The Gift of Not Belonging

"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.