This is a case that is remembered by New York psychiatrist Rami Kaminski: in his clinic, an 18-year-old sat before him who, according to specialists, suffered from schizophrenia. The young man had already spent several years in psychiatric hospitals. Previously, the school psychologist suspected that the boy was on the autism spectrum – this worried his parents and prompted them to seek professional help. Kaminski, however, began to wonder. According to him, the patient did not seem psychotic during the conversation – he was spontaneous, bright, friendly and interested in science fiction. So what happened to this young man?
To this question, his parents replied that their son was becoming more and more isolated. He liked to tinker with model airplanes or take apart the radio in his room. Kaminski came to the conclusion that the teenager clearly needed one thing above all: withdrawal, solitude, rest from peers – not necessarily a diagnosis. Kaminski stopped his medication, the young man was discharged, he began vocational training, and later headed a center for people with intellectual disabilities.
The New York psychiatrist never forgot this patient. On the contrary: in his therapeutic work from then on he focused on people with quiet personalities and wrote the book “The Gift of Non-Belonging”. Kaminski describes people who are empathetic and friendly, but do not feel that they really belong to any group and do not naturally identify with any communities. “Otherness,” writes Kaminski, is not a disorder but a personality trait. For such people, not belonging is downright pleasant.
To distinguish this way of perceiving life from ordinary introversion, Kaminski introduces the concept of “otroverts”. Personality psychology in the Big Five model classically distinguishes between introversion and extroversion, and Kaminski proposes an additional third figure. This neologism comes from the Spanish word “otro”, meaning “different”, and the syllable “-vert”, meaning direction. These are people who can be socially open but do not naturally identify with groups or communities. They are soloists by nature, completely devoid of herd instinct.
However, it is not clear whether this is actually a separate personality dimension. Eva Asselmann, professor of personality psychology at the HMU University of Health and Medicine in Potsdam and author of (“Too much. Why we seek control and find strength in letting go”), carefully classifies this concept. — From a scientific point of view, introversion is not a verified personality construct yet – says.
From a psychological point of view, many aspects resemble introversion, especially the preference for deep relationships over the dynamic energy of a group, while others indicate a strong need for autonomy, high sensitivity or specific attachment patterns. In the Big Five model (a well-researched and used model in psychiatry and psychology that describes a person's personality based on five traits (and their high or low levels in a given person): extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness), otroversion can best be described as a combination of low extraversion and high openness.
That's why this concept is interesting. It describes, as Asselmann says, a “sense of presence” that many people are familiar with: being socially integrated and yet not feeling like you belong internally. This is probably where the importance of troversion lies: it would therefore be less a new dimension of personality and more a proposition of interpretation: a name designating a specific way of relating to the social world.
In Kaminsky's case, this specification also involves criticism a society that often confuses belonging with fitting in. The problem arises when introverts associate themselves with their favorite clubs, parties, teams or fan groups, even though such forms of community remain alien to them. Anyone who escapes group pressure, who feels uncomfortable at demonstrations, parties or festivals, is quickly considered an outsider. Kaminski, however, sees these individualists as vigilant observers and unconventional thinkers.
shine.graphics / Shutterstock
Young woman reading a book in an empty cafe
The great demand for such an alternative narrative is shown by the success of his book: it became a bestseller in Germany, Great Britain, France and South Korea. In reviews, many readers write that they finally feel understood – and now they understand why they felt “out of place” for years.
German best-selling author Susanne Kaloff also immediately recognized herself in Kaminsky's descriptions. In “Brigitte” she wrote: “With one exception, I have always belonged only to myself.” Kaminski thus described a way of life that she had known for a long time: the feeling of being different. It is encoded in our brains, writes Kaloff, that being in a “tribe” is better than being alone. For herself, it never applied. She never belonged to any group, and that's still the case today. She has no interest in groups “and is always a little afraid of them.”
Are we living in an era of the imperative of belonging? Asselmann explains that this idea resonates so strongly in a culture of constant connection, in which constant presence on social media is increasingly associated with health, success and competence. Digital networks have made belonging publicly measurable: through likes, followers, communities, reactions. This may give the impression that social integration is not only a human need, but an obligation.
Anyone who internally distances themselves from it quickly has the impression that there is something wrong with them. At the same time, many people experience greater loneliness and alienation because “visibility does not automatically equal connection.” Otroversion offers an alternative narrative in this context: “The need for independence and not belonging is not a deficit,” says Asselmann.
Rami Kaminski is – for now – quite alone with his theory [w środowisku specjalistów]. It is based primarily on his own experiences, observations and treatment of patients. Asselmann sees an ambivalent power in such concepts: they can provide relief because people better classify their experiences and see them less as a personal deficit. At the same time, he warns against immediately recognizing any internal tension as a fixed identity. Modernity generates many labels; this may help, but it can also lead to “normal ambivalences being hastily interpreted as immutable personality traits.”
The article continues below the video
The longing to withdraw
Kaminski also derives professional consequences from this thesis. Otroverted people, he writes, get tired especially where everyday life is determined by constant coordination of group activities, fights for status or the simple obligation to be present. They are disgusted by pointless meetings, bureaucracy and the lust for power. What is decisive is therefore not so much a specific profession, but an environment that allows them enough autonomy and fits into their own inner world.
According to Kaminski, introverts do not divide their lives into work, free time and family. Their inner world is the epicenter of their lives; a work environment that is inconsistent with this can permanently block them. Also because they feel the passage of time particularly intensely, they do not want to postpone personal fulfillment until later: “No phase of the day, year or life is superfluous. Every minute of life is important, and personal fulfillment and satisfaction cannot be postponed,” explains Kaminski.
Therefore, jobs that require independence, concentration and an unconventional perspective are more suitable for them – for example, self-employment, consulting, creative or artistic professions. As a famous role model, Kaminski mentions Virginia Woolf, who in her essay “A Room of Your Own” wrote: “Close your libraries if you want, but there is no gate, lock or latch with which you can enslave freedom of thought.”
What if the often invoked ideal of belonging is less an expression of community and more a socially imposed obligation? What if refusing to conform doesn't mean apostasy, but intellectual sovereignty? — Anyone who functions differently quickly feels like an outsider. Meanwhile, this diversity is psychologically completely normal, and from a social perspective even valuable, says Professor Asselmann.
Has the ideal shifted today – from an autonomous entity towards a constantly visible and accessible, networked [z pomocą mediów społecznościowych] human? Eva Asselmann sees exactly this trend: for a long time, the autonomous individual has been a social role model. Today, in many places, the ideal of constant availability dominates: being present, remaining visible, responding, cultivating networks of contacts.
What was once considered an advantage – independence, self-sufficiency, the right to silence – is now easily interpreted as a deficit. This has real consequences. In my research on self-efficacy and mental health, I see how strongly social norms shape our own experiences. Anyone who constantly feels like they don't meet the default standards of social networks is often carrying an unnecessary burden
– explains the professor.
Kaminski describes how early this pressure to belong begins, using examples of everyday scenes. Even young children are divided into groups in kindergartens to create a sense of belonging. Desirable behavior is promoted at school, and in everyday family life we can also see how conformity is naturally expected. Parents often seem to unconsciously transmit this logic, for example when on the playground they encourage a child to move to the monkey bars because other children are playing there – even though the child is currently content and completely absorbed in building in the sandbox. You should still politely make friends, celebrate birthdays, and accept invitations.
Those who fundamentally dislike such rituals of belonging can be helped by the idea of anxiety, thinks the professor. Concepts can provide relief if they help people organize their experiences and see them less as a personal deficit. — In my research on self-efficacy, I see this repeatedly: who understands and accepts himself often acts more effectively because internal resistance decreases. Kaminski's main idea is therefore right: not everyone experiences belonging in the same way, and not all distance automatically means loneliness, says Asselmann.
Individuality as a source of understanding
According to Kaminsky's interpretation, Western society is so strongly community-oriented that even small deviations from this norm are conspicuous – even if someone is simply looking for peace. “The pressure to conform on otroverted people is often tiring and frustrating for both parties. However, it is never effective. In fact, many of my childhood patients wonder why they cannot come to terms with the pressure to conform to expected norms that their families and society place on them,” writes Kaminski.
Also for this reason opposes viewing anxiety as a new label. On Instagram, she writes: “Otroversion is not a label. In fact, labeling is the opposite of what otroversion represents.” The richness of life often lies in what is in between, in what defies definition. It's not about joining a new group or label, but about “the quiet strength of those who thrive beyond belonging” — and a reminder that individuality can be a source of understanding, resilience, and freedom.
In this interpretation, belonging remains an option—not an obligation. Freedom of thought belongs to those who dare to go a step alongside the group instead of blindly following it. Perhaps the real provocative thought of this theory is that it reminds us of something obvious: you don't have to belong anywhere to be part of world events.
I’m Ashley Davis as an editor, I’m committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and accuracy in every piece we publish. My work is driven by curiosity, a passion for truth, and a belief that journalism plays a crucial role in shaping public discourse. I strive to tell stories that not only inform but also inspire action and conversation.
