David Collier and Steven Levitsky’s original “Democracy with Adjectives” article (1997) offered a useful corrective to Sartorian thinking about conceptualization, and the new revised version further clarifies its contribution. There is a crucial difference between identifying a diminished subtype (moving from democracy as attributes “A and B and C” to “A and B and not C”) and moving up the ladder of abstraction (from democracy as attributes “A and B and C” to “A and B and either C or not C”). Diminished subtypes are more precise and do not necessarily increase the extension of a concept. This chapter offers a critique of both examples of conceptual innovation, which are grounded in categorical thinking, from the conceptual approach used by the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project, which conceives of democracy as an aggregate of multiple continuous dimensions. Examples using V-Dem data suggest that it is possible to create measurements of specific concepts that are both qualitatively rich and quantitatively precise. However, the measurement of very general concepts such as democracy comes at the cost of some quantitative information and conceptual clarity.