This was a good post.

The right information is certainly more important than more information.  And for some, like those German students who chose San Diego because they never heard of San Antonio, the right information arrives simply because of curation by others (i.e. their teachers).  

Certainly high-performers learn how to frame problems better for quality insights and that leads to better quality decisions.  And that's the most important part of execution and where one can demarcate the difference between masters and adept practitioners: masters are simply better learners who have achieved enough experience to self-curate the best option without thinking in any given circumstance, unconsciously filtering signal from noise.  Strengthening this skill over and over again at ever-greater levels of proficiency are the key milestones on every path of mastery.  Some describe this skill as selective attention:

"Adriaan de Groot, a chess master and psychologist, studied expertise by showing a chess position to players of different ranks. He found that grandmasters evaluated few moves and re-evaluated them less often than other players. One grandmaster evaluated one move twice, then evaluated another and played it. It was the best possible move. This was generally true: Grandmasters never considered moves that were not one of the top five best possible moves. Other players considered moves as poor as twenty-second-best. The less expert the player, the more options they considered, the more evaluations they made, and the worse their eventual move was.

Less thinking led to better solutions. More thinking led to worse solutions. Were grandmasters making their moves by inspiration?

No. Experts do not think less. They think more efficiently. The practiced brain eliminates poor solutions before they reach the conscious mind."

https://medium.com/thoughts-on-creativity/91b443104b92

It's more about pruning bad possibilities than exploring all options.