group discussion dynamic

In discussing conformity, the least interesting aspect was the discussion about conformity. In fact, the most interesting thing to observe was the dynamic between four men discussing an issue that they didn't necessarily agree on. Generally when people know they're being watched, they try to behave in the way they're asked to behave or in order to give good impressions to people. That didn't happen with this group, instead the only thing that happened was the development of a courtroom type situation of all things. Hear me out, this analogy might get weird. Brian is the witness, Jeff is the examiner, Ravi is the judge, Eddie is the jury. So as soon as Brian took the stand, he made an assertion. That assertion was immediately challenged by Jeff, who was trying to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury (Eddie). Ravi will come into play soon, I promise. So Jeff continued his line of questioning, while Brian defended his logic (fairly well in my opinion), and Eddie was charged with deciding whether Brian can be trusted or not. So every once in a while Jeff will ask a question that itself was questionable, meaning that Jeff said something that was a little illogical, and Ravi steps in to clarify that Brian has grounds to disregard the question. Isn't that way more interesting than conformity! By choosing to start the discussion, Brian pitted himself in a battle to save the reliability of his point of view. Eddie is still in deliberation, but I expect the verdict to read thusly, "I the man of the jury find the defendant Brian Daneshgar... still reliable."