I think most people have a little perfectionism in them, and there are a lot of people who aren’t high achievers because they are perfectionists - that is, if conditions are not perfect for success, they never act. If they cannot perform perfectly at the first go, they give up.
There’s an excellent book by Stephen Guise called How to Be an Imperfectionist that really puts the lie to the notion that perfectionism is a strength or something to be admired - that trying and failing is better than not doing. A lot of people you wouldn’t think of as perfectionists get stuck because they think if they can’t do something perfectly, they shouldn’t do it at all.
I think it depends on what the perfectionist is perfectionist about. I tend to be pretty perfectionist when it comes to projects - I want my Reddit posts, articles, photos, edited desktop background images to be just right, to the point where I often edit them over and over again. But when it comes to people, I’m pretty chill. I wouldn’t usually nag or nitpick about things, and am pretty laid back about friendships and relationships.
When I hear someone is a perfectionist, its an encompassing character trait - like OCD. Not “I’m a laid back person except when painting minis…then I have to get it exactly right.” One of my favorite people in the world is a copy editor - and as a copy editor, she’s a ridiculous stickler on issues of written grammar. You want that for that purpose. But she is fine outside of that.
I read about the parent whose daughter applied to an Ivy League school, and got a questionnaire with: “Is your daughter a leader?”
Mom wrote: “No, but I can assure you she’s an excllent follower.”
A week later, she got a call from a chuckling Admissions Counselor. “After years of reviewing questionnaires and being assured that every single girl is a leader, we look forward to finally having a follower.”
In the context of an admissions form, asking “Is your daughter a leader?” is a leading question, and I think it would be fair for most to assume it’s aimed at checking whether your daughter is capable of taking a leading role, and that that would be useful.
A straight “No” definitely seems like a negative, and even the parent in the anecdote seems aware of that, answering, essentially “No, but here’s a related positive trait you didn’t ask me about”
This has to be an urban legend or some form of joke. First, I don’t know of any Ivy League school or any major university that sends a questionnaire to parents to fill out about their kids.
At some point in my life I realized that whenever I characterized myself (often in a job interview but sometimes in conversation) I was describing something that I struggled with. For instance, I would often talk about my ability to concentrate on the task at hand when, in fact that was a quality that often eluded me. As a result, I am skeptical when people characterize themselves for any reason. I also tried not to do that myself (except of course in job interviews).
One should remember that Americans are not good at nuance and subtlety. To us, pretty much everything is superlative binaries and we aren’t well-educated and well-practiced in the effective use of language [see this sentence as an example].
To us a person is either “gorgeous” or “butt ugly”. Ones politics are either “totally right” or “downright evil”. We lack the ability to convey even basic gradations of quality and quantity. It’s just the extremes for us, thank you very much.
We think we are making nuanced points but that ability is well beyond us so all you hear is:
“That’s awesome!” “That sucks!”
“She’s the hottest woman ever” “She looks like cat dirt.”
“America, FUCK YEAH!” “AmeriKKKa is the ultimate source of teh EVIL!”
I have experience with infidelity and have frequented related forums.
The people most likely to refer to themselves as “nice” are betrayed males. So much so that NiceGuy125 may be a typical user name. I tried to discourage the men from picking such names. But there were many men whose gut instinct led them to outright denial of the impact of the circumstances, and a desire to reconcile the relationship on Day One. Generally these men needed to be encouraged to get more angry about the situation and what their cheating partners had done. “Nice” in that context was a negative. Those men needed to grow a pair, to be blunt.
With the cheaters, both the male and female go-to tended to be not being nice, but “I’m a good person.” Which is more pro-active than being nice, although dishonest in the context. I don’t think there are good people, just good actions. But people who cheat in relationships aren’t like me. They tend to go for the feel good, pump themselves up sort of behaviors, and apparently gravitate towards that sort of talk. So I tend to be suspicious of excessive self assertive talk, as others here have expressed as well. As well as people who are quick to judge, as they typically have something to hide (Bill Cosby), and the genuinely righteous act far differently.
Betrayed women didn’t have the problems processing their emotions that a lot of the men did. The chief differentiation seemed to be if they reconciled with their partner and got cheated on again, or cheated on by someone else, they generally felt far worse about themselves than the single timers. Which stands to reason.