Writing is tough. Maybe you want to get a pen and right that down. And although the creative process involves one set of hands on the keyboard, I don't think anyone produces a worthwhile literary effort without significant input from others along the way.
I'm not a member of a critique group. It's a personal choice, and I know that you can find writers who come down--hard--on both sides of the issue. I'm not going to discuss my reasons here, nor do I criticize those who find such groups helpful. But the input received in such a situation makes up one category of "advice" for writers.
I've had various novels (I've written four) critiqued by three independent editors and four published authors. There's no question that each of them pointed out flaws that needed correcting and made suggestions that improved the writing. But I also noted a real danger that in taking their advice totally to heart I'd lose that intangible something called "author's voice."
True, there are "rules" that are there for a reason. Avoid passive voice. Show, don't tell (although sometimes you just have to tell--but do it well). Motivation precedes reaction. Keep point of view consistent. All these add to the readability of a manuscript. But don't be such a slave to rules that your writing becomes stilted and predictable.
The thing I believe a writer must keep in mind when considering advice--whether from a crit group, an author, an editor, or a first reader--is that writing is subjective. If taking recommendations to heart makes your prose wooden, your writing formulaic, then it's probably best to "screw your courage to the sticking point" and stick to your guns. I wonder if anyone ever told Shakespeare, "Bill, wouldn't it be simpler just to say 'Be courageous' instead of all that other stuff?"
Remember, that in the end, results are what counts. Or, in the words of a famous advisor from my part of the world, "How's that working out for you?"