- Home
-
Solutions
-
Assessments
Learn about assessmentsAssessments for everyone
- Case studies
- Plans
- Professionals
- Blog
- Log In
When we sought to use AI to explore Lee Zeldin'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 Zeldin 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 Lee Zeldin, 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 Lee’s Transactions assessment focus on six “qualitative” thought processes.
These decision styles shine a light on Lee’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 Lee’s perception of how effectively he combines rational thinking and productive communication.
Looking firstly at the Reasoning decision process, indications are strong that Lee keeps an open mind and avoids prejudging issues, looking at possibilities and alternative solutions before deciding.
Lee 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.
Lee 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. Lee 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 Lee is truly familiar with the situation.
Where matters of Fate are concerned, Lee 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.
Lee places very 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.
Lee 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, Lee 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, Lee 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.
Lee 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, Lee 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 Lee’s circumstances, as well as the range of learned and creative responses that stream from his personal behavioural archives.
Lastly, on Lee’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
Suggest some anecdotes and examples that align with the report outcomes
Lee Zeldin's approach to governance and policy-making heavily leans on reasoning and logic (both equally preferred as decision processes) reflecting his methodical nature in addressing legislative issues. He often engages in detailed analysis before making decisions, as seen when he meticulously reviewed New York's policies during his gubernatorial campaign, highlighting inefficiencies and proposing logical reforms. His intuition, surprisingly strong, complements this when he quickly grasps the essence of a problem, like his prompt response to local economic concerns by suggesting immediate, intuitive solutions that resonated with constituents.
Zeldin's less pronounced inclination towards assertion suggests he prefers to convince through well-reasoned arguments rather than forceful imposition of ideas. This was evident when he negotiated bipartisan support for legislation, focusing on clear, evidence-based reasoning to win over skeptics.
The report indicates a moderate preference for judgmental communication, which might be observed in his critical evaluations of policy impacts, where he doesn't hesitate to point out flaws in both his and his opponents' proposals, yet he balances this with a supportive demeanour, as seen in his efforts to guide and support veterans' issues, reflecting a preference for supportiveness.
His objective stance is apparent in his approach to factual data over emotional or anecdotal evidence, especially noticeable when he discusses environmental regulations, where he insists on objective data to support his regulatory stance.
The lesser preference for natural or adaptive responses aligns with Zeldin's more structured approach to problem-solving rather than going with the flow or adapting spontaneously to situations. His campaign strategies, for instance, were well-planned and executed with a clear agenda rather than reacting to the political climate.
Lastly, the low reliance on fate and magical thinking in making decisions indicate Zeldin's pragmatic and proactive legislative style, where he actively seeks to shape outcomes rather than leaving things to chance or undefined external forces. His legislative initiatives rarely rely on the hope that issues will resolve themselves but instead are driven by deliberate action and policy-making.
xAI