What do you think?
Rate this book
Wie schön es ist, nicht dazugehören zu müssen: Weder Intro noch Extro: Die besondere Gabe der Otrovertierten - Das erste Buch zu Otroversion – mit großem ... „Bin ich otrovertiert?"
Haben Sie sich schon einmal gefragt, warum Sie nie das Bedürfnis hatten, "dazuzugehören"?
Warum Sie sich auf großen Partys oder Veranstaltungen unwohl fühlen, aber die Gesellschaft weniger vertrauter Menschen genießen? Warum Sie ein wacher Beobachter sind, der schon immer unkonventionelle Ideen hatte, ohne sich jemals den gesellschaftlichen Normen anpassen zu müssen?Willkommen in der Welt der Otrovertierten – der Andersdenkenden und stillen Beobachter. Während Introvertierte nach mehr Teilhabe suchen und Extrovertierte die Liebe und Anerkennung anderer brauchen, schätzt der otrovertierte Mensch seinen Platz am Rand des Geschehens. Ein Plädoyer für alle, die die eigene Individualität leben, sich auf wenige, tiefgehende Beziehungen konzentrieren und ihre Einsamkeit genießen.Was ist mit Otrovertiert gemeint?Ein otrovertierter Mensch ist eine Person, die zwar empathisch und freundlich ist, aber dennoch ein dauerhaftes Gefühl verspürt, nirgendwo wirklich dazuzugehören. Sie kann sich nicht mit Gruppen oder Gemeinschaften identifizieren und bleibt dauerhaft das, was man als Außenseiter bezeichnen würde. Diese Eigenschaft, die als „Otherness“ (Andersartigkeit) beschrieben wird, ist keine Störung, sondern ein besonderes Persönlichkeitsmerkmal. Die fehlende Zugehörigkeit wird dabei häufig als okay oder sogar angenehm empfunden und führt nicht zwangsläufig zu einem Leidensdruck. Problematisch für Otrovertierte ist jedoch die gesellschaftliche Erwartungsnorm, sich einer Gruppe anpassen zu müssen.
Warum Sie sich auf großen Partys oder Veranstaltungen unwohl fühlen, aber die Gesellschaft weniger vertrauter Menschen genießen? Warum Sie ein wacher Beobachter sind, der schon immer unkonventionelle Ideen hatte, ohne sich jemals den gesellschaftlichen Normen anpassen zu müssen?Willkommen in der Welt der Otrovertierten – der Andersdenkenden und stillen Beobachter. Während Introvertierte nach mehr Teilhabe suchen und Extrovertierte die Liebe und Anerkennung anderer brauchen, schätzt der otrovertierte Mensch seinen Platz am Rand des Geschehens. Ein Plädoyer für alle, die die eigene Individualität leben, sich auf wenige, tiefgehende Beziehungen konzentrieren und ihre Einsamkeit genießen.Was ist mit Otrovertiert gemeint?Ein otrovertierter Mensch ist eine Person, die zwar empathisch und freundlich ist, aber dennoch ein dauerhaftes Gefühl verspürt, nirgendwo wirklich dazuzugehören. Sie kann sich nicht mit Gruppen oder Gemeinschaften identifizieren und bleibt dauerhaft das, was man als Außenseiter bezeichnen würde. Diese Eigenschaft, die als „Otherness“ (Andersartigkeit) beschrieben wird, ist keine Störung, sondern ein besonderes Persönlichkeitsmerkmal. Die fehlende Zugehörigkeit wird dabei häufig als okay oder sogar angenehm empfunden und führt nicht zwangsläufig zu einem Leidensdruck. Problematisch für Otrovertierte ist jedoch die gesellschaftliche Erwartungsnorm, sich einer Gruppe anpassen zu müssen.
241 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 17, 2025
295 people are currently reading
4940 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews
August 17, 2025
This is a weirdly self-serving book and I wouldn’t recommend it. The author presents a new personality profile—the otrovert—but provides only his own anecdotal evidence to support his claims. He talks up all the positive attributes of otroverts (of which he is one) while simultaneously insulting everyone else. He is especially critical of individuals who prefer socializing over solitude (extroverts) and takes a dim and inaccurate view of introverts (meek). He dismisses neurodivergence as a possible explanation for otroversion by limiting his discussion of autism and ADHD to the narrow DSM definitions. The personalities he describes (including his own) seem easily explained by some combo of introversion and neurodivergence. I think there is an interesting and important discussion to be had about the gifts of not belonging, and I appreciated many of his insights, but the overall premise of this book lacks credibility. (Also, I pulled my old copy of Quiet off the shelf to double check that I remembered it correctly. Susan Cain’s book on introversion is heavily researched and very worth reading.)
August 4, 2025
I can’t remember the time I binged a book this fast. Granted, it’s a short read, but I felt seen by this book. Rami Kaminski is a psychiatrist with 40+ years of experience, and writes about “otroverts”. Typically, I get annoyed when authors try to come up with their own terms, but this one made sense. It’s about people who feel like outsiders and who view and interact with the world differently.
I’ve recently been thinking about re-reading Quiet, the famous book about introverts, but I connected with this book even more. In the summary it says, “Unlike introverts, they are not shy or quiet, and do not quickly tire from one-on-one socializing. Yet in large groups they feel uncomfortable, alienated, and alone.”
I usually see books like this and am like, “Oh great. Another book trying to make people feel like special little snowflakes who nobody understands,” but hey, I guess I’m that special snowflake in this case lol. This book felt like Kaminski was documenting my life and inner world. He helped me understand why I’m not a fan of socializing, but I can do it when necessary. With the stories of his many patients, I realized I’m not the only one who feels this way either.
This book helped me feel less bad for regularly avoiding social situations and seeing the world differently. He explains how otroverts don’t really follow social norms, and just kind of do their own thing. Not because they’re trying to rebel, but just because we understand why the norms are there but think some of them are a bit silly. Unfortunately, many people aren’t fans of this.
I will say, I might be extremely bias because I connected with this book so much. At certain points, I was thinking, “Is this how people feel when they read about their astrological signs or take the Myers-Briggs test?” But whatever, I just embraced it.
In my opinion, if you can connect with a book like this and it makes you feel less alone, and it doesn’t hurt anyone, lean into it. That’s exactly what this book did for me. Now, I’m trying to get my fiancee to read it since we both fall into this ontrovert camp. I’m definitely going to re-read it any time I’m feeling like a weirdo.
Oh, one last thing. As he describes otroverts, I kept thinking, “Oh great. People are going to use this as a way to self-diagnose themselves as autistic,” but the author does an excellent job explaining that this is not autism. I think most of the people who think they’re autistic would read this book and realize what’s actually going on rather than trying to slap a label on that isn’t suited for them.
I’ve recently been thinking about re-reading Quiet, the famous book about introverts, but I connected with this book even more. In the summary it says, “Unlike introverts, they are not shy or quiet, and do not quickly tire from one-on-one socializing. Yet in large groups they feel uncomfortable, alienated, and alone.”
I usually see books like this and am like, “Oh great. Another book trying to make people feel like special little snowflakes who nobody understands,” but hey, I guess I’m that special snowflake in this case lol. This book felt like Kaminski was documenting my life and inner world. He helped me understand why I’m not a fan of socializing, but I can do it when necessary. With the stories of his many patients, I realized I’m not the only one who feels this way either.
This book helped me feel less bad for regularly avoiding social situations and seeing the world differently. He explains how otroverts don’t really follow social norms, and just kind of do their own thing. Not because they’re trying to rebel, but just because we understand why the norms are there but think some of them are a bit silly. Unfortunately, many people aren’t fans of this.
I will say, I might be extremely bias because I connected with this book so much. At certain points, I was thinking, “Is this how people feel when they read about their astrological signs or take the Myers-Briggs test?” But whatever, I just embraced it.
In my opinion, if you can connect with a book like this and it makes you feel less alone, and it doesn’t hurt anyone, lean into it. That’s exactly what this book did for me. Now, I’m trying to get my fiancee to read it since we both fall into this ontrovert camp. I’m definitely going to re-read it any time I’m feeling like a weirdo.
Oh, one last thing. As he describes otroverts, I kept thinking, “Oh great. People are going to use this as a way to self-diagnose themselves as autistic,” but the author does an excellent job explaining that this is not autism. I think most of the people who think they’re autistic would read this book and realize what’s actually going on rather than trying to slap a label on that isn’t suited for them.
Read
June 17, 2025I received a review copy from the publisher but will be holding my review because of the following : my copy is missing a bibliography and there is no evidence beyond the anecdotal that would back up the author’s claims. I was also unable to find recent scholarship published by the author on the subject, which would be the norm when positing a new theory in psychology. This information combined with a recent ethics accusation, which may or may not be accurate, is concerning. I will post my review once I have additional information regarding the book’s contents and the author’s ethos,
August 30, 2025
This book is a confused, self-congratulatory mess that never delivers on its central idea. When you begin by bungling the definitions of introversion and extroversion completely before introducing your half-formed concept of a third category, you're off to a bad start... And what follows is an incoherent attempt to elevate this idea into a movement, while refusing to allow for any nuance. It's very binary. Either you are otrovert, or... well, you're pretty much just laden with any kind of negative character trait you could think of. The book goes through a lot of them for all of the different non-otroverts. All the while otroverts are portrayed as the unsung heroes and weridly defined down to the most miniscule and random details, such as not enjoying playing soccer.
The writing leans heavily on self-promotion. At one point, under the guise of “independent, original thinking,” the author proudly declares himself not just good but excellent at what he does. And yet, he refuses to use any sort of scientific methods to underpin his ideas. He relies solely on anecdotal experience, subjective perception and a healthy dose of hybris regarding his own character to lay out his theory in the form of universal facts. And so, the substance never matches the swagger. The book is littered with random claims presented one after the other —“Introverts are shy,” “People with ADHD are fundamentally communal,” or the absurd suggestion that “otroverts do not display any of these cognitive particularities” (speaking of neurodivergence) — with no citations or evidence and no respect for the fact that people are many things at the same time and being an "otrovert" surely can not make you immune any kind of neurological condition...?
The tone often veers into the downright dumb, such as describing how “for communal people, a flag is imbued with special value … but for the otrovert it is merely a piece of cloth.” Passages like this reduce complex human experiences to caricatures, seemingly only to highlight the supposed superiority of the “almighty otrovert.” Often times, it seems the book is trying to pander to a post-pandemic generation of isolated readers looking to rebrand their solitude as uniqueness, rather than confronting the reality of them having willfully withdrawn into online comfort zones.
To its slight credit, the book does accidentally land on some generic life advice—“live your life the way you want, not anyone else’s”— but that could apply to anyone, not just self-styled “otroverts.” And this thin sliver of superficial and trivial usefulness is buried beneath pages of pseudo-facts, shallow thinking, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the very concepts it tries to redefine.
The writing leans heavily on self-promotion. At one point, under the guise of “independent, original thinking,” the author proudly declares himself not just good but excellent at what he does. And yet, he refuses to use any sort of scientific methods to underpin his ideas. He relies solely on anecdotal experience, subjective perception and a healthy dose of hybris regarding his own character to lay out his theory in the form of universal facts. And so, the substance never matches the swagger. The book is littered with random claims presented one after the other —“Introverts are shy,” “People with ADHD are fundamentally communal,” or the absurd suggestion that “otroverts do not display any of these cognitive particularities” (speaking of neurodivergence) — with no citations or evidence and no respect for the fact that people are many things at the same time and being an "otrovert" surely can not make you immune any kind of neurological condition...?
The tone often veers into the downright dumb, such as describing how “for communal people, a flag is imbued with special value … but for the otrovert it is merely a piece of cloth.” Passages like this reduce complex human experiences to caricatures, seemingly only to highlight the supposed superiority of the “almighty otrovert.” Often times, it seems the book is trying to pander to a post-pandemic generation of isolated readers looking to rebrand their solitude as uniqueness, rather than confronting the reality of them having willfully withdrawn into online comfort zones.
To its slight credit, the book does accidentally land on some generic life advice—“live your life the way you want, not anyone else’s”— but that could apply to anyone, not just self-styled “otroverts.” And this thin sliver of superficial and trivial usefulness is buried beneath pages of pseudo-facts, shallow thinking, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the very concepts it tries to redefine.
Read
August 29, 2025DNF. Don’t recommend. The author believes he has discovered a new personality type based mostly on his own experience. What he describes is easily explained by a number of other well-researched and established theories- I can think of introversion, neurodivergence, personality disorders (or subclinical symptoms of those), and attachment issues off the top of my head. Additionally, I’ve learned as a both a therapist and middle-aged person, that feeling “different” is actually incredibly common. We live in a very superficial culture that leaves many - if not most- feeling emotionally disconnected from others, even if nothing is “wrong.” This lack of vulnerability required for true connection has left so many people feeling alone in a crowd. I don’t know how this book got green-lit, but clearly no experienced mental health professionals vetted this. And by experienced, I mean therapists that don’t just work with rich and famous people.
June 1, 2025
in the gift of not belonging: how outsiders thrive in a world of joiners, rami kaminski, psychiatrist and founder of the otherness institute, offers an intriguing introduction and overview of the otrovert personality. coined by kaminski himself, an otrovert (from the spanish otro meaning ‘other’) “embodies the personality trait of non-belonging: remaining an eternal outsider in a communal world. unlike those with relational disorders, otroverts are empathetic and friendly, yet struggle to truly belong in social groups, despite no apparent behavioral distinctions from well-adjusted individuals.”
self-identifying as otroverted, kaminski’s fascinating pop-psy book uses case studies of his own patients as well as his own research to proffer a new personality type distinctive from the more well-known introvert and extrovert (this is definitely not a melding of the two). otroversion is characterized by a lack of communal impulse, a sense of (and preference for) being an observer as opposed to a participant, non-conformity, and independent, original thinking (eschewing hive mind groupthink), among other qualities. with examples from his clinical work spanning decades, kaminski makes a convincing and thoughtful case. engagingly written, the gift of not belonging seeks to teach about the otrovert personality, with emphasis on what makes them different, while looking across the course of a life spanning childhood, adolescence, romance, work, old age, and death.
self-identifying as otroverted, kaminski’s fascinating pop-psy book uses case studies of his own patients as well as his own research to proffer a new personality type distinctive from the more well-known introvert and extrovert (this is definitely not a melding of the two). otroversion is characterized by a lack of communal impulse, a sense of (and preference for) being an observer as opposed to a participant, non-conformity, and independent, original thinking (eschewing hive mind groupthink), among other qualities. with examples from his clinical work spanning decades, kaminski makes a convincing and thoughtful case. engagingly written, the gift of not belonging seeks to teach about the otrovert personality, with emphasis on what makes them different, while looking across the course of a life spanning childhood, adolescence, romance, work, old age, and death.
September 5, 2025
I'm honestly not sure how to feel about this book.
On the one hand, it tells me everything about myself that I want to hear. There's nothing wrong with me; I'm not neurodivergent or introverted or socially flawed; I just reject groupthink and group dynamics and am super special and awesome for it.
Problem being, it tells me everything about myself that I want to hear, and it rings a bit false, while simultaneously discarding the vast majority of the population as communal sheep whereas we, the otroverts, are above all of that.
My reluctance to group affiliation and skepticism of politics and organized religion could be a result of a "special otrovert mind", or it could be the result of ADHD, extensive bullying, and an unstable home life with a lot of moving around that caused me to not really fit in anywhere, thus intrinsically skeptical of "groups" since I've never had the opportunity to belong to one.
So I don't know. It was a fast read. It also seems somewhat suspicious that the author not only identifies himself as an otrovert, but has an institution for otroverts with quizzes that will pretty much identify anyone as an otrovert, which seems a profit motivated way to tap into a society that increasingly lacks a sense of belonging.
I'm also a physician. So an entire book written by a psychiatrist that lacks references, peer review, and relies entirely on anecdotes and vibe checks seems... unscientific, to say the least.
OTOH, the book was a gift from someone who was like "Here. This is you." So maybe he's onto something.
On the one hand, it tells me everything about myself that I want to hear. There's nothing wrong with me; I'm not neurodivergent or introverted or socially flawed; I just reject groupthink and group dynamics and am super special and awesome for it.
Problem being, it tells me everything about myself that I want to hear, and it rings a bit false, while simultaneously discarding the vast majority of the population as communal sheep whereas we, the otroverts, are above all of that.
My reluctance to group affiliation and skepticism of politics and organized religion could be a result of a "special otrovert mind", or it could be the result of ADHD, extensive bullying, and an unstable home life with a lot of moving around that caused me to not really fit in anywhere, thus intrinsically skeptical of "groups" since I've never had the opportunity to belong to one.
So I don't know. It was a fast read. It also seems somewhat suspicious that the author not only identifies himself as an otrovert, but has an institution for otroverts with quizzes that will pretty much identify anyone as an otrovert, which seems a profit motivated way to tap into a society that increasingly lacks a sense of belonging.
I'm also a physician. So an entire book written by a psychiatrist that lacks references, peer review, and relies entirely on anecdotes and vibe checks seems... unscientific, to say the least.
OTOH, the book was a gift from someone who was like "Here. This is you." So maybe he's onto something.
September 9, 2025
One sentence review: A catchy idea, but without scientific grounding the otrovert feels more like a flattering horoscope than a real personality type.
Longer version:
This book introduces a new personality type, the otrovert—an independent thinker who resists group norms, may be socially skilled and even popular, yet doesn’t draw energy from social interactions. It’s a description that will appeal to anyone who has ever felt like an outsider. And that’s exactly the problem: the book relies heavily on the Forer effect, offering traits vague and flattering enough to apply to almost anyone.
As the book progresses, Kaminski ascribes more and more qualities to the otrovert: how they think, behave at work, and approach relationships. In his telling, the otrovert becomes a kind of mythical figure—and unsurprisingly, the author identifies as one himself.
What bothers me most is that Kaminski’s authority rests on anecdotes and self-study, not scientific research. Unlike established models such as the Big Five, which see traits as continua, he presents the otrovert as a rigid and highly detailed category. Some readers may embrace the label and love the book, (much like Thomas Erikson’s color-coded personality types). I closed it disappointed by how unscientific it turned out to be.
Longer version:
This book introduces a new personality type, the otrovert—an independent thinker who resists group norms, may be socially skilled and even popular, yet doesn’t draw energy from social interactions. It’s a description that will appeal to anyone who has ever felt like an outsider. And that’s exactly the problem: the book relies heavily on the Forer effect, offering traits vague and flattering enough to apply to almost anyone.
As the book progresses, Kaminski ascribes more and more qualities to the otrovert: how they think, behave at work, and approach relationships. In his telling, the otrovert becomes a kind of mythical figure—and unsurprisingly, the author identifies as one himself.
What bothers me most is that Kaminski’s authority rests on anecdotes and self-study, not scientific research. Unlike established models such as the Big Five, which see traits as continua, he presents the otrovert as a rigid and highly detailed category. Some readers may embrace the label and love the book, (much like Thomas Erikson’s color-coded personality types). I closed it disappointed by how unscientific it turned out to be.
July 7, 2025
TITLE: THE GIFT OF NOT BELONGING
AUTHOR: Rami Kaminski
PUB DATE: 06.17.2025
Have you ever felt like an outsider, even when you're surrounded by people?
You’re not alone! Dr. Rami Kaminski’s eye-opening book The Gift of Not Belonging introduces us to the concept of the otrovert—someone who doesn’t quite fit into any group, not because they’re shy or introverted, but because they simply don’t feel a sense of belonging, no matter how popular or socially connected they are.
Unlike introverts, who seek solitude to recharge, and extroverts, who thrive in large groups, otroverts often feel most at peace when they’re alone or in small, intimate settings. But here’s the twist: not belonging is actually a hidden strength. Kaminski reveals how embracing this unique perspective can lead to a rich, fulfilling life. Rather than trying to fit in or follow societal norms, you can learn to trust your own instincts and build deep, meaningful connections on your terms.
In a world that constantly pushes us to be part of a group, it’s easy to feel disconnected when you don’t “belong.” But Kaminski argues that the lack of fitting in can actually give you the freedom to create your own identity and live authentically. It’s a powerful reminder that not belonging isn’t a weakness—it’s a gift.
AUTHOR: Rami Kaminski
PUB DATE: 06.17.2025
Have you ever felt like an outsider, even when you're surrounded by people?
You’re not alone! Dr. Rami Kaminski’s eye-opening book The Gift of Not Belonging introduces us to the concept of the otrovert—someone who doesn’t quite fit into any group, not because they’re shy or introverted, but because they simply don’t feel a sense of belonging, no matter how popular or socially connected they are.
Unlike introverts, who seek solitude to recharge, and extroverts, who thrive in large groups, otroverts often feel most at peace when they’re alone or in small, intimate settings. But here’s the twist: not belonging is actually a hidden strength. Kaminski reveals how embracing this unique perspective can lead to a rich, fulfilling life. Rather than trying to fit in or follow societal norms, you can learn to trust your own instincts and build deep, meaningful connections on your terms.
In a world that constantly pushes us to be part of a group, it’s easy to feel disconnected when you don’t “belong.” But Kaminski argues that the lack of fitting in can actually give you the freedom to create your own identity and live authentically. It’s a powerful reminder that not belonging isn’t a weakness—it’s a gift.
August 4, 2025
QUICK NOTE TO READERS: The appendix comes with an "Are you an otrovert?" style quiz. I would suggest doing the quiz before reading deep into this one and then circle back after you have completed the book to make sure there is no recency bias in the quiz results. (I had completed about 40% of the book at the time and, despite my best attempts to not be influenced by the content, I scored a 236/280 and this will never know if that score is accurate. You have been warned!
I came to this title with great apprehension, because the desire to be dropped into a category to give your life more context is always great, but there are always snakeoil salesmen along the road to self-actualization that are not based on actual science (I AM CALLING YOU OUT, BRIGGS-MEYER).
Otrovert
[noun, adjective ot-truh-vert; verb ot-truh-vert] An "otrovert" embodies the personality trait of non-belonging: remaining an eternal outsider in a communal world. Unlike those with relational disorders, otroverts are empathetic and friendly, yet struggle to truly belong in social groups, despite no apparent behavioral distinctions from well-adjusted individuals.
There are 2 points of contention that I am slamming my head against preventing to allow me to accept this designation:
a) While the author is a practicing doctor, the concept is derived from his patient files. Much like Sigmund Freud (whose theory of psychoanalysis was based on wealthy Austrian female patients, and ignored certain aspects of their medical history), his current data is shallow and anecdotal. Also, the designation of otrovert is also something that he applies to himself. I would welcome being convinced otherwise when I see this idea successfully jump through the hoops of scientific rigour.
b) His definition of otrovertism carves into the introvert/extrovert dynamic, and I feel that some of his terms are redefined solely to serve his argument. I am a dyed-in-the-wool introvert and some of his termsfor this book (i.e. that both introverts and extroverts are actually both communial) make no sense to me. Of course, I could actually be an otrovert and have mislabelled myself incorrecty. I am open to this idea, but please see point A
That said, and I am being 100% genuine here, I have never felt more seen than I do in this discussions in this book. If an otrovert is actually a thing, then I am definitely it.
If I see more science (or footnotes and a bibliography from Kaminski's work), I would gladly revisit my review here.
August 3, 2025
I found the book very relatable, impactful, and thought-provoking. I find the tone off-putting, and that second impression is reinforced by how much the author is personally highlighted in the promotional materials. To some extent this is normal for book promotion, but viscerally, he reminds me too much of charismatically abusive community leaders. I realize that sounds very specific, but - it's a vibe.
