It depends. I psychoanalyse everything now and look out for flaws in the writing. Sometimes it enhances my view of the story but a good amount of the time it ruins the enjoyment for me.
I think psychology is your model of whats believable and reasonably realistic. Fictional worlds that goes outside your bounds would feel unrealistic and loses appeal.
The same way how knowing physics will make you dissatisfied if a story violates physical laws you know.
For exemple, we know little about how we'd fare in different gravity. Yet some characters may suddenly change gravity. And the story will paint a new random behavior like being slowed in higher gravity.
But actually, there's the possibility that stronger gravity makes your sprinting speed higher as long as you're strong enough to stand up. Likewise if character gets 'buffed' with lower gravity, it's likely that they'll just fumble and overshoot up instead of being faster.
Another exemple is smithing. Writers may say that the metal must be high temperature or it'll be bad quality. Actually high temperature makes the metal oxidize faster, and IRL cold forging is useful because the metal gains strain hardening. The true reason for high temperature smithing is because people are too weak to shape steel at room temperature.
In the end, everyone has their degree of tolerance. Im willing to overlook stuff as long as its internally consistent
All this stuff is a judgement about the content itself. But knowing about writing structures and tropes doesnt put strong presupposition about the content itself
Obviously if you read the same story 10 times, you'll start predicting the content and the effectiveness of a trope will get weaker. But if a new story executes a trope in its own way with its own subversion, it'll satisfy you as if you experienced the trope for the first time
