When you assume you're invincible to an INFJ's PA advance, you're only giving them the very thing they crave: an open door to a good challenge with a satisfying reward.
Here, you're displaying a superiority complex in which you assume that your emotions are safely barricaded behind a wall of logic and willpower.
Not really. You've made an incorrect assumption here: That when I said "...Most of the time I don't consider them to be of any real importance," you seem to have read "I keep my emotions bottled behind an impenetrable wall." If anything, I'm emotion indifferent, or more apathetic to them in general. It's not a consciously enforced superiority complex to hide a weakness, as you seem to imply, but it's just how I work.
Trying to insult me or attack me emotionally is like jumping over my fence and stepping on an anthill in my yard, then claiming some sort of victory. They're just ants. I don't really care.
Which you, in classic INTP form, did gloriously.
You overlooked three critical facts:
1. Irrelevant.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Redundant.
I think you misinterpreted what that passage meant, although maybe I'd have to read the whole thing in its full context. We tend to not overlook anything, unless of course we deem a piece of information unimportant [much like your 3 critical facts which don't seem to mean anything]. If anything we don't overlook enough, which leads us to have problems with indecision at times.
What that passage seems to mean, is that INTPs have a tendency to doubt their own conclusions, simply because they always think they're missing something, as a result of being Perceivers. We tend to always want more information regarding a decision, which leads to the common INTP problem of "overthink, underdo."
And if that opposition is an INFJ looking for ways to break an INTP's will?
INFJs are notoriously hard people to convince of anything they don't want to be convinced of. If an INTP doesn't convince his opponent to see things from his point of view, he loses the argument. All the INFJ has to do is stand there and disagree with everything the INTP says until the INTP snaps.
Fair enough. You basically just said "INFJs hold on to opinions regardless of the presence of Truth." I'm not so sure that's a sign of character strength. Sounds a lot more like the quality of a zealotr. Also, the bolded is generally incorrect. An INTP argues for the sole purpose of illuminating the truth about a topic. Once he's spoken his thoughts, he's done, unless someone wants to challenge a point, make a counter argument, or seek some kind of clarification. A person's inability to see truth is not our problem, it's theirs.
If all the INFJ is going to do is the equivalent of plugging his ears and say "Lalalalala" in the presence of good points, then we are most likely going to just ignore you. We tend to not waste time with fools.
I could go on like this, but I think I've made my point. The best way to keep an INFJ out of your head is to keep the lower half of it shut as much as possible.
And this is just false. Though I can't really help it if an INFJ thinks they're in my head. Or if they think they've made a point.
BTW, I've omitted parts of your post that I couldn't see a valid reason for existing beyond trying to evoke an emotional response from me, however if you still want me to try to address them I'll do my best. Bear with my slow responses and, I'm sure, various grammar errors because I am at work.