Every Time a Stronger Player Tells me Something:

Unless I can prove it false immediately,

I accept it as true, even if it doesn't quite make sense / goes against what I might believe, and try to see how it could be true. 

What people try with religion/religious doctrines works better with chess. 

This seems a little sarcastic on your part, but I agree insomuch as you should try to see how it's true. You should try to entertain the idea as correct. Often weak players will dismiss a new idea much too quickly when I give analysis... and when players stronger than me give analysis I try hard to resist this instinct in myself as well.

EVEN IF I KNOW they are incorrect... that Kasparov, Carlsen, and all the computers disagree with them. If they're saying it's true, then there's something about the position, and something about their knowledge, that is telling them this. You can find new knowledge if you try to understand why they think the way they do.

 Well, there is a reason they are stronger than you.

Recently I had a master, after our game, offer advice on how I could have defended the endgame better... by placing my rooks very passively in a fortress like formation. But with pawns on both sides and three pieces for each player, the very idea of passively placing my pieces in an endgame was offensive. It's not even worth seriously considering. You might as well resign if you're going to hope for fortress in a position like that...

Unless what I tried in the game was worse. Unless the a activity I went for was fundamentally flawed. These are the sorts of unspoken things behind post mortem suggestions and analysis.

Correct evaluation of a position is lacking (above). If winning chanches are non-existant vs a good player,  than absolutely a fortress with lesser material is warranted. A valuable lesson. Try to win it, sometimes happens but will not further chess progress.

A draw is a fine result. Games are not won, but lost by the side who makes the most error(s).