Perhaps you’re okay with your “thoughs” being wrong, but certainly it would complicate your life further and maybe you’d be happier if your “thoughs” were correct?
I mean, if we break this down, basically this means that your main ideas are correct, but any time you try to add some kind of contrary clarification to specify your point further, it typically runs afoot. The question thus centers around whether you should simply work harder to accept your points directly and unblemished, without clarification, or whether you should work on being more exacting when you write up qualifying points for your theses.
Thus, an example: “I like frogs and toads.” If you wish to qualify your sentence further, you would add something like “though I cannot stand the way they typically sing the high tenor of Mephistopheles in Berlioz’ ‘La Damnation de Faust.’” Would this seem typical of the problem you are describing, where your “thoughs” are typically inadequate or inaccurate?
Thus your “thoughs” here would need more care. For one, Mephistopheles is typically sung by at least a baritone. Thus perhaps you’d want to brush up on your French opera a bit.
Or you’d consider having your frogs sing the part of Faust, as it’s more suited to a tenor line… yet frogs do seem better suited for a low croaking role when they sing opera at all rather than Spanish flamenco or Scandanavian kulning, so perhaps your Bufo Americanus should abandon the lofty climes of C5 and instead remain in the rumbling cellar where it duly belongs.
There are many options here. “I like frogs and toads fricasseed in human and doused in basil” could be one mouth-watering alternative. “I like frogs and toads when they transmog into a beautiful prince(ss) enamored with my presence, upon kissing” could be another. The alternatives are endless. It merely takes some care to avoid having your “thoughs” take a wrong turn.
*reads body of thread*
Aw fudge.
Well, anyway, your thoughts becoming more "people centered" isn't weird. We're more than minds, although I think we tend to view ourselves a mental beings in flesh carcasses walking about, separate from our bodies. But (1) other people can impact our lives, so we can't just write people off in terms of their influence on us and our goals, and (2) we still grow familiar and/or attached to other people throughout the course of life, typically.
I think some of what being said is "don't overthink it." You're trying to predict risk by evaluating whether your friend is trustworthy and whether you can trust him, before he's done anything (aside from being able to befriend someone who you are discovering you don't like) to show he would be a risk. You don't want to isolate yourself early from people, as it's bad for you both in terms of becoming a more well-rounded person as well as accomplishing your goals. There's so much in life that you need the help of others to achieve (unless it's something personal and private); it's just the way it is in connected cultures.
I agree too about the need to cross-check your perceptions. Ask other people you trust of their opinion, just so you can get multiple data streams. You still will end up making the decisions of who you'll trust, but you need to know if your own perceptions are faulty in some way. Getting multiple data streams is very useful.
Tying this back to my silly intro, this is one of those things where maybe you hope your "thoughs" are wrong. (Yeah, I know you meant thoughts, I'm just being silly.) You have a big "though" here about your friend ("I want to trust him, though he's friends with someone I don't like and view as an enemy"), that you don't want to be true. Give your friend a chance. There's enough problems in life without looking for new ones. Be aware of possibilities of what COULD go wrong... but don't let them limit your options unnecessarily. A lot of this learning comes through life experience.