So, I don't quite know where that leaves me. I'm interested in other people's takes on the book, and if there are any other sources.
... oh yeah, the fact that there are absolutely no citations is bad. Actually I'm editing my rating down just for that. Thought provoking, but on shaky factual ground.
So, I don't quite know where that leaves me. I'm interested in other people's takes on the book, and if there are any other sources.
... oh yeah, the fact that there are absolutely no citations is bad. Actually I'm editing my rating down just for that. Thought provoking, but on shaky factual ground.
July 7, 2025
This author defines a new personality type to add to the extrovert/introvert dichotomy, the otrovert, which is basically a person who doesn't feel like they belong to any group. I understand the distinction, I don't think it's trivial. However, I feel like the book is hurt by the author also identifying as an otrovert. In many cases, it's hard to tell if some of the characteristics he defines are a characteristic of him or a characteristic of every otrovert. For instance, he mentions that otroverts have emotional self sufficiency because they don't rely on group validation. However, in my opinion, that doesn't mean they don't rely on validation from an individual, especially an individual whose ideas they respect and find valid. I also don't think otroversion is necessarily the default in the sense that if you leave a person to naturally mature in the world, they will become an otrovert. I think it's likely that something happens in life that would drive a person to become an otrovert, maybe minor trauma related to fitting in (nothing drastic like severe bullying), having a parent who is resistant to exposing the child to new experiences, growing up isolated from other children, etc. One part I found interesting was the section on empathy. The author talks about how many feel empathy by assuming that others are like them and going from there (I would have done X if I was in this situation), but the otrovert starts at the internal state of the individual, which makes them less judgmental.
December 21, 2025
The true otrovert does not need this book to validate them.
October 3, 2025
finally, a group I can belong to!
October 27, 2025
This book is a welcome and provocative new addition to extend the longstanding (extrovert – introvert) binary. I sent the new disclaimer to several friends who would resonate it. I have never felt a strong communal drive and resonated quite strongly with the sentiments of this book describing the new classification as the ‘observer’ who needs little reassurance on their own unique value systems and strong attachment to autonomy of the self, self-discovery, fluidly gregarious and social within comfortable and deeply connected relationship.
Otroverts, he describes, are self-reflexive and highly socially adept yet emotionally detached from groups, capable of deep empathy without needing tribal identification or belonging. Much like other popularly oriented psychology book’s the narrative moves fluidly between personal narrative, patient notes, broader cultural reflection alongside visual symbolism and reflection. The through line of his argument is quite simple and clear, those who do not fit neatly into groups are not broken, they are just wired differently for meaning.
From a creative who always seems to have seen the world sideways and as interconnected complexity his words can feel like long awaited validation. For readers engaged in the restlessness of creative practice like artists, writers, musicians and thinkers who value separateness and often live in the margins between belonging and estrangement to translate their sense of distance into aesthetic insight. Kaminski gives that state of being a new vocabulary.
Otroverts, he describes, are self-reflexive and highly socially adept yet emotionally detached from groups, capable of deep empathy without needing tribal identification or belonging. Much like other popularly oriented psychology book’s the narrative moves fluidly between personal narrative, patient notes, broader cultural reflection alongside visual symbolism and reflection. The through line of his argument is quite simple and clear, those who do not fit neatly into groups are not broken, they are just wired differently for meaning.
From a creative who always seems to have seen the world sideways and as interconnected complexity his words can feel like long awaited validation. For readers engaged in the restlessness of creative practice like artists, writers, musicians and thinkers who value separateness and often live in the margins between belonging and estrangement to translate their sense of distance into aesthetic insight. Kaminski gives that state of being a new vocabulary.
August 30, 2025
In the great social dialogue about who is an Extrovert and who is an Introvert, Dr. Rami Kaminski has side-stepped this whole discussion with his introduction of a different personality type: the Otrovert. Dr. Kaminski, who has over 40 years as a practicing therapist, discovered in the therapy sessions that he led that there was a type of personality that was not covered by EXT or INT. These patients of his disliked joining big groups, craved one-on-one socialization and often had a strong, internal sense of values and self-worth. This book is a wonderful tool for anyone who has admonished themselves for not being "social enough" or "cooperative" or "trying harder to make friends." I found this book fascinating not the least because I often feel alone in large social gatherings but also because now I have had some reference for the specific ways that I view majority opinions, authority and "the 'in' crowd." This is a guide I'd wished I'd had through high school and college.
November 11, 2025
Too repetitive. I put this book down about halfway through and I won't finish it. I understand the otrovert concept, but somehow I feel that a lot of "loneliness" that might go with this concept is simply overlooked. I found the test at the end a good selling idea; a bit odd, but why not. Might do the test for fun.
Read
August 26, 2025There are countless books about how people can connect better, join groups more effectively, and find their place in a collective. Yet "The Gift of Not Belonging" by Rami Kaminski takes an entirely different perspective, arguing that not fitting in is not a weakness but a hidden strength. Many people experience a subtle, aching sense of being on the outside looking in. They follow the scripts of laughter, conversation, and small talk, yet remain aware that their sense of belonging feels performed rather than authentic. Kaminski identifies these individuals as 'otroverts,' a term he introduces to describe people who neither orient themselves inward like introverts nor outward toward groups like extroverts. Instead, they stand at an unusual angle to social life, one that grants them freedom, independence, and insight, even if it often leaves them misunderstood.
Kaminski presents the otrovert as a figure who complicates conventional categories. These individuals often display warmth, charisma, and strong interpersonal skills in one-on-one situations but are uninterested in conforming to the expectations of groups. Unlike introverts, they are not overwhelmed by social energy, and unlike extroverts, they do not seek validation through crowds. Their orientation is not toward fitting in but toward preserving their autonomy. This tendency, Kaminski argues, is not a defect to be cured but a natural disposition, as fundamental as being left-handed. Trying to mold them into joiners inevitably creates dissonance and unhappiness. Accepting their difference, on the other hand, allows them to thrive.
Because their behavior doesn’t easily fit stereotypes, otroverts are often misread. Many people assume they are introverts who dislike company or that they suffer from social anxiety. But Kaminski stresses the difference. Introverts retreat inward because they find group dynamics overwhelming, while otroverts remain outward-facing but detached from group identity. They notice every signal and cue, yet feel no compulsion to participate in the shared illusion of belonging. Others mistake them for rebels or contrarians, but this too is inaccurate. They are not deliberately resisting norms out of ideology - they simply do not perceive collective identity as meaningful in the first place. Even their ability to perform socially, by adopting roles like host or entertainer, can be deceptive, masking the fact that beneath the performance lies an enduring independence.
Kaminski highlights how challenging it can be to live as an otrovert in a society designed around conformity. From childhood onward, individuals are trained to share, cooperate, and seek validation through group membership. Most people internalize this training until it feels natural. Otroverts, however, never fully absorb it. They may learn to play along for survival, but the sense of belonging never becomes authentic. This dissonance can create tension in families, schools, and workplaces, where conformity is rewarded and nonconformity is often pathologized. Too many otroverts end up mislabeled with disorders they do not have, from anxiety to developmental conditions, when in truth their difference lies in orientation, not pathology.
Life for an otrovert unfolds in distinctive stages. In childhood, they often prefer the company of adults to peers, exhibit deep curiosity, and resist group play. They may excel in areas that interest them but struggle with activities that require broad conformity, like team sports or group projects. Adolescence can be especially difficult, since it is a stage where the pressure to belong intensifies. Some otroverts cope by adopting exaggerated personas that mimic extroversion, though this often leads to unhappiness until they return to their authentic selves. In adulthood, the workplace presents another obstacle. Corporate culture, with its endless meetings and collaborative requirements, can feel suffocating. Many otroverts flourish only after finding careers that grant independence, creativity, or leadership roles where they set the terms of engagement. Interestingly, Kaminski notes that aging often brings relief. As communal people panic at the fragility of belonging, otroverts, long accustomed to standing apart, are more at peace with solitude and mortality.
