Meaning the type of guy who just seems socially off, but in a non-threatening manner. Is it also more likely that the guy could be dangerous too?
Obviously it depends on the guy and some charming people are psychopaths and socially off people are the finest people alive etc. But the question is about averages and whether people are justified in being nervous about weird people. ISTM that there are two reasons to assume the answer is yes.
[ol]
[li]In general, once something is “off” in one way there’s a higher likelihood that it’s also “off” in other ways too. So the same thing which makes this person different in apparent ways might be also impacting them in ways which are not apparent, some of which might be harmful to others.[/li][li]IMO many “normal” people also have darker aspects of their personalities, but these are kept in check - both at the conscious and subconscious levels - by the power of social pressure. People who are less subject to social pressure, whether by nature or in practice, have less of a force suppressing these impulses.[/li][/ol]
I can’t really tell with quantitative data, but for me and my humble opinion: They are, by definition, unpredictable. “Off” behavior doesn’t easily fit into my repertoire of experience, so I have less ability to parse what they will do. Unpredictable behavior makes me more uncomfortable, so I am more cautious.
Founded in solid data or not, I’m guessing that people exhibiting unusual behavior are more dangerous than those who exhibit more socially normal behavior.
The “off” people I’ve known tend to be like dogs in the sense that, if you’re routinely good to them you are completely safe from thier bad behavior, but they tend to overdefend you if you get aggressed. Basically, they are ‘normal’ turned up to 11.
There is logic to, “If someone lacks the self-awareness to blend, they probably lack the self-awareness to modulate their behavior to within normal expectations.” But I can’t say that I’ve seen that firsthand. I am far more familiar with the psychopath who blends perfectly, and is capable of stunning inhumanity.
Possibly but they’re also far more likely to be victims of violence than their healthy counterparts too. Most people shot by the police are mentally ill.
As to OP, my philosophy is if someone is too charming they are probably dangerous. In my experience the overly charming people tend to be hiding a dark side or trying to get people to lower their guards. Lots of narcissists and sociopaths are overly charming at first.
More dangerous than the average person? In many historical social contexts and some contexts today I would consider most normal people violent and dangerous, corporal punishment being a very common denominator. Generally I lean toward the answer no in those contexts.
Weird people set off some alarms, certainly. But not all weird people ping on my “danger!” meter. I don’t think I’d be afraid of a new coworker who showed up to work wearing a Tweety bird t-shirt and flip flops. But I’d probably not feel 100% comfortable around that person for awhile because they are clearly non-conforming, which means that they may have a lot of unusual ideas about what’s proper and improper. So I might not want to to joke around that person until I figure out how they are calibrated.
But if they are weird enough to come to work dressed like Satan, yeah. I’d be very afraid.
I find myself wondering whether I’d qualify as a weirdo. And whether I’d qualify as dangerous. (I wouldn’t hurt a fly, but I probably have hurt somebody’s feelings at some point.)
So true, especially if other people are pulling you aside and saying, “So, what do you think of Charming Person?” If one person does it, that’s one thing, but if multiple people are doing it, watch out. BTDTWTT.
Picking their nose in public kind of weird? This will be disgusting but not threatening.
Leering at me from across the room? Standing a wee bit too close to me in the elevator when there is no reason not to move away? Walking around with a big, black hole sun type of grin on your face for no apparent reason? That’s the kind of weirdness that instinctively will make me fearful.
I often get “good weird” and “bad weird” vibes off people and these senses seem to be pretty accurate.
Goofy, off-center, off-beat people are often really cool and can fulfill the requirement of having “that one weird friend.”
I avoid anyone labelled as “a real character.” This means obnoxious and manufactured weird to seem like a krazy, zany person. Nope.
I’ve had experiences where I got a “bad weird” off someone that was right on target. One guy raped his student, another was involved in a terrible financial scandal. From the moment I met these guys I knew something was sinister about them.
But, scanning the numbers, it still seems to be the case that being schizophrenic is much less dangerous than being male, in your 20’s, or drunk or drug affected.
So you could say that what you really need to look out for is drunk drug affected male schizophrenics in their 20’s, but really you can just leave the “schizophrenic” clause out of that and still come to the same conclusion.
Of course a lot of male schizophrenics self-medicate with drugs and alcohol, which is a problem.
WRT the original question, note that being psychotic probably isn’t what makes schizophrenics statistically dangerous. It seems to be the subtle weirdness (the inability to relate to people and think about things) that causes more problems.
Not in my experience. I always find the quiet, reserved, normal-seeming ones to be the most dangerous. What is it the neighbors always say after dead bodies start popping up? “He was such a quiet man”.
Probably, rationalizing it this way: Only a very tiny number of people are actually dangerous, and those who are may more often be perceived by the general public as weirdos, which has a rather fuzzy definition, and the public perception has a pretty wide margin of error…
Weirdo is a pretty wide description, but I’ll suggest that your average man is probably more likely to find himself peer pressured into joining in on a gang rape while your weird man is more likely to make a conscious choice to harm others. The former could do something bad at any point in time given the right set of circumstances, the latter is either completely dangerous or completely safe for the scope of his life.
