- Home
-
Solutions
-
Assessments
Learn about assessmentsAssessments for everyone
- Case studies
- Plans
- Professionals
- Blog
- Log In
When we sought to use AI to explore JD Vance'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 Vance 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 JD Vance, 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 JD’s Transactions assessment focus on six “qualitative” thought processes.
These decision styles shine a light on JD’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 JD’s perception of how effectively he combines rational thinking and productive communication.
Looking firstly at the Reasoning decision process, indications are strong that JD keeps an open mind and avoids prejudging issues, looking at possibilities and alternative solutions before deciding.
JD 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.
JD 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. JD 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 JD is truly familiar with the situation.
Where matters of Fate are concerned, JD 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.
JD 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.
JD 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, JD 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, JD 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.
JD 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, JD 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 JD’s circumstances, as well as the range of learned and creative responses that stream from his personal behavioural archives.
Lastly, on JD’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.
Promana
It appears that you think JD Vance might self evaluate the Effective factor as quite a low impact item?
The assessment suggests that JD Vance might be perceived as less focused on being "effective" directly, possibly because his approach to effectiveness is more nuanced or indirectly expressed through other traits like reasoning, logic, intuition, and assertion. Here are some potential reasons why other statements might have resonated more:
Indirect Effectiveness: Vance's effectiveness might not be seen as a direct, standout quality but rather as an outcome of his other attributes. His effectiveness could be viewed as the result of his logical reasoning, intuitive insights, and assertive actions rather than a primary focus.
Complexity of Effectiveness: Effectiveness in public figures like Vance can be multifaceted, involving not just the ability to get things done but also how those actions are perceived, their long-term impact, or how they integrate with his broader political or personal philosophy.
Narrative vs. Outcome: Where effectiveness was perceived to be more about outcomes than the process or method, and Vance's narrative or public image focuses more on the process (how he thinks, decides, or communicates), then the process-oriented traits were chosen over outcome-focused ones.
Cultural Perception of Effectiveness: In some contexts, effectiveness might be perceived as less about the direct impact and more about the approach or the integrity of the process. If effectiveness is viewed through this lens, then other qualities that describe how he goes about his work (like judgmental, supportive, or objective) might resonate more.
Public vs. Private Evaluation: The public might evaluate politicians like Vance on how they handle themselves publicly (through logic, intuition, assertion) rather than on how effectively they achieve their goals, which might be more of an internal metric for Vance himself or his close associates.
In summary, the choices made reflecting higher resonance with other factors over effectiveness might indicate that Vance's effectiveness is often seen as an emergent property of his other strengths rather than an explicit focus of his public persona or decision-making style.
xAI