Quick or slow to suggest policies or tactics Almost totally uninventive Systematically collects data prior to judgment Impressionistic improvisation Welcomes suggestion and criticism before decision Impatient of suggestion and criticism before decision Anxious to justify decision to those about or to world Indifferent about justifying decision Stubbornly holds to decision Oscillates in decision Much influenced by facts and arguments (or little) Much influenced by appeals to sentiments (or little) Much influenced by personal inducements (or little) Much influenced by coercion (or little) (note that influence may be negative as to direction) Genuine pursuit of general interest in exercise of discretion, or not Elated by victory or depressed Genuine or narrow in sharing credit Deeply depressed by defeat or satisfied in defeat Interested in programs and values Interested in processes and methods Long-run or short-run objectives Aims at immediate or eventual political action Presses through to a decision capable of being tested Conclusions or decisions vague Ideal of responsible personal participation Consistency between opinion and practices Self-consciousness of own techniques Conforms or not to family pattern (exaggerated, adoption of opposite, ...) III. Political interest Formulated early and persists through life Formulated early, lies dormant, reawakened Aroused early, disillusioned Aroused late By this time it is perhaps superfluous to comment that every fact is defined from the point of view of an observer, and that the problem is to specify as definitely as possible the angle of observation of the recorder. Trait lists are meaningless unless they can be filled in by a fact-collecting process which surveys the various situations with respect to which it is of possible relevance. It is very obvious to the psychopathologist that the man who is “aggressive” at work may be “timid” in sexuality. All too frequently personalities are supposed to be “aggressive” when a certain number of raters have agreed on it, without stopping to consider whether the raters have a chance to become acquainted with the behavior of the individual in many situations. The multiplication of ratings by persons who are in a poor position to judge the subject (even by “intimate” friends who do not, however, act as sexual partners) adds nothing but a spurious specificity to the data. The interviewer who listens to the intimate life of the individual through many weeks and months is in a very strategic position to become acquainted with details of individual reactions which even intimates have not seen. A “rating” must be taken with special reference to the history of the relations of the rater and the rated. It may be that we shall presently find that the ratings of analysts in dealing with certain types of people who can be easily identified do not substantially deviate from those of “intimates” or