Yes, the things we write are subject to misinterpretation, particularly when stripped of the their context. But asking people to avoid correct use of punctuation isn't going to make that less likely. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> the psychologist's advice is literally "[not a quote]"
When you put something in the form of a quotation, the accepted meaning is that it is a quotation. In this case it is, literally, not something the psychologist actually advised.
The problem with SerLava's comment was that it put words in the author's mouth, not his punctuation.
The problem was the potential impression of putting words in the author's mouth, and punctuation was part of what created that impression.
In your example there is actually no need for the quotation marks, although they do not create any ambiguity because you didn't attribute the words to anyone in particular.
It seems like you mostly agree with me, but you have a funny way of showing it.
Uses of quotation marks for quoting someone, or for doing something that doesn't look like quoting someone (e.g. "self-referentially") are fine.
" For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally: well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom. "
Feels a bit confusing. Is there a better way?