> It's not suggested by my mind. I was paraphrasing the last line of the post I replied to.

It took a damn great deal of paraphrasing. If I paraphrased those line, I'd probably came with something like this: you shouldn't push people to live a counter cultural life, because such a life needs some special qualities from people and if they had not them, they wouldn't be happy living such a life. If you really think than it would be good for them, then test first their qualities, push then.

> 1 is directly saying that if you ask for advice on that topic then you're unfit for the risk.

Isn't it so? If you are fit, than you wouldn't ask "should I...", you'd ask "how did it go for you, Gauss?" You'd seek for additional information allowing you to estimate risks better.

> 3 suggests that asking means fear, which is the same kind of terrible.

Fear is good, it helps us to see dangers. You'd better listen to it. It doesn't mean to do unconditionally what fear wants, but you should listen to it. I'm telling you as a psychologist: do not treat your fear as something bad, it would have a far reaching consequences. If you labeled an emotion as bad, you wouldn't stop experiencing it, but you would try to hide it from yourself. Freud would call this process repression[1], a kind of a psychological defense mechanism. And this way you would lose an ability to face your emotions consciously, therefore letting them to wreak havoc uncontrollably.

Cognitive psychology says, that the right way to deal with a fear is to dig into what causes it, to access risks, to devise "plan B" in advance, and so on. Behavioral psychology says that the right way is to try yourself on lesser occasions and to learn how your fears work, and how you tend to react to them, and to find ways to deal with them reliably. One not just jump into a lake because of his fears to drown, it would be better to learn to swim first. No kind of psychology says that the right way to deal with fears is to reject them, to smile and wave, to try to look like there is no fear. It may be a good tactical method, but if abused it would lead to a strategic losses.

> And 4 directly states the toxic idea again at the end, that asking for advice means lack of conviction.

I know nothing about the toxicity of this idea, but if you are trying to make someone else responsible for your decisions it is lack of conviction. If the mere "you shouldn't do it" can stop you, you are not ready. Just try to see it as a kind of test: if you pass, then you are ready.

> Talking through life-changing plans with people is a good idea, and doesn't mean you're choosing in a bad way, and doesn't mean you haven't already decided.

Yes, I agree completely. But there is my advice to you: if you do this, then do it with a phrasing that doesn't sound like you are externalizing your decision making. There are whole branches of psychology which was built on an assumption that the phrasing reveals details of people's thought process, of their emotional state, their fears and so on. This branches would treat "should I do this" not as an attempt to gather information in order to make a better decision, but as a blindingly bright neon sign of a fear of uncertainty. Ordinary people (like Gauss, haha) also perceive phrasing in this way, though maybe less persistently than psychotherapists.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_(psychoanalysis)