Target time on tactics trainer - spped vs thoroughness

I've just solved a puzzle on the tactics trainer. The puzzle rating was 2166. It took me 5 minutes to solve; so I scored (only) 5 points. There were about 6 moves. I saw the solution quite quickly, but wasn't entirely sure if I had a response to a defending move, and there was one other reasonable looking way of thinking about the puzzle. Most of my time was spent checking each stage of my solution, with some devoted to a quick check of the alternative to make sure it didn't work.

The actual target time for the puzzle was about 40 seconds. However, the pass rate was 49 per cent. It did make me wonder whether these target times (which strike me as very ambitious for the average club player) are encouraging many people to adopt the wrong approach and bad habits to tactical problems, both as puzzles and in real games: going for speed (and the high points you get if you solve it quickly) rather than thoroughness. I tend to think that, if I had such a position in a real game, I'd probably spend even longer over it (it was a mate in six).

(apologies - I can't edit the typo in the title of this post)

I get the best results in tactics when I take a little more time. I strive to get a plus score as opposed to a high score.

That suits my style not being a strong speed player.

I ignore the target time, as I suspect that it is based on the amount of moves rather than the complexity of the position. Sometimes I spend extra long on a 1600 puzzle because I check for a more difficult mating pattern that isn't there, then just get 1 point. Other times I rush a 2300 puzzle and get lucky, which feels better but perhaps provides me less benefit in the long run.

Hm. I seem to only do Puzzles and Vote Chess.  In Vote Chess I have plenty of time to fiddle on the board and consider other points of view so the experience of doing a puzzle is mostly unlike the experience of deciding on a vote chess move. 

It seems likely that doing the puzzles fairly quickly is detrimental to my ability to analyze vote chess positions accurately.  It would be better to always spend more time analyzing the steps in a chess puzzle so that my brain would get better at looking ahead and analyzing in different modes with different ideas in mind.

There are a few different ways solving a vote chess problem might go

A decent number of them are just plain easy, like a mate in 3 or clearly winning material. 

Then there are the ones I try to figure out for a while and I feel lost,  (One time I felt so befuddled at not seeing any viable solution that the song about Fish Heads, Fish Heads, Roly-Poly Fish Heads started playing in my mind) so somehow I decide on a guess that seems like it might be right.  Usually this means I am wrong

There are some where I think I definitely know the answer but it turns out I have made some blunder of missing an obvious defensive move or some better tactic on the board or a simplifying recapture.  I think these are instructive.

When I do miss one I sometimes repeat it until I get it right, sometimes go to the analyzer if I think the other side proceeded strangely, and sometimes just quit and come back later.

I used to do a long string of problems but now I just tend to do a few and then leave.  Something to do with psychiatric medicines improving my brain.

I think the "target time" is merely what you need to get the maximum gain in rating. So it's more a matter of faster solving not providing any greater benefit.  I am a little puzzled by the adapted version of the rating system used -  I suspect it has inflation built in for player ratings (but not compensating deflation for puzzles). One would expect the very asymmetric nature of the system (where players and puzzles play very different roles but both have ratings on an Elo scale.