You are right about NFPs taking things personally - we naturally tend to internalize what others say about us. My ISTP father is baffled by how I do this. If someone says something abusive or rude to him he shrugs his shoulders and walks away without the slightest affect on his mood. I, however, cannot do so, as much as I have often wished I could. No matter how hard I try I can't depersonalise my interaction with the world and struggle to emotionally distance myself from such situations.
Ti, and in particular, Ti + Ni, is quite capable of entering a mental space where words don't hurt. As an Ni-dom, I do the same thing. Very rarely, once in a while, some set of words might hit me in a painfully emotional way, but for whatever reason, I've learned not to hit back: not out of a sense of right and wrong, but rather because as much as I dislike emotional pain, I much more strongly dislike choosing a course of action that I regard as useless, pointless, unproductive.
One thing I've noticed, especially in forum/internet space, is that Ti tends to make playful, pokey jabs. I'd not noticed it before, because a lot of the time the jabs don't even enter my radar, but I've since had a few MBTI-knowledgeable NFP friends point it out. "Ti is
mean," they'll say.
No, it isn't that Ti is mean, or that Fi is nice, or anything like that; that's just the impression given. Rather, it pokes and jabs, because Ti is the subjective, internalized judging; Ti types consider it rather rude to express ideas in the Te way, direct and to-the-point. Ti will present ideas in a roundabout way, just as Fi will present its holistic "feeling ideas," and for the same reason.
It's personal to them!
Fi/Te will talk about ideas in a "direct way", such that the ideas are their own entities. The statement isn't "I think that maybe thus and such might be the case," but rather "Thus and such is true!" Notice that the former contains the phrase "I think ...": the implication is that the idea is very much part of oneself. This is a typical Ti approach. Notice that the Te approach has removed the "I think" along with the "maybe" and the "might." The "I think" is removed because it's just an idea, do be discussed and debate as much as any other idea. Often, in the Te perspective, there is a good degree of empiricism and collaborative evaluation, so it isn't just "I think" but rather, "A lot of people have studied this, not just me, and even if it might be refined, this core of the idea is recognizably true." This Te perspective necessarily distances the idea from oneself, so the idea can be safely discussed, without fear of any sort of emotional (Fi) harm should the idea fail in some way.
Ti/Fe does the same thing with "feelings." In the Ti/Fe perspective, it is the feelings/values/customs that are "objectively true" and derive their truth from empiricism and collaborative effort. It is "feelings" that are
impersonal, as weird as that might sound. (I suspect that it is this property of being "impersonal" that makes Fi read Fe as less than genuine, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Fe is how one deals with "feelings", it is
not how one
feels feelings.) So for Ti/Fe, it's one's ideas that are personal, and the feelings that are communal, while for Fi/Te, one's feelings are personal and the ideas are communal.
So, when Ti is "being mean," so to speak, it is speaking tersely and directly, which will often come out as Fe: terse and direct Fe feels mean. Especially for a Ti dom/aux, Fe doesn't develop the skill to soften such blows until much later in life, and even then, old habits die hard. So when Ti hears something that it thinks is stupid or silly or otherwise "unreasonable," it comes out as kind of an Fe admonishment, "Stop being so unreasonable," rather than, "Could you please clarify that for me? I don't understand what you mean."
The trick for Fi to deal with this, especially with Ne, is to learn to recognize the
pattern, such that one understands what is really going on: that usually someone criticizing an idea in a "mean way" is just employing a valid manner of expression, in a Ti/Fe sense. Other Ti/Fe types won't take it as "mean," but interpret it in their own context. The "attack" isn't "personal." It just feels that way. It's OK in the Ti/Fe sense to express oneself that way, because
talking about your idea in that way is off limits. This is especially the case since usually Fi is expressing some kind of Fi-understanding, which linguistically maps to Fe, so Ti/Fe talks about it in Fe-ish terms, which turns around into feeling like an "attack" Fi-wise, even though it's just simple crosstalk: two people talking about the same thing with very different modes of speech.
Basically, my instincts tell me (however right or wrong this may be) that if someone uses negative, emotive language when critiquing my argument, they have effectively personalised the discussion; they have taken an objective, dispassionate discussion and rendered it subjective and therefore personal.
In other words, when Ti/Fe expresses ideas in Fe mode, it ceases to sound objective or dispassionate to Fi/Te (in Te dispassionate mode), and it is rendered subjective (Fi) and therefore personal.
A good NFP friend put it to me this way: it is best to assume that other people are nice and mean well, and that any harsh words are merely accidental. Yes, this means that once in a while, a real player with bad motives might come along and take advantage of one's kind spirit, but it does a world of good for avoiding the stupid fights that never needed to happen in the first place.
What surprised me when I heard this: I'd been living like that for years, except with a slight twist. I don't assume that they're nice, per se, but I do assume they have their reasons, and most people aren't so stupid as to gratuitously verbally attack others "just to be mean," and those that are that stupid are not worth my time. So I assume it's just a misunderstanding until they prove that they really are that mean/stupid, at which point I don't attack, I
ignore.*
I think you'll find that NFPs are often quite capable of remaining emotionally removed from a situation until others bring negatively-charged language into the fray, thus provoking us to react emotionally. We view such language as a weapon; you shouldn't wave it around haphazardly without expecting us to draw swords too.
You kind of hurt your own point, here. "I'm perfectly reasonable until someone else is unreasonable." Yeah, and so is everyone else, each with their own definition of "reasonable."
I am about to play with words, here, but there is a concept that is very much parallel to this: replace "reasonable" with "respectful."
One thing I've often heard, especially from younger folks, is that they'll show respect to someone IF that someone shows them respect.
Can you guess where that leads?
Some misunderstanding is interpreted as disrespect, so one becomes disrespectful in turn, at which point the original person, who intended no disrespect (though may not have been as overtly respectful as the subject demands), is now fully justified by this principle to become disrespectful.
The loop that Adasta describes is the same thing:
No-one understands what I mean
--> People think I am being difficult because I am contesting their interpretations
--> People are being cruel to me because they think I am being needlessly difficult
--> I have to defend myself against this personal onslaught
--> Now everyone thinks I'm just complaining for the sake of it
--> No-one understands what I mean
Therefore ...
In order to be respected, you must be respectful.
In order for people to be reasonable with you, you must be reasonable.
In order for people to make an effort understand you, you must try to understand them.
But not just that ...
When someone is disrespectful, be respectful.
When someone is being unreasonable, be reasonable.
When someone doesn't understand you, maybe it's YOU that doesn't understand THEM.
And in all cases,
don't attack. Not even to "defend yourself." Such attacks do not defend your integrity, but rather violate it. If it's wrong for them to attack you, even assuming that they mean it, you commit as great a wrong by attacking in return.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying "don't defend yourself," but answering an attack (real or imagined) with an attack changes the discussion into a fight, and the discussion of the original idea dies. By not attacking, by not entering the fight, you remain able to defend your ideas, refining their expression such that they are better understood. This is how you defend your integrity.
*After all, "ignorance is bliss!"
) :
)
(toddler inserted) 
(toddler inserted) 
(toddler inserted)
