On that score, of course we learn to recognise positions that are amenable to tactical shots. Generally speaking, tactics are necessary to win games from superior positions. Almost by definition, a superior position is one where a series of moves exists which makes it very difficult for the player with the inferior position to hold onto the game.
Tactics are also often the only fall-back when one has an inferior position. Therefore it's necessary on both sides to be aware of the kind of positions that give rise to different kinds of tactical ideas. In the course of a game, both players routinely scan for tactical shots for either side. I remember one player telling me that if he could get the kind of position I routinely achieved then he'd win every game. At the time, he was playing on board one for our local first team and I was on about three. I often missed opportunities but didn't do too badly because a player who allows one opportunity that's missed often allows more opportunities. I was improving and tended to play too slowly.
Very often, with the rather artificial puzzles that are presented here, alternative winning lines exist which are easier to spot and therefore easier to execute, but which take more moves to complete. Such lines are often "objectively better" than the lines given, for various reasons. Therefore, when we try to use them exclusively, puzzles are bad for our progress at chess. Much better is analysing games, sometimes with the aid of the analysis engine and sometimes without. Puzzles can be used as an adjunct to that but not as a replacement.
The #1 problem with using puzzles for improvement is that with a puzzle you already KNOW that a winning tactic exists. You just need to spot it.
In real life, there is no such assurance. You aren't warned that a winning line exists, and you might either miss it entirely or (just as bad) waste clock time looking for a tactic that isn't even THERE.