I think we are being pedantic with this thread by not accepting other definitions of pedanticism....
The definition that I find most often for pednatic is: marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.
Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.
So, where does this lead the argument? Well.....
A good, well rounded pilot should have a degree of pedantry to his/her flying. He/she will know the finer details (boned into him/her by an GOOD instructor - see next) and be able to be precise about it, in a well educated way.
A GOOD instructor MUST be pedantic for the very reasons Old Smokey points out above, and backed up herein via the definition of pedantic. An Instructor of any value MUST be pedantic - to fully explain the situation, to explain the background, the workings, the mathematics and physics of the who, what, when, where, and why, and because. What good is an instructor that does none of these, and so very well illustrated by Apriana?
When I was learning to fly, I regularly had two instructors. Bob, a dutchman, was extremely thorough with his pre-flight breifing, and every aspect of the flight, and a thorough debreifing.
The other one was Keith. An airforce drop out. His preflight breifings were 5 minutes maximum, and of no substance. He then expected you to know what was required of you, and you were then berated LOUDLY when you made a mistake, with NO attention to how to correct it. The debreifing was usually LONG, full of abuse, vitriol, and no attempt to explain the purpose, or theory to the flight.
In short time, I made sure I never flew with Keith again, making the point well known to the CFI of the school. I learnt more from Bob in ONE session than I did with Keith in several.
Bob was very pedantic, and did not have to resort to yelling to make a point. Yelling just raises the tension in a cockpit, and makes CRM a nightmare!
Old Smokey's analogy is like being handed a block of cheese, or being handed a slice of swiss cheese, full of holes. I like that analogy, but would go further.
It's the difference between having a pilot beside you TEACHING YOU, or a grumpy bastard beside you flinging excrement at you the whole time.
Now, of course there are variations within variations, but we are digressing from the topic, and straying from pedantry.
The opening topic to this thread concerned a Captain that berated an FO for removing his hand from the speedbrake lever. Was the Captain a pedant? Quite probably, as he was following proper CRM in regards to PNF/PF. HOW the FO was/is berated is dependant upon the individual, and how he saw fit to do it.
Would I yell at that FO for moving the hand? Not likely, all that I would mention is "HAND" and be done with it. Proper CRM and interpersonal skills would dictate that harshness would not be required in this situation. No need to intensify an already busy enough phase of a flight by escalating the "atmosphere" in the cockpit.
My point to all this ramble is that a good level of pedantry - attention to detail and KNOWLEDGEof the academic and minutae - is REQUIRED by a pilot. More pedaticism is required for a Captain, and a LOT more required for an Instructor/training captain/check captain/IP/SIP.
The way in which an infringemnt of SOP/CRM is handled is NOT pedanticism, it is a psychological conditioning of the captain. And it all likely comes back to how pednatic in instruction HIS IP was in the first place, and how he was treated!
Forewarned is fore-armed, and pedantic instruction arms you with the pre-requisites. How you handle it is up to you.