Learning from players your own raiting or lower?

I was just wondering if I could hear some of your opinions on if anything can be learned from looking at the games/reading the analyses of players your own rating or significantly lower. I happen to personally watch a lot of YouTube chess videos but always get split on if it can help me improve or hinder my learning watching videos made from players under my own rating. (especially if, while watching their commentary, I see/hear things that I flat out disagree with). What are some thoughts/opinions on this matter?

I think everybody knows at least one thing you don't, even if you know a thousand things they don't.

The problem with this is that it's very, very difficult to find the few good things they are right about since you'll often be disagreeing with them.  For the effort, it's better to just learn from equal/above level.

Depends on the ratings diff.  When it's an entire class level (200 points) apart, it is inefficient at best (and useless at worst)  as you'd be spending time filtering out what's useful from what is not/things you KNOW are inaccurate/incorrect.

There's already way too many  accurate/precise bits of information that you probably need to know about this bloody game ... why make this task even more difficult by adding noise to it?

I'd find the exercise of going over/annotating games between two weaker players  much more instructional / "value for time spent" as it gives to see if I'd have done a better job exploiting certain mistakes, rather than listen to something that I know is coming from relatively less knowledgeable sources.

I'm kinda snobbish here, even though it stands to reason that there are lower-rated players out there with good ideans and analysis. But there's plenty of GM/IM/NM/FM analysis/games/articles available, so I usually ignore most games/annotations from amateurs like myself. That said, I have been beaten by lower-rated players from time to time, so it's not like I can't learn anything from them.

The one exception to ignoring lower-rated blogs/instructional material (especially if they are at the club levels) is if they did thorough computer-backed analysis of some fun looking gambit/trappy lines that most GMs/IMs titled players don't bother so much about but would be sound at the club levels. 

It's not like I couldn't fire up Rybka and explore these on my own, but if someone "sincerely" did the work for me, then why not leverage off of it. (Though I'll admit this is rare ... all the amateur-level analysis I've lifted off the web has been done my experts and above, though somebody's blog post occasionally takes me down an interesting "opening ideas" rabbit hole or two!)

If you have read Silman's Amatuer's Mind then you'll know that you can learn from their mistakes. But again from another Silman article if someone has really researched something (such as an opening) then they should know what they're talking about. But if its just general analysis of games, etc I would stick with extremely strong players.

That depends about what are you looking for. If you are watching/reading/reproducing some game comented by some low rated amateur and you disagree with, but you are interested in the position (of any stage of the game, not precisely openings), well, disagree, listen and then try to find something to refute the other's thinking. Alekhine used to say anyone can learn from anyone, even if he is an amateur; There are anecdotes Alekhine analyzing games from some amateur with little portable boards.

Another thing is if what are you watching is a total rubbish; well, just go to the other page/video.

There is some opposite effect, is when you watch some video that you dont understand nothing (it happens with some gm videos of some gm games). Well, recommendation: do the same, try to find your self the truth, even if you have to move the pieces along the board with your hands... but this is off topic