I think the main post here can be completely quoted for truth, with the one qualifier that it is true if you want to become a winning player while not being a particularly good player. I think it's particularly valuable to have a post once in a while that outlines how we can learn specific lessons from studying the statistics we have assembled through playing hands.

I've thought a bit about poker the last 3 or so months and played a smallish amount of hands (30k or so) and one of the things I think about the most is how best to learn. I ask myself sometimes how to maximise my learning per hour rather than my earning per hour.

While I am completely convinced that learning a tight-aggressive style of poker is the easiest way to become a winning player I am not convinced that it is the most effective way to learn to play poker. It may well be that the most effective way of learning is in reading and writing forum posts, doing hand analyses and hand reading exercises and picking one poker skill to focus on practicing every time you sit down at a table. It may also be that the most effective way of learning poker while playing is to play loose. But it is probably also the more costly, and anyone considering this should consider if trading earning for learning is going to put them on tilt. For many learning poker players it is only fun as long as they make a profit every month and if they end up having a losing month they might be discouraged from playing again.

On a completely generic level I think there is an argument for introducing risk (lower expected EV, higher variance) if there is a reward (such as faster learning), but it is a delicate decision and it is certainly not wrong for a beginner to learn "tight is right", but there will come a time where the potential of that playstyle will be reached.