Blind optimists are often called naive or worse. But are they onto something?
Let's imagine two ambitious kids who really love playing basketball and would like to make a career out of it. Just one problem - they're both shorter than average. According to statistics, a career playing basketball is extremely unlikely for anyone under 6ft. The first kid, who acknowledges "reality", decides to give up on his dream and find something else, while the second kid chooses to ignore the statistics and work diligently towards his goal anyway. Regardless if the second kid "makes it" or not, which one of them would be happier in the end? The one who gave it all he had or the one who gave up before he tried? Which one of them would be better at the sport they love? Clearly, the second kid.
Blind optimists like the second kid are often shunned for their "lack of understanding" of how the world really is. For this reason, they're called "dreamers" since they don't seem to be living in reality. Although I can't speak for all blind optimists, I am fully aware of the dangers of being optimistic without reason. However, I think it can be a good thing. There's a side to blind optimism that "realists" don't seem to understand: it can help ambitious people reach their full potential.
I see a lot of discouragement, especially online, towards young people with extraordinarily ambitious goals. If these "dreamers" were simply allowed to fail on their own instead of being called back into "reality", how many more Einsteins or Elon Musks would the world have in the future? I'm not saying that every ambitious person who received discouragement would have made it big, I'm saying that they could have.
"Dreamers" are only called naive, ignorant, and blindly optimistic until they achieve their dream. Stupid ideas are only called "stupid" until they work. If you want to achieve something great, blind optimism can be a good thing.