to not guilty. Fantastic isn’t it? You would imagine that it must be easy for the 11 men to convince the 1 man. And that’s how their discussion starts. The one man who votes not guilty is very clear about his unclarity. He says that he is not sure if the accused is guilty or not guilty. The eviences and witness do not convince him either ways. He thinks that the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. They all think that they can convince this one man and just have this whole discussion finished soon. What happens is, that one man’s logic and reasoning makes everyone to reconsider their rationale and subsequently their decisions.

First of all, it’s a great story for a play. This movie was based on a story which made a very successful play. There are only three shooting locations in the movie. One is, the court. Two is, the juror’s meeting room. Three is, the open stairs that lead up to the court. The court scenes are for a few minutes. And the camera shot from the open stairs is for a few seconds. About 95% of the movie happens in the juror’s meeting room. It is a dimly lit small room which cannot hold more than a dozen people. The movie is all about the conversations, discussions and arguments among the jury. That also means that the camera work has to be fantastic. All that the camera would be focusing more often is faces of various jurors and the sometimes the group discussion.

In a matter of few minutes into the movie, we just realise that all these 12 people are 12 entirely different characters. They have different personalities coming from different socio-economic-cultural backgrounds. Until this one juror starts speaking, the other jurors wouldn’t even have thought that there is a need to discuss this case. Each one has their own reasons to have come to the ‘guilty’ conclusion. As the movie goes you see that those reasons range from their own bias, beliefs, prejudices and even negligence. Juror#8 strongly believes that the evidences and witnesses are not good enough to convict this boy and punish him with an electric chair death. He has no problem in being unpopular. He knows that he is the only man out of the twelve who has a different opinion but bravely and honestly and politely he makes his points and refuses to be knocked down by anything other than sound logic and proof.

That one juror (juror#8) does not say that the boy is not guilty. All that he says is that he does not think there is enough evidence to call him guilty. The underlying principle of that juror’s argument is that even criminals can go unpunished but innocents should be punished. Yes, that’s a Gandhian principle as we know. He says that he does not have conclusive proof or arguments to convince himself to say that the boy is guilty. He goes to prove how the witnesses and evidences are not good enough to give someone a death sentence.

During the process of the discussion, the members of the jury, one by one, not only admit they were wrong but also realise why they had come to that hasty conclusion. It ranges from bias to gross negligence to utter disregard to the life of accused individual. Not many of the jurors actually care too much about the accused boy. Deep in their hearts they think that it’s okay even if they’re wrong about their verdict. So what if the world has one slum boy less? The same bunch of jurors would have handled this verdict lot differently if the accused was say, a senator. Whereas the juror #8 looks at this case objectively and goes by one of the important premises of the justice system that all are equal in the eyes of law. As the discussion goes on, voting is taken at various intervals to see where the jury stands. With every voting opportunity, we see that juror #8 has more and more people supporting him and starting vote no guilty. Some of them even openly admit they were wrong and more importantly, why they went wrong.

I was particularly impressed with the way the character of the juror #8 is depicted. It is very easy to show him as the hero, the saviour. But his character stays true all through the movie. He does feel proud that he convinces people. He does not even feel happy. He goes on and on until there is a unanimous not guilty verdict. He does not count his conquests because he does not think so. At the end of the discussion, he only feels no sense of satisfaction that justice is delivered. When that is achieved, they all leave the room and so does he. Juror #8 was just one of the juror who thinks that he must perform his duties and responsbilities as a juror with diligence and principles. He does not think he is a hero or something by convincing everyone around the table. He just thinks that it’s just the part of the process to achieve the group objective of unanimous verdict.

Juror#8 does not know the accused personally. But still that does not stop him from arguing for him passionately for the sake of justice. It is quite natural to think that whatever one does a result or a fruit is expected, sometimes we can’t be patient for the fruit. In this case, the whole discussion that happens inside the room is not known to anyone outside the room. The boy who finally gets released does not even know that it was only juror#8 stood between him and the electric chair death. After the jury’s verdict, they all go back to their own lives. The fantastic efforts of Juror#8 is undocumented and he gets no credit for that. The thing is he does not expect any credit for that because as far as he is concerned he has to do justice to his role as a juror, without caring about whether he gets the publicity for that or not. Juror#8 is one of the most inspiring characters I have even seen in movies. The reason why I keep calling him juror#8 is because the names of the jurors are not mentioned in the movie!

If we start analysing the case in the movie to conclude if the arguments are valid or if the boy is really guilty, we’d have lost whole point of the movie. It’s not about the case. The witnesses and evidences are for the jurors and not for us who are watching the movie. For us, what we need to appreciate is the courage of the one juror, the courage of the other jurors to change their original verdict, the courage of the other jurors to admit why they went wrong, the passion of the juror #8, the noble thought and efforts of the juror#8 which does not expect any personal gain. So, please don’t go analysing the case but just stick to how the discussion evolves and concludes.

This movie was released in 1957. This is a black and white movie that runs for 96 minutes. If you have not watched this movie yet, tonight is a good time. All I can say is, they don’t make movies like this anymore!