"New" (Yet Also Obvious, At Least For This Reader) Research Marred By Lack Of Bibliography. As I noted in the title just now, really the only objective flaw in this text, at least the Advance Review Copy of it I read in December 2024 months before actual publication, is the dearth of a bibliography, clocking in at an almost non-existent 2%. Given the particularly strong claims made within this text, that is a *shockingly* small amount of evidence to support Kaminsky's claims, which while I acknowledge are based on his personal career as a therapist, still need actual documentation from outside sources in order to be more fully believed and accepted as objective reality.

This dearth of documentation was the cause of the star deduction, but otherwise this was an interesting, if obvious - at least to me - read.

Maybe it is due to being Autistic, maybe it is because I've always felt I lived my life between two worlds in virtually every possible arena, maybe it is any number of other factors, but Kaminsky's arguments about an "otrovert" - a term he is coining here to mean someone predisposed to be focused outside of any group - felt rather obvious to me. In claiming that both extroverts and introverts ultimately want to be part of whatever community they find personally valuable, but otroverts exist more along the periphery and don't feel those communal bonds as importantly... Kaminsky's arguments made a lot of personal sense to me, as this is largely the way I've felt throughout my life. Indeed, in my later teen years I actually explicitly told those around me that I needed to learn what I believed for the simple reason that I believed it to be true - not because those of my community or any other community decreed it to be true, but because I had done my own research and reached my own conclusions. At the time I believed this was something every adult should do - though as I've grown over the near three decades since, I've realized that few ever truly do. Instead, most ultimately subscribe to some minute variation of the beliefs of those around them or those they have some strong online or otherwise physically distant relationship with. Which again, makes Kaminsky's arguments ring true to my own personal observations.

But while my personal observations may flavor and direct my own personal beliefs and, through communication, can help influence the beliefs of others, I hesitate to claim my observations as true *conclusions* of objective reality and instead try to always point out that they are simply my own views. I'm just the blind mouse reporting my own observations as I feel around my own little section of the elephant, and my own direct observations could in fact be wrong in the more general and objective sense.

Which is why I *really* wanted to see a LOT more documentation here, because Kaminsky's points *do* ring true to me - but without far more documentation from far more sources, it is truly hard to know if this is just a viewpoint Kaminsky and I largely share or if there truly is this third personality type out there, and that societal understanding of this third personality type could prove beneficial in the long run *if it is shown to objectively exist*.

Read this book. Kaminsky does a great job of laying out his arguments in a largely conversational, easy to follow manner, using a lot of personal and (non identifiable) patient anecdotes. Make your own call about whether you think Kaminsky is on to something or is a crank that shouldn't be trusted. Write your own review of this book explaining which side you fall on and why. And hell, maybe together our reviews can provide a level of documentation that this text is utterly missing. :)

Very much recommended.

Kaminski has created a word for what he considers a third personality type, otrovert. These basically just seem like deep thinkers to me, and introverts. I think he makes some untrue and harmful assumptions about introverts, and seems to want to create a whole new category of personality rather than consider himself one. Ultimately, while I relate to much of what he describes as an otrovert, I didn’t come to the same conclusions that he did.

Thanks to NetGalley and Little, Brown and Company for access to this title. I am auto-approved by this publisher. All opinions expressed are my own.

Dr. Rami Kaminski, M.D. presents the idea of a personality trait that he refers to as "otrovert", an individual that he describes as an eternal outsider in a communal world. Referring to cases of patients that Kaminski has worked with over the years, in short chapters, readers are introduced to the many characteristics of people that belong to this personality trait.

Otroverts( in summary):
Have an affinity for adults over peers
Have a curious and inventive mind
Popular but have very few close confidants
Happier when left alone
Do not want to attend organized events
Unusually considerate and generous
Careful and risk-averse
Do not do well with change


I am not a high school teacher and I don't have a medical background. So, I had no expectations going into this book beyond my curiosity. That being said, I don't have any criticisms either. The chapters were easy to read and the vocabulary wasn't filled with unfamiliar medical jargon. There were some instances where repetition was present. However, that doesn't detract from what was an interesting concept. I liked the chapters that discuss how parents of otrovert children can help support them. At the end of the book is a little survey of statements to see if you fit the personality trait.

All these years as an introvert, I have been chasing the extrovert lifestyle. Perhaps the personality trait I should have been chasing is otrovert?


Genres: Health, Mind and Body/Self-Help
#TheGiftofNotBelonging #NetGalley
Expected Publication 17/06/25
Goodreads Review 14/12/24

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.