Yeah, there's Fe-spin in there, in that the Ni-twists of reasoning are in the domain of values/emotion instead of the domain of things and analysis.
That's a good description of the Ne approach. The Ni approach isn't revelation so much as immediately perceiving a truth as being obvious. To debate the truth feels as absurd to Ni as debating whether a red apple is red. "The apple is red, isn't it obvious? Why are we even debating whether the apple is red?" Ne instead notes that the apple isn't
completely red, and points out that its insides are white, with black things, and even the skin has speckles of various non-red colors.
Fe vs Fi is an easier barrier to cross than Ne vs Ni. Ne and Ni see different things, but Fe and Fi merely start reasoning from different places. Fe and Fi eventually meet in the middle with very similar conclusions, but if it's Fi-Ne vs Ni-Fe, they will disagree about WHY those conclusions are true, and that means they'll have a hard time arriving at the common ground.
And THIS is why the Ni/Se vs Ne/Si divide is the most difficult barrier to cross. Ne complains that Ni is all walled off and defensive, even as Ni keeps shouting, "Why are you banging on my wall?! The door is over
here!" Ni's door is often invisible to Ne, and vice versa.
This is Ni vs Ne; I run into the same issue with INTPs. There was a specific question, with specific conditions in specific circumstances, and I answered it (correctly, as completely as was required by those same circumstances). The INTP will inevitably say, "I don't think that's completely true," and either start poking holes in my answer (if the INTP is in a bad mood) or start asking exploratory questions to find out the "complete truth" (if in a friendly mood). It's like the apple example I used above. It's "true enough" that the apple is red, it's not worth arguing about, but Ne will want to explore/argue the concept of "redness" even as Ni regards it as a total waste of time.
What's going on is that each side sees different things when looking at the same problem. Using the red apple example, the Ni context might be answering the question, "What apple should I get for John?" and the answer is "That red apple." There are several unstated aspects to this context. Ni knows what kinds of apples John likes (Gala apples, though Ni can't always seem to remember the name). Right here and now (Se), there is a limited set of apples on display, some of which are red, and others are green, yellow, etc. Each of these apples is of a particular variety (Granny Smith, Red Delicious, Fiji, Gala, etc.). So Ni picks "That Red apple" (which also happens to be a Gala apple) for John, because Ni knows that's the best choice of the bunch, saying, "I think I'll get this red apple for John. He likes those red apples." ["those red apples" meaning the particular Gala kind of apple, for which Ni doesn't remember the word.]
At this point, Ne replies, "That apple isn't exactly red."
Now let's look at this from the Ne side. Ne saw Ni "jump to a conclusion" (answer an internal question, then declare the result out loud). Ne sees that red apple, and all the other apples, so many of which are far more red than the apple Ni chose, and, you know, if we want to the farmer's market on Saturday, they'd probably have even redder apples that probably even taste better, too. Of course, if you waited until late October, then you'd get some of the best and reddest apples of all. (Or if in a bad mood, Ne would just complain about Ni "obstinately" insisting that the apple is red when it really isn't.)
Is the Ne version worthy of discussion? Of course, but the topic Ne sees and wants to discuss is invisible to Ni at the moment. The topic (and set of circumstances) Ni thinks is under discussion is invisible to Ne. These pieces need to be
explicitly stated by both sides in order for communication to work. The reason I can have these kinds of issues with INTPs is that it can take what feels like a game of
20 questions before we realize that we were talking about different things. In the Ne/Ni apple discussion, the purity of the redness of the apple was never a matter for consideration, it was just a hand-wavy identifier.
So when an Ni dom says your point doesn't matter, it is most likely 100% true, given the time/space constraints the Ni dom currently has under consideration. If you believe your topic is very important, or being too quickly dismissed, you are likely using a context very different than what the Ni dom is using. Yes, it is very important in the bigger scheme of things that "1+1=2, 2+1=3, ... " forming the set of counting numbers, and that tangentially relates to what I'm talking about, but right now I'm just counting avocados, thanks.
Yeah, I know. It feels like you're showing something that it quite interesting/fascinating, only to have it categorically dismissed. The problem is that often times it's fascinating because of "how" you are looking at it, and it's difficult to communicate that "how." The trick is learning how to communicate the "how" (the context) along with everything else. And, in turn, how to listen for contexts that others use that you don't happen to prefer.
...
TL;DR - Always give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Their "unreasonableness" is most likely a result of mismatched contexts.