The scientific and the popular typologies may include the same kinds of fact as their starting-points. The fact of supposed political conviction gave rise to the “liberal,” but it is a far cry from the rather shadowy lines of the popular image to the finely wrought lineaments of Ruggiero.[11] The means employed in encompassing political objectives christen the “lobbyist,” “propagandist,” and “agitator.” The idea that private motives are not merged in public motives is carried in “renegade,” “sorehead,” and “tyrant.” The idea that private motives have been firmly fused into public purposes is one connotation of the “martyr.” The fact of informal ascendancy is celebrated in the “boss.” In the “bureaucrat” it is implied that the office has molded the man, and that the office tends to attract those especially likely to develop such qualities. The Western European idea of a judge almost necessarily refers to a functionary who carries certain paraphernalia and proceeds with ceremony. The leanness of the “fanatical agitator” figured in the popular mind long before Kretschmer gave it his scientific blessing.[12] Both popular and scientific conceptions range from the particular to the general. The British “election agent” is closely bound to a recent, special social setting. The “leader” keeps a stable nucleus of meaning for the description of a social rôle among widely separated peoples in widely separated periods. Popular and scientific conceptions are at one in that they may present developmental and not merely descriptive implications. The notion of a lean and bitter agitator is not entirely a static, cross-sectional description of a fortuitous juxtaposition of traits, but a hypothesis that bodily irritations operate dynamically to foster the selection of forms of activity which enable the individual to give rather free vent to his animosities. Both popular and scientific types may be taken as objects of study to determine the factors in their formation. The popular idea of a “reformer” in America bears a certain photographic resemblance to actual personalities who figured as public advocates of restrictive laws. It is possible to study the process by which the stereotype of the lean and spinsterly kill-joy arose, and to see why it persisted. Every body politic has its gallery of political mummers, and political history needs to be rewritten to explain the unique and the typical qualities of these popularly conceived rôles. Stuart A. Rice has developed a technique for the identification of contemporary stereotypes of this kind.[13] Rice took photographs of a senator, a bolshevik, and a bootlegger, and after obliterating the names asked various test groups to tell what designation best fitted each picture. By examining the erroneous identifications, it became possible to detect the mental pattern popularly associated with the class name.