So we have on one corner an amazing authot: Seth Godin.
He claims that reasurrance is futile.
Seth says that almost all of the feedback will be negative (if you have a revolutionary idea) and even if you get positive feedback it will last nothing and then you will need more reassurance.
On the other corner we have Steven Kotler, another amazing author.
He asserts that social reassurance will help you in your quest to achieve the impossible: your massively transformative purpose (they even differ on how and why purpose should be approached, but that is material for another post).
Steven explains that social reassurance will release a set of neuro-transmitters such as dopamine in anticipation of and when positive feedback exists, and even oxytocin which will help you create a community that will provide you with resources to accomplish the impossible goal.
So, I think it depends on the kind of person you are, the actual craft or purpose at hand and the reach or the outcome you are trying to accomplish.
If you are an absolute introvert, you would have to transform yourself (or bypass any social anxiety) in order to expose yourself and your work to the world. That is not an easy task and in itself, a huge amount of people would be stuck there.
Now, if the craft of your expertise is something you can play solo, like being an author, a scientist, academia, etc., then you could be a virtuoso and develop your techne with (almost) nobody around you. It is very unlikely, but you could try.
Finally, if you have a huge, impossible purpose, you, by yourself, will not get very far. You will need the support, resources and input from lots of people.
Somehow, Seth is the intelectual Goggins, a beast that will go on no matter what. It works for him. The approach Steven suggests is to go with and being supported by your biology, leveraging how we are made in order to get where you want to go.
Both could work. Which one seems better for you?