Valor’s computational basis is different from all current digital intelligence methods, and this foundation must be clarified to distinguish it from the current PA (People Analytics) digital intelligence basis. The current calculation basis of PA digital intelligence is “sensory information”, and Valor is “factual data”.
This article focuses on answering two questions:
- What is Valor’s “factual data”?
- In addition to “factual data”, what is Valor’s basis for calculation?
In this process, we need to first clarify an old but often new philosophical question, that is, “objective and subjective”. Because facts are more relevant to objectivity.
Factual data: What exactly is Valor talking about “objective” talking about?
When I talk about “objectivity”, it does not refer to the “thing itself” as Kant refers to, but to the “objective cognition” in the knowable and speakable subjective “empirical world”.
Here, please focus on understanding that “objective knowledge” in the world of subjective experience is not a clerical error, but Kant’s philosophy. He believes that even though human beings cannot understand the objective world itself, there is also “objective knowledge” in the subjective world of human beings that can be understood by others. This is because the basic “cognitive apparatus” of humans is the same. For example, when we see colors in the real world, as long as they are not color blind, they must be the same color; When Jordan made the final shot to beat the Jazz, we all sensed that the ball had indeed been thrown.
To put it more simply, when we look at the “objective world” by wearing the same “basic glasses” (perceptual system), what we see is not the true nature of the objective world, but the world in the “basic glasses”, because the “basic glasses” are innate and identical, so we can form a common understanding with others, then this order has universality, and we can call it “objective understanding”, and the objectivity of modern science is also based on this “objective understanding”, not the “transcendent world” of “things themselves” Therefore, the scientific community generally agrees that science is “falsifiable” and provisionally correct.
Therefore, when Valor mentions words such as “objective” and “objective cognition”, they all default to the “facts” that can be observed and understood together in the human subjective world, for example, in the 2B sales activities, Zhang San’s “factual data” in the sales process is exemplified as follows:
A sales to B sales to provide the business card of the project leader – opportunity analysis and confirmation – project information collection – sales strategy, relationship strategy development – plan, product/technology exchange meeting, POC – development of HR manager for the internal line, customer success c to provide customer company technical director relationship support, sales c to get the project leader – objection handling, bargaining – bidding strategy – bidding – bidding – contract – early implementation – payment collection.
These are all “facts”, these “facts” are the “objective understanding” that we can observe together, this understanding is still “subjective”, but it is different from the feeling of ordinary people, but everyone who observes these “facts” will think that this is the same “fact”, not “there are a thousand Hamlets in the eyes of a thousand people”, a thousand people, ten thousand people, all mankind, as long as they observe the fact that “sales A provides the business card of the project leader to sales B”, they will think that this is a “fact”, So, this is “objective understanding”. When the managers of the enterprise observe this kind of fact, there will still be deviations, such as, “I can’t remember clearly”, “listen to what Zhao Si said”, “deliberately deny the facts”, …… This is due to human memory bias or human nature, people can remember facts incorrectly and deliberately do not admit facts, but “facts are facts”, it is a kind of “subjective objectivity” of human beings.
Record bias or human nature will always make the enterprise bias when doing data collection, this bias will affect the manager’s judgment of the truth and management decision-making, but if more comprehensive “factual data” can be collected, then the judgment and decision-making of the enterprise will become much more accurate.
One of the major problems faced by enterprises today is not that they cannot collect more comprehensive “factual data”, but that neither CEOs, managers, nor current consulting companies have a cognitive model for this kind of raw data, that is, they cannot process a large number of “factual data” that is comprehensive and connected, so they will not deliberately “obtain” them, but choose to use perceptual scoring (whether the scoring is 360 degrees or not), impressions and other sensory information to obtain the basis for judgment and decision-making.
Instead of bypassing a lot of raw factual data that would otherwise be critical. This kind of detour makes a lot of management data wasted, so the insight of managers can only rely on the brain, and in today’s rapidly changing era, it greatly increases the difficulty of management.
That’s exactly what Valor solves, it can process large, comprehensive (implicit), connected “factual data” that is dynamic.
Opinion-based judgment: What exactly is Valor talking about when he talks about “subjectivity”?
Plato is not wrong when he says that “knowledge is the belief that is proven to be true”, for the simple reason that, as mentioned above, human beings are unknowable about the “absolute objective world”.
So, when we talk about facts, we can actually borrow Plato’s phrase, “Facts are accepted opinions”, that is, when everyone thinks that the observed “Jordan’s last shot” is true, then we think it is a fact.
This fact is solid. But facts are often unreliable, because the bottom of the facts is opinions, and it is extremely difficult for opinions to be recognized, and the reason why we form facts mainly depends on whether the person who determines these facts wears the same glasses, for example, the reason why people form “common sense facts” is because the “basic glasses” (perceptual system) of human beings are the same, and when they see the same green leaf, they think that it is a green leaf, and they will not easily deny it.
In addition to the “basic glasses”, people will also wear many unconscious “glasses”, they are all some kind of “subconscious”, for example, language, logic, family, personal history will shape a person’s subconscious, whether this subconscious is individual or collective.
For example, people with different cultural backgrounds will naturally wear “cultural glasses”, for example, the Confucian cultural circle has a “filial piety” word pasted in the bones, which is already common sense of Chinese, many times, for Chinese, this is not right or wrong, and even more, many people still believe in “parents who are all in the world”, which is “cultural glasses” and a collective subconscious.
In addition, with the development of the mobile Internet, everyone is more or less in a different “information cocoon”, repeatedly invaded by the same point of view, and non-consensus has become the mainstream, too many views, too few facts (accepted views).
In contrast to the fact that what the human “basic glasses” observe is “objective knowledge”, Valor calls the opinions formed by the “glasses” of the “non-basic glasses” “subjective”.
Valor is based on the above-mentioned “objective understanding of factual data”, and the calculation basis of the current PA digital intelligence software is “sensory information”, because most of the information is derived from “questionnaires, interviews and scoring”, and this information is the “feeling” obtained on the basis of the “factual data” obtained by human beings from the first “basic glasses”, and even the “basic glasses” are not even available (because the investigation may be obtained from hearsay, guesses, etc.), that isThis “sensory information” is actually a footwrap compared to the “factual data” that Valor directly processes.
For example, when Valor evaluates the value of Zhang San, he will directly start from factual data such as “sales A provides sales B with the business card of the project leader”, and calculate from a global, connected perspective. The current method is: ask: “What do you think of Zhang San’s teamwork ability in this project”, and then give a single choice of 1-5 points, answer: “3 points”. How did you get the 3 points here? Naturally, it is felt, and this kind of sensory information has been processed by people several times, and some of them have even deviated far from the truth.
The original “factual data” has undergone a processing of “basic glasses” shared by human beings, which is much closer to the way things are, and even more often there is no obvious difference, for example, “Jordan’s last shot”, whether it is seen in the video, or seen on live TV at the time, or seen on the spot, at least the ball was scored.
However, as mentioned above, since the factual data observed by the “basic glasses” is also a recognized “subjective”, or “subjective objective”, then the objective facts can also be rheological, especially in business activities.
For example, in a certain quarter, the vice president of sales made a large “discount policy” decision, is this “discount policy” to support the development of the enterprise, or is it another implicit weakening? In the short term, for example, in a certain project in a certain quarter, it is supportive, because of the increase in sales, is it an obvious fact that it is worth in the short term? A fact that is easily acknowledged? Yes.
However, in the long run, it is extremely difficult to have a consensus, so the “discount policy” is no longer a fact, because, in the long run, for brand building, it may be weakened or enhanced, so the “fact” in the short term, in fact, is actually a “point of view” in the long run, and the objective flow has become subjective. In this case, the behavior of the “discount policy” itself is not important, but how the manager perceives it, and then measures and quantifies it. In this case, Valor’s “subjective” can and needs to be measured and quantified.
As soon as the field of vision is extended, there is no fact under the “basic glasses”, because the observation of this result needs to span a long time, let’s say it is 2 years, suppose there is a God, he stretches the observation for 2 years, and directly sees that the result after 2 years is to weaken the business operation, because a large number of customers who bought at that time did not repurchase and did not referral. Is it easy to understand that the “discount policy” of 2 years ago is actually a definite “fact” that is supported or weakened? I think I confirmed it immediately, but because I don’t have an omniscient eye, the fact is that it became the private opinion at this moment two years ago, and the private opinion can be very different, for example, A thinks it is supportive, and the support is strong, and B thinks it is weakened, but only a small number of people agree with ……
Because most people’s computing power is not enough, resulting in the inability to form a consensus, therefore, the fact will deteriorate into a point of view, or, at this time, the point of view is actually a kind of intertemporal fact, but the premise is that the manager must have a deep insight into the future, shallow insight such as relying only on unfounded feelings and no factual fact-seeking investigation, not only is not a cross-period fact, but also endangers the stupidity of enterprise development.
How managers view a “business” that is executed in a short period of time actually depends on the boss’s subconscious, corporate culture, system, mission, vision, values, leadership, etc., which seem to have some virtual management philosophy, or management philosophy.
- A boss who believes in long-termism will see this as short-sighted.
- An opportunistic boss would think it’s valuable.
- A technocratic boss will say, “You can decide, I don’t know”.
- ……
At this time, different subconscious and conscious will form different judgments on affairs, and this judgment is also valuable, because it is very likely to be a cross-period fact, for example, Zhang Yiming said “far beyond the cognition of others”, in fact, it is a kind of conviction of the future, this kind of conviction is actually an intertemporal fact, this fact can still be calculated by Valor, it reflects the level of the manager, and Valor can directly quantitatively tell the manager, how much is this convicted cognition worth.
Therefore, Valor’s calculation basis is actually two types: “factual data” (objective) and “opinion-based judgment” (subjective), Valor can accommodate and quantify these two different values at the same time, helping managers enhance intelligence.
