The traditional wisdom of many cultures reminds us that we learn much more by listening than we do by talking. I've run across many clever ways that this has been put.
I think that's wrong. I've learned while speaking throughout my life. When you have to put an idea together on short notice, your thinking is focused, and the associated ideas which are most likely to be quickly understood by you are front-and-center in your own mind. When it's my topic that I have been thinking about recently, and am deeply concerned with this minute, I am the most likely person to come up with some new insight. I come up with new associations or analogies while talking all the time.
Admitting such a thing is to declare oneself something of a blowhard, as anti-blowhard-irritation is the likely driver behind all the condescending cleverness against speakers. An actual love for wisdom is not primary among the critics - else they would admit how often the learning-while-speaking people get it right, being swifter of thought. Yes, blowhard is the risk, and I have been there many times. A bargain at twice the price.
The closest analogy would be writing. We all believe that sitting to write about something is excellent training for thinking, and likely to result in fresh insights and wisdom. Speaking is the shortcut version of that. Is it superior to listening? Often it is. Different errors result, but I don't think more errors.