More generally, it may be that your unusual choices benefit you, but impose costs on your friends and family. Unusual choices are less "safe" - they can move you farther from ordinary outcomes, and the results are harder to predict. Compare the stereotyped conflicts between parents and their teenaged kids:

Teenager (as seen by parents): "Later, olds! I'm going out with my poorly socialised friends to get wasted and hook up (maybe someone will get pregnant). Woo!"

Parents (as seen by teenager): "Stop there! Ve have ways of preventing your fun! You are never allowed to do anything that you enjoy, ever!"

You do make a good point - especially re: failed businesses.

Though I have also observed the opposite far more frequently. A good example would be when I want to go to bed at a sensible hour and I have friends telling me "oh, you can just stay up just this once". The friends gain by my staying up (more people to party with), but don't have to suffer the consequences (eg the lack of my ability to work effectively the next morning). I think this disparity in expected outcomes means they are free to try and "tempt" me to break my new habit that is mildly inconvenient for them.... because they don't have to pay the heavy costs.

At a minimum, if one person in a household is on a significantly different sleeping schedule, it's going to be logistically more difficult-- everyone else is going to need to be careful about noise for extra hours, and people will have less time with each other.

This hypothesis is at least falsifiable- one can test whether the degree of a peer group's opposition to one of their members changing depends substantially on these sort of inconveniences.