The point was (and is) there is a reason why the 'preponderance of evidence' standard existsObviously.
In a way they're similar. But it's not making the point you want.
This relates to what I've said elsewhere about having a model vs having a side. Recap: by "model" I mean basically your worldview. Your understanding of everything. Training your instincts really amounts to updating your model with accurate information, and training your pattern recognition.
When you have a side, your instincts apply the pattern matching to the side rather than the model. When you have a side, reasoning is used to find reasons to justify the side. And don't get me wrong. We all take sides. "Sides" is really another way of saying bias. Knowing that, we might be able to recognize when biases influence our thinking and our instincts.
I think we can recognize when we have a side instead of a model by noticing that our instincts have a different outcome depending on how favorable information is to our side. If you flip positions on a given topic depending on which side it favors, your instincts aren't based on a model, they're based on a side.
The part where I think it's a false equivalence is that sense-making in politics is different from sense-making in fighting. In what you call training your instincts, the part of that that makes your instincts accurate is understanding reality accurately. Bias would play into fighting instincts far less than political sense-making.
TL;DR:
Instincts + accurate model = accurate response.
Instincts + side = side's response.
Accurate models require accurate information and reasoned sense-making of new information to continually improve the model.
Take, for example, the Wuhan Institute lab leak theory of covid origin. Do you think actual proof will ever be available? In cases where one side is actively doing everything it can to obscure or eradicate the truth, requiring 'proof' just becomes an excuse to do nothing/prop up the status quo ante