I don’t think that winning or losing are particularly special teaching moments unless you know why that result occurred. The more precisely you can define the reason for the result, the greater the impact of the lesson.
Winning, because of the warm, fuzzy feeling it gives us, simply teaches us to repeat our actions in the same circumstances. Positive reinforcement training
A thinking person who loses will try to identify what actions were the cause of that result and try to identify alternative actions that would give a better result under those circumstances in the future.
A simple poker example is of a player who jams AA preflop (NLHE). They will win, on average, something like 80% of the time, which nearly always feels like 100%, and thus learn that jamming with AA is a winning strategy. I’m not saying that conclusion is wrong, it obviously isn’t, but there is no imperative to consider alternate strategies which may give even better results.
When a player jams AA and loses to Q5o, they suddenly realise that AA is not a guaranteed win. A thinking player will ask “why?” and go on to discover that their perceived 100% win rate is only ~80%. In the course of discovering this, they will be exposed to other probabilities that affect their game and, with sufficient curiosity, will ask “is there a better way to play?”.
We learn more from losing than from winning only when we ask “Why did I lose?”.
If we don’t have the intellect to ask that question and the determination to find an answer, we’ll be much happier if we continue jamming AA and claiming the game is rigged on those occasions that we lose.