The central message of Kaminski’s work is not simply diagnostic but celebratory. Otroverts possess unique advantages precisely because they are detached from collective identity. Their independence from groupthink allows them to question assumptions others take for granted. This capacity for critical distance makes them natural innovators, willing to ask 'what if' in environments dominated by conventional wisdom. Kaminski describes his own work with patients once labeled 'nonresponders' in psychiatric care - individuals dismissed as hopeless cases. Refusing to accept the system’s consensus, he reevaluated them individually and discovered that with the right support, many could reclaim fulfilling lives. This refusal to bow to collective judgment exemplifies the otrovert’s strength.
Otroverts also benefit from profound self-trust. Where communal people often crave reassurance, otroverts rely on their own instincts, even when those instincts defy the expectations of others. This allows them to make unconventional choices without succumbing to guilt or doubt. They also bring authenticity to relationships. Though they dislike group dynamics, they excel in one-on-one connections where conversation bypasses superficialities and heads straight into substance. These bonds, while fewer in number, are often marked by loyalty, depth, and sincerity. Finally, their refusal to abandon their inner world equips them with unusually rich imaginations. While communal people often suppress thoughts or feelings they fear are socially unacceptable, otroverts explore them freely, drawing creative power from their inner lives.
Kaminski’s insights challenge the assumption that happiness depends on fitting in. He argues instead that fulfillment comes from embracing one’s authentic disposition. For otroverts, this means rejecting the exhausting charade of constant belonging and instead cultivating a life centered on meaningful work, genuine relationships, and the freedom of solitude. Far from being a flaw, otroversion offers a rare vantage point from which to see clearly the illusions of conformity. In a world preoccupied with blending in, otroverts remind us of the transformative potential of standing apart.
Ultimately, "The Gift of Not Belonging" redefines what it means to thrive. Kaminski shows that otroverts, who might once have been dismissed as misfits, actually embody strengths that society urgently needs: independence of thought, resilience in solitude, and the courage to question assumptions. Their lives remind us that true connection does not require conformity and that individuality can be a source of profound power. In celebrating otroverts, Kaminski invites all readers to reconsider the value of belonging itself. Perhaps the deepest belonging comes not from losing oneself in the crowd but from embracing the freedom of authenticity. In this sense, the gift of not belonging is not just for outsiders - it is a lesson for everyone.
Kaminski presents the otrovert as a figure who complicates conventional categories. These individuals often display warmth, charisma, and strong interpersonal skills in one-on-one situations but are uninterested in conforming to the expectations of groups. Unlike introverts, they are not overwhelmed by social energy, and unlike extroverts, they do not seek validation through crowds. Their orientation is not toward fitting in but toward preserving their autonomy. This tendency, Kaminski argues, is not a defect to be cured but a natural disposition, as fundamental as being left-handed. Trying to mold them into joiners inevitably creates dissonance and unhappiness. Accepting their difference, on the other hand, allows them to thrive.
Because their behavior doesn’t easily fit stereotypes, otroverts are often misread. Many people assume they are introverts who dislike company or that they suffer from social anxiety. But Kaminski stresses the difference. Introverts retreat inward because they find group dynamics overwhelming, while otroverts remain outward-facing but detached from group identity. They notice every signal and cue, yet feel no compulsion to participate in the shared illusion of belonging. Others mistake them for rebels or contrarians, but this too is inaccurate. They are not deliberately resisting norms out of ideology - they simply do not perceive collective identity as meaningful in the first place. Even their ability to perform socially, by adopting roles like host or entertainer, can be deceptive, masking the fact that beneath the performance lies an enduring independence.
Kaminski highlights how challenging it can be to live as an otrovert in a society designed around conformity. From childhood onward, individuals are trained to share, cooperate, and seek validation through group membership. Most people internalize this training until it feels natural. Otroverts, however, never fully absorb it. They may learn to play along for survival, but the sense of belonging never becomes authentic. This dissonance can create tension in families, schools, and workplaces, where conformity is rewarded and nonconformity is often pathologized. Too many otroverts end up mislabeled with disorders they do not have, from anxiety to developmental conditions, when in truth their difference lies in orientation, not pathology.
Life for an otrovert unfolds in distinctive stages. In childhood, they often prefer the company of adults to peers, exhibit deep curiosity, and resist group play. They may excel in areas that interest them but struggle with activities that require broad conformity, like team sports or group projects. Adolescence can be especially difficult, since it is a stage where the pressure to belong intensifies. Some otroverts cope by adopting exaggerated personas that mimic extroversion, though this often leads to unhappiness until they return to their authentic selves. In adulthood, the workplace presents another obstacle. Corporate culture, with its endless meetings and collaborative requirements, can feel suffocating. Many otroverts flourish only after finding careers that grant independence, creativity, or leadership roles where they set the terms of engagement. Interestingly, Kaminski notes that aging often brings relief. As communal people panic at the fragility of belonging, otroverts, long accustomed to standing apart, are more at peace with solitude and mortality.
The central message of Kaminski’s work is not simply diagnostic but celebratory. Otroverts possess unique advantages precisely because they are detached from collective identity. Their independence from groupthink allows them to question assumptions others take for granted. This capacity for critical distance makes them natural innovators, willing to ask 'what if' in environments dominated by conventional wisdom. Kaminski describes his own work with patients once labeled 'nonresponders' in psychiatric care - individuals dismissed as hopeless cases. Refusing to accept the system’s consensus, he reevaluated them individually and discovered that with the right support, many could reclaim fulfilling lives. This refusal to bow to collective judgment exemplifies the otrovert’s strength.
Otroverts also benefit from profound self-trust. Where communal people often crave reassurance, otroverts rely on their own instincts, even when those instincts defy the expectations of others. This allows them to make unconventional choices without succumbing to guilt or doubt. They also bring authenticity to relationships. Though they dislike group dynamics, they excel in one-on-one connections where conversation bypasses superficialities and heads straight into substance. These bonds, while fewer in number, are often marked by loyalty, depth, and sincerity. Finally, their refusal to abandon their inner world equips them with unusually rich imaginations. While communal people often suppress thoughts or feelings they fear are socially unacceptable, otroverts explore them freely, drawing creative power from their inner lives.
Kaminski’s insights challenge the assumption that happiness depends on fitting in. He argues instead that fulfillment comes from embracing one’s authentic disposition. For otroverts, this means rejecting the exhausting charade of constant belonging and instead cultivating a life centered on meaningful work, genuine relationships, and the freedom of solitude. Far from being a flaw, otroversion offers a rare vantage point from which to see clearly the illusions of conformity. In a world preoccupied with blending in, otroverts remind us of the transformative potential of standing apart.
Ultimately, "The Gift of Not Belonging" redefines what it means to thrive. Kaminski shows that otroverts, who might once have been dismissed as misfits, actually embody strengths that society urgently needs: independence of thought, resilience in solitude, and the courage to question assumptions. Their lives remind us that true connection does not require conformity and that individuality can be a source of profound power. In celebrating otroverts, Kaminski invites all readers to reconsider the value of belonging itself. Perhaps the deepest belonging comes not from losing oneself in the crowd but from embracing the freedom of authenticity. In this sense, the gift of not belonging is not just for outsiders - it is a lesson for everyone.
December 22, 2025
I wish I could give this book more than five stars. I’ve spent my entire life believing something was wrong with me, constantly feeling like I needed to fix myself because I thought the only “right” way to exist was the way everyone else did—the way society accepted. This book made me feel truly seen for the first time. It felt as if every page was speaking directly to who I am, and that experience was both deeply validating, incredibly relieving, and completely freeing. For the first time, I understand myself, and I know now that I don’t need to fix anything. It’s okay to simply be me. I’ve never felt this clarity before, and I’m proud to finally be unapologetically myself—without the pressure to change to fit in. Reading this book felt like finding the light I’ve been searching for my entire life.
November 23, 2025
Interesting concepts. I’m not sure how much research backs up the authors claims of a new personality type, but hey intro/extrovert/ ambivert.. now otrovert, I can see it.
