In real life, one should be careful in categorizing people who don't actively seek information/explanations before a purchase/decision as people who are low cognitive-reflectors.
I know of people who I think might score very high on the Cognitive Reflection test, but would not actively seek information for many small to medium size purchases/decisions (such as ordering food, buying a phone, deciding a driving route) because they would like to conserve their attention and resources to reflect on other aspects of their cognition, such as their work or art.
I've also found I'm much happier with my choices when I don't compare them to might-have-beens. This is much easier to do if I don't even bother to become aware of the alternatives (for instance, ordering the first menu item that seems likely to be satisfying). It reduces my wistfulness for what might have been :)
This writeup at Ars Technica about a recently published paper in the Journal of Consumer Research may be of interest. Super-brief summary:
If this is right (which seems plausible enough) then it presumably applies more broadly: e.g., to what tactics are most effective in political debate. Though it's hardly news in that area that making people feel stupid isn't the best way to persuade them of things.
Abstract of the paper: