Eek, Matilda, I've gotten suckered into enough ESFJ ladies nites/sales parties to be very aware there is a large gulf between myself and them! They actually enjoy that stuff! I have a couple of ISFJ friends and we are also very different. They tend to be the kind of people that are nice, quite devoted to Facebook and Survivor type reality shows and are homebodies. Schools are dominated by enough SJs for me to be very sure that I am not akin to them. I don't relate well to most Ss, even though I've had to learn to deal with SJs quite regularly, so am improving at finding ways of presenting information so that they will be more receptive.
I think this problem of not ruling out extraneous information tends to happen more with subjects that I feel strongly about or care about. A research paper on something fairly straightforward with clear guidelines is really no big deal.
It's when I have a vision of what it should be, but it seems kind of like you can't actually touch it or get your hands on it - it's hazy in the distance, yet you have a very clear idea in mind of what you want. Kind of like a mirage or something - when you get close, it just moves further away, and yet you can still see it. I'm not even sure I'm explaining this right. I find it's the same when I draw or write. I have this abstract image of what I want something to be, but am always disappointed with the pale and puny version of it in reality. I know enough to know whether I have it the way I want it or not, but can't get ahold of it well enough to recreate it outside my mind.
The other time I have problems is when someone is asking me to write something from a standpoint that I truly can't agree with and when the parameters are not well defined. An example of this is a master's level final paper. I was supposed to write this paper, making a case for teaching Metis fiddle music across all Canadian schools, using multicultural theorists' writings to build my case. Unfortunately all of these writings very specifically referenced situations unique to the US, particularly the plight of Latino and Afro-American populations in rural centres. Not only were those histories and situations completely different than Canada, but the Canadian school system is set up on entirely different principles that do not relate. In addition, the prof still refuses to give any indication of length or depth expected in delving into these possible arguments (I've tried on three different occasions). I would pick just three or four main arguments, but there is not enough literature to cite numerous different people on each (or lots of different literature by the same person) and the prof has also randomly asked a couple of specific questions that she'd like worked in, which indicate the desire for a lot of detail and arguments. In addition, the argument the paper is supposed to make is directly opposed to what I actually believe and after consulting several other Canadian educators and profs have not gotten anything tht would help me make further headway. To date, I have tried about 10 different outlines and spent weeks on the thing.