January 9, 2026
Some of the best advice I’ve ever received. Deeply philosophical in the last sections.
July 22, 2025
Really interesting conceptually, though in a few parts I thought the assertions of what people would or wouldn't do were overly universalized for a personality category that the author claims is quite large. I generally don't like sweeping statements of commonality. I really did enjoy the broader sweep of the book and the case it builds. It was nice to know that lots of other people couldn't care less about pop culture, think it's dumb to conform for the sake of conforming and did even when young, and genuinely can't understand why respect would be based on someone's title instead of their leadership capabilities and ideas. It would have helped during the 10 years I spent despising working in a big bureaucracy and wondering why those around me were so unbothered by all the things that didn't work or weren't efficient.
September 23, 2025
Interesting idea and thesis but lacked any solid theoretical grounding, no citations from others in the field, no real studies or data, only anecdotal experiences from the author’s career as a psychiatrist. I understand it’s written for a lay audience but I couldn’t trust his information without more context. It also seemed to me that the author was projecting many of his own personal experiences onto the broader group of "otroverts," and the venn diagram of "otroversion" and "Rami Kaminski's personal quirks" might be a circle. I wish the book had been more thoroughly researched.
September 22, 2025
I wish this book had been better fleshed out, more heavily researched and just generally more credible because I identified so much with this premise and admittedly a lot of the book was very validating (yes I am a special snowflake) but yeah I would echo a lot of the criticism about the total lack of scientific rigour lol
December 26, 2025
Having had this book on my radar after an interview with the author in the guardian, after reading it I was left dissapointed and a tad frustrated with the book while still thinking I might fit his Otrovert concept.
The core point according to Kaminski is that the labels introvert and extrovert don't cover all persons (not taking into account those with mental disorders) as there exists a group of people who want to socialize but only with a limited group of people who don't like joining in parties and festivities. To be honest, when writing this down I already felt like well yeah being introvert and extrovert is a spectrum right and one with many layers to it so not everyone will be the same. However that "not everyone is the same" is what he contradicts as according to Kaminski the majority of people are communal and adhere to "the hivemind" this word gets used so much I would by far biggest word if you put his text in a word cloud generator, it is obnoxious. I get that he wants to make a contrast but at various points I started to think "djees man, how much do you feel the need and compulsion to feel special?"
This need to feel special is the second big thing in the book, it is quite astonishing how ideal this otrovert really is, they are these superior humans who see the better ways, the real authentic persons, they are more creative, they are better partners, they are better prepared to face the dread of your own death. All the negatives are in essence, people not getting them, forcing them do otherwise and they feel bad, abuse drugs etc but basically if other people would let them be, they would always be awesome! Which, given that he identifies himself as one Otrovert comes across as unsightly blowing his own horn. Let alone the tendency to pick and choose a couple of historical Otroverts such as Einstein, Kafka, Camus, Frida Kahlo, Galileo among others which is something I genuinely detest as you base it on fragments of their lives let alone their inner lives. As you continue reading his book; the disdain he feels for everyone else is quite toxic, envied perhaps for the fun they have in the group but overall to be watchful for and even angry at for trying to push you, the pure individual, into doing things detrimental to your own personal health. His descriptions include things like syncing in with the hive mind using a sort of social blue tooth connection with combines both the robot and alien insult teenagers wanting to feel special have used since the 50ties.
At this point I also started to notice a factor, his inspiration for his theory comes from three sources, first himself, secondly work he did in both Sinai Desert and a hospital in New York (where he pushed for giving troubled cases second chances) and finally his clients in his private office which are either upper middle class or elite. Zooming in on this third source a lot of these cases involve people who can't stand to attend dinner parties or cocktail evenings who end up moving to the Caribbean to become diving instructors or buying a farm to save animals. Yes sure elites live lives full of strict social obligations put on by families and gossip and not everyone can cut it. But have you ever had a person identified as an otrovert who wasn't a tortured artist/ genius or rich person with mental ailments? Was anyone ever a factory worker? A food delivery driver? the daughter of a single mother making ends meet? Second point, what of non western culture? I am reminded of Hikikomori; in short Japanese (mostly but not exclusively men) who can't cope with the high social pressure of Japanese society and who literally lock themselves out of life and stay indoor always. Are these all Otroverts then?
Whilst I was reading this book I was reminded as well to another book I read years ago, the spiral of silence by Noelle Neumann. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... In short Neumann gives a theory on why people conform with a public opinion that they either have not thought about thoroughly or even oppose; in short being alone in public with an opinion can be risky even more so depending on the society and topic. What the spiral is, is the perception how dangerous it is to speak up and the choice to keep quiet and even support the perceived dominant opinion. However there are always those that do speak up that don't care about this isolation or danger (think people like atheists in countries such as saudi arabia or lone democrats in deep red Trumpian voting districts in the USA) these people Neumann dubbed heroes, for being a hero is not caring about said isolation or consequences but with connotation "hero and fool are synonyms" which she did not say literally but did sort of imply. You get what I am pointing out here, in essence Kaminski is making the hero from Neumann into his personality type but there are two major points of difference. First is that for Neumann the mass of people are not a passive actors in a hive mind and second being a hero on one topic does not mean being a hero on everything else. Whilst for Kaminsky, the communal and otrovert are set in stone and the communal doesn't seem to have an original thought in her or his head.
After all that though, I still do somewhat connect with his concept of the otrovert. Yes I too hate cocktail parties, small talk, large events and I am wary of crowds whist still loving to be part of the volunteer cinema, introducing the movies, manning the register and bar. I do tend to do my own thing, liking the things I like not caring at all about many things considered popular such as sport, gossip tech and focusing on books, dinosaurs, small publisher videogames, movies of all sorts, folklore but I do love my cat and I am sucker for cat videos still the most popular internet thing (well maybe after porn) the point is that sure I get it but I also don't think it warrants a whole different persona construct rather it confirms my conception of introvert and extrovert as opposite ends of spectrum with many layers that every person has in head. For some they are all in on introvert and they can't face even one person invading their personal space whilst others wither as houseplants if starved off attention. An otrovert then, based on my personal life, has the sliders a bit more complicated adjusted and that takes a bit longer to figure out then someone who has them all on max in either direction, but that doesn't turn me into some super empath with the power to judge impartially on the nature of society (according to Kaminsky).
I like being me, with all the quirks it brings. I am not a hammer, so using me to punch nails in the wall will lead to bad results but don't blame me for that afterwards. This sums up my attitude towards myself quite well and if the book did anything for me is convincing me that I don't need some label to justify myself which, again given his sample base, seems to be the core goal. A lot of his cases were pressured and pushed by people who wanted to fix their loved ones but actually meaning "mold them as I want them to be" Some people mold more easier then others, others resist and many break in their own way. Giving people like this a label is a shield and weapon to use to defend themselves, to make it easier on themselves and give them the peace they need, so if his whole concept has helped people to do that, who am I to say, boooh!! its nonsense! But I also think it has little merit beyond this.
the final point, in ultimate irony, my resistance to this label and grouping whilst still accepting that it helps some people in itself could be seen as proof of being an otrovert as I resist to be grouped with others based on one aspect and being so understanding about it at the same time. Whatever.
The core point according to Kaminski is that the labels introvert and extrovert don't cover all persons (not taking into account those with mental disorders) as there exists a group of people who want to socialize but only with a limited group of people who don't like joining in parties and festivities. To be honest, when writing this down I already felt like well yeah being introvert and extrovert is a spectrum right and one with many layers to it so not everyone will be the same. However that "not everyone is the same" is what he contradicts as according to Kaminski the majority of people are communal and adhere to "the hivemind" this word gets used so much I would by far biggest word if you put his text in a word cloud generator, it is obnoxious. I get that he wants to make a contrast but at various points I started to think "djees man, how much do you feel the need and compulsion to feel special?"
