Source: Personality and Politics: Problems of Evidence, Inference, and Conceptualization by Fred I. Greenstein. Copyright © 1969 by Markham Publishing Company, Chicago.

• Objection 1: Personality characteristics tend to be randomly distributed in institutional roles. Personality, therefore, "cancels out" and can be ignored by analysts of political and social phenomena.

This objection is false on two grounds (Greenstein, 1969, p. 35). First, even if personality characteristics were randomly distributed, it would not guarantee the same personality composition in the membership of all institutions of government. Second, particular political institutions and roles attract (or recruit for) particular personality characteristics. Empirically, this objection is based on unwarranted assumptions. Rather than discourage the study of personality in politics, this objection points to the need to investigate the distribution and effects of specific personality characteristics in various political roles.

• Objection 2: People’s personality characteristics are less important than their social characteristics in influencing behavior. This makes it unpromising to concentrate research energies on studying the impact of personality.

Personality characteristics are themselves determined, to an important extent, by the social environment. Rather than being mutually exclusive, personal and social characteristics interact to produce political behavior. This objection fails on conceptual grounds (Greenstein, 1969, p. 36).

• Objection 3: Personality is not of interest to political and other social analysts because individual actors (personalities) are severely limited in the impact they can have on events.

This objection is partially correct, but should be rephrased in terms of the circumstances under which the actions of single actors are likely to have a greater or lesser effect on the course of events (Greenstein, 1969, pp. 40-41). Greenstein (1969, pp. 42-45) states three propositions:

1. The likelihood of personal impact increases to the degree that the environment admits of restructuring. In unstable systems "modest interventions can produce disproportionately large results" (p. 42). Greenstein (p. 44) cites the role of Lenin in the October Revolution as a possible example.

2. The likelihood of personal impact varies with the actor’s location in the environment. Stated simply, high-level leaders potentially have the greatest impact. Greenstein (p. 45) quotes Tucker’s (1963) observation that the political machinery of totalitarian systems serve as "a conduit of the dictatorial psychology."

3. The likelihood of personal impact varies with the personal strengths and weaknesses of the actor. A highly skilled, talented leader can actively orchestrate a favorable position and a manipulable environment, thus altering the course of events.

• Objection 4: Personality is not an important determinant of behavior because individuals with varying personal characteristics will tend to behave similarly when placed in common situations. And if the ways that people vary do not affect their behavior, it is not useful to study personal variation.