Feeling Overwhelmed Doing Analysis with Stockfish, why?

Sometimes, I really think I should go with the old fashioned way of just reviewing my games with actual living creatures of Chess.com, as they (or you all) can explain which move was better and leave pretty helpful feedback. 

Now I'm not much of a game reviewer (just couldn't find the time nor had the motivation to do so), but when the chance passes by, I must take it. I will post a recent game of mine later just FYI and to analyze and learn from it through your insights (if you read it).

Anyway, back to the real problem here: I have always found computer analysis a bit, straining, asides from being accurate and precise. The endless amount of possibilities that I can see from with the help of Stockfish kind of hurts my head, because I felt the need to must learn and visualize from all sides and angles of my situation. I know I couldn't do that, almost no one can (unless you're a genius or a player who puts the effort to improve). 

As I click and discover the various ways I can alter the game that I was analyzing, I just got sort of lost in the process, it wasn't enjoyable, I felt no passion in trying to see how I could've made my position better from Stockfish, so I just saw these moves as moves, not a lesson for improvement, and I just abandoned the engine analysis. 

But why though? Why is it so painful and unbearable for me? I don't have much of a big deal with players commenting on my games, which is already helpful to a moderate extent, but a computer's suggestions are far more superior (no offense) and effective, yet it's hard to just accept the fact that there are so many ways to play the same game.

Can I even develop the mentality to adapt to a computer's analysis?

computer analysis is good to help you find obvious things like blunders, missed mates, missed chances for tactics etc - maybe even if it keeps suggesting a certain move, you can decipher a plan - also, if you were thinking hard between two moves, you can maybe figure out why one was better using the analyzer -

but other than that, i wouldnt worry about figuring much else out, personally - you're not going to think like a computer, so most of the gameplanning portion should be done w a better player, if possible

Personally, I don't find computer analysis very useful at my level of play. It can be beneficial in pointing out tactics to weaker players, and it can also be a very useful tool in the hands of world-class players... but I don't fall into either category.

For me, ideas, themes and patterns are more relevant... and that requires a human touch.

An engine won't tell you your weaknesses, won't tell you strategic points, won't tell you why the move has been made, what my mentor usually does is to give me a list of things, like, backward pawns, hanging stuff, not paying attention to my opponents threat, why the move order in the opening was possibly wrong, why trading a piece weakened my dark or light squares, etc etc. So I can look at it better on the next game. An engine will tell you nothing of that. 

I think assessing the position is something any master does instantly every move, looking for bad pieces, threats..etc.

That I think will lead to improvement. 

Yes you're right, that's what I have mentioned in my last paragraph, but a computer will be extra helpful too if I can get my mind into using it properly.

Ha! "Think harder"? Never my thing because my lack of concentration kills my true potential!

I really wish that I can think hard and see ahead of my opponent... But I never seem to do because I don't even know where to begin.

I find that if I just let an engine look at an entire game, from move 1 till the end, I don't get much out of it.  I tend to turn my brain off and just watch the comp spit out variations.

Instead, I've done the following.  I'll do a quick run through just for blunders, making sure nothing slips through the cracks.  Then I'll go to any place where I wasn't sure what to do.  Maybe I had no plan, or maybe I had two promising options but couldn't decide on which one to play.  Whatever the reason, I'll go to such positions and look at them deeply.

If I lost a game, I try to find the exact move where I think things went wrong and take a look.  Sometimes it's obvious, say missing a simple tactic.  Other times I just get outplayed slowly and then crack under pressure.  Looking at such spots helps me see what I should have done instead, but even more importantly, it often tells me my position wasn't as bad as I thought.  That is, I'd think I'm in huge trouble, but the comp says it's just a 0.25 evaluation.  I've found that I often think I'm worse when I'm not ... and then make a move that does make me worse.  This is information for me to improve as a player.

By structuring my computer analysis like this, I feel like I get a lot more out of it, as opposed to just watching the variations overwhelm me.

Lastly, I look at positions where I'm absolutely sure I made the best decision.  If the computer confirms it, awesome.  I know there's at least one small area of chess I can say I know.  If I don't, though, then I need to figure out why I was so overconfident with my assessment.  I need to figure this out so it doesn't hinder me in future games.

Sorry guys, haven't been active since junior year.

I really liked your advice Smithy, it may seem complicated for me but I can try out what you suggested.