I have definitely had my battles with people who want to poke holes in my plans, rather than support me. They think they're helping me, but they aren't. They're just killing my enthusiasm.

If I'd been left to try, I'd have worked hard at it, had an experienced, learned some things, and maybe even accomplished it. Instead, they did their best to stop me.

I now snap at people who do this to me. I no longer let them throw problem after problem at me, and instead shut them down before they can destroy my dream.

I accomplish a great many of the things I try, and I get exercise and knowledge from the failures.

That's too bad. I invite criticism of my projects, because I want to make sure I'm not fooling myself. Other people's perspective can shine new light on a problem and force you to reconsider the idea, hopefully leading to improved design.

It's very delicate because from personal experience most projects are likely to fail, and most projects start way over ambitious (almost a natural bias). What takes lots of experience to learn is also that that's not necessarily a problem. It's ok to fail sometimes, and it's ok to be overambitious at the beginning and scale back to achievability, most of the time.

Initial ambitions largely set an upper bound on whole project possibilities -- you generally want upper bounds set pretty high. All projects have unknown unknowns that will reveal themselves, and modeling this kind of meta-knowledge is difficult and perhaps not worth the effort.

So to offer a general counterpoint, it may be a valuable skill to listen to constructive advice including ones poking holes in your ideas. The key is to persevere in the face of problems, as long as they're not obviously intransposable (tip: don't go against laws of physics, e.g. thermodynamics or newton's laws). If those hurdles would come up sometime, it might be better to devote more time early on to overcome them.

This makes sense to keep in mind. It seems like there's a danger that some personalities will pursue a goal single-mindedly if there are absolutely no critical obstacles in their way. Not to beat a dead horse, but the Fyre Fest incident comes to mind. If the leads on that project had encountered more "No" would they have stopped, or at least scaled back, to something more achievable? This presumes positive intent in that case, though, which I'm not too sure of there.

When I'm ready for criticism, usually after a failure or partial failure, I invite it. Sometimes I even run my plans by people, looking for problems.

But if I'm not actually inviting that criticism, it is neither welcome nor helpful.