This page 31 Days of Self-Love - Beliefnet.com reminds me a lot of the advice I used to get from my STJ immediate family. I always had trouble with it, and now looking at it typologically, it's clearly a heavy introverted Feeling perspective ("personal" rational decisions drawn from within, enacted without and returning within. Tandem function Te covers a lot of the outer action as well).
Not so much an FP's Fi, as much as I've read about FP's (Don't know very many in real life). Though these "self first" statements have colored descriptions of the function in general. I believe it is more the TJ's tertiary or inferior function, which the types turn to more later in life, and tend to find "relief" (particularly for the tertiary position, and for inferior, it's like about the very essence of "life" itself). For FP's, where the function is more prominent, it also comes out more others-focused as well. Sometimes, they get caught in "weighing" between self and others. But clearly, for the "task (rather than "people")-focused TJ's, it's clearly more about "self". (Though the FP's will readily accept the counsel of TJ's as how to use their Fi for self more).
To me, Fi is tied up with emotions that represent the death of the ego. Life must make logical sense, including the rules or circumstances that lead to me getting things I want. Possibilities must be open rather than closed (i.e. "that's the way life is", etc.) Such closed concrete facts are only used to set what must be guarded against, fixed, good stuff relived, etc. When dealing in things "personal", the focus is external, and inferior. Even with Interaction Style, Behind the Scenes is "outcome" oriented, meaning I want to see results, rather than struggle through a "process". (This even affects me in things like paying bills).
So when things don't go right, to just tell me, basically, "if you love yourself it won't matter", "just forgive", "don't hold onto things", etc. I feel like my whole humanity is being totally dismissed, and I'd become a walked on nothing! And this is from both secular self-help as well as religion (which often mixes this up with concepts such as "regeneration", and usually substitute "God/Christ/Spirit" for "self". But it's really the same process everyone else is describing, even though they claim it is "supernatural" and exclusive to believers).
And those exercises! Ugh! Looking in a mirror and expressing love and other stuff to yourself, hugging yourself, writing stuff to yourself, and all the other "rules" and "steps". Seems totally illogical and like almost crazy.
But my family insisted this was "universal truth". The ST perspective insists "this is the way it is" and allows no "excuses" or other reasoning. They (especially the religious teachers) present it as so "simple", and always stress "choice", but then it's really a lifelong process. (And it seems NTJ's will adopt it as well, focusing on more theoretical concepts like the "Law of Attraction")
That's what gets me. It can be preached with such authority, but you can't see what's inside them to know if it REALLY works. Anyone can SAY anything! (Many, such as my father, preached what they themselves ultimately could not practice). You can only know through experience; but its not like a car that you try out and then just give back. You'll only know once you've done it (i.e. "grown" slowly over the years). It feels like being suckered into something idealistic that might not even work (they always ignore other factors in problems, including neurological ones. They basically are selling something, and it MUST be shown to "work").
On the other hand, the whole point of the "individuation" process type is based on is to for others to become aware of these processes normally unconscious to them. So I can see where I need to find a way to integrate some of that, at least.
Still, it seems people for whom it comes more naturally just blast this whole deal at you, again, not recognizing typological difference; thinking this is THE universal way, point-blank, and that's it.
So can anyone else relate to this?