I wonder, why do you feel the need to 'fight it out' out loud? If your insight into other people's state of mind is superior (which it sure seems to be from your stories - this is not a dig in any way but a granting of 'you can obviously do things I can't') AND you tend to trust your Fi, why talk about it? You KNOW, right?
I'm put in mind of arguments I used to have with my (INFP) mother. I'd be hiding how I felt, she'd be chasing after me going "But you're feeling nervous. I KNOW these things. You ARE. No denying it! I can FEEL it!" Unfortunately, her Fi wasn't (and still isn't, and I'm 30 now) that well calibrated to my system, so she'd routinely tell me I was nervous when I was actually sick and that I was sick when I was actually nervous, and more. But she wouldn't let me have my emotional privacy. I, on the other hand, adore having the drop on people. I'll whisper to myself, "Ahh, you're saying one thing and doing something else. You're denying that you actually think X but I see you really do. That's fine, you must have a reason for that. But I totally have you figured out. Don't worry, it'll be my little secret."
Why are these things elephants (suggesting they need to be talked about) instead of inconsistencies (suggesting they can just be)? Is it like PeaceBaby's crying baby metaphor, just too loud to be ignored? Not judging, just very curious.
In response, I got things like "You're trying to control me and prevent me from even looking! I need FREEEEEDOM!" (Like I would even be able to stop him from looking - I'm not going to install 'don't display houses further out than 30 km from this location, and then only in villages with a train station' software on all of his devices. Go look all you want, mister.)
When quizzed upon it, he of course said that we were going to choose together and that we weren't going to move unless we both wanted to, and that we were going to take into account each other's irrational preferences like "I just don't like the look of this thing" (which he has a LOT of too) and that it was even okay to set preferences in advance, like "I want a house with at least 3 bedrooms and large windows", even if that limited the number of houses we could consider. All very reasonable.
But when I reiterated "Okay, and one of my preferences-in-advance is the distance" he went spare again. After a lot of touching base, we finally figured out that he needed to understand that 'not too far' meant 'maximum 20 minute bus/train/tram ride into the city', but even now he knows that he needs me to say those exact words instead of 'not too far' or 'within the range we came up with,' or it triggers his 'stop trying to control me!' mode. Even though he KNOWS they're the same.
Edited to add: And when I tried to tell him WHY (I'm more dependent for my mental well-being on my friends than you are so they're going to weigh more heavily in my calculations, I don't have a car to use during the day because you take our car to work AND I don't feel comfortable getting a second car, I want to be able to get there and back while spending enough time with them), he instinctively tried to downplay either the importance of my friends (Ah, but you'll be fine without them!) or the travel period (Ah, but you even if you have to travel an hour and a half both ways you can still get the same enjoyment out of an evening with them as you do now, having to travel 20 minutes!). "It's wrong to decide on such an important thing by taking other people into account! They're not promising YOU that they're going to stay around, are they?" Bloody Te. Defining the problem out of existence is also a way of solving it. But he knows that won't fly.
I'd say it was interesting if it weren't so frustrating.