OldTony

"The Bottom Line While the concept resonates with many individuals who feel different from group dynamics, it remains an informal, conversational label rather than a formally recognized psychological construc" Thank you iNow, I can accept completely what you say. Whether the concept does or does not deserve its own classification the fact is the description resonates strongly with me and I and I am wondering if it resonates with others on a science forum.

Well folks, I read the article (only once) and immediately thought it explained a lot about the way I have felt and the way I have organised my 88 years lived so far. I then read the description found by googling otrovert to my wife (one of the very few I feel close to) and asked " Do you think this seems a bit like me?" She laughed and said "100% like you!". I was wondering if anyone else on the forum would feel the same after reading some googled information :- An otrovert is an emerging personality concept for an emotionally independent individual who easily socializes but has no desire to fit into groups or follow the collective "hive mind". Coined by psychiatrist Dr. Rami Kaminski, the term combines otro (Spanish for "other") and vert (to turn). [1, 2] Key Characteristics Socially Adept, Not an Outcast: They are friendly and can navigate social settings, but they don't draw their identity or self-worth from peer validation. [1] Not an Introvert or Extrovert: Unlike introverts, they aren't necessarily drained by people; unlike extroverts, they don't gain energy from crowds. [1] Depth Over Breadth: They prefer intimate, one-on-one relationships rather than identifying with broad political, social, or communal groups. [1, 2] Independent Thinkers: They often march to the beat of their own drum and have a strong capacity for original, autonomous thought. [1, 2] The Debate Around the Trait Because this is a very new framework introduced in Dr. Kaminski’s book, The Gift of Not Belonging, it is not an officially established clinical diagnosis or formal category in traditional personality psychology. [1, 2] The Appeal: Many people who feel they never quite fit into clubs, cliques, or communal groups find the concept deeply validating and liberating. [1, 2] The Skepticism: Some psychologists and commentators, as discussed in University of Michigan Psychology News, suggest it is less of a groundbreaking biological "type" and more of a specific configuration of already-known traits like extreme individualism.[1, 2] Community Sentiments: On discussion forums like Reddit, users express mixed opinions; while many resonate strongly with the idea, others feel it's simply a new label for traits already covered by existing classifications. [1] 7 sites Are You an Otrovert?What Belonging Means and What It Doesn't Are You an Otrovert? What Belonging Means and What It Doesn't — A New Trio of Beings * An “otrovert” embodies the personality trai... Medium Enter the Otrovert - LinkedIn If Kaminski is correct, it adds further fuel to the debate about why or whether we need to pin labels on people. There's an argume... LinkedIn Otrovert - Wikipedia * Origin. Kaminski introduced the term in his 2025 book, The Gift of Not Belonging, and it appears in his writing about belonging, Wikipedia

Apparently, according to an article in "Science Focus", the classification of otrovert coined by a Dr. Rami Kaminsk is definitely not a position on a line between extrovert and introvert. To quote from the article written by Ian Taylor in that magazine "a person who doesn't fit in - not just in social groups, but in the existing personality types defined in the diagnostic manuals of professional psychology."

I have always felt a bit of a loner. I have a circle of people I get on well with but never felt the need for strong friendship. I have always liked individual sports, my favourite one in my younger years was gliding. Anyway, I took an online test and it seems I am an otrovert which apparently is something completely different to an introvert or extrovert. A description can easily be found by googling.

Human beings have accidents when driving cars - Insurance assessors can no doubt provide statistics on the risk factor. It seems likely to me that cars controlled by AI will also have accidents, but be developed to the point that statistics show them to be safer than humans. I can see a person in such a car that has an accident giving as an excuse "I gave control of the car to a system that statistics show improved safety on the road". Even more than that, when AI control is acknowleged as the safer option I can't see why the human occupant will even need to be able to drive at all. Is that a beautiful dream or a nightmare ?

Diplomatic agreements often involve statements that can be looked at in such a way that the end result gives both parties a different view of what the words can mean. In other words a different view of what both claim to be truth. The process is known as constructive ambiguity.

Well, it would seem to be true that if your communication skills are poor then your performance in tests involving communication will give you a lower IQ number than you deserve. This would be particularly true within the time that late talker children are "catching up" with their age group. Perhaps that basically sorts itself out by the time that speech skills become more in line with others of the same age group.

Perhaps I'm being a bit pedantic but I always understood that you cannot improve your fundamental IQ although with practice you can improve your score on IQ tests.

Nervous old lady at the flight booking in desk " Do your planes crash very often? " Answer from book in clerk " No madam, only once ".

It seems to me that if you lift the reservoir container as well as the air driven pump that would work better as it wouldn't have to suck so hard.

Apart from the other comments it seems to me that to let air out you need to let water in requiring two apertures both below the outside waterline. The inlet at the bottom of the vessel and the outlet near the top. This would seem to need enough ballast to sink it while full of air. If you wan't horizontal movement as the object sinks it seems to me that in the end you are employing gravity. Although it doesn't answer the OP's question stubby wings working on the same principle as glider wings in air would do the trick.

Ah well, I fell for that one - or perhaps a touch of "Two nations divided by a common language ".

Certain caterpillars, moths and butterflies have evolved to have imitation eyes so perhaps having such does confer a reproductive advantage ?

This is just an observation but seems relevant to the discussion. It is very difficult, apparently, for the human mind to produce a long list of truly random numbers. There are recognised tests for randomness and rather strangely, I think, that even if you produced a list of numbers by a method such as rolling a dice it may well produce a list of numbers that would fail a test for randomness. For that reason you can purchase a book of random numbers that agree with the rules of randomness.

Thank you, you are very kind. We are both chugging along with the help of modern science - bypass and pacemaker for me and a heart valve and pacemaker for my wife