Jay: “If it feels wrong, it is wrong. I don't know how you feel so I can't know what's wrong for you. But if you tell me what's wrong for you, I'll trust you on that and attempt to remind you of your past convictions when you falter.”
My favourite definition of the word "normal" comes from, of all places, the Icelandic collective Gus Gus. I had read an interview done by one of its memberrs, and he said that normal for him was whatever feels right. That could probably stand some qualification, since it doesn't allow for the possibility of exceptions, but equating normal with whatever feels right works for me as a general rule.
Jay is wise to note, in the last sentence quoted, the he has the right to remind people of their past convictions. If, say, he were reminding me of my past convictions, I would probably be comfortable so long as he doesn't expect consistency for consistency's sake and is an information provider (or an information reminder, because people sometimes forget what they were once like) instead of someone who tells me what to do (e.g. "you used to do it differently" is okay, because that way I can provide counter information or agree with it, but "you used to be this way, so you should be this way now" is not okay) because adequate information is not always available when one is making a decision or has an opinion. When someone provides enough information to make it an adequate amount, then the other is better equiped to come to the right decision on their own.