Anyone have advice on how to avoid being dogmatic during calculations?

It's one of the biggest thorns in my side. Being too dismissive when calculating. I only have x amount of time to analyze x amount of variations - I have to dismiss certain lines. But this is my biggest problem with calculating. I realize this is a common problem for amateur players such as myself - I'm about 1800 OTB - and probably should wait until I'm stronger before attempting to go very deep into a position. Nonetheless, I'm trying to get better..  Here are the type of moves I overlook when calculating multiple move variations (which can happen at any point during the variation):

Your opponent breaking a pin when the pinning piece isn't even being attacked.

Sabotaging  their ability to castle safely.

Taking your knight with their bishop in an open game.

Moving a piece from their ideal square, or undeveloping.

Sacrificing an exchange.

Giving back material to consolidate.

Moving a piece that's pinned to the queen.

etc,, etc, etc, etc, etc

I play according to the principles only to lose tactically. I really need a way to NOT overlook those kinds of moves. Any advice would be appreciated.

.. Despite my humble rating ; Your questions ; Should be, ideally answered, by yourself ; In a Near future, or longer, context.

.. As you presumably, continue to pay attention, to the numerous instructional game videos, {on 'YouTube', etc}. Otherwise, known as "pattern recognition".. {which I'm sure you knew}..

.. Just as "Rome wasn't built in a day" ; Nor, will your 'pattern recognition', {pertaining, to your many questions}, be absorbed, in as short a time-frame, as you undoubtedly hope for.

And, barring, a fully competent, personal tutor ; Finding the answers, {over time}, in your Own random chosen, 'master' game, {video or book}, studies.. {even, if Not mentioned, specifically} ; Will likely, be More effective, {as a memory 'jog'.. ie. 'pattern recognition'} ; Than in the manner, of your formatted questions ..

.. Of which I'd imagine, that the exceptions, & qualifications, to any advice given, {as in, almost every game is different !} ; Would merely overwhelm, the average or above average, learning, mind. o:

After our opponent makes a move, we all (or most of us) ask, "What is the threat?"  Before we make a move, we should ask the similar, "What threats can he make?"  This is the blundercheck.  If he can make some attacking moves but they are easily stopped, we don't worry about them, but if he can create real threats, then we should not make our move but do something else.

It can be very useful to think in terms of our opponent.  What are his strengths?  If you know this, you know what you need to guard against.  Similarly, you can ask yourself, What would make my opponent nervous?  If I were him, what move would worry me?  This is obviously more useful for a longer time-control game, but the idea of finding both the strengths and weaknesses of your opponent's position will help you avoid blunders and find those tricky, nuanced moves more often.

Sounds like you're relying too much on your conceptualization of the position (or on rules of thumb).

These can be good to start with of course, and will help guide your calculation... but you also need what I've heard called fantasy. Calculate a few ugly moves. What if the pinned piece moves? What if they sacrifice material back to equalize?

What's helped me in the past is going over top level games (or watching an IM or GM play on youtube). They'll inevitably play a move like this... giving up their amazing bishop for the opponent's crappy knight, or opening up lines to their own castled king. What the hell? Then you see their idea play out before your eyes.

Witness scenes like this often enough, and you'll be less dogmatic, and willing to consider a wider variety of moves.

I think sammy_boi's advice is excellent.  I make the mistake of missing the future beauty of currently ugly moves all the time.  The 1-8-18 Chess Puzzle is an example of an ugly queen sacrifice which quickly turns into a nice check mate.  Pitfalls, traps & swindles work so often because we aren't inclined to look past the first loss for the opponent, thinking they wouldn't do that because....

Making blunders is not "dogmatic", dogmatic would be something like always making book moves.

OP doesn't mention blunders even though SmithyQ mentions blunders a lot.

If he's actually 1800 then he shouldn't have a problem with basic beginner blunder checking. He never says the word blunder...

and I think people misunderstand what he means e.g. "moving a piece that's pinned to the queen." Pretty sure the whole post is talking about unexpected moves. Missing moves like these in calculation:

Thanks to everyone for their answers - very helpful advice from you guys. I really appreciate it.

Yea I wouldn't fall for that one . I know it already. Even if I didn't it would be hard to miss because the black bishop is undefended and white has three pieces in the center with a bishop x-raying f7. I believe I would see that one coming but then again you never know.

When I make these oversights it usually involves calculating deeper than my ability warrants - when a position is in my mind's eye and I'm doing everything I can to keep away the fog...the last I want to do (or even have the ability to do) is go over every single possible move while looking ahead several ply. I have to keep to the principles so that I'll know where to look and, more specifically, where not to look. This is what makes calculating deep easier for myself without feeling too overwhelmed.