sometimes i do catch myself doing this because some things were necessary in the formation of the conclusion and therefore should be mentioned to show how the conclusion was derived.

but, with experience and practice, and accepting the fact that when one communicates the point is to have the other party understand as otherwise why would i bother, i now consciously try to pitch the message the way the other person would understand, and recently i am also trying to also do it in from a view that the other person would care about, especially if they are a very different type. socionics has helped me a bit with this. i believe i could sometimes respond with contempt and irritation when faced with what appears to be imbecilic incomprehension, but i have now mellowed with age and tolerance, and knowledge.

remember that types that deal well with people can also be poor communicators - but their defects are different from this, or could be similar but due to different reasons.

communicating properly is, however, indeed a lot of hard work. it isn't just dumping your thoughts onto another person and then hope that perhaps it was understood - hence why it's such a pleasure when this does happen, when you find someone on your wavelength. in begoner's example for the second answer, if in the context of persuading the other party/audience most people will not be able to understand that approach. stories work - basically convert the exact same underlying principles and its application to the problem at hand, into an example story of how it would play out in a way they can see. but some topics really are very hard to convert to robust experiential stories.