Otrovert
DESCRIPTION:
"Otrovert" is not a new personality type between introversion and extroversion. Psychology has long been familiar with otroversion.
Otrovert: a new personality type or just a trend? Why is otroversion neither introverted nor extroverted?
For some time now, a term has been circulating on social media that is causing quite a stir: otrovert. New York psychiatrist Rami Kaminski coined the term to describe people who do not fit into either of the two classic categories. This concept is said to lie beyond the familiar spectrum, with its own dynamics and justification.
But what is behind it? Is it a breakthrough, or is it just another pop label that renames existing findings and sells them as a discovery?
What does "otrovert" mean? Not much.
Kaminski describes otroverts as people who can be socially competent but often feel like outsiders in group contexts. Otroverts do not derive their energy from being alone, as introverts do, nor from large groups, as extroverts do. Instead, these people feel most comfortable in deep, intimate one-to-one relationships.
The psychiatrist describes extroverts as people who value emotional autonomy, find small talk exhausting, feel drained in group situations and prefer deep relationships to broad socialising. Kaminski derived the term from the Spanish "otro", meaning "other", and based an entire explanatory model on it that focuses on the experience of otherness, of being different and not belonging.
Prominent examples cited in popular depictions include Frida Kahlo, Franz Kafka, and Albert Einstein, individuals who had an impact on society but were often described as loners or outsiders.
Otroverts and psychology: why the label does not hold up scientifically
This is where the problem begins. What this concept presents as the discovery of a third personality type can be explained entirely by existing constructs when viewed from a precise psychological and empirical perspective; there is no need for new categories for introverts, extroverts or those supposedly in between.
The long-controversial five-factor model, the Big Five, describes extroversion as a spectrum rather than an either-or category. Carl Gustav Jung, whose work originally gave rise to these terms, already understood them as poles of a continuum. People can lie anywhere on this spectrum, and their position varies depending on context and life stage.
What the concept describes – a preference for deep connections rather than superficial interactions among extroverts, discomfort in group situations, and independence – is not a new personality structure. It is a typical expression on the extroversion spectrum, combined with facets such as belonging, agreeableness, and openness to experience.
A scientifically sound construct must be factor-analytically distinguishable, reliably measurable and have incremental validity. There is no peer-reviewed research, no validated measurement instruments and no empirical distinction from ambiversion, the already established term for people who show both introverted and extroverted tendencies.
Personality types in psychology: what studies actually show
The idea of clearly distinguishable categories, type A or type B, quiet or outgoing, has long been outdated in modern personality research. Studies consistently show that traits are distributed dimensionally rather than categorically. There is no fixed type of "introvert" or "extrovert," but rather a spectrum on which people are continuously distributed.
The idea of adding another type to this spectrum contradicts this fundamental finding. It is like inventing a separate colour name for every nuance on a colour scale and claiming to have discovered a new colour.
Introversion and extroversion are not rigid categories, but descriptions of tendencies. Most people lie somewhere in the middle, and their expression depends on context, mood and situation. This has been established knowledge for decades.
Otrovert or ambivert? Independent middle of the spectrum
If you read the description of otroverted experience and think, "That sounds like ambiverted," you're not wrong. Ambiverts are described as people who show both introverted and extroverted tendencies depending on the situation. Although the term itself is not a strictly validated construct, it accurately describes the middle of the spectrum.
Kaminski's attempt at differentiation consists of adding otherness, the feeling of not belonging, of being an outsider, as a central characteristic. But this experience is already well documented: through concepts such as the need for belonging, according to Baumeister and Leary, through attachment theories, and through social identity research. Not feeling like you belong is an experience that many people are familiar with; it does not justify its own construct.
The role of social media: how labels arise
The otrovert is by no means the only example. Empathetic narcissist, sigma male, compassionate person – social media produces such terms every week. The tendency to self-categorise using increasingly specific labels is a phenomenon of our time, and it is worth understanding the mechanisms behind it.
The Barnum effect explains why these attributions seem so convincing: vaguely worded descriptions are perceived as highly specific and personally relevant. When a podcast explains that otroverts feel uncomfortable in groups but can form deep bonds, almost everyone nods in agreement. This is not an insight; it is an observation that applies to the majority of the population.
The algorithms of social platforms further influence dissemination. Content that triggers a strong emotional response is given preferential treatment. And few things generate a stronger response than the feeling of finally having found an explanation for one's own experiences. Retreating into a label feels like self-knowledge, but is often the opposite.
Why pseudo-terms are harmful: from pigeonholing to identity traps
The consequences of label inflation are not trivial.
Such pseudo-terms pathologise normal variation. The fact that someone prefers deep conversations to superficial interaction is not a special characteristic. It is a perfectly healthy preference that does not need its own name. By declaring it a defining characteristic, one suggests that something needs to be explained.
Such attributions create an illusion of understanding without actual understanding. Those who identify as introverts have found a category, but have not gained any real self-knowledge. Psychotherapy is about recognising the individual patterns that lead to a particular experience. A ready-made label bypasses this process.
Particularly problematic: labels can become an identity trap—those who define themselves by a label filter their experiences through this lens. Withdrawing from a party is no longer reflected upon, but rather seen as confirmation of one's own nature. Alternative explanations, such as treatable social anxiety, are no longer considered.
Added to this is groupthink. Online communities based on such self-categorisations reinforce each other. Anyone who questions the categorisation rubs people the wrong way and is perceived as not understanding the community. This collective pattern of thinking prevents critical reflection and reinforces self-images that do not stand up to closer scrutiny.
Introverts in relationships: when labels shape relationships
Another area where pseudo-terms can cause damage is relationships. When people define their relationship preferences using a label, this can lead to rigid expectations. Distance is then not communicated as a momentary need, but presented as an unchangeable characteristic: "That's just how I am, I need my space."
The problem is not the need for distance, which is entirely legitimate. The problem is reification: context-dependent, changeable behaviour is declared to be a fixed characteristic that cannot be negotiated. Healthy relationships thrive on flexibility and mutual adaptation, not on invoking independent characteristics.
In relationships, such attributions can lead independent decisions to be presented not as relationship work but as a non-negotiable expression of one's own nature. One no longer feels part of a group — not even a group of two. This hinders communication instead of promoting it.
How to distinguish serious concepts from pseudo-terms
Self-tests in Instagram and TikTok videos that claim to explain, in 60 seconds, whether you are an introvert are not diagnostic tools. There are a few criteria that can help you navigate the flood of new terms.
Are there peer-reviewed studies on the concept? Not books, not interviews, not LinkedIn posts. There is not a single such study for the idea.
Can the concept be empirically defined? Does it explain something that existing constructs do not already explain? Or is it old wine in new bottles?
Does it pass the Barnum test? Does the description sound like it could apply to almost anyone? If so, scepticism is warranted.
Who benefits economically? Kaminski has written books, organised events and built a brand around the term. That is legitimate, but it is also a resource that should be considered in the evaluation.
Conclusion: The contradiction between originality and false labelling
The experiences described by the concept are real. Feeling like an outsider, valuing independence, forming deep bonds rather than maintaining broad networks, not belonging yet being sociable – these are understandable experiences. The question is not whether these experiences exist, but whether they justify their own category.
The answer is clear: no. The term draws its persuasive power not from empirical evidence, but from emotional resonance and the human need to belong – paradoxically, the very need from which otroverts have supposedly freed themselves.
Those who recognise themselves in the experience described have a valid subjective experience, but not an independently new construct. Instead of pigeonholing yourself into yet another label, it is worth taking a more nuanced view: what exactly triggers the discomfort? What group dynamics are exhausting? Is it really autonomy or rather protection from vulnerability?
These questions are more challenging to answer than a self-test on social media. But they lead to genuine understanding, not just another label. People who are seeking self-knowledge do not need ready-made categories, but rather the willingness to find answers through a process. This is not a collectively shared label. This is living a fulfilled life.
Related:
Highly Sensitive Personality (HSP): Current Research on High Sensitivity
Partner choice and attachment style: secure, anxious or avoidant
Schema Therapy: Psychotherapy not only for the treatment of personality disorders