Hey this is kind of a long reply and I'm not totally sure how comprehensible it is. Hopefully you get something out of it haha.
Yes, just accepting things can make you easier to manipulate. so it's situational, and a lot of good comes from knowing when to scrutinize and when not to.
When you apply logic to feelings and emotions, you do so under a framework of understanding yourself that might be right, or might be wrong. For most, it's somewhere in between, but this is the first important premise: your logic may be flawed.
In mathematics there is a concept of an "axiom". An axiom is something that you believe without proof, but that you use to prove other things. So like in euclidean geometry, the parallel postulate states that two parallel lines never intersect, and that if the two lines are not parallel they do intersect somewhere. That's not provable. It's an observation we made about our world that doesn't seem to get violated, and it's a foundation to build other proofs on top of, but you cannot formally prove this. Logic never exists in a vacuum, it always has to build on top of axioms.
In math it's pretty simple where axioms come from. We either take axioms that we have experimental evidence to support that it reflects our physical world, or we make axioms for fantasy worlds to theorize how things would work in those other worlds (hyperbolic geometry and spherical geometry are both derived from modifying the parallel postulate).
With problems of the self it's... messier. Most of the time the things that you hold as true without question are related to the world you've grown up in and what you've experienced along the way. And it can be very tricky to even realize that you are holding something as true without question, because the very idea of questioning it just doesn't come up in a train of thought.
Interacting with Others
So like say I don't believe in plurality. Like I've just never heard of plurality. But I'm plural. So now I start hearing about these plural people and their experiences, and their experiences sound similar to some of mine- but to this point I have not had plurality in my mental palette of thoughts. So there's two ways I can go here.
One option is that I can say "oh hey that's me? I guess I'm plural". Now I've changed a core belief about myself and I can start restructuring my understanding of myself logically on top of that.
Another option is that I say "Well you're just describing my feelings, but I'm not plural, so I don't think plurality actually exists". Here I've maintained my core assumption that there's only one person per body, and I'm restricted to logically analyzing myself under that framework of thinking.
So what's the right decision here? Clearly I shouldn't just unquestionably accept someone handing me a new way to think about myself, because they could present me with a way of thinking that superficially feels like it might align with my experiences, but then they might try to replace my system of logic with one they crafted specifically to control me.
Well, we start asking questions.
How much do I trust the people I'm talking to? What conclusions would I draw if I accepted what they're telling me? How would those conclusions change my life- do I like those changes? What happens if I stay where I am?
And we also ease into it. Beliefs are funny things and it's possible to believe two conflicting things at once. You can use this to try a new belief out while holding onto the old one. You can do your logical analysis under both beliefs at the same time to compare them and do meta-analysis.
So we settle on a third inbetween: I accept these things might be true, and I start trying them on, like new clothes, see how they fit me, see if they make things make more sense, if they clear up inconsistencies I've been stuck with for awhile, if they make things simpler, pass occam's razor more easily.
Mastery over temporarily holding a belief that conflicts with your core beliefs is also a very powerful narrative building tool for playing along with a fiction with others. The suspension of disbelief can let you tell all sorts of stories that wildly violate fundamental truths of the universe- but to do that safely you've got to know how to bring yourself back afterwards, to know which part is the fiction and which part is your reality. One can start becoming the other, if you let it.
Interacting with Yourself(s)
Here it's similar, but a bit different. You're on your own, and you basically need to decide how to interpret your own experiences. Here, experiences that challenge your beliefs are probably not coming from some external being trying to control you, and this is what we were discussing in the context of our original post. When we were first coming to grips with our plurality, we were in that inbetween state. We believed it, but we didn't believe it. We were pretty sure it was real, but we didn't know how to process that. We knew where we wanted to be: we wanted to believe it was real without the doubts getting in the way. We'd decided that much. The doubts at that point were more... residual habits, than any true logical analysis.
And that's what we found weed ended up helping out with a bit, though really it was a bit of a crutch. In some sense it wasn't that weed made us just inherently believe it, but that it gave us permission to. We could say "oh I'm feeling my headmate snuggle me and it's because of the weed" rather than "Oh I couldn't possibly be feeling my headmate snuggle me though right? It must simply be (some other explanation for sensory feelings)".
Eventually it became a hindrance more than a help, because naturally this gives rise to the thought "I cannot be feeling things because I'm not high", and those thoughts did inhibit certain experiences when we were sober. We have a much more nuanced understanding of this interplay now, and we're also much better at accepting things without needing an excuse other than that we want to accept it. Not perfect, mind. It's all skills.
