Teslashock:
I admit that I took your use of "biased" to mean "personally biased" and not "biased sample," but I think your statement here gives me a clue as to why I interpreted it that way:
And of course Fi users are going to start saying that they aren't prentious! Calling Fi pretentious is a complete insult to Fi's claims at being empathetic and skilled at analyzing emotions. I was expecting NFPs to respond this way; I wasn't writing their views off or "retorting" by saying that their opinions are biased and thus no good. I just am not going to be satisfied by their opinions alone.
You have basically said here that your expectation of their reaction caused you to take less seriously their claims that they are not pretentious. I knew I wasn't getting that impression from nowhere. Sure, you won't dismiss them outright, but you will place less weight on their experiences of themselves than on others' experiences of them, or on "impersonal observations/judgments."
Also, the way you used the term sort of conflated the two meanings. You said, "And I appreciate your insight. A few INFPs' opinions on Fi are not going to be very convincing arguments though. I'm not implying that you are wrong about yourself. It'd be nice to hear insights, personal, anecdotal, or theoretical, that analyze my speculations about Fi. Not just Fi users' opinions about Fi. Regardless of how much I appreciate the INFP insight, it's a pretty biased sampling pool, if you ask me." So first you are talking about numbers of INFPs when you say "a few." Then you say that you'd like to hear from others, too, supporting the numbers interpretation. However, then you say, "not just Fi users opinions about Fi." That does not refer to the number of people responding, or the distribution of types responding, but rather to the validity of Fi-user's opinions about themselves. Then you go back to talking about numbers. So it was sort of like, "well it's nice and all that you've responded, but I need to hear from more than just Fi users, and on top of that, it's just your opinion of yourself anyway, so that makes what you say even less significant towards answering my question."
And BTW I did read the whole thread. From my perspective, it appeared as though all contrary information was being ignored. You failed to reply to or acknowledge contradictory responses, and when you did reply (which was only to people who agreed in some way), you seemed to just continue assuming that Fi users had this pretentious quality, instead of keeping a speculative, "well I don't know if they do or not" type of attitude.
If you don't believe me, I can break it down for you:
OP: asks question
demimondaine: disagrees
OrangeAppled: disagrees
Amargith: agrees tacitly and gives theory about why Fi goes wrong in judgments of feelings.
BlackCat: Agrees that NFPs do what you suggest, and separates the SFPs from them in that regard.
You: Respond to Amargith and ask how, given that what she says is true, Ti and Fi can hope to get along in arguments and discussions.
You: Agree with BlackCat that it's mostly NFPs who do this.
WildHorses: mostly irrelevant personal comment.
BlackCat: Further elaborating on how SFPs like him are different than NFPs in that they are not pretentious.
JocktheMotie: Agrees tentatively, and says that Ti does the same thing.
OrangeAppled: repeats that it is not a definitive Fi-only trait, and states frustration with continued assumption that it is (she quotes a follow-up question that you asked which goes thus: "It seems like Fi users could be more productive if they were willing to admit that their own feelings are not inherently correct and/or universally felt." Do you not see how this recommendation makes it seem as though your judgment on the matter is pretty solidified?)
Amargith: Elaborates more on your question.
BlackCat: Responds to defensive tone of OrangeAppled's post, prophesying a "shitstorm" (which probably did as much to cause it as prophesy it).
Quinlan: asks for concrete examples.
JocktheMotie: joke response.
OrangeAppled: Defensive reaction.
Poppy: says that it happens with both NFs.
Nescio: Joke response.
BlackCat: agrees with quinlan.
Adoamros: agrees that other FPs have done it to him, but disagrees that he does it.
Nescio: Joke response
Nebbykoo: agrees with OrangeAppled.
Poki: disagrees with you and says it's more of an extraverted judgment thing.
Seymour: disagrees with you.
OrangeAppled: elaborates on communication generally.
Nebbykoo: agrees.
You: you quote OrangeAppled and use it as a confirmation of the behavior you are ascribing to Fi.
Poki: disagrees with you, saying that your OP is accusatory.
You: defend yourself further against OrangeAppled and Nebbykoo.
You: complain more generally about NFs taking things personally.
onemoretime: sarcastic remark on NFP defensiveness.
OrangeAppled: argues back.
BlackCat: complains about how NFs take things personally.
Me: disagrees with you on experiential and theoretical grounds.
Seymour: gives general evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of NTs and NFs comparitively.
OrangeAppled: defends against BlackCat's attack on NFs.
BlackCat: cuts back extent of claim, saying he meant only "some" NFs and tells OrangeAppled to "chill."
You: Defend against OrangeAppled again.
OrangeAppled: reiterates that pretentiousness is not type related.
BlackCat: basically admits it's not a specifically NFP thing.
You: here is your "biased sampling pool" post, where you basically tell OrangeAppled, "thanks, that's nice that you don't agree, but I want to hear more from others too."
Ajblaise: disagrees with you based on definition of pretentiousness and type theory.
onemoretime: some slightly irrelevant post that makes little sense to me, though maybe it does to others.
And so on...it's just more repetetiveness from there. So it seems that above all else, your lack of acknowledgment of differring arguments/evidence makes it seem as though you are only looking to confirm what you want to see, rather than thoroughly take into account all sides of the issue. The only time you did respond to a contradictory argument was to react to the defensive language of OrangeAppled, at which point you seemed more than eager to deploy the "oh look at how the NFP is being so sensitive, does this not prove that my perceptions are true?," but never to temper your perception or find a way to explain them given the objection, which most people do.
Okay, I'm done.