I don't know that this is an adequate answer for the question, but I certainly have sympathy for the trap of getting caught up in details ... that may be very subordinate. For myself, although I've mostly managed to avoid getting stuck in details, when I was much younger I would occasionally-and-unfortunately fixate on small things, since I'd been led to believe that every detail had the same significance in mathematics.
The latter is only "formally true", in the idealistic sense that if any link in a chain of logical reasoning fails, then the whole fails. However, live mathematics is not so "boolean" in its legitimacy or art. In particular, NOT all details are of equal significance in mathematical real life, despite various logical ideals.
I do also tell my PhD students and other grad students this, that one should be willing to let quite a few details be postponed, and try to discern the significant ones... all the more so because many of the small details become completely clear (only) with sufficient hindsight. Truly, in a strong sense, many details are genuinely unfathomable "in prospect", since the true explanation will only come later. That is, even if one does want to insist on careful explanations, the immediate formal seeming-explanations in typical sources are in fact not correct... and therefore all the more unpersuasive or baffling. Thus, duh, leading a serious person to be baffled, and think that it's their own internal "problem", rather than appreciating (since we are not often let in on the secret) that purely logical correctness is not at all a reliable explanation.
Especially if one is sensitive to such things, the disconnect can be nearly fatal, or at least severely impairing.
I hope there will be other answers about other aspects...