Why don't strong players do puzzles on chess.com?

Strong is a relative term here, but I mean mostly Titled players. I find that strong untitled players also often do puzzles, but nearly as much as players around the 400-2200 range. 

If you ask any strong player what is the single most important thing to study to get better at chess they all say tactics, unequivocally. So why don't any of these people who are clearly very good at learning, use their own prescribed optimal learning method? 

I think strong players don't NEED to do puzzles. Or maybe the puzzles are just too easy after a certain level? I dunno. Just a random guess.

They don't need it to be a very strong player obviously, they already are strong players. As for the puzzles becoming too easy, this is simply untrue. I have watched top GM's like Hikaru struggle to make it up towards 3800 ish. And for everyone who isn't Hikaru I assume that's only more true. I would also expect to see many GM accounts sitting around the 4200 level if that was true. That's about the rating where the puzzles stop getting harder.

Tactics is most important, but tactics puzzles is not tactics.
In a real game nobody tells you there is a tactic, or for whom.
The best tactics training is reviewing your own lost games.
Four tactics puzzles is a good warm-up, but that is about it.

I disagree on an important point here. Solving puzzles without seeing the full solution from the get go, as the trainer encourages, is still quite valuable for solidifying pattern recognition. Even reviewing your own games for tactics, you can't train tactics without trying to train tactics. If what you are doing is tactical training, then you know there is a solution. It would be nice to have something like a "best move" trainer, where you only have to find a win if it's there. Calculate the rating from the deviation from optimal play. That would do what you're trying to achieve, but still you know you're somewhat in puzzle mode. 
I could see that titled players just review OTB games, and look at enough computer lines in normal game review, that that's enough for them not to get rusty, but it's very hard to believe that outside of elite GM's most wouldn't benefit greatly from gaining more of the pattern recognition they agree is most important. 
Beyond the pattern recognition, puzzles improve calculation ability as well, also prescribed by titled players as a reason to do tactics. 

Also most of the puzzles above a certain level repeat, and aren’t really applicable to normal games. I mostly use them to warm up calculation before tournaments.

I'm around your puzzle rating, have been up towards 3300 on my other account. I have never had an issue with puzzle repeats after about 2018, and I don't see others having issues until they're much higher rated than I currently am.(I've spent many hours watching strong players do puzzles). 
As for them not being applicable to real games, I can see that criticism. Or at least that time spent learning opening theory is more beneficial per time for someone that is already super tactically strong, especially if they're a positional player. 
There are plenty of other puzzle sites that do a good job of giving realistic puzzles though. Lichess and chesspuzzles.net for example have databases of 100ks of tactics all drawn from critical moments in real games. But again, that's not something I ever see strong players do on stream, or have heard them talk about ever doing.

'are clearly very good at learning"
at chess. Specifically.
The strongest players have or had a steep chess-learning curve as children and teenagers.
Doesn't mean they were good at learning other things.
Why were their learning curves so steep at chess?
Probably because their master coaches and instructors made sure the young players got rid of various chess misconceptions and barriers and obstacles early on - even before their teenage years.

For some reason my earlier post didn't post.
So I'll post it again.
Just because very strong players don't advertise they do tactics puzzles doesn't mean they don't do them or don't do a lot of them.
And books of tactics puzzles were around long before the internet existed.

A fair point, more of an aside by me anyway, but since you responded. There are pretty large correlations between being strong and having an above average iq. Those correlations do disappear almost entirely when you get to very strong players, but the group as a whole is above average by a substantial margin. Not to say iq is the be all end all of learning, it isn't.

Yeah that's fair. I'll have to try directly asking some more streamers about their other practices.

IQ might correlate with the performing of some specific mental tasks.
But does it correlate with evaluating priorities - creative ability - emotional intelligence - leadership - family success - business success and the many things that really matter and make the difference ?
I've noticed that various groups of chess players obsess about IQ.
And strength in chess would often correlate with behaviours like Bobby Fischerism.
You'll see it in other sports and games too.

He def does more than almost anyone else I see yeah. I'm more concerned with the total number of puzzles I've seen a player has done. Most titled players have under 100 hours of total puzzle training time over the course of 5-10 years.

No of course not. There's some old research on this. Iq above 120 stops correlating entirely with real world "success" ie income, fame, inventions, artistic talent.

My intuition about why this is, is that in almost all real world scenarios you can offload processing onto others when it's required, so long as you are humble enough and have a bird's eye view understanding of the situation.

People in adverse environments might perform lower in IQ tests and school exams because of distraction factors.
Distractions can be a very big factor.
For example - many teenagers work. To help with the bills.
That takes a lot of their concentration.
There are true stories though - of famous actors who came from very adverse environments - and succeeded.
Partly a matter of talent rather than IQ.

This is all an aside from the tactics issue though ...
tactics are the central meat and potatoes of ascending that chess ladder.
Players who are good at tactics will often destroy players who book on openings and endgames as priority.
The good tactician can and will adapt.
From a military movie: 'He will adapt. He will overcome.'

An example of why strong players do not need to do puzzles like ourselves to grasp classic mating setups etc., Magnus Carlsen was showed 12 famous game positions from Stienitz -Lasker - Capablanca-Botvinnik- Petrosian-Fischer-And others they had 12 boards all set up the the positions he was asked on each board to give the names of who was white and black also the year played and demonstrate the game conclusion, Magnus did this on all 12 boards, amazing memory which demonstrated that these guys once they have probably had or seen a mating or game finishing posotion it remains impregnated in there memory, and even the most famous historical ones!!

I've seen that clip actually, truly awe inspiring. I've also seen him do it where they didn't even show what pieces were on the board, just where they were. With as few as 7 pieces. 
Probably someone like Magnus does have enough memory built up that given any tactical position he can pull a motif from his memory that at least somewhat resembles it. But tactics are hierarchical. You never reach the top level of pattern recognition. It just keeps stacking into larger more efficient patterns. Even someone like Magnus is clear second fiddle to a Nepo in a pure tactical skirmish where the position makes little sense. 
This leads me to add points to the conclusion that they are simply, "good enough already." Probably the topmost guys would only see improvements in their online blitz, due to the speed increase gained through over-learning.

I've never been a big fan of puzzles as a means of improvement. As I said on the other board, there are plenty of tactics that pop up in openings. If you know the opening you may also then spot it elsewhere. As long as you know the opening, hopefully you will know the tactic. When you do a puzzle on the other hand, you do it and then it's gone forever, so for the long term openings seem like they help more to me.

Another thing is that with a puzzle you always know something is there, and you also know it may be paradoxical or unlikely. There are many puzzles where all the natural continuations fail and some crazy thing that would never normally work does work. In a way this could mean you are training yourself to look for things that never normally occur in real games.

The best most natural way to train tactics I would say is to try to remember the ones you missed in your own games, that's a totally organic way of training for real life situations and a position you entered yourself (another reason why strong players like puzzles less may be because of how people develop different styles, and some puzzles are positions they would never pay into). Obviously if it's a tactic only stockfish would find no point worrying about it, the typical ones that totally come up are what you want.