I think this is actually a question of

[

a)

Psychologically model-able character type ( how you handle loneliness empirically : https://www.16personalities.com/ or even better look up the "hexaco model" and do a test (and lot of reading to grasp this one after you understood the standard model at least generally) ) which only "explains" traits from observation and then applying statistics), so heuristically, so maybe not even apply-able in your case.

OR

b) Your personal "values". These either you can possibly understand because you acquired them after you were three years old because then you can possibly remember the how and why. Or the values that were exemplified to you when you were under the age of three that nonetheless have a (not quite understood) impact on your character and role-behaviour (possibly even brain-chemistry) which you can barely change because you most likely can't remember them.

]

AND

c) Genetics. The brain is pure magic as well as its chemistry and dimensions of interconnect-ability . In my definition of this word this means (after a lot of therapy and reading up on my problems) i still feel like Scrat from Ice Age. I - in phases though - still don't understand why especially i do some "quirky", "geeky" or even "harmful". Reading up and therapy only help so far and with some things below that you just gotta learn to live sometimes, i believe and wanna say here.

I personally don't believe that "quirks" or "traits" that define the general direction of circumstances that mostly put you in distress like you describe are anyway near to be easy to understand. I believe that we as the human race need to acquire a lot more knowledge before even getting near to the point that we at least somewhat can understand our own brains.

Because of this belief e.g. i lately even changed my own philosphy somewhat: It is time to understand for us that our environment isn't made to be conquered by us but we (as a form of existence) should practice waaaaaay more humbleness towards what nature actually did achieve with us.

Last but certainly not least there are engineering arguments: "Nature" had some billion years time to evolve us. Even "needed" catastrophes therefore. But in all our megalomania we still after only some thousand years of written human language, we for most parts still believe we can understand these kind of processes.

This is insane megalomania. But one the other hand only my sole opinion.

Through simplification and then abstraction in a finite and always apply-able (also decidable but this is only a footnote: In LateStageCapitalism it ain't quite fashionable any more to question your own arguments ) set of steps and then exploiting these algorithms to finally extort ourselves till extinction we will most likely eradicate most of what stays alive of us. This (without any sarcasm) is my grasp on latest politics, fyi. Lets say for this century so far, ok ?

I don't think this is even near to possibly because our construction or development is more fail-safe then we even are able to grasp in the next 3000 years.

The only possibly sad fact then could possibly be that there are way less other humans to even talk about this using all these complicated words even.

I encourage you to think about this post. I also encourage you to think about what happens if we loose plurality as a model for society. Because not all reason why we as individuals prosper or get distressed then stressed then either depressed or medicated and then die or get (on a low chance) saved agree here.

I don't think so any-more.