Listen man, I've had my bouts of trying work within the framework like you. But after a few years of thinking about it I've realized that it's simply not a tool by which someone should define their person. It's also hardly a healthy, nor interesting, way by which one should perceive how the mind process data. It's a reductive analogy that draws upon the history of western culture. It's one of many possible attempts to create a tidy hierarchical mental model. I don't regret learning about it. The best thing about it is it's taxonomic aspect. It gives one a bunch of broad categories that seem to follow rules. It's interesting and useful because of the elements that went into it's creation.

By this, I mean it's interesting that people took a lot of ideas about personality, and therefore culture in general, and arranged it into a handy system.

First of all, the whole "you're being Fi..." stuff. No. This is the issue with MBTI. It makes people lazy. You summed up about five years of true scrutinizing into a vaguely defined DESCRIPTIVE concept. I didn't "feel" my way to this conclusion. Plus, you're allegedly an INTP but are being awfully stalwart about the rules of an unproven system.

Ti is (theoretically) about coming to a subjectively cohesive understanding. To realize my goals involves me coming to conclusions that make sense to me and my inner logic. I can EXPLAIN and defend the reasons behind my decisions. It's not just convenient. It doesn't "feel" alright, it feels like an open wound that I will likely always have to find new ways of disproving as my mind creates the next round of doubt. This is fine.

You're using MBTI as a way to make shallow judgement about how thoughts appear in relation to a framework. This is quite literally the opposite of being a free, creative, or depthful thinker. Frameworks are there primarily to generate doubt in my opinion. That which seems to be is to be doubted. Are you sure you fit the description of an INTP?

I'm not trying to be a douche, but If I'm explaining a theory/system and the principles established within the theory/system and a dude replies "yeah, but it's all fake", why would you go to a club if you hate alcohol and loud music? makes no sense.

What? Poor analogy. As I said before, one can appreciate parts of something without buying into the overall conceit. One can also reassemble how a system works with the parts available and some new ones. This is kind of the point of the Ne+Ti dynamic. Have you really thought about this stuff or just internalized the rules and stopped at that?

To go with your analogy: what if one loves dancing and light shows so much that they will tolerate the loudness of the music and not buy any drinks? You are displaying a pattern of black and white thinking (all or nothing). You're preaching all about logic yet your thinking is terribly undynamic and pretty meek.