This need to feel special is the second big thing in the book, it is quite astonishing how ideal this otrovert really is, they are these superior humans who see the better ways, the real authentic persons, they are more creative, they are better partners, they are better prepared to face the dread of your own death. All the negatives are in essence, people not getting them, forcing them do otherwise and they feel bad, abuse drugs etc but basically if other people would let them be, they would always be awesome! Which, given that he identifies himself as one Otrovert comes across as unsightly blowing his own horn. Let alone the tendency to pick and choose a couple of historical Otroverts such as Einstein, Kafka, Camus, Frida Kahlo, Galileo among others which is something I genuinely detest as you base it on fragments of their lives let alone their inner lives. As you continue reading his book; the disdain he feels for everyone else is quite toxic, envied perhaps for the fun they have in the group but overall to be watchful for and even angry at for trying to push you, the pure individual, into doing things detrimental to your own personal health. His descriptions include things like syncing in with the hive mind using a sort of social blue tooth connection with combines both the robot and alien insult teenagers wanting to feel special have used since the 50ties.
At this point I also started to notice a factor, his inspiration for his theory comes from three sources, first himself, secondly work he did in both Sinai Desert and a hospital in New York (where he pushed for giving troubled cases second chances) and finally his clients in his private office which are either upper middle class or elite. Zooming in on this third source a lot of these cases involve people who can't stand to attend dinner parties or cocktail evenings who end up moving to the Caribbean to become diving instructors or buying a farm to save animals. Yes sure elites live lives full of strict social obligations put on by families and gossip and not everyone can cut it. But have you ever had a person identified as an otrovert who wasn't a tortured artist/ genius or rich person with mental ailments? Was anyone ever a factory worker? A food delivery driver? the daughter of a single mother making ends meet? Second point, what of non western culture? I am reminded of Hikikomori; in short Japanese (mostly but not exclusively men) who can't cope with the high social pressure of Japanese society and who literally lock themselves out of life and stay indoor always. Are these all Otroverts then?
Whilst I was reading this book I was reminded as well to another book I read years ago, the spiral of silence by Noelle Neumann. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... In short Neumann gives a theory on why people conform with a public opinion that they either have not thought about thoroughly or even oppose; in short being alone in public with an opinion can be risky even more so depending on the society and topic. What the spiral is, is the perception how dangerous it is to speak up and the choice to keep quiet and even support the perceived dominant opinion. However there are always those that do speak up that don't care about this isolation or danger (think people like atheists in countries such as saudi arabia or lone democrats in deep red Trumpian voting districts in the USA) these people Neumann dubbed heroes, for being a hero is not caring about said isolation or consequences but with connotation "hero and fool are synonyms" which she did not say literally but did sort of imply. You get what I am pointing out here, in essence Kaminski is making the hero from Neumann into his personality type but there are two major points of difference. First is that for Neumann the mass of people are not a passive actors in a hive mind and second being a hero on one topic does not mean being a hero on everything else. Whilst for Kaminsky, the communal and otrovert are set in stone and the communal doesn't seem to have an original thought in her or his head.
After all that though, I still do somewhat connect with his concept of the otrovert. Yes I too hate cocktail parties, small talk, large events and I am wary of crowds whist still loving to be part of the volunteer cinema, introducing the movies, manning the register and bar. I do tend to do my own thing, liking the things I like not caring at all about many things considered popular such as sport, gossip tech and focusing on books, dinosaurs, small publisher videogames, movies of all sorts, folklore but I do love my cat and I am sucker for cat videos still the most popular internet thing (well maybe after porn) the point is that sure I get it but I also don't think it warrants a whole different persona construct rather it confirms my conception of introvert and extrovert as opposite ends of spectrum with many layers that every person has in head. For some they are all in on introvert and they can't face even one person invading their personal space whilst others wither as houseplants if starved off attention. An otrovert then, based on my personal life, has the sliders a bit more complicated adjusted and that takes a bit longer to figure out then someone who has them all on max in either direction, but that doesn't turn me into some super empath with the power to judge impartially on the nature of society (according to Kaminsky).
I like being me, with all the quirks it brings. I am not a hammer, so using me to punch nails in the wall will lead to bad results but don't blame me for that afterwards. This sums up my attitude towards myself quite well and if the book did anything for me is convincing me that I don't need some label to justify myself which, again given his sample base, seems to be the core goal. A lot of his cases were pressured and pushed by people who wanted to fix their loved ones but actually meaning "mold them as I want them to be" Some people mold more easier then others, others resist and many break in their own way. Giving people like this a label is a shield and weapon to use to defend themselves, to make it easier on themselves and give them the peace they need, so if his whole concept has helped people to do that, who am I to say, boooh!! its nonsense! But I also think it has little merit beyond this.
the final point, in ultimate irony, my resistance to this label and grouping whilst still accepting that it helps some people in itself could be seen as proof of being an otrovert as I resist to be grouped with others based on one aspect and being so understanding about it at the same time. Whatever.
October 10, 2025
Kaminski has touched upon something valuable here, but I found it frustrating how rigid he is in his definition. I identify pretty strongly with about 90% of the things he says, and my score for the "are you an otrovert" quiz at the end indicates that I very, very clearly am without question. And yet, he continually said things like "an otrovert would never..." and I'd think "yes I absolutely would". Perhaps he is too mired in his own otroversion to see some nuances. Or perhaps it's just a lack of imagination. Why does someone who lacks a communal drive HAVE to be conflict averse? Couldn't a lack of care for what the community thinks lead to being perfectly comfortable with conflict? Is it really impossible for an otrovert to be competitive or career driven? (As if finding success in one's career can't be intrinsically motivated 🙄.) His insistence that there's only one way to be an otrovert seems rigid and honestly very silly, since it runs counter to his goal of getting this idea out there and understood better by more people. I spent much of this book wanting to argue with him about his own theory.
The majority of the book is about helping people accept and feel validated in their otroversion. This makes sense, as I'm sure many people really need that. But if you're like me, and you immediately recognize these qualities in yourself but have already accepted them and long ago stopped feeling any need to orient yourself towards what other people like or want, then the majority of this book will not be useful to you.
I can definitely see otroversion being a distinct personality type or neuro-atypicality, but I'm not convinced it has anything to do with the introvert-extrovert spectrum. Kaminski seems to misunderstand what that spectrum even is. The idea that it's about levels of shyness is really antiquated, most definitions nowadays consider it to be about where one draws energy from (the self vs others). I've known shy extroverts and outgoing introverts. I'd argue that otroversion is really just a type of introversion, or at least that most otroverts are ALSO introverts.
The majority of the book is about helping people accept and feel validated in their otroversion. This makes sense, as I'm sure many people really need that. But if you're like me, and you immediately recognize these qualities in yourself but have already accepted them and long ago stopped feeling any need to orient yourself towards what other people like or want, then the majority of this book will not be useful to you.
I can definitely see otroversion being a distinct personality type or neuro-atypicality, but I'm not convinced it has anything to do with the introvert-extrovert spectrum. Kaminski seems to misunderstand what that spectrum even is. The idea that it's about levels of shyness is really antiquated, most definitions nowadays consider it to be about where one draws energy from (the self vs others). I've known shy extroverts and outgoing introverts. I'd argue that otroversion is really just a type of introversion, or at least that most otroverts are ALSO introverts.
November 9, 2025
I wish I had read other reviews before buying this book. It feels like an ode to a narcissistic mind, basically a long explanation justifying rude or dismissive behavior presented as a sign of depth and uniqueness. The author seems to claim that these so-called otroverts are the only people capable of being creative, thinking outside the box, or resisting “hive mentality.”
Coming from an MD, it is surprisingly anecdotal and lacks any real scientific grounding. The otrovert idea might sound new, but it is mostly opinion dressed as theory. Can’t introverts be creative and insightful? Or extroverts? Or are we all just a pack of followers waiting for otroverts to show us the way?
What also baffles me is the idea that otroverts are the true empaths, while people who value community or connection are merely being “nice” because they are told to be nice, not because they actually understand empathy. That framing feels deeply misguided, since empathy is not exclusive to those who distance themselves from others.
Much of what he describes as otrovert traits could easily be found in people on the spectrum or in narcissists. Creativity and free thinking are not limited to those who reject belonging, they are qualities anyone can have. Yes, we do live with forms of collective or “hive” mentality, but being part of a community does not make us mindless followers. It does not erase individuality, independence, or the need for boundaries and solitude.
Coming from an MD, it is surprisingly anecdotal and lacks any real scientific grounding. The otrovert idea might sound new, but it is mostly opinion dressed as theory. Can’t introverts be creative and insightful? Or extroverts? Or are we all just a pack of followers waiting for otroverts to show us the way?
What also baffles me is the idea that otroverts are the true empaths, while people who value community or connection are merely being “nice” because they are told to be nice, not because they actually understand empathy. That framing feels deeply misguided, since empathy is not exclusive to those who distance themselves from others.
Much of what he describes as otrovert traits could easily be found in people on the spectrum or in narcissists. Creativity and free thinking are not limited to those who reject belonging, they are qualities anyone can have. Yes, we do live with forms of collective or “hive” mentality, but being part of a community does not make us mindless followers. It does not erase individuality, independence, or the need for boundaries and solitude.
October 14, 2025
I was disappointed by the narrow and limited description of neurodiversity, despite the author's new label describing a massive overlap of symptoms of neurodiversity. I understand his point is to highlight that this new discovery is a separate state (but they're not mutually exclusive) and the focus was on neurotypical people. I think it needs more scientific thought.
October 6, 2025
Reading this book has been interesting although I am not entirely convinced that there is a compelling basis for an "otrovert" category or that all individuals exhibiting the characteristics described can be grouped into one single category.
November 13, 2024
Rating: 2.5
Most people are familiar with the terms “extrovert” and “introvert”, and many are aware that these personality types were first identified by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. A few years back, Susan Cain attempted and, I think, succeeded in rehabilitating the idea of introversion, which has always had a bad rap. At best, the introvert was regarded as shy, diffident individual, afraid of her own shadow. At worst, he was the lone gunman responsible for multiple casualties at one US school or another. You know: the quiet one who always kept to himself, the one the neighbours always wondered about. In her book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking, Cain traced how the preference for the pro-social, outgoing, party-loving extrovert came to be viewed as the norm for the emotionally healthy American adult. She also detailed the strengths and value of those with a quieter approach to being in the world, people who required solitude, enjoyed their own company, and were drained by too much time with others.
Now, Israeli-American psychiatrist Rami Kaminski has devoted a whole book to another personality type that he’s apparently come upon many times in his four decades of practice. He calls this type the “otrovert”. Honestly? I don’t buy it. To me, Kaminski has made a critical error or two. He appears to have assumed that introversion is invariably accompanied by shyness. The otrovert, he makes clear, is not shy. While introverts are as concerned about being accepted by others and “belonging” as extroverts are, Kaminski writes, from Day 1 the otrovert, feels like an outsider, failing to identify with any group, and feeling no sense of belonging. Indisposed to small talk, the otrovert engages in deeper conversations even with strangers, forges strong, close friendships with individuals, and is preternaturally observant and intelligent. This type values his own company, but he’s not shy or retiring (the hallmarks of the introvert, according to Kaminski). Even though the otrovert is depleted by social events and communal rituals, people might actually take him for an extrovert.
Kaminski provides thumbnail sketches of many of his past patients, but his theory doesn’t seem to rest on any actual research. There’s no science here. Just long and fairly idealized descriptions of this personality type. (Did I mention that the author identifies as one?) Among other things, there’s advice to parents about what to do if they’ve got an otrovert child. The advice isn’t bad, but it applies equally well to parents dealing with an introverted kid. That’s because, in my mind at least, otroverts don’t exist. They’re just variations on introverts. Kaminski also asserts that because the otrovert’s entire life has been a “solitary journey”, he or she is is more equipped to deal with death. Knowing that togetherness was only an illusion, otroverts don’t struggle with their demise as “communal” people do. There is, of course, nothing much to back up this claim (beyond the author’s report about a wise, elderly patient). And this points to the big problem with Kaminski’s book. There’s really nothing objective to support his clinical observations: no neuroimaging, no cognitive studies, or anything else to convince the reader that he’s on to something.
One thing that I did find valuable is Kaminski’s observation that deep understanding of oneself and one’s own needs (independent of what the group imposes) and acceptance of one’s difference from others can bring contentment. It is wonderful to know that with practice one can learn to rely on the remarkable resources within. So I did appreciate the author’s emphasis on self knowledge. I think he’s right that many are unaware of themselves. Their busyness, while distracting and seemingly protective, can be harmful.
This book was a quick enough and occasionally interesting read—and a few may even see themselves in his descriptions. In the end, however, I’m doubtful that The Gift of Not Belonging is going to bring about a revolution in the study of personality types.
Most people are familiar with the terms “extrovert” and “introvert”, and many are aware that these personality types were first identified by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. A few years back, Susan Cain attempted and, I think, succeeded in rehabilitating the idea of introversion, which has always had a bad rap. At best, the introvert was regarded as shy, diffident individual, afraid of her own shadow. At worst, he was the lone gunman responsible for multiple casualties at one US school or another. You know: the quiet one who always kept to himself, the one the neighbours always wondered about. In her book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking, Cain traced how the preference for the pro-social, outgoing, party-loving extrovert came to be viewed as the norm for the emotionally healthy American adult. She also detailed the strengths and value of those with a quieter approach to being in the world, people who required solitude, enjoyed their own company, and were drained by too much time with others.
Now, Israeli-American psychiatrist Rami Kaminski has devoted a whole book to another personality type that he’s apparently come upon many times in his four decades of practice. He calls this type the “otrovert”. Honestly? I don’t buy it. To me, Kaminski has made a critical error or two. He appears to have assumed that introversion is invariably accompanied by shyness. The otrovert, he makes clear, is not shy. While introverts are as concerned about being accepted by others and “belonging” as extroverts are, Kaminski writes, from Day 1 the otrovert, feels like an outsider, failing to identify with any group, and feeling no sense of belonging. Indisposed to small talk, the otrovert engages in deeper conversations even with strangers, forges strong, close friendships with individuals, and is preternaturally observant and intelligent. This type values his own company, but he’s not shy or retiring (the hallmarks of the introvert, according to Kaminski). Even though the otrovert is depleted by social events and communal rituals, people might actually take him for an extrovert.
Kaminski provides thumbnail sketches of many of his past patients, but his theory doesn’t seem to rest on any actual research. There’s no science here. Just long and fairly idealized descriptions of this personality type. (Did I mention that the author identifies as one?) Among other things, there’s advice to parents about what to do if they’ve got an otrovert child. The advice isn’t bad, but it applies equally well to parents dealing with an introverted kid. That’s because, in my mind at least, otroverts don’t exist. They’re just variations on introverts. Kaminski also asserts that because the otrovert’s entire life has been a “solitary journey”, he or she is is more equipped to deal with death. Knowing that togetherness was only an illusion, otroverts don’t struggle with their demise as “communal” people do. There is, of course, nothing much to back up this claim (beyond the author’s report about a wise, elderly patient). And this points to the big problem with Kaminski’s book. There’s really nothing objective to support his clinical observations: no neuroimaging, no cognitive studies, or anything else to convince the reader that he’s on to something.
One thing that I did find valuable is Kaminski’s observation that deep understanding of oneself and one’s own needs (independent of what the group imposes) and acceptance of one’s difference from others can bring contentment. It is wonderful to know that with practice one can learn to rely on the remarkable resources within. So I did appreciate the author’s emphasis on self knowledge. I think he’s right that many are unaware of themselves. Their busyness, while distracting and seemingly protective, can be harmful.
This book was a quick enough and occasionally interesting read—and a few may even see themselves in his descriptions. In the end, however, I’m doubtful that The Gift of Not Belonging is going to bring about a revolution in the study of personality types.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews