- Home
-
Solutions
-
Assessments
Learn about assessmentsAssessments for everyone
- Case studies
- Plans
- Professionals
- Blog
- Log In
When we sought to use AI to explore Pete Hegseth'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 Hegseth 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 Pete Hegseth, 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 Pete’s Transactions assessment focus on six “qualitative” thought processes.
These decision styles shine a light on Pete’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 Pete’s perception of how effectively he combines rational thinking and productive communication.
Looking firstly at the Reasoning decision process, indications are strong that Pete keeps an open mind and avoids prejudging issues, looking at possibilities and alternative solutions before deciding.
Pete 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.
Pete 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. Pete 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 Pete is truly familiar with the situation.
Where matters of Fate are concerned, Pete 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.
Pete shows a very clear indication that he goes with the flow of events, letting Fate decide as issues run their course and resolve themselves.
Pete 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.
He puts caring and concern for others ahead of self-interest. A Supportive person, Pete offers well-intended advice and guides people into ’what’s best’. This can be a two-edged sword as it also has the potential to stifle individual responsibility and initiative.
Moderately Objective and detached, Pete 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.
Pete keeps his Natural feelings somewhat in check, and doesn’t often allow himself to show enthusiasm, excitement or ’negative’ feelings easily.
When it comes to group pressure, Pete shows some inclination for being Adaptive to such pressures. But if the situation calls for it he will work to fit into the group.
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 Pete’s circumstances, as well as the range of learned and creative responses that stream from his personal behavioural archives.
Lastly, on Pete’s perception of how Effective his decisions are, he indicates that he can tend to decide an issue, then hold to it until circumstances force some sort of change. But this is not always the case and under the right conditions he will make and review his balanced and timely decisions in order to stay focused.
Promana
Tell me about the "Magic" factor - the preference for accepting that "things happen" - without being overly concerned about the how and why. Contrast Pete's zero preference for Magic with Donald Trump's mid-range preference?
Pete Hegseth's predicted zero preference for the "Magic" decision process aligns well with the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) role for several reasons:
Rational Decision-Making: Defense decisions require grounded, rational approaches based on intelligence, strategy, and logistical considerations. A reliance on empirical evidence and strategic planning over magical thinking is essential.
Predictability and Reliability: Military operations demand predictability; magical thinking could lead to unpredictable or irrational decisions, which are detrimental in defense scenarios where every action has significant consequences.
Skepticism of Unprovable Claims: A Defense Secretary should be skeptical of solutions or strategies that aren't backed by evidence or realistic assessments. Hegseth's zero in "Magic" suggests he would push for concrete, achievable defense strategies rather than speculative or fantastical ones.
Focus on Real-World Capabilities: The military's effectiveness relies on understanding and enhancing real-world capabilities, not on hoping for miraculous outcomes. Hegseth's preference reflects an emphasis on what's tangible and actionable.
Leadership Style: Leaders in defense must inspire confidence through competence and clear, logical reasoning. Hegseth’s preference for logic over magic indicates a leadership style that values proven methods and realistic expectations, crucial for maintaining military discipline and morale.
In contrast, Donald Trump's higher preference for "Magic" might reflect his penchant for bold moves, deal-making, and sometimes an optimistic belief in unlikely outcomes, which can be advantageous in business but less so in the structured, consequence-heavy environment of national defense.
xAI