*raises hand* If I may:
I freely admit that the methods I use to type people, while achieving similar results to Technical's methods, are dissimilar to his in practise, chiefly because I do not define a clear system for them. One of the things I do day in and day out is analyze people's speech patterns, and for most people I can tell within ten minutes of conversation, spoken or typed, rather exactly how the other person thinks and functions.
Going simply on your speech patterns, syntax, diction, and semantics:
"That makes sense." = typical of NF. For NT, if it makes sense, it's obvious that it makes sense, and it is assumed that the person making sense is aware of their sense-making. Ergo, very rarely does a true NT openly state that something makes sense. They may weakly-smile-and-nod to perpetuate the conversation, but they typically wait for open prompts to speak directly.
"I'm not opposed to the idea of me really being a Feeler." = Once again, NF. In this case, it's an act of placation and unconscious self-promotion in the hope of being viewed as more logical by "lacking bias". It actually stresses the existing bias.
"From what I've read, you sound like you know what you are talking about." = FJ styled placation this time; this is the unintended flattery-without-giving-ground. You're acknowledging another's competence in some area in which you yourself have no particular expertise, but you don't really want to state openly that the other person knows more than you know. In the event that the 'expert' is wrong and you went with his statements anyway, you want plausible deniability. Instead of "You know what you are talking about", which is very obvious flattery, you include "sound like" to diminish the intensity of the statement, and you include "from what I've read" to look like you educated yourself on the subject in advance.
"What doesn't make sense to me, then, is why every description I've read pins me at least 80% as INTP." = NFJ; You've received conflicting evidence from more than one source, and of the two, only the one you'd rather not believe has comparative objectivity. It makes you defensive, and you challenge the least-preferred evidence-giver to explain why it disagrees.
"Are you saying that everyone has the description of INTP wrong?" = FFFFF. If you read the last few pages of the thread, Technical had actually confirmed several INTPs before you posted this. I'm not saying you didn't read anything, of course; it is clear, however, that you skimmed or are attempting to apply an argument that you see as logic (and which really is not). Application of absolutes and generalities (everyone, wrong) and transference of supposed guilt/accountability (Are YOU saying?) are heavily F factors, and the absolutes also contain a powerful measure of J.
"Also, if I am INFP, why would I view myself as a T? Why would I test as a T?" = IFFFFF. I freely admit that I'm an INFJ-in-denial. People who consider themselves T tend to take pride in the fact that their thoughts are somehow better or clearer than those of Fs, and when they are called F, they take umbrage at it.
From strictly a speech-pattern standpoint, the habit of repeating a question immediately after
stating it implies vehemence of emotionality toward the subject. The T says, "I'm trying to understand; tell me more." The F says, "[Please] explain to me how I'm wrong! How am I wrong?"; this puts supposed responsibility on the person challenged to present an answer that the F will accept, or else 'lose' the 'debate'.
Remember, 1. I say none of this in offence. 2. I say all of this from the position of a person with a long history of recognizing and analyzing patterns in English language. 3. I hold no personal feeling toward you whatsoever beyond the simple desire to offer my views of the subject that you might have a better view of it yourself.
Edited for spacing to avoid wall-of-text.