- Home
-
Solutions
-
Assessments
Learn about assessmentsAssessments for everyone
- Case studies
- Plans
- Professionals
- Blog
- Log In
When we sought to use AI to explore Matt Gaetz's Transactions factors, we chose a straightforward approach. We provided Grok, (the advanced AI developed by xAI) with the same survey prompts a human respondent would receive. Grok completed the survey phase just as a human would, offering responses as any individual familiar with Gaetz would do. (read more...)
Why Grok?: Grok stands out for its ability to synthesise vast data sets to draw coherent, insightful conclusions. Its design allows for an outside perspective on humanity which, when applied to understanding someone like Matt Gaetz, brings to light patterns, paradigms and behaviours as though a human had conducted the assessment.
Validity of AI Insights: With its capacity to process and analyse information on a scale beyond human capability, Grok brings to the table a depth of analysis that matches most human insights. This extensive data processing power ensures that the results are informed and nuanced.
Consistency and Human-Likeness: Our standard survey processing revealed that Grok maintained consistency across responses, displaying characteristics akin to human reasoning. This consistency check underscored the AI's ability to engage with the survey in a manner that closely resembles human thought processes, affirming the validity of its responses.
How we go about making decisions is really important, which is why the first six behaviours in Matt’s Transactions assessment focus on six “qualitative” thought processes.
These decision styles shine a light on Matt’s personal blend of decision modes. Reasoning and logic for example require conscious, critical thought, whereas intuition, assertion, fate and magical thought processes do not (although they too have valid uses).
We then examine five modes of interpersonal communication. Together, these two parts gauge the effectiveness of interpersonal transactions between individuals and in teams.
Lastly we look at Matt’s perception of how effectively he combines rational thinking and productive communication.
Looking firstly at the Reasoning decision process, indications are strong that Matt keeps an open mind and avoids prejudging issues, looking at possibilities and alternative solutions before deciding.
Matt defines a problem first and then gathers and assesses facts with (amongst other decision modes) a strong emphasis on Logic. He draws valid conclusions and develops alternative solutions with proof of their correctness.
Matt relies on Intuition, insights, hunches and guesswork to arrive at answers. He has the potential to think creatively and to short-circuit problems, but needs to verify answers logically.
Moving on to Assertion. Matt has a ready answer, and he readily forms opinions based on assumptions, experience, beliefs and values. This behaviour will be useful where prompt answers are needed, but only if Matt is truly familiar with the situation.
Where matters of Fate are concerned, Matt shows some preference for this decision mode. He might be inclined go along with the flow of events - but under some conditions he may decide instead to take action to influence events.
Matt places little credence in the idea that things happen "as if by Magic". He looks behind issues and events to find cause-and-effect relationships, believing there are practical explanations that could be discovered. He’ll be willing to accept some ""unknowable things"" where he believes delving into the complexities is unnecessary.
Matt tends to keep firm control over others, ensuring that they follow the rules. He can be Judgmental and to a certain extent he uses criticism and disapproval to influence others, which can limit openness.
It’s possible that Matt isn’t going to be seen as warm and Supportive. He can be thought of as uncaring because of this — although that is not necessarily true. In fact he might put caring and concern for others ahead of his self-interest, if the situation demands it.
Moderately Objective and detached, Matt remains calm, thinks before responding, and chooses responses to suit each situation. He tends not to get caught up in others’ emotions, and may on occasion be thought indifferent or lacking humour.
Matt usually keeps his Natural feelings in check, prefering not to show enthusiasm, excitement or ’negative’ feelings. That’s not to say that he can’t be enthusiastic or spontaneous - it’s just that those moments won’t always seem appropriate to him.
When it comes to group pressure, Matt shows very little inclination for being Adaptive. Instead, he thinks and acts independently of such pressures.
The last factor in this report deals with making transactions effective by combining rational thinking with productive communication. The Reasoning and Logic decision processes work well with Objective communicating but, in different environments, other combinations can work well too. What actually works will depend on Matt’s circumstances, as well as the range of learned and creative responses that stream from his personal behavioural archives.
Lastly, on Matt’s perception of how Effective his decisions are, he indicates that he largely prefers to decide an immediate issue, then hold to that decision until the situation dictates some need to change.