1.) "Job's honest questions and doubt make him the one who speaks well about God."
2.) “To me, the story of Job shows that God gets more angry when people won't ask questions.”
3.) “What God dislikes there is people who are too scared to venture out of what they think that they "know" about God.
If you look at the verse couple of verses of chapter 10, you see Job setting up what he is going to say for the rest of the chapter. He basically introduces this monologue of sorts by basically saying "I'm about to vent." Matthew Henry states it likes this:
"Job, being weary of his life and having ease no other way, resolves to complain, resolves to speak. He will not give vent to his soul by violent hands, but he will give vent to the bitterness of his soul by violent words."
First, I believe that in order to read the book of Job with the correct hermeneutic you have to begin with the correct doctrine of God's character and man's ultimate purpose in creation. I could right scores of essays discussing the character of God in depth. For the purpose of this discussion I will just briefly say that I am referring to the truths that God is holy, just, good, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, loving, etc. Now, concerning man's ultimate purpose we see Scripture address that:
a) For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. ~Rom. 11:36
b) "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." ~Rev. 4:11
c) "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full." ~John 15:10-11
So we are able to conclude from assembling Scriptures such as these that the purpose of man is to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever." As you probably know from the Westminster Catechism. What's really cool to me about this is that the only full and complete joy exists in glorifying God and in the words of John Piper, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." Therefore, I think if you read Job with the presupposition that man's chief end is happiness through fulfillment through something within this world such as vitality, wealth, etc. then you will read Job incorrectly (not saying you are reading it through such a lens).
Something important to see about Job is that he knew the character of God and walked with God, fulfilling his purpose. So in chapter 10 we see him wrestling with what God is doing because it seems out of God's character, which he understand later that it wasn't. So what I would submit to you is that it was not Job's questioning God and doubting Him that caused him to speak rightly of God as God says he did in Job 42. It was Job's correct knowledge of the character of God that caused him to speak rightly of Him.
Therefore, what I think Scripture as a whole teaches is that it is not man's virtue to doubt or question God. Giving full vent to anger is seen throughout Scripture as foolish and destructive, but a temperament that is slow to anger and trusting in the Lord is virtuous and blessed (James 1:26; James 3:1-10; Psa. 37:3; Psa 37:5; Psa 91:2; Prov. 3:5; Isa 26:4; Jer. 17:7). Now, you are correct that later in the story it does appear that Job's questioning and venting was God's will to bring about the result of Job's increased knowledge of God and revelation of God that Job had not previously known intimately. However, I do not think this teaches us that venting at God and questioning God should be a temperament that a follower of Christ should have. The teaching of Scripture seems to be to the contrary. We see that when God first addresses Job He says, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2). Then God proceeds to give Job a revelation of Himself that how complex God's wisdom and His actions are because if you notice He never tells Job about the discourse with Satan or the purpose for his suffering. So I do agree with you that out of Job's questioning and doubting came the gift of God's revelation concerning His vast complexity and Job's inability to understand the answer to the questions he was asking; however, we do see God's revelation to Job coupled with a rebuke as well.
In conclusion, if you look at Job in light of Scripture as a whole you see a predominant theme in regards to suffering. You do not see it clearly taught that we are entitled to answers for our suffering, and I don't think you are encouraged to question God and doubt Him. I think Scripture views such a temperament as negative, possibly due to little faith (when the disciples questioned Jesus when their boat was caught in the storm He corrected them for their lack of faith). So I think asking "why?" in the midst of suffering like Job is not the virtuous question that God would have us ask. We know from Romans 8:28-30 that everything God does in the life of a child of God is for the purpose of making them more conformed to the image of Christ. That's why all things work together for good for children of God. The "good" there is the conformity to the image of Christ, whether that be through abundance or suffering. Both are ultimately good because they achieve that purpose. In light of this principle, I think the question that God would have us ask in the midst of suffering is "how?" "How can I suffer through this and become more like Christ and trust in God through this." Job knew God was just and good so I think what Job's more correct response should have been was to trust in the truthful character of God that he knew, knowing that God would never act outside of His character.
In the wide angle lens of God's plan with Job we see that it was God's will for Job to question and doubt for the purpose of being rebuked, corrected, and matured in Job's knowledge of God. However, I do not think Scripture teaches us seek questioning and doubt as a virtue that pleases God. That was so long. But we are dealing with a God of immense complexity so a few sentences certainly wouldn't suffice. What do you think?