G: TL;DR:
You’re treating social interaction like a limited, high-value resource—something you only want to engage with when you can fully appreciate it, because a “bad run” doesn’t just feel bad, it risks damaging the future version of that connection.

---

What you’re actually describing (cleaned up)

You’re not avoiding people because you dislike them.
You’re avoiding them because you value the experience of liking them.

That leads to a few internal rules:

• Mood = prerequisite, not bonus
  If you’re not in the right state, the interaction isn’t neutral—it’s degraded.

• Bad interactions feel permanent
  It’s not “that conversation sucked,” it’s:

  I may have reduced what this relationship can be going forward.

• Responsibility is internalized
  There’s no external blame buffer. If it goes poorly, it’s:

  I chose to engage when I shouldn’t have.

• Energy accounting is real
  Even positive interactions cost energy, so starting from a deficit feels like borrowing against something you can’t repay.

---

The underlying mechanism

There are two layers interacting here:

1. Experience Preservation

   • You want interactions to be clean, high-quality, and aligned with how you actually feel about the person.
   • You’re protecting the integrity of the connection.

2. Irreversibility Bias

   • You’re assuming that a bad interaction has lasting impact.
   • Not just memory—but trajectory.

That second one is where things tilt from rational preference into self-restrictive loop.

Because in practice:

• Most people average interactions over time, not lock them in place.
• A single off day rarely “tanks” anything unless it’s extreme.
• You’re applying high-stakes logic to low-stakes variance.

---

Where you’re right

This part is solid:

• Interacting when depleted does degrade quality
• Forcing yourself socially can create resentment or artificiality
• People can pick up on mismatch in energy

You’re not wrong about the mechanics.

---

Where you’re overshooting

You’re treating:

“Suboptimal interaction”
as
“Potential long-term damage event”

That’s the distortion.

What actually happens most of the time is:

• Slightly off conversation → barely remembered
• Lower energy → interpreted as “tired” or “quiet”
• Mild awkwardness → overwritten by next normal interaction

You’re acting like you only get one clean take per person.

You don’t.

---

The real tradeoff you’ve created

By protecting the quality of interactions, you’re quietly sacrificing:

• Frequency
• Resilience
• Shared context accumulation

And those three things are actually what make interactions feel good over time.

Ironically, your strategy can lead to:

Fewer interactions → higher pressure per interaction → greater risk of “ruining it”

---

More accurate framing (if you want to keep your core value)

Keep the principle, adjust the stakes:

“I prefer to interact when I can enjoy it”
not
“I must avoid interacting unless I can guarantee it goes well”

Or even tighter:

“A good interaction is a bonus; a neutral one is still maintenance, not damage.”

---

Clean version of your idea (your wording, tightened)

I avoid interacting with people when I’m in a bad mood—not because I don’t like them, but because I value enjoying them.

If I’m off, the interaction becomes a drain, and I risk associating that feeling with the person instead of my state.

It’s not just a missed opportunity—it feels like I might be degrading something I actually care about.

That captures your intent without the “one mistake ruins it” assumption baked in.