I can’t help but noticed that whenever I were gloves, ether dish gloves or disposable gloves for my chemistry class, I have reduced dexterity and control over the object(s) I will be holding. Would some medieval solders or knights chose not to were gloves for this reason, even though their hands hard unprotected?
Yes, they would. It is a tad hard to write an extentive answer over this because the main material we work with when it comes to configurations of armour are art pieces, which show contexts in which soldiers and knights choose not to wear gloves. My favourite french manuscript, the BNF 2643 (a 1470s edition of froissarts chronicles) depicts things in great detail and shows soldiers without gauntlets rather commonly. This is also sometimes seen illustrated in fencing treatises, one example being the Gladiatoria group which also showcase not using gauntlets rather commonly
Now obviously written mentions are better when it comes to this, but equipment laws and regulations do not really share what wouldn't be worn, only what would. With that being said though in most of these statutes gauntlets are not mentioned as necessary wear, except for some cases in England and Scotland where the soldiers are told to specifically be armed with iron gauntlets. This is around the mid-14th century, and as far as I have seen later statutes in the 15th century do not mention gauntlets either.
So to clarify - yes there are cases where knights and footsoldiers opted out of wearing gauntlets. This is more common with footsoldiers, partly because they're less well equipped in general but partly because of ther use of long polearms in the late middle ages (such as pikes and halberds/glaives/bills, while knights commonly used shorter lances and pollaxes) which lessens the need for hand protection