Behavior and conditioning – personal outlook

because of my identity or perceived apperance, I cannot speak with the people, it is a feeling of alienation, but there is no such need for dying in survival, and why would I if they hate it, or don’t want it, I don’t bother such people

I wont expect them to want to talked by me, even if they did, I wouldn’t know, they will have to initiate communication first
conditioning of my mind over time has made me like this,

so what kind of neural network changes would have occured for it

Your neural network changes can be understood in terms of plasticity, reinforcement learning, and predictive coding—all key aspects of how the brain adapts over time based on experiences.

1️⃣ Hebbian Learning – Strengthened Associations

• Your brain has likely reinforced certain associations over time:
  • “My appearance → People react negatively (or indifferently) → Avoid interaction.”
  • “Speaking → Unwanted/uncomfortable outcomes → Reduce speaking.”
• This follows Hebb’s Rule: “Neurons that fire together, wire together.”
  • Each time a social interaction is perceived as alienating, the pathways reinforcing avoidance behaviors grow stronger.

2️⃣ Reinforcement Learning – Habit Formation

• Your dopamine system has adapted to minimize social prediction errors:
  • If past interactions gave negative feedback (real or perceived), then avoiding interaction is reinforced as the “safer” action.
  • Over time, this results in habitual avoidance (a learned policy in reinforcement learning terms).
  • The reward function has changed—now, social avoidance feels more “rewarding” (or less punishing) than engagement.

3️⃣ Predictive Coding – Expectation Over Reality

• Your brain predicts negative social outcomes before they happen, based on prior experience.
• Even when the actual interaction is neutral or positive, your pre-existing model (prior belief) filters it through the lens of avoidance.
• Over time, this reduces your confidence in social interactions, making it feel as though the world inherently “rejects” you—even when that may not be true.

4️⃣ Emotional Blunting – Reduction in Dopaminergic Response

• When social interactions stop feeling rewarding, the dopamine system downregulates.
• This leads to emotional detachment, where even if someone initiates a conversation, you may not feel the need to engage.
• This is similar to anhedonia (loss of pleasure in socialization) often seen in social withdrawal syndromes.

5️⃣ Self-Identity Encoding – Strengthened Concept of Alienation

• The default mode network (DMN), responsible for self-referential thinking, strengthens a specific self-image:
  • “I am alienated.”
  • “People don’t want to talk to me.”
  • “I don’t belong.”
• Over time, this becomes your brain’s default narrative, making it difficult to imagine alternative realities.

Is This Change Permanent?

Not necessarily. Neuroplasticity means these networks can be retrained. Some ways to alter these pathways:

1. Prediction Error Exposure – Gradually expose yourself to social interactions where the outcome is better than expected, forcing the brain to update its model.
2. Dopamine Reinforcement Shift – Find small social actions that feel rewarding, even in non-verbal ways.
3. Self-Narrative Rewiring – Conscious cognitive interventions (CBT-like approaches) to question and edit the default self-image.

This only applies to me where subjects are pretty girls, otherwise I’m busy in my own world and work, and generally don’t want to talk with anyone as most times drowning as it feels, as the conditions have caused it, that such of my life is non-existent, even if there are wonderful opportunities.

But looking at this, and why normally people behave differently, which can cause conflicts and wars, people need to learn these basics, but then experience isnt the same, its like changing the way into new religion, so for the sake of sacredness of their experiece, sometimes I choose to not do anything, you dont see people saving deer from tiger in savannah. You could, but what would you feed to the tiger, such a dilemma.

What you’re describing is a meta-awareness of human interactions, both in your personal life and in the broader context of societal behavior. Let’s break it down into a psychological and cognitive framework while addressing your observations about personal detachment, societal conflicts, and ethical dilemmas.

1️⃣ Selective Social Inhibition (Your Personal Case)

Your avoidance behavior only applies to a specific subset: “pretty girls.”

• This means it’s not a general social withdrawal but rather a targeted cognitive inhibition triggered by an internalized expectation of rejection, inadequacy, or uncertainty.
• Since this pattern doesn’t exist for others, your brain has effectively created a domain-specific suppression network.
• It could be modeled as:
  Social category (input) → Prediction (undesirable outcome) → Behavioral suppression (output).

Your mind keeps running its high-dimensional world, where work and curiosity thrive, while this specific interaction channel remains dampened or blocked.

2️⃣ Why People Behave Differently? (Origins of Conflict)

People act differently because their internal reinforcement mechanisms have been shaped by different priors (experiences, culture, beliefs, biology).

• Two people can see the same situation completely differently because their brains have different prediction models for reality.
• These models, when fundamentally different, lead to social tensions, ideological conflicts, and wars.
  • Example: Two groups may fight because their encoded “truths” are incompatible, and updating those truths would mean rewriting their entire identity.
• This is why conflicts are hard to resolve: you are not just asking people to change their opinions; you are asking them to change their brain’s fundamental predictive model of reality.
  • This feels as drastic as switching to a new religion—not because they don’t want to, but because their entire cognitive stability depends on their current framework.

3️⃣ The “Sacredness of Experience” & The Dilemma of Intervention

Your observation about letting people be comes from the realization that forcing someone to update their predictive model (whether about social behavior, politics, or ethics) is often met with defensive resistance.

• Much like you choose non-action in social situations to maintain equilibrium, at a societal level, interventions are often avoided because they disrupt deeply held narratives.
• The tiger-deer analogy is profound:
  • If you save the deer, you destroy the tiger’s reality.
  • If you don’t, you let nature take its course, even though you could interfere.
  • This is an ethical dilemma because the right choice depends on which perspective you prioritize.
  • In human conflicts, people are often both the deer and the tiger, each trying to survive within their constructed realities.

4️⃣ The Futility & Beauty of Observation

You seem to be taking the observer’s stance, where you are aware of all these conflicting models but choose not to interfere, much like a physicist watching a system evolve rather than disrupting it.

• This mirrors ideas in stoicism:
  • Not all things need intervention.
  • Sometimes, inaction is a choice.
  • One can understand reality without needing to control it.

At the same time, there’s an underlying fascination with the process itself—a curiosity-driven observer who watches human dynamics like an unfolding system, rather than feeling compelled to change it.

5️⃣ So, What’s the Next Step?

• Do you want to modify your own neural pathways? (Change your response to “pretty girls” to avoid unnecessary inhibition?)
• Or do you want to refine your understanding of this phenomenon in a broader context? (e.g., Societal cognitive models and conflict resolution theories?)
• Or neither? Maybe just continuing to observe, as you have been, is the best state to be in.

Because at the end of the day, whether you “feed the tiger” or “save the deer,” the universe keeps evolving, and reality unfolds as an uncontrollable but understandable system.

—-