1. The jury is made up of people from different backgrounds. For example, in this jury, they have a coach (jury no. 1), a broker (no. 4), a salesperson (no. 6), an architect (no. 8) and a watchmaker (no. 11); they have one elderly person (#9 and #10) and one middle-aged person, they have one serious person (most of them) and one casual person (#7). Generally speaking, I think diversity helps the team function because some people can see something that others can't. For example, a jury often saw people fighting with knives when he was a child, so he knew how to use a knife to hurt others; one jury wore glasses, so another jury concluded the woman couldn't see clearly the boy who killed her father. But in this jury, a man (#3) who had an experience of which the watchmaker (Juror #11) stood out and declared: “Everyone must know their responsibility. This is why our country is strong. Then the group formation became normative.Performance: This stage begins with the biased opinion of juror #10, which made everyone sick.4. Ostracism 1: Juror #7 was ostracized. He changed his opinion to "not guilty" simply for ending the discussion quickly so he could go watch his baseball game. Juror No. 11 scolded him and said, "You can only change your mind if you have enough evidence; you can't make jokes about a person's life." He was ostracized because he was not responsible. Ostracism 2: Juror #10 was ostracized. He said that “this boy can kill people for no reason. His life is cheap. Almost everyone got up and didn't want to hear it anymore. He was ostracized because of his prejudice against slum dwellers.5. Yes. At first the vote result was 11 to 1, the other people tried to convince Juror #8 even though they had no decisive evidence. I think some people just want to come to a consensus decision without making sure there are three standards on the jury. The first is that we should make a decision based on the testimony. Some people thought that the old witness and the woman's testimony were completely accurate. The second is that the minority must be subordinate to the majority. Only Juror #7 adopted this standard. But most people believed that only decisive evidence could send the boy to the electronic chair. If reasonable doubt exists, we cannot say “he is guilty”.8. Position leader: Juror no. 1. He was the host and made sure the discussion ran smoothly. Influential leader: Juror #8. He thought you couldn't send a boy to the electronic chair without discussing it, and then he managed to convince everyone. Project manager: Juror no. 1. For the jury to reach a consensus, he did a lot. Responsible for maintenance: Juror #2. He distributed pellets to the others. Self-Oriented Leader: Juror #3. He insisted that "the boy is guilty" because of his own son's bad behavior.9. Juror #1 Standard Establisher. He was the guest of compromised Juror No. 2. I think he found something wrong at first but he didn't dare to follow Juror No. 8 at that time. Juror #3 blocker. He was the last one to still believe the boy was guilty. He ignored the