Why would we have differing mechanisms for this? Isn't it easier for the brain to cover both under a simple "avoid socially dysfunctional people" directive?

The important practical distinction is that under the second scenario, the person in question would be perfectly functional until some specific issue came up where his views differ from the respectable consensus. Such a person could stay completely out of trouble by figuring out on what occasions it's advisable to keep his mouth shut. In contrast, the first scenario would imply a personality that's dysfunctional across the board due to his broken handling of status and social norms, with no easy fix.

Moreover, it seems to me that broken handling of status and social norms would imply dysfunction in any society. Having problems with authority and being unable to find and maintain friends and allies is a recipe for disaster in any conceivable social order. It is true that some societies might have niche roles for some types of such individuals, but that's an exception that proves the rule.