For decades, popular psychology has pushed us to choose a side: you are either the life of the party or a seeker of solitude. This dichotomy between extraversion and introversion has served to give meaning to our social interactions. However, as a psychologist, I often see people in my practice who simply don’t fit into either of these boxes. They feel “weird” because their energy doesn’t depend on whether people are present or not, but rather on who is there and the context they find themselves in.
Today, I want to propose a concept that expands this horizon: the Othervert. This is not a midpoint, but rather a dimension of adaptability and a focus on the “other” that challenges the linear view of personality.
To understand where we are going, we must know where we began. The classic distinction was born with Carl Jung (1921) in his work Psychological Types. Jung did not define these terms by sociability, but by the direction of psychic energy (libido): the extravert directs it toward external objects, while the introvert directs it toward their internal subjective world.
Later, science sought greater statistical precision, leading to the Five-Factor Model (Big Five) developed by authors like Costa and McCrae (1992). In this model, extraversion is one of five pillars, evaluated through facets such as assertiveness, excitement-seeking, and warmth.
However, these models are often presented as static traits. Clinical reality tells us otherwise: personality is not a block of granite, but a living organism that breathes and changes.
One of the biggest mistakes in psychology communication is treating personality like a light switch (on/off). Instead, we must understand it as a multidimensional spectrum.
As psychologist Walter Mischel (2004) noted in his Cognitive-Affective Personality System (CAPS) theory, human behavior is not just the result of internal traits, but of the constant interaction with the situation. We aren’t a certain way “always”; rather, we function under the premise of “if… then…”:
If I am in a trusting environment, then I display expansive behaviors.
If the context is hierarchical or threatening, then my trait retracts.
This is where labels stop being prisons and become mobile references. Context and prior learning—our history of reinforcement—dictate which “version” of ourselves comes to light.
If the introvert recharges through introspection and the extravert through group stimulation, the Othervert finds their balance in the quality of the bond with the other.
An Othervert is not defined by the number of people, but by attunement. It is a personality type that applies its energy based on the relational system it inhabits. It’s not that they are “sometimes shy and sometimes social” (that would be an ambivert); rather, their identity is deeply interpersonal and chameleon-like.
They are often confused, but there is a vital nuance:
Ambivert: A quantitative term. They sit in the center of the Bell Curve, handling both solitude and groups well.
Othervert: A qualitative and relational term. Their personality is a response to the “other.” Their behavior changes drastically to complement, heal, or connect with the person in front of them.
The Othervert is usually someone with high contextual sensitivity and a great capacity for social learning. Throughout their life, they have learned that personality is a navigation tool. Because of this, in a work environment, they may appear as an executive leader (functional extraversion), while in an intimate dinner, they can be the deepest, most silent listener (empathic introversion).
“Personality is not what we are, but how we position ourselves before the world.”
The goal of introducing the Othervert concept into this debate isn’t to add another rigid label to the manual, but to invite you to critical reflection. If you feel you don’t fit the standard descriptions, it’s likely because your personality is a dynamic structure that values connection over self-projection.
Science backs this fluidity. Studies on personality plasticity suggest that our characteristics can evolve over time and through experience (Roberts et al., 2006). Being an Othervert is, ultimately, a manifestation of adaptive intelligence.
We must stop seeing personality as a life sentence. You are a broad spectrum of possibilities. The next time you wonder if you are an introvert or an extravert, remember that there is a third way: the path of the person who knows how to read the environment and transform so that the encounter with the other becomes meaningful.
Answer YES or NO to these 10 questions to see if you fit this profile:
Does your energy depend more on the “quality” of the connection than the number of people present?
Have you ever been told you seem like a completely different person depending on who you are with?
Before joining a meeting or event, do you usually spend a few minutes “reading the energy” of the room to decide how to act?
Do you feel comfortable both leading a conversation and being a silent listener, depending on what the other person needs?
Does your social battery recharge when you achieve a deep connection, even if you are in a noisy place?
Do you unconsciously modify your tone of voice or gestures to make the person in front of you feel more comfortable?
Does being with someone you don’t connect with drain you more than being at a party full of strangers?
Do you consider your personality to be “fluid” and highly adaptable to changes in context?
Do you enjoy “shared silences” as much as a lively chat, provided there is trust?
Do you feel that your life experiences and learning have shaped who you are more than your natural-born tendencies?
Results:
7 or more “YES”: You likely fit the Othervert profile. You possess high adaptive intelligence, and your primary driver is the relational bond.
4 to 6 “YES”: You are in a flexibility zone, possibly close to ambiversion. You have clear adaptive traits but retain a more stable core.
3 or fewer “YES”: You likely have a stronger tendency toward the traditional poles (pure introversion or extraversion). Your way of being is consistent regardless of the context.
What was your result? I’d love to hear from you in the comments and open up a debate on the fluidity of who we are.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological types. Routledge.
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141